Politics is a line, a continuum, where the far right and far left are far apart on every issue. No, politics resembles more like a horseshoe than a line, argued a French artist, where the far right and far left are closest to, and bend towards to, each other. By that, he meant that both the far right and the far left are attracted towards authoritarianism. In the 1990s, I argued that Eritrea’s ruling party has strong right-wing strains–it is obsessed with guns, flags and uniforms and is socially very conservative (last in Africa to outlaw genital mutilation & child marriage; first to ban abortion.) In the interest of not diverting this discussion, let’s just say the two extremes in Eritrea are State’s Rights Advocates (PFDJ) and Individual Rights Advocates (opposition.) For decades, it was easy to understand where an Eritrean’s sympathies lie: if they are talking about all the dangers the State of Eritrea is facing, they are likely to be PFDJ supporters. If they are talking about the imprisoned and the disappeared, they are sympathetic to the opposition. If they are mumbling something about May The Good Lord Beautify It (ባዕሉ የጸብቆ), they are agnostic. “You can’t have rights if you don’t have a country,” argued one; “You can’t have a country if you don’t have a people,” argued the other. For decades. Now, as happens after every war, there appears to be a reckoning.
“Dr Abiy, a lot of work awaits you to consolidate your government; a lot of work awaits us to catch up on lost opportunities. How about we demarcate our common border–not that we believe in borders: we are all for economic integration–let’s just demarcate it to avoid one more reason for us to go to war. Let’s make a mutually beneficial and long-term port deal so you never have to worry about population growth and being land-locked. Let’s take seriously our AU Charter and let’s not intervene on how each one of us chooses to govern their nation.” – Alternate President of Alternate Eritrea, June 2018
That was one way the conversation could have gone. It didn’t because–one last time let’s all say it together–our last mutual enemy had to be game overed, destroyed! Because you just can’t make ANY plans as long as THOSE PEOPLE are armed and dangerous. They must be neutralized. Meanwhile, those targeted for neutralization knew they were going to be neutralized; so, they became even more armed and more dangerous. It is the same chicken-and-egg story of 1998, repeated in 2020: Ethiopians will be debating who started the war for the next two decades. “I have to kill you because I have it on good authority that you are going to kill me” whispered the logic of war. It was, historians tell us, the deadliest war of the 21st century. And everybody who was directing the war from Tigray, Addis Abeba, Asmara is still in power.
Ethiopia’s Wars, Eritrea’s Politics
War re-aligns. In 1999, when Eritrea and Ethiopia were in the middle of one of many destructive wars, the newly-established Eritrean opposition umbrella group–Alliance of Eritrean National Forces (AENF)–found that Sudan was suddenly inhospitable and it moved to Ethiopia. In 1999-2000, the typical press release of The Alliance would be 5 paragraphs, with 1 paragraph calling for ceasefire, and 4 paragraphs cursing the Eritrean government. Naturally, it appeared that they were siding with Ethiopia in the War. Eventually, it became more than a statement when the smallest member of the Alliance, Democratic Movement for the Liberation of Eritrea–which had been Ethiopia-based since 1982–allegedly joined the invading Ethiopian army (and left with it.) A theory espoused by some members of the Eritrean opposition–“Tigray is our natural military launching base”–was tested (1999-2000) and found wholly inadequate to the task. This was, and still is, largely because the Eritrean people had, over and over again, sent the message that yes, we want to change, but not if it has to follow fellow Eritreans shooting at each other, including those who are not volunteers. By some means necessary.
War reinforces. In 2020, when Ethiopia was having its war in Tigray, one of its many civil wars, some members of the newly-established Eritrean movements and opposition groups decided to test out their new political philosophy of “I have Tigrayan identity and Eritrean citizenship” (TIEC, for short), by echoing the Tigray Prevails mantra. Those with bitter memories remember TIEC cheered the death of Eritrean soldiers and joined TPLF in accusing them of the worst crimes. TIEC also said words to the effect of “anybody who didn’t condemn the Eritrean armed forces hates Tigrayans, obviously, which is a manifestation of Eritrean superiority complex, which they inherited from fascists Italians when they created their artificial country for them.” They also said: We are all TDF, the Eritrean soldiers are beasts guilty of all sorts of heinous crimes and hash tag Tigray Prevails.
Naturally, this affirmation invites a counter-affirmation of “I have Eritrean identity and Eritrean citizenship” (EIEC, for short, although it goes by many other initials: One Nation, ENBA, Nationalist Party.) And this, naturally, pulls you in the direction of wanting to show solidarity with your young brothers and sisters and nephews and nieces who are in some destructive war they were ORDERED to participate in by PFDJ, the ruling party that you are opposed to. If you don’t have the power to stop the war, if the only choice is “do my people kill or get killed?” Eritrean identity and Eritrean citizenship means that you hope they don’t get killed or maimed or held captive. The more the TIEC condemn the very idea of the Eritrean nationalism and its heroes, the more nationalistic the EIEC gets. This is the horseshoeing effect where Elias Amare, a devout apologist for every PFDJ extremism in the last 25 years, and opposition media Setit Media (Mission: “most comprehensive, accurate, and impartial coverage of Eritrea and its related issues”) converse about Eritrea’s New Chapter (which never, ever reviews previous chapters) with each addressing the other as a “journalist.” It is impossible to tell apart the editorials of AAN Media (a Youtube channel which used to identify itself as opposition media) and Eri-TV (State media.) Meanwhile, EriSat did something simultaneously dazzling and train-wrecky: it built the largest independent Eritrean media outlet, then decided that the future of 21st century media lies in appeasing your viewers/ readers/ listeners, and not challenging them.
Unlike the opposition of my generation, none of the new organizations are ready to accept to be a plurality who can achieve majority status by coalescing with others. They all want to be a SUPER MAJORITY choking at birth dissenting views. For more than two years, some of the louder spokespersons for Brigade nHamedu said that you can either support them or STFU: otherwise, you are an enemy, as menacing as PFDJ, who has to be destroyed. More recently, I read the political roadmap of a yet-to-be-born political movement: it announced that its coalition is going to be made up of “true justice-seekers within the opposition, and supporters and members of current regime, the silent majority and brave men and women in the armed forces.” That’s horseshoeing in practice. Notice here that justice-seekers have to be qualified (they must be true), but “supporters and members of current regime” need not be qualified: they are prima facie true patriots. And, Eritrea would be the first country in the history of countries where the armed forces are encouraged to be partisans. A supermajority party which is to replace the supermajority party in charge.
Meanwhile, our old friend Dr. Berhan Ahmed (new organization pending), a man who, by his own description, been in the opposition as long as the opposition has been around, told us that we have to form a dialogue committee to dialogue with President Isaias Afwerki. What about his long track record of not wanting to dialogue with, for example, the spokespersons for Dawit Isaac or the two US Embassy in Eritrea employees, asked AkaAka (because he is a real journalist who practices real journalism.) Well, said Dr. Berhan, we can’t assume the Isaias of the 1990s is the same as Isaias of 2024. People grow, people change. The Isaias who was stuck at Adi Halo for a decade is not the same as the one who is hobnobbing around all over the world, he said. Let’s talk, what’s wrong with trying, he pleaded.
A Brief Encounter With History
Of course nothing is wrong with talking. People who advocated these horseshoe (U-turn) positions earlier–Ali Salem, Mahmud Saleh, among others–are saying: #IToldYouSo. But first, one must ask, why should Isaias talk to you? Who are you? What do you bring to the table? On whose behalf are you talking? History suggests these are the only times President Isaias Afwerki listened:
1971: PLF1 (headed by Romadan Mohammed Nur) has a conversation with PLF2 (headed by Isaias Afwerki.) They agree to join forces. Each side had something to bring to the table (human resources, weapons, leadership skills, constituents) and each side faced a larger enemy (ELF.) Talking made perfect sense.
1987: Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) has a unity congress with Sagem*. Sagem agrees to dissolve itself to EPLF. EPLF gets senior cadres (Zemehret Yohannes, Totil, etc) and seasoned fighters and ELF archival material. Sagem got to participate in Eritrean liberation. Talking made perfect sense.
(* In keeping with Eritrea’s fine political tradition, “Sagem” split: one joined EPLF and the other continued, thus its name “Sagem Continues.” It joined the aforementioned Eritrean opposition Alliance in 1999.)
1992: Some members and leaders of Eritrean Liberation Front – People’s Liberation Front (ELF-PLF, formerly headed by Osman Saleh Sabbe) return to Eritrea. They have nothing to offer other than reinforcing the Isaias Afwerki fatwa that, henceforth, there is no room in Eritrea for partisan posturing, his famous “ናይ ውድባት ሓሸውየ” speech.
I can’t think of others, can you? Well, yeah, he did talk to the G-13. If by “talk” one means listening to a monologue and being dismissed.
Talk requires realization by all parties that they have more to gain than lose by talking. Have you listened to the PFDJ spokespersons lately? All they see is total vindication. We have been vindicated! Every decision my government made in the last 20 years may not have been right, but on balance, given the enmity it faced from the US, EU and their servants (Weyane) and its servants (Eritrean Gamblers), my government has safely navigated the State to a place where it has the respect of China, Russia and the Region. We have drawn a target around the dot where the dart landed, so obviously, we have hit our target. All who bet against the government in the last 20 years are either traitors or imbeciles. Raise the official flag, wrap yourself around it: may PFDJ reign for another 30 years, Wedi Haweboy.
Speaking of Wedi Haweboy (Awel Seid), whenever I see him, I am always reminded of what an Eritrean activist told me in the late 2000s: look at what your brother (Ali Abdu) is doing? Not only has Eritrean opposition media not penetrated Eritrea; Eritrean State Media (Eri-TV) has now penetrated the Diaspora. Similarly, now, an Eritrea-based YouTuber who is a strong supporter of the Eritrean government has penetrated the Eritrean Diaspora and is repackaging the narration: everything the government did in the last 20 years is heroic and vindicated; and everything the opposition did or tried to do was foreign-directed, meritless and a failure.
Yes, talk is needed. But not with the Eritrean Government because we have nothing to offer, nothing that would make them pay attention now. To the extent they agree to talk, it will only be to infiltrate the opposition and take it over. Talk is needed among the Eritrean opposition, unconditionally, to remind themselves what is it they are fighting for in Eritrea. What tangible proposals do they have that would be welcome by Eritrean people? And there is urgency for that. Not because of Ethiopia. Not because of TPLF. Not because of America. But because Isaias is approaching 80. Even if he has the luckiest genes, it should not be taboo to ask: “what is the transition plan?” in a country that has no constitution, no party congress, no vice president, no discernable hierarchy. And before the Opposition can have a discussion on that with PFDJ, the PFDJ has to have a conversation with itself because “if 1 Isaias is gone, he will be replaced by 1,000” is not as reassuring as they think it is.
