The Heckler
A heckler once interrupted Nikita Khrushchev in the middle of a speech in which he was denouncing the crimes of Stalin. “You were a colleague of Stalin’s,” the heckler yelled, “why didn’t you stop him then?” Khrushchev apparently could not see the heckler and barked out, “Who said that?” No hand went up. No one moved a muscle. After a few seconds of tense silence, Khrushchev finally said in a quiet voice, “Now you know why I didn’t stop him.”
NOTE: This article is strictly my personal opinion.
One always wonders about the wisdom of replying to intentional provocations. One must accept criticism because as we criticize others, we must accept to be criticized. But criticism should be addressed in a manner that encourages debate, rather than sliding to provocation designed to stifle debate. One such article is by Mr. Hagos Abraham [‘Mr. Hagos’] posted on Meskerem.net on May 18, 2006. I would have skipped replying to the article and allow the objects of the criticism reply to it themselves if the article wasn’t written in response to my articles. In my understanding, Mr. Hagos Abraham attributes my articles to ‘wedi Batay’. It is not lost with Mr. Abraham Hagos that these are my articles, but Mr. Hagos is playing an old trickster’s game of saying to EDP, if you don’t reign in Berhan Hagos, I will slander your organization. Cheap!
Before explaining my rational for supporting one leader in my past articles, let me address some of Mr. Hagos’s innuendos,
1. Mr. Abraham says that Mr. Mesfin Hagos advocates for ‘mending’ relations with PIA/PFDJ. But barely before he finished his article, Mr. Hagos begins to contradict himself. On one hand, Mr. Hagos leads us to believe that EDP advocates for mending relations with PIA, then few sentences later tells us that EDP wishes to replace PIA with Mr. Mesfin. Which one is it?
2. Mr. Hagos tells us that neither G-15 nor G-13 demanded for “meseretawi lewti”. I am always wary of those who use ‘revolutionary’ words that sound enticing but are never explained to us. Slogan words such as ‘uprooting’ or ‘revolutionary change’ destroyed the socio-economic fabric of Communist countries. Even if we give Mr. Hagos the benefit of the doubt and call his ‘meseretawi lewti’ as ‘fundamental change’, still we don’t know and can’t speculate what Mr. Hagos meant. I can assure my readers that he can’t explain it to us in a coherent manner - judging by his article of couple of days ago.
3. Mr. Hagos blindly argues that ‘tsigena’ is wrong, or just because he throws in that word that we should distance ourselves from that word. Labels or slogan-type of words shouldn’t faze us. As Mr. Hagos himself tells us later in his article that EDP believes in removing PIA. Thus, ‘tsigena’ within the context of removing PIA and then creating the necessary conditions for ‘Truth & Reconciliation [Tsigena]’ can only be an absolute pre-condition for embarking on the road to creating a democratically stable Eritrea. We can’t accept the witch-hunt of a whole group of Eritreans simply for personal vengeance. Our wish is to quickly embark on a road towards democracy and socio-economic recovery – not dig deeper into incrimination and recrimination that may consume a nation, which appears to be Mr. Hagos’ wish. Naturally, those who commit crimes will face justice through due process of law.
4. Mr. Hagos says that Mr. Mesfin is poisoning the opposition alliance. Note that Mr. Hagos refers to EDA as the ‘so-called opposition forces’. This is also an indictment against the other EDA members and leaders, who are making a conscious decision on their positions. Again, Mr. Hagos is grasping at straws. First, he tells us that Mr. Mesfin is trying to remain as PFDJite – then contradicts himself by stating that Mr. Mesfin is also working within the opposition camp. My interpretation of Mr. Hagos’ bungled up article is that Mr. Mesfin is doing his duty to bring together the various players within the broader spectrum of Eritrean politics. That can only be desirable!
5. Mr. Hagos tells us that Mr. Mesfin is concerned that he will face prosecution in post-PFDJ Eritrea. This is a tired PFDJ propaganda. When the G-15 were accused by PFDJ media for various past and then-current crimes, the G-15 replied by challenging PFDJ to formally lay charges against them and to bring them to the court of justice. None of us can vouch for any of these men, but our fundamental belief is that ‘one is innocent until proven guilty’ – and not, Mr. Hagos’ belief that ‘one is guilty until proven innocent’, or playing an age old game of politics of attempting to sow the seeds of doubt by alluding to crimes that may not exist. That is cheap, and is only a futile attempt at distracting us.
6. EDP has participated in various rallies along with its colleagues in the opposition camp – and prominently displayed on its website. Mr. Hagos’ is desperately grasping at straws.
7. Mr. Hagos advocates for ‘shedding blood’ in his article. Mr. Hagos’ attempts to qualify his advocacy by saying that ‘shedding blood isn’t anybody’s wish, but must be done’. The road towards the belief in ‘shedding blood’ and ‘collateral damage’ is very slippery. Worse is those who advocate for ‘shedding blood’ from the comfort of their home in the West. Our function in the West is to help our brothers and sisters with the means immediately available to us. We have not yet began to exploit ‘peaceful means’ available to us, and thus it isn’t necessary for any one to advocate for ‘dangerous’ alternatives. ‘Peaceful change’ consists of ‘public uprising’ which may lead to clash with the regime or ‘civil disobedience’ or other forms. Mr. Hagos won’t dare to explain to us what he means by ‘shedding blood’. We can’t accept, under any circumstances, similar methods as what is happening [injuring civilians in buses and public establishments] in Addis Ababa as an acceptable form of bringing pressure on the government. Any acts against innocent civilians or Warsai-Yekealo, even as collateral damage, is absolutely unacceptable and will be held liable as PFDJites who commit crimes will be held responsible for their actions.
In our opportunistic argument against EPLF, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that a strong movement towards ‘reform’ existed within EPLF. They showed us our Constitution, Mr. Mahmoud’s (Sherifo) multi-party law, and passed resolution at Central Committee of PFDJ and at National Assembly level to hold national elections by end of 2001. I dare my critics to tell me what they could have done any better, or if they are any more reformists than these men. I write these with full confidence knowing we have brave men such as Mr. Hassan Kekia, who after being released after four years in prison without due process, continued to propagate his views for fair and just Eritrean society after his release only to end up back in prison few weeks later. That is conviction and bravery above all else.
We shouldn’t also lose sight of the fact that Mr. Hagos’ article is probably written by underhanded propagandist aimed at creating schism among the members of the EDA, which he labels as ‘so-called opposition camp’. Mr. Hagos uses the words ‘so-called opposition’ to criticize EDA but with different intention. Mr. Hagos’ appears to be someone possibly an opposition member outside the EDA, and who hopes to find a crack to drive a wedge into EDA. Find a possible crack and then drive wedge in it is an old tired modus operandi. But what Mr. Hagos apparently fails to understand is that healthy criticism and advocating for certain solution within the context of an identified concern shouldn’t be seen as a ‘crack’ but a show of strength. At least Mr. Hagos admits that EDP works within the opposition camp. Many of us don’t believe that one gets stronger by splintering. It is a pipedream to think that one can create a perfect or foolproof opposition or political organization/alliances in Diaspora, or even later in Eritrea. We only judge these organizations by the progress they make. We will continue to express our specific ideas and harsh comments to help EDA develop into a viable organization. That is how we learn.
The future of Eritrea shouldn’t be defined by associating it to any one organization or alliances – especially EPLF, ELF, etc… These are yesterday’s organization that many Eritreans have little knowledge or memory of. It is more productive to define our vision within the principles that we all share, Rights and Freedoms of individuals [while balancing collective rights], democracy, life, liberty, and property. These principles weren’t invented or patented by one of the organizations such as EPLF, ELF, nor EDA. These are universal principles shared by human kind throughout history.
To us, members of ELF, EDP, RC, ENSF, EPM, and any other organizations, are first and foremost Eritreans. A future Eritrea that excludes any Eritrean or Eritrean organization that espouses the shared principles is tantamount to leading us into the abyss. We can’t accept that. Post-PFDJ Eritrea must embark on creating equal opportunity – both political and otherwise – without any delay.
The nagging question for many is why my past articles advocate for Mr. Mesfin to lead the opposition camp. My readers should note that this is my personal view, which may not be shared by EDP nor Mr. Mesfin. This writer is aware that this type of direct advocacy or promotion may encourage other political organizations to do the same for their leaders – which may result in unwanted rivalry, and possibly undermining the entire EDA and even the opposition camp in general.
First, this writer believes that we can advocate for certain individuals within the context of the major issues and concerns that we are faced with today. Weakening EDA doesn’t serve any of our purposes, but instead allowing it to grow through our harsh comments and constructive criticism remains our responsibility. We can learn and ‘buildup’ largely through successes, and not through failures. Second, while building a long-term ‘coalition political group’ brick-by-brick, we shouldn’t lose sight of the immediate challenges. Due to its structure and nature, EDA can only primarily focus on post-PFDJ Eritrea – and doesn’t and can’t have [at this point in time] active plan-of-action for the present struggle and for the immediate post-PFDJ Eritrea which may create power vacuum. Ordinary members or supporters of the opposition camp have the duty to spew out different ideas and potential burning issues into the public arena in order to debate the ideas and issues first, rather than get hanged up on the potential solutions. We shouldn’t avoid discussing issues with immediate concerns for risk of alienating certain individuals or certain effort. Instead we must continue to ask the hard questions,
If we shouldn’t ask these questions, those who advocate for ‘not asking these questions’ must explain it to us. They shouldn’t simply expect us to keep quiet, or assume that we understand their rationale. We are aware that politics isn’t an interaction among perfectly rationale men, nor that all we look at same problems from the same angle. But once we have debated issues and prioritized them – based on certain criteria and general consensus as not everyone will agree - we expect those politicians to say ‘Me’enti Mogogo Tihlef Anchewa’. The only way we can reach some general consensus is if we air our views. Stifling debate only encourages rumors, grapevine, polarization because people will still discuss those issues but in a ‘hushed up’ environment. That can’t be healthy! Mr. Hagos’ article doesn’t present any ideas or discussion and thus can be brushed aside by only fully conscious and informed public. Conscious and informed public can only be created through open debates and continuous flow of information. Fringe elements will always exist, but what we do should be driven by what we should do for the general public, and not to hide from Mr. Hagoses, or whoever, of this world by toning down our concerns.
I find it exasperating reading articles that throw ideas without explaining them. Writers who throw ‘ideas’, ‘words’, and ‘slogans’ without feeling compelled to explain them are striving to create confusion. This is ‘sloganism’, without explanation. None of us read from the same page, and shouldn’t be assumed so. If writers don’t have time to explain their thoughts in full, they should abandon writing them. ‘Ideas’ and ‘issues’ aren’t ‘today’s news on BBC’ that you can address with few words. ‘Overly’ polite debates may lose their flavors, or worse, writers begin to play ‘fill-in-the-blank’ arguments with their readers.
Mr. Hagos’ title alludes to an organization that is getting worse. I guess this depends on Mr. Hagos’ definition of getting worse. If it is EDP’s increased positive role within EDA and opposition rallies, then we can accept his definition. If Mr. Hagos’ definition of getting worse is EDP’s continued efforts to transfer increasing leadership roles to younger generations, we can accept his definition. The list goes on, and we can accept all of Mr. Hagos’ definition.
Warning lights should go off in our heads when individuals writing their opinions present it as if it is shared by every Eritrean or the general Eritrean public as Mr. Hagos’ does in his article. The most any one of us writers can say is based on what we read, what our close circle of friends say, our immediate and direct observations, or what they say at an Eritrean bars somewhere in Diaspora town.
The latest movie titled the ‘Da Vinci Code’ is raising some interesting debates. Some opponents of the movie advocate for banning and boycotting the movie. Others advocate for watching the movie, debating it, and then ‘separating the fact from the fiction’. Which one is more desirable?
Other thoughts
‘Western Democracy’
Some Eritreans, both within and outside the opposition camp, state that we shouldn’t blindly accept ‘Western Democracy.’ But again, these advocates don’t explain what they mean, and simply leave it as a slogan.
By its strictest definition, ‘democracy’ is a form of government where the people’s ‘Will’ is exercised directly or through their representatives. Although traditional systems may be able to exercise their own brand of ‘democracy’ through different means as they constituted smaller and largely homogenous groups, the 20th century [and beyond] nations faced and continue to face the same challenges. The same issues faced by Western countries are faced by non-Western countries. Of course, we are all at different stages of democracy [or not yet on its path], and not every nation will travel down the same path, but while the definition of ‘democracy’ is the same for all nations and throughout time, the challenges of ‘democracy’ remains the same right across all post 19th Century nations. The pillars of democracy - Rights and Freedoms of individuals, checks and balances, and establishing institutions - remain the same for all ‘modern’ nations. Some tweaking may be needed to address ‘minority rights’ but these issues are faced in Western democracies as well. Let us not get muddy ideas or attempt to reinvent or redefine ‘democracy’! Let us think of ways we can make things work, and not sit back and hope things work, or worse, propagate negative views that things won’t work.
Happy Independence Day!
Berhan Hagos
May 20, 2006