A Soft landing Approach to Regime Change in Eritrea

By: A/Rahman Sayed

This article deals with the issue of regime change as a viable solution to the longstanding political crisis in Eritrea that I have been discussing recently with many Eritrean friends in the Diaspora.

At the outset, I sincerely wish to see the word “overthrow” replaced by the word “change” due to many political and logistical reasons. I frequently encounter the word “overthrow” embedded in the literature of various political opposition groups as well as statements of civic societies. Unfortunately, this usage does not appear to be consistent with the capabilities of these groups given their fragile status;

As it is obvious to many, the idea of “overthrowing” regimes has often been associated with changing regimes violently. This is particularly true in unstable countries in the developing world. Although it is perfectly legitimate to act to change undemocratic corrupt regimes in an effort to replace them with a pluralistic democratic ones, most experiences of “overthrowing” regimes have been associated with more militancy and brutality. This in turn leads to more chaos, instability and abuse of human rights, especially when the “overthrowing” agents are military officers with or without foreign backing. For this reason, it is always more productive and useful to seek regime change through non-violence peaceful means; no matter how long it may take. It is understandable for oppressed people to seek immediate relief from an oppressive regime through all available means; however, experience has shown that it is much better to achieve such a goal through a well planned peaceful means.

In the case of Eritrea, there are some issues worth highlighting. First, Eritrea is indeed a new state and still at the very beginning of its development stage as a full-fledged sovereign state. Although the country is celebrating its 16th birthday this month, the PFDJ ruling clique have failed to transform themselves from a liberation front to a public serving government. Instead, they have been acting as the sole owners of the country that they have helped liberate. They are utilising its subjects and resources as their own property to serve their indefinite grip on power. In the process they have increasingly been abusing basic human rights of citizens, enslaving and militarising the youth, and closing all avenues and opportunities for sustainable development and economic growth.

There is no doubt that the current economic, social and political degradation and decadency in Eritrea is a direct result of the EPLF/PFDJ mismanagement of the country and abuse of power. Hence, change is necessary and well overdue. The question is do we have effective agents of change within the Eritrean political scene. The recent EDA experience and their continuous bickering over minor and less critical issues  indicates that we are still far away from having such agents, a situation that definitely necessitates reconsideration of the entire opposition phenomena to address the shortcomings of the current ones. This may mean abandoning the already divided EDA all together in favour of encouraging and promoting a more pragmatic approach to the question of “regime change”. The aim, in the end, is to achieve “change” that restores our cultural identity and provides justice, equality and fairness to our society, and not just simply replacing the PFDJ by the EDA or any other faction for that matter.

Since the EDA is not in a position to effectively mobilise the population to achieve the desired outcome of “regime change”, it is appropriate to seek alternatives of pursuing that goal. These alternatives should not be understood as undermining the EDA and what they claim to represent. They (the EDA) should always be afforded their due respect for whatever positive contribution they might have made in the past, present or in future. Eritrean Democrats should also continue to defend the democratic and human rights principles of all groups and individuals, including those of the EDA and PFDJ.

In the meantime, it is plausible indeed to give more attention and encouragement to contributions of the credible Eritrean civic society groups in order to play a more pro-active role in politics. Most of the currently active civic society groups are organised and led by well-meaning volunteer individuals whose main motive is to see their country and people out of the current problems. Their struggle so far and their potential are such that they can indeed become a formidable force that would oversee an end to dictatorship. The Polish Solidarity Movement grew out of a Trade Union to lead the transformation of Poland from Communist dictatorship to Democracy. I mentioned SOLIDARITY not as a comparison between Eritrea and Poland, but to indicate that our hopes for democratic change should not be dashed with the chronic failures of the EDA or any political groups or parties. There are always alternatives that can be pursued, and a civic society group (an existing, a reinvented or a new one, as one of my dear friends puts it) could even be a better means of struggle for change, if found to be free from old and new partisan grudges and narrow or selfish personal interests.

As for regime change itself, its pursuance should be for a noble outcome. If no better outcome can be guaranteed, more time and resources are best spent on preparing for a guaranteed and better outcome than bickering among numerous groups over less relevant issues. Here the experience of the Chilean opposition that patiently and skilfully negotiated with General Augustus Pinochet can be taken as a useful guide to a better means of achieving change without going through a chaotic and blood-shedding situation of “overthrowing” a regime.

To elaborate more on this subject, I am of the opinion that the option of negotiating with Issayas and his PFDJ party to reach a compromise to save the country is worth considering. This may entail compromising on, for example, allowing Issayas/PFDJ:-

  • To continue ruling the country throughout the transition period from dictatorship to democracy.
  • To award Issayas and his associates immunity from prosecution for any alleged crimes. The late General Pinochet of Chile was made a “senator for life” and given such immunity in return for his cooperation in the transformation of Chile from dictatorship to Democracy. In the Islamic tradition, we have interesting examples in many of the early companions of the Prophet (pbuh), like Omar Ibn Alkhattab and Hamza, who were sworn enemies of the Muslim community when they were powerful leading figures of the pagan Qurashites of Makkah. Their joining of the Muslim Community at the time did not reduce their social, economic, military or political power and status that they had once enjoyed in their Quresh community. They maintained their status and became leaders in their newly embraced Muslim community and led many of the success stories attributed to the early companions of the prophet.  Issayas Afeworki does have proven leadership skills and charisma, which he could be persuaded and assisted to use in a positive manner towards making the country a just society where all of its individual citizens, ethnic and cultural communities feel safe and equal.
  • To acknowledge Issayas and his group’s contribution not only to the struggle for liberation, but also to appreciate any effort(s) made to democratise the country. An example here is the pfdj system of local/zoba governance, constitution and party laws in 1990s. Although it is true that these initiatives were not processed in any democratic manner, it is still fair to say that the pfdj had unsuccessfully attempted to introduce a decentralised system of governance, endorsed (not rejected) the Constitution and drafted Party Laws that took into consideration our country’s ethnic/cultural diversity. The reason behind their postponement to implement their own constitution and party laws has so far been the pretext of the “emergency situation” that the country has been in as a result of the “border war” with Ethiopia. The two documents can be revisited and legitimised through a genuine non-cosmetic participation of the people and their representatives during the transition period to become supreme laws of the land.
     
  • On the border situation, it is fair to give credit to Issayas and PFDJ on their principled stand to abide by the verdict of the International Court of Justice’s rulings over Henish Islands and Buduma disputes with Yemen and Ethiopia respectively. In the latter case, it is Ethiopia that has failed and is failing to abide by the “final and binding” ruling of the International Court. While supporting the principled stand of Eritrea on the Ethio-Eri border question, it is still possible to also advocate for normalisation of relations between the two sisterly countries, even if it means postponing the implementation of the border demarcation instead of going to yet another destructive war or continuing the no-war no-peace situation the two regimes are in, which is not conducive to neither countries, more so to Eritrea, which has a proportionally larger percentage of its productive youth population entrenched in military trenches for indefinite periods of time.
     
  • Regionally, there have been some recent positive developments on Issayas’ policies. He has supported the settlement of the East Sudan problem by hosting negotiations between the Khartoum government and the so-called Eastern Front. Although many may argue that Issayas might have only helped to settle down a conflict he personally authorised and fanned, it is still a positive step he had chosen to take to finally push for its end. In Somalia, I am of the opinion that his position has been even more commendable. His position on Somalia seems to have been motivated by the legitimate concern raised due to the Ethiopian aggressive invasion of its sovereign neighbour to the East, and the need to limit his foe’s regional influence. Strategically, it is plausible for two foes to be watchful of their respective movements and deter each other holding the upper ground. In the case of Eritrea and Ethiopia, they are still in a conflict situation (cold war – if you wish) and it is natural for either regimes to be concerned of the other’s moves in neighbouring countries. Recent media reports indicate that Issayas is calling for Somalis to be left alone to resolve their own differences away from foreign intervention, while the Ethiopian regime is still busy attempting to violently neutralise resistance to its illegal occupation of Somalia. The Ethiopian forces killings of thousands of civilians have prompted allegations that amount to “genocide” and crimes against humanity. It is also clear that the occupying forces are stuck and won’t be leaving the turmoil they have helped to create in Somalia within any “two weeks” pledged by Mr. Zenawi six months ago. In light of what is going on in Somalia as well as in the absence of any regional or international voice of reason, Issayas seems to be the only voice condemning the atrocities and calling for an immediate end of the occupation. It’s logic and sensible for those of us who condemned Issayas’ regional policies in the 1990s to applaud him when he is limiting his interferences in regional issues to facilitating peaceful settlements of conflicts and rejecting aggressive invasion of sovereign countries. Issuing blank condemnations of anything Issayas or PFDJ does is just unconstructive. Condemning wrongs and applauding rights are helpful in nurturing understanding and appreciation of the other, which could subsequently lead to narrowing the gap between the ruling PFDJ and its opponents.    

In return, Issayas Afeworki and his PFDJ party can be expected to not only allow reform, but also positively assist in the effective transformation of Eritrea to democracy by taking the following steps:-

·         Pledging their commitment to a fixed time table to hand over power to an elected government, (given the chronic weakness of the Eritrean opposition groups, a reformed pfdj with Issayas Afeworki as their leader is most likely to win any election in the immediate future, in which case the change would mean a change of policy/system rather than change of a party or leader).

·         Unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience

·         Establishment of a Transitional Government of National Unity (TGNU can be composed of the PFDJ as its core, clean politicians from the opposition and independent technocrats), with an assembly/legislative council that would be representatives of all political persuasions as well as our diverse cultural, ethnic and religious communities.

·         Allow unconditionally and facilitate the smooth return of all refugees to their homeland, to the land of their ancestors, in particular those that have been languishing in refugee camps in Sudan since the 1960s.

·         Enable the drafting of a new national constitution or the legitimisation of the PFDJ constitution by allowing a free and democratic process of Constitution making.

In conclusion, Eritrea is still a fragile state and its independence is not yet solid enough to withstand any domestic or regional upheaval. Our people are still culturally and ethnically as divided as ever, and our political groups and leaders are also unable to effectively work together to achieve common goals. At times, they are even more polarised today than ever before.

In the recent past, in Abyssinian dominated Ethiopia, our country’s only friend was Meles Zenawi and his group, who supported Eritrean independence during the liberation struggle as well as in the 1990s. The TPLF/EPRDF under Meles Zenawi played a historic and decisive role by supporting and recognising the Eritrean popular referendum and its outcome in 1993. I dare say that if it was not for the Ethiopian official recognition of Eritrean sovereignty, our country would have found it difficult to win acceptance as a sovereign nation state in the OAU and UN institutions.  Without this instrumental support from the Meles Zenawi led Ethiopia, Eritrea’s status would have been similar to that of Somaliland or Chechnya.

Unfortunately, the Ethiopian situation has been changing since the last border war with our country. There are now more vocal elites from Amhara and Tigray who openly advocate chopping Eritrean territories to gain access to the sea. Zenawi himself has changed. He is no more the pro-Albania ethnic revolutionary that he once advocated to be. His present aggressive adventure in Somalia indicates that he has failed to detach himself from the old political tradition of Abyssinian ruling elite’s war-mongering. This means, we do not have the type of strategic friends and allies within Abyssinian Ethiopia that would not undermine our hard-won independence and sovereignty at present.  

Regionally, there is no more sympathy or support that can be counted upon to help rescue Eritrea from a possible failure as a sovereign state, except perhaps for the support of our brethren in the Sudan. Internationally, there is a chaotic new world order where weak countries are often left defenceless when facing aggression or eradication (Somalia is a pretty good example).

I have come across some friends who tend to believe that Eritrea is different and may be immune to such drastic failures. Although it is true that the Eritrean people are well-cultured, God-fearing and law abiding citizens just like the people of Somalia and many other failed African and Asian states, it is also important to remember that civil wars and anarchies are caused by self-styled selfish individual politicians and war-lords, who manipulate events to secure their narrow interests. Let us also remember that Eritrean political parties did fight street battles in the 1940s, bloody civil wars from 1960s to 1991, and our armed opposition groups are still unable to unite their militias into a unified armed wing of the EDA or even to abandon the entire idea of “armed wings” and focus on public mobilisation, which is more effective and safer as a tool for regime change than armed militias who are accountable to different political leaders. 

Therefore, the time for reconsideration of our national strategy in favour of pragmatism that enables us to achieve our cumulative goals of democracy, justice and peace through non-violence is now.  It is important to advocate for regime change that does not and will not lead to failure and anarchy.  

Happy 16th Liberation Day Eritrea, May Peace and Justice prevail on you!

Bohashem@arkokabay.com

15th May 2007

  

 
 
 
 

The views expressed in articles published on Arkokabay.com are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Arakokabay.com or its Editorial Board

  

ما ينشر من مقالات في موقع عركوكباي.كوم  يعبر عن رأي صاحبه ولا يعبر بالضرورة عن رأي الموقع والقائمين عليه.

Send mail to Arkokabay  with questions, comments, opinions and/or articles

2007-05-16 19:05 :Copyright © 2005 Last modified