Roadmap for Eritrean Democracy (Part III)

The Purpose of “Debate”

Many of us advocate for engaging in “debate” to understand or even resolve different views and opinions.  But can “debate” be the ultimate tool to bridge differences?  We need to understand the purpose and limits of “debate” to address our burning issues.

“Debate” is used to persuade and to convince third party listeners to accept certain views, rather than to convince the debating party themselves.  It is highly unlikely that, for instance, two individuals totally convinced of their own certain views can convince the other party through debate.   Factors that may allow two ‘debaters’ to convince the other party may depend on the following,  

1.      If two ‘debaters’ are new to the subject/topic in discussion, and if the purpose of the discussion is for mental stimulation and for passing time (leisure), one ‘debater’ may convince the other ‘debater’.  If two ‘debaters’ have been engaged in the same ‘debate’ over certain subject for years, the likelihood of one convincing the other party is slim to none.

2.      It two ‘debaters’ engage in public debate, rather than in private one, then the outcome of the ‘debate’ has higher stake in, real or perceived, possible loss of reputation and credibility for the conceding party.  None of the ‘debaters’ will publicly admit that the other party has a more convincing argument than he does at the end of the debate.

3.      The stakes become higher when the person debating is doing so on behalf of an organization whose followers have a shared view.

It is for this reason that the end result of two individuals debating on a subject matter that has high implication on its outcome may in fact end up disliking each other.  Cultural factors have some role.  In Eritrean cultures, for instance, (with some significant variance even within our Eritrean cultures) heated debate might be associated with confrontation, which may lead to possible ‘loss of face’ – and thus saving one’s own reputation rather than resolving differences through debate becomes the primary motive for entrenchment of views. 

There are many topics that people can engage in.  But for simplicity, we can divide them into two types – scientific and social issues.  Purely scientific issues (without their social implications, e.g. cloning) can be resolved through solid proofs and evidences.  Facts drive scientific debates.  Unfortunately, social issues do not neatly fit into any formula.  Therefore, irreconcilable issues may arise over social (and economic) issues.

 Who benefits from ‘debate’?

Who benefits from ‘debate’ between two (or more) individuals who will not convince each other?  The beneficiary of any ‘debate’ is the public who is free to change its mind based on facts and arguments presented to it and based on its ever-changing understanding of issues.

Types of debates

Most of us perceive, for example, two presidential candidates squaring off on the television over one hour broadcast as being a “debate”.  But this isn’t real ‘debate’ because how many topics can they discuss over one hour?  Even if the candidates were to discuss a couple of burning issues in that hour, how many convincing arguments can they deliver?  In my view, the purpose of candidates engaging in public debate is more symbolism of ‘availability’, ‘accountability to public’, ‘interacting with public’, ‘allowing and engaging in debates with individuals with opposing views’, etc… rather than actually delivering any convincing argument.  What it lacks in delivering convincing arguments, public debates deliver powerful messages of “accountability” and “tolerance of different views”.  Perception is critical, which PFDJ loathes.  Perception forces one to act in certain beneficial manner.

The most important type of debate is public debate that takes place over a period of time.  When a group of friends debate, the breadth, depth and scope of the debate might be limited.   Real debates take place only when experts, interested and affected groups are able to exchange views and the public is allowed to listen-in and absorb their arguments.  The only forum that can allow the public to engage and listen-in to these debates is through private independent mass media.   “Haddas Eritrea” is a mouth piece of PFDJ.  There is no real debate in Eritrea today because PFDJ knows what the debates are. 

Similarly, we shouldn’t expect EDA leaders to debate each other and convince each other into accepting another opposition party’s key platforms.  Can members of EDA debate each other into compromise?  But ‘debate’ and ‘compromise’ are totally different concepts.  ‘Debate’ is to usually associated with convincing other parties into accepting one’s views.   ‘Compromise’ is a negotiation tool that allows parties to work out some mutually beneficial agreement although none may have been swayed into accepting the opposing parties’ views.

Thus, if opposition parties debate each other, it isn’t because we expect them to convince each other, but to enlighten the public on their convictions and their line of arguments.  It helps us to understand what facts, premises, experiences, and other factors they used to arrive at their position.  If we [the general public] accept their line of arguments, we can be swayed to accept their views.

Shortcomings of debate

1. The most beneficial debates are thorough, which requires the public to digest many arguments.  Thorough debates take time, which politicians may or may not like depending whether they are in power or in opposition. 

2. As stated above, the most beneficial debates take time to fully grasp.  It isn’t unlike educational process, and it takes time. But ‘time’ means that the public must memorize various arguments and facts over a period of time, and be able to apply reasoning to memorized facts to arrive to a slow and fully informed conclusion.  Thus, due to challenges of debate, the public can only engage in limited specific debates.  Due to limitations of debates, it is critical that debates take place to align principles rather than resolve endless issues.  Having aligned principles, which are usually limited and shared, it can be used to shorten discussions (or even shortening debates) over many other issues.  The end result will be to resolve many issues quickly with significant public support.   

3. Generally, the public responds more to debates on negative and immediate issues than to positive and long-term issues.  Therefore, opportunist debaters (politicians being the most prominent) frame their debates in negative arguments than offering alternative viable long-term solutions.  If debates are left to politicians only, only negative debates take place without offering their own alternative (positive) solutions.  The job of continuously informing the public through debates falls on non-political groups such as civil societies and interest groups.   For instance, if we were to debate EDA or non-EDA opposition groups over many issues, they will engage in types of debates that criticize other views without offering their own alternative views, or mischaracterization of other parties’ platform (politicking), or engaging in character assassination (dirty game that questions the debater’s own integrity), etc…

Productive Debate

Debates can only be productive if,

1. those who debate can do so without fear of their rights and freedom to engage in any type of debate (excluding advocating for violence and hatred), and there exists a strong judiciary system that is capable of protecting those rights and freedoms,

2. ‘Sunshine laws or freedom of access to information’ exist that allow interested parties to access certain government documents, which can be used for informed debates on certain issues.  If debates remain rhetorical or philosophical only, these debates may not have the same impact.

3. Public debate can only take place if there is strong independent private media.  Guaranteeing the right of existence of independent private media, civil associations and any other (peaceful advocacy) interest groups must be an unwavering stand for all parties that aspire to gain power in the immediate period after the fall of PFDJ (which will sooner than we expect).  EDA must amend its Charter to guarantee these rights from “Day One” of post PFDJ Eritrea.  The timetable for introducing ‘Press Law’ – and ‘temporary’ at that - contained in its Charter isn’t acceptable.  The day after the fall of PFDJ, all universally accepted rights and freedoms shall be restored (conferred) on all Eritreans without any timetable.  Delaying these rights is tantamount to delaying debate.

Parliamentary/Congressional Debates

This is a misnomer.  As stated above, debates among politicians is usually designed to communicate views to the public than attempt to unconvince the convinced.   Exchanges of ideas may take place among politicians, but swaying one politician from one end of the spectrum to the other end is almost impossible.  Unless new facts totally unknown before are presented to anyone, restructuring existing facts will hardly convince anyone.  

I encourage my readers to watch members of the Ethiopian House of People’s Representatives (HPR) debate in their National Assembly.  First, let me say that HPR is way further down the learning curve than Eritrean politics, i.e. we haven’t even begun to move down the learning curve.  To the contrary, PFDJ has managed to reshape the learning curve to ensure Eritrea will take a long arduous [difficult] path towards democracy.   Anyway, observing HPR gives us a glimpse on the workings of our future National Assembly.  In HPR, some members complain that the government doesn’t heed to their advice.  If their complaint is politicking, then they are playing good old politics, which is acceptable.  But our impression is that the members genuinely complain that it doesn’t heed to their complaint by saying “if the government doesn’t listen to us, what is the point of expressing our views.”   These types of genuine feelings create a sense of being excluded by an elite group within the government.  These complaining members may feel that on the virtue of being elected that they have earned the right to have their views included in every government decisions. 

But members of national assemblies must understand that a government can’t form a coherent policy if it attempts to include every opposing idea into its policy or program.  Those dissenting members must focus their debates to inform or enlighten the public itself.  The real parliamentary debates take place in the public arena.  The opposition in the Assembly can only look forward towards the next election in the hope of convincing the public to elect them.  The most workable dealings among members of national assembly are to compromise or trade-off over issues.  The main party in government may need additional votes in order to pass certain legislations, and then negotiates with members of other parties to ‘buy’ their votes.  For instance, support the government on the budget, and certain non-majority party members may get support from the leading party to build certain projects in their constituents.  Naturally the most important factor is that the electoral system must be designed in such way not to bias towards large ethnic groups or regions, and instead allowing every ethnic group to engage in the negotiation process for the benefit of their constituents.     

On multi-party system

Volumes can be written on this topic, but my message is simple.  There are those who advocate that EDA should be grouped into blocks of similar platforms.  In my view, this is not the correct path to pursue.

In my view, parties should not be formed along divisive fundamental issues.  For instance, if parties are formed along ‘unitary vs. federal states’ or ‘indivisibility of state vs. right to secede’, this format doesn’t give rise to viable multi-party system. 

The main purpose of ‘multi-party’ is to keep government accountable.  It is hoped that by giving limited life to anyone single political party, that power may not be usurped.  If at every election the public is given the choice of parties that advocate such divisive issues, the public may vote for only one party – giving virtual monopoly to one party.   This is disastrous!

In my opinion, the current structure of Eritrean opposition political organizations isn’t the model for our future political institutions.  Probably and hopefully, totally different dynamics in Eritrea may transform these organizations, which must play by different rules in Diaspora politics. What may drive the uneven structure of these organizations might be the fact that these organizations operate on voluntary leadership and membership may introduce many flaws and challenges into Diaspora politics.

The multi-party law proposed by Min. Mohammed Sheriffo represents well balanced draft law that can be modified in the future based on our experience.  Among its many well-thought provisions, I would like to emphasize the following articles,

6.5 In order that the composition and unity of the founders as well as their ethnic and religious identities may reflect the pluralistic nature of the Eritrean society:
a) At least 2/3 of them must originate from five nationalities at the minimum;
b) At least 1/3 of them must be followers of the Islamic or Christian faiths. 

I encourage my readers to review Min. Sheriffo’s draft multiparty law.  It is well-researched and well-thought.

In my view, the draft multi-party restrains the proliferation of parties.  It encourages aspiring politicians to compromise and negotiate with other aspiring political parties to form alliance for the purpose of meeting the minimum requirement to meet the multi-party law.  It is not unlike certain “smaller” opposition organizations forming alliances to join the “bigger” opposition within EDA.  I have no understanding of EDA’s criteria of “smaller” and “bigger”, but Min. Sheriffo’s draft law clearly defines certain minimum requirements.

On Other Thoughts

The purpose of my articles is to provoke thoughts and reorient our debates to what will help us to move forward and to meet our current and future challenges starting today.  I am not an expert on many of the issues that I discuss and I don’t hold myself to be one.  Many of my articles may contain factual errors which I overlook for the sake of expediency.   I hope that my readers focus on the central theme rather than the factual correctness of some of the contents.

As the last point of discussion of is the development of the Amsterdam meeting.  It appears that the opposition camp’s approach is the extreme approach - either to ignore it or severely criticize it.  Instead, we should always ask ourselves, is this how we want to frame debates all the time?

In my view, those who formed the Amsterdam alliance didn’t breakaway from EDA.  If they did, then our analysis would have been different.  Instead, our understanding, i.e. those of us who are outside the opposition political arena but follow it through the grapevine, is that some of those who joined the Amsterdam alliance had asked to join EDA but were rejected for whatever reason.  I am not blaming EDA anymore than the Amsterdam groups because there is “Omerta” or “Code of Silence” among the political antagonists within the opposition camp.  Only enough measured criticisms are launched to hopefully bully into joining an alliance but not to reveal anymore than that.

The task of removing the PFDJ regime requires the participation of every individual, groups and alliances to achieve its objective.  Our approaches and efforts should only ask how we should organize ourselves to allow everyone to contribute their share.  Excluding anyone doesn’t serve our purpose.  This only entrenches ill-will, and only benefits the regime.  At this point in time, in all honesty, the task of removing the regime is being waged by private websites (ASMARINO, AWATE, etc…), civil rights associations (EMDHR, ASPER, EHDR-UK, etc…) and many fine individuals.  I am sure these organizations will agree when I say that none have played greater than those brave Eritreans in PFDJ dungeons in shutting down the regime.  Amnesty International, CPJ, EU parliamentarians, the US, and many governments and organizations have completely isolated the government because of their unsurpassed bravery.  Sheriffo, Drue, Kekia didn’t fail us, we failed them!  

Aside from casting this big shadow on the regime from their PFDJ dungeon, these men are handing down to us a great legacy.   Opportunist politicians grasp at straws in their ‘organizational communiqués through their “information office” regurgitating the same tired politics.  But as they must regurgitate their politics, we will regurgitate our views to them – not for the benefit of convincing them but to ensure that our message is reinforced,

1.      Many of us disagree over the ‘use of armed violence’ to resolve our internal crisis.  As a principle, “armed struggle” only begets more violence without resolving issues.  In addition, it sets dangerous precedence in our struggle to establish a democratic Eritrea after the fall of PFDJ.  Even in practicality, the many factors that allow “armed struggle” to take place aren’t there [I have discussed these issues in my September article “Delusional!”]  The end result is that those groups that advocate for “armed struggle” are creating dangerous precedence of erosion of principle without actually being able to use it in practice.    This is whammy from both sides!  PFDJ regime knows what opposition tough talk of “armed struggle” is worth.  But, what concerns PFDJ is when civic associations unite for petition drive in the form of ‘Global Coalition Against Tyranny’ meet various governments’ officials and are rewarded with the prohibition of PFDJ diplomats and its agents from entering these countries. 

2.      The other seemingly tired politics is a desperado political attempt to use Ethiopia as a ‘wedge issue’.  All opposition parties agree that good relations with Ethiopia and other neighbors are critical in ensuring stability in the region.  Whether one party believes that traveling to Ethiopia has its political implications or complications and others pursue to establish their presence in Ethiopia is each party’s prerogative.  I have my reservations about traveling to Ethiopia, and I will spare my readers from repeating my concerns here as I have discussed it in many of my past articles.  It is suffice to say that my strong objection is when there is a perception that opposition parties are concocting Eritrea’s future under Ethiopia’s tutelage.  Otherwise, it is understandable if certain opposition parties are forced to convene in Ethiopia for their own organizational purposes under extraneous situation – and not to concoct Eritrea’s future with our neighbors.  Our complaint isn’t to hold everyone to some rigid standard, but that efforts be made to address our concerns.  We judge individuals and organizations based on the directions of their efforts rather than to criticize them over inflexible position.  Realities on the ground may necessitate a brief detour over a rocky road, but those prudent parties must exert equal effort to return to widely shared path at the first opportunity. Naturally, given the choice, we will sway our support towards those political parties that share our concerns.  

3.      Lastly, there is yet another tired politics to label “Dialogue” with the regime as capitulation to the PFDJ regime.  Mr. Ahmed Nasser gave an excellent response in his last interview on many issues.   Unfortunately, a tired “politicking” is creeping up again in an effort to polarize the opposition camp.   As stated in my discussion of political debate above, ordinary Eritreans must remain attentive to attempts by opportunist politicians to gain support through polarization of issues. These are opportunist politicians who try to portray as if the only solutions are either “armed struggle” or “capitulation to the regime through Dialogue”, and conveniently overlook a whole range of possible solutions in-between.  We should reject these types of extreme characterizations in the strongest term possible.

Any Eritrean individual or organization is free to pursue their political agenda to remove the regime.  We hope that their participation be creative and bring ‘added value’ to the opposition camp.  EDA is far less than perfect and if these alternative organizations can fill the gaps or voids left by EDA, this can only strengthen the opposition camp in general.  But sliding back to tired politics doesn’t benefit anyone.       

If the purpose of EDA is to replace the PFDJ regime, excluding a couple of political organizations appears to overlook the fact that they will have to deal far more complicated issues when dealing with groups in Eritrea in post-PFDJ Eritrea.  But again, this writer doesn’t want to prejudice EDA because of the general “Omerta” within the active opposition.  Our task is simply to discuss issues in public – to air our concerns in order that we can learn from our tragic experience.

My fellow Eritreans, we should view our current efforts as an effort to build the solid foundations of a great nation in the making in the very same deep hole created by PFDJ. As for PFDJ, a dying creature exhibits the most strength just before its last breath. Its latest hoparoo [hopping around] is just one example.

Berhan Hagos

July 15, 2006