You probably heard the story of the two shoe salesmen returning from a barefoot nation. One reported there are no opportunities there because people don’t wear shoes. The other saw great opportunities for exactly the same reason - because people don’t wear shoes yet.
Such opposite views are prevalent in today’s Eritrea. For
those focusing on negatives (camp A), partial truths are exaggerated to conclude
Eritrea’s independence was a mistake. For camp A Eritrea was dead on arrival. It
is a helpless
(I can’t do anything) and hopeless
(it can’t be done) mindset
that simply stands by waiting for an “I told you so” moment.
The things camp A lists to reach its pessimistic
conclusions may well be true. But it is definitely not the whole truth because
Eritrea is more than its highland component. Ignoring Eritrea is more than its
Muslim component, there is also camp A’s other half that wants to Arabize
Eritrea. Fortunately, these two faces of camp A, although very vocal, are not
representative of their respective communities. And that is why I still believe
there is hope for Eritrea.
I love Ethiopia and look forward to the day relationships
between the two countries are back to normal. But the entire Eritrea is the
reality that needs to be addressed. That is why the position held by half of
camp A that is eager to go back to Ethiopia is a non-starter. They don’t even
belong to the part of Eritrea the old Ethiopia really wanted. So, in
reality, they have nothing to offer. Besides, Ethiopia has moved on in rather
impressive ways (at least in comparison to Eritrea). So, it is doubtful today’s
Ethiopians are as obsessed with the same nostalgia Eritrea’s camp A seems to be
burdened with.
At the opposite
pole (camp B), we have the regime and its cult followers manufacturing their
own ‘facts’. Here Eritrea is falsely projected as the model of Democracy and Justice - upheld by the corrupt PFDJ no less. In the land
of infinite ironies, a killer is idolized as his victim’s guardian. For camp B,
Eritrea is nothing more than the tyrant himself. Given the outrageous things Isaias
says and his willingness to go so far to look so bad, no one makes Camp A’s
point better than camp B.
Evaluating
Isaias’ last “interview” (kolel, is more
like it), Kubrom
Dafla1 calls him Ewala (or is it a mental health issue?). For Isaias, the 360 Eritreans
who perished in Lampadusa are “illegal African immigrants”. The masses of
refugees he is the root cause of, are “thieves” he is glad to see “Eritrea be
without”. No wonder camp A declares Eritrea’s independence a mistake.
In a way,
camps A and B are aligned on the same end result. One says Eritrea should not
have existed. The other spares no effort to ensure Eritrea becomes a failed
state. What is the difference?
What is missing
is camp C, a sane and honest middle that recognizes Eritrea for what it is in
the here and now – a country in serious state of decay that needs to be
normalized urgently. Not an easy task for sure. But if Rwanda and Ethiopia can
do it, why not Eritrea? Given their difficult past (especially Rwanda’s), and
seeing them doing well by comparison now, should be a source of inspiration. In
the spirit of the second shoe salesman, since Eritrea is not completely dead
yet, there is a chance to transform it into a place where its citizens feel
safe and secure, free to pursue their dreams – all of their dreams.
Are we close?
The short and
honest answer is no. However, there is progress. It is good to see Dr. Tewelde
(wedi vacaro) doing an excellent job of refocusing people’s attention to the
“urgency of now”. And it is time to go beyond producing “press releases”, as
the tireless Selam
Kidane2 aptly puts it.
But old
habits that dwell on differences without substance continue to get in the way. Even
with the benefit of decades-long hindsight, one of the latest entrants to the
opposition camp, Forum for National Dialog (FND) – aka Medrek, is generating more
anxiety than hope.
Listening to
parties Medrek has dealt with - assena.com and Dr. Tewelde among them - it
appears Medrek has burned some valuable bridges already. That can’t be good. That
said, however, rejecting Medrek outright is a huge mistake. Sure, Medrek should
be asked the tough questions in a way that challenges its members to be open and
to do more; because they can do more. The capabilities they can bring to
the table are obvious. The priority should, therefore, be to find ways how
those capabilities can be brought to the forefront for the benefit of all. To
be clear, I am not defending Medrek’s behavior. My concern is the dismissive
tone and general intolerance we seem to exhibit so readily.
Let’s take
an unlikely scenario to drive the point home. Say Ali Abdu openly declares that
he is ready to put his energy and knowledge to dismantle the criminal regime he
so shamelessly served. It would be foolish to dismiss him outright, as it has
been our tendency to do. This does not mean, however, he will not have to
account for his past - which is a legal matter beyond the scope of crowd
justice. If justice is what we say we seek though, why deny anyone the
opportunity to contribute towards the goal we all claim to be after? Watch him
closely so he is not violating the rules of engagement by resorting to old
habits – yes. But deny him the opportunity to help end PFDJ rule – no. We need
to stop obsessing about intentions (hard to determine) and start using tangible
actions as primary measuring sticks.
Another
thing that needs serious re-consideration is how long one has been part of the
“opposition” is not necessarily a merit. If there are no tangible accomplishments
that can be attributed to that longevity, it actually becomes a liability. That
is why “abey nerom” (where have they
been) should not be part of a justice seeker’s vocabulary. Unfortunately, “abey nerom” are the first words
so-called veterans and passive observers utter when a new comer enters the
scene. We need to show some humility and honestly answer “entay afriye” (what have I accomplished) before asking “abey nerom” of others.
If that
sense of humility is deeply rooted, a true justice seeker should have no
problem pledging to never speak ill of anyone striving to end PFDJ rule. While challenging
them to do more and to back words with deeds, of course.
References
2 http://asmarino.com/articles/2045-r-is-for-reform-and-r-is-for-reality-too
No comments:
Post a Comment