|
Is it proportional representation that is crippling the EDA? (A comment on awate's latest editorial, the Pencil – 6 June,2006)
As usual, Awate Team has been instrumental in identifying obstacles that might prevent the "opposition" groups in general and the EDA (Eritrean Democratic Alliance) in particular from being politically effective; and has been proposing ideas that might assist the current leadership or their constituents in overcoming such impediments, so as to be a successful model organization(s). I applaud such an effort that serves the public interest. Needless to say, there are many others who have been attempting to achieve the same end result i.e. promote an effective opposition with a vision and commitment to drive the change towards democratization. All these efforts are well appreciated, but unfortunately they do not go far enough to particularly identify the main problems that are leading to such "ineffectiveness". The recent proposal of "proportional" representation within the EDA is a concept I greatly favored in the past as one of the useful mechanisms that may be adapted by the umbrella organisation with its culturally and politically diverse groups that enjoy varying public support. However, after close observation of the opposition groups and the EDA itself, I recognized that such a mechanism would not be effective to the extent necessary as a result of many factors including internal frictions within the leadership of the organization. It was evident that the members of the leadership harbour huge personal grudges and distrust of one another. Additionally, it became obvious to me that some lacked the necessary political skills of pragmatism and capacity to accommodate others in order to be effective and serve as leading agents of change in the struggle for a better tomorrow. Prior to explaining why the instrument of "proportional representation" that I once believed in and advocated for the EDA to adopt will fail, let me make a disclaimer that I am not against the very concept of "proportional representation" per se and that my criticism of the EDA should not be construed as such, but rather should be taken in a general context of the continuous public discussion and search for an optimum mechanism that can assist the organization in its transition to being an effective democratic organization. Hence, it is an effort to serve the public. The phrase, proportional representation (PR) is defined as "a broad term describing various electoral formulas in which parties win seats in a legislature in proportion to the share of the votes cast" [1] or as a "system under which a political entity such as a state receives representation in the legislature in proportion with its population". [2] If the PR principle as described above is applied to the current EDA, it is crucial to evaluate the voting size of each group or determine the number of "membership or constituents" of each organization (the later choice may be preferred to use since we do not have a mature democratic system in place to measure the number of votes cast). Measuring the size of membership or number of supporters, on the other hand, would be easier to estimate and apportion vote(s) for. For example, the EDA can say: for every group with 10 members = 1 vote, 20 members = 2 vote etc. (I am deliberately avoiding the use of 3 digit figure here to ensure the example I am giving is not misinterpreted as a call for the disqualification of some EDA members with far fewer membership). It is clear, from the above example, that PR is easier to estimate using some relatively simple mechanism. The difficulty then is not in the PR concept itself, but in the necessary evidence that would be needed to determine the size of each group’s membership. Each member group, for example, may claim to have 1000 members but may not be able to confirm them to any external or other EDA appointed "verification" body under such excuses as fear of jeopardizing the safety of those members. If the EDA, in this scenario, accepts the declared members and apportions votes accordingly, the result may not be fair to those groups who claim to have large membership and support base inside Eritrea as well as within the PFDJ institutions and that their representation in the Diaspora is not necessarily a true reflection of their real size. The use of "armed wings" as a yardstick The question of having or not having an "armed wing" has been raised on a number of occasions as another tool to measure the size of an organization to apportion votes. Although it is true that most of the current EDA member organizations may have "active" or "inactive" armed wings, its use for measuring the size of the organization is a risky precedent because it will potentially encourage every tiny group to have another tiny armed wing to satisfy the prequalification. The problem of armed wings or militias in a society will potentially lead to the development of institutions of war-lords who could use such a lethal power to impose their interests on others by force, especially if we recognize that all those who claim to be struggling for democracy are not necessarily supporters of democracy. In the recent past, the EDA and its predecessor ENA have claimed to have an objective of uniting their armed wings. However, I doubt if any initiative was taken or efforts made beyond appointing a committee or a secretariat member to "oversee the process" of uniting the so-called armed wings. It is clear that the objective has not been achieved up to this point for unspecified reasons. One may speculate that some of these reasons might have been lack of will, lack of integrity, and lack of mutual trust. I believe armed militias or wings should be discouraged and, where possible, their presence should never be allowed to become the defining factor of our politics, if we are to avoid the anarchy experienced by some African and Asian countries in the aftermath of their deposed dictators and despots. They do not help a nation to nurture a political culture of tolerance and democracy. Unity of groups with similar "programmes" Another call made by many and repeated by the latest Pencil is the issue of unity of groups with similar "programmes". This call is suitable in an ideal world where you have political groups committed to their stated programmes. The reality, however, is that such similar groups are unable not only to unite among themselves, but also the individual groups themselves are unable to maintain their internal unity. It has been an ongoing experience to see splinter groups flourish. In the absence of integrity, commitment to cause and selflessness, this culture of division and fragmentation will simply continue indefinitely. The problem is, once a group falls apart, their reunion is even harder, if not totally impossible. This is because the issues of differences are not simple politics or political programmes, but becomes personal and develops into hate and suspicion forever. I am sure the authors of Pencil know better than I do of the marathon "unity negotiations and initiatives" that has been claimed between the ELF factions or the other EDA members. If there is no will and genuine commitment to a cause, everything is made impossible!! Un-attainable. Can Ethnicity be used to measure the size of an ethnic organisation? It is common knowledge that the EDA membership is composed of multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious groups. Nevertheless, it is unwise to measure the size of each group in proportion with the size of its relevant "ethnic" or "religion". Because:-
Recommendations To avoid being a critique for the sake of criticism, I’ll conclude my article by listing here some ideas for consideration. They may not be unique, but no harm in proposing them as alternative to the seemingly unworkable "proportional representation" mechanism within the EDA:-
In my humble opinion, the very idea of entertaining "partisan political programmes" before laying the ground for multi-party democracy is like putting the cart before the horse. It would have been more useful if the EDA groups focussed on the kind of basic programmes stipulated in the EDA/ENA Charters and on working towards drafting a national constitution that would guarantee fundamental rights for individual citizens and groups.
In the post "Transition" period, it is hoped that
there will be a popularly endorsed national constitution with
appendixes on party formation and other rights that would be the
main ground on which to exercise individual and group rights.
Proposing partisan political programmes to govern Eritrea before the
above stage is not only messing your national "priorities", but also
underestimating the necessity of legitimising the state through the
full and democratic participation of all of its ethnic and cultural
groups. It is also an indication of how power-seeking some groups
and their leaderships are, who would seem to be willing to go to any
extent to assume power, instead of contributing to the salvation and
creation of an inclusive democratic state.
Ala-enni qad balaqt, Allahuma fa’sh’had!
[1]
www.electionworld.org/terms.htm
|
||
|
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 |
||
|
2006-07-02 12:22 :Copyright © 2005 Last modified |
||