For much of last year, I devoted myself to writing, reading, and reflecting on how we arrived at this moment—and where our liberation struggle lost its way in the nation‑building project of post‑independence Eritrea. In my last two articles, I argued that Eritrea needs a new political imagination, one capable of lifting us beyond the suffocating binary that has defined our political life for decades: a regime many of us resent and an opposition many of us distrust. This binary has become the architecture of our stagnation. It has not served us well, and it will not deliver the future our people deserve.
But let me be clear: I do not hate the people who serve the regime, nor do I despise those who operate within the opposition. Neither should you. Our struggle is not against Eritreans; it is for Eritreans. The goal is not to defeat Eritreans who are not yet with us, but to win them back. The enemy is the system—its machinery of fear, coercion, and decay—not the citizens trapped within it.
This is precisely why the opposition, in whatever form it eventually transforms itself, must be morally superior and strategically smarter. Eritrea’s long‑awaited change must lift up all Eritreans, regardless of political affiliation or persuasion. A movement that seeks to rebuild a nation cannot afford to mirror the cruelty, exclusion, or vindictiveness of the system it aims to replace. It must offer a path that restores dignity, expands belonging, and invites every Eritrean—regime loyalist, opposition activist, or silent bystander—into a shared future.
The management guru Edward Deming once observed that “a bad system will beat a good person every time.” Eritrea is living proof. Our crisis is not the sum of individual failures; it is the predictable outcome of a system designed to suffocate initiative, punish dissent, reward obedience, and incentivize fragmentation, irrelevance, and ineffectiveness. That is why our struggle must focus on transforming the system—not demonizing the people who live within it.
A new political imagination must make room for all Eritreans: those inside the country and those in the diaspora, the 18‑year‑old searching for direction and the 80‑year‑old who has seen too much history to be fooled by slogans.
I take pride in having added my voice to those who stood up to the totalitarian drift of the Eritrean state. After September 18, 2001—when the heroes of our liberation struggle were thrown into prison and held incommunicado, denied even the basic dignity the EPLF once extended to captured enemies in the Sahel—every Eritrean had to ask: What am I made of? I am grateful I answered that question by speaking out for the Petros Solomons, the Haile Durues, the Sherifos, the Berakis, and the many others whose names remain unspoken but whose sacrifices define our moral horizon.
Donate
Today, the question is different but no less urgent: What must the opposition do to transform its legacy of fragmentation and ineffectiveness? If we are serious about building a prosperous, peaceful, and democratic Eritrea—one worthy of the sacrifices made—then the opposition must evolve. It must become relevant, disciplined, and capable of inspiring confidence.
That requires moving from vision to action.
From Vision to Action: Operationalizing Eritrean Opposition Unity
In earlier columns, I outlined the historical roots of fragmentation within the Eritrean opposition and proposed a realistic model for unity—one grounded in limited mandates, institutional discipline, and political maturity. But a model is only as good as its implementation. The opposition has never lacked ideas; it has lacked execution.
What follows is a practical, time‑bound roadmap for turning unity from aspiration into reality.
- Laying the Foundations (First 60 Days)
Unity cannot begin with forty organizations negotiating in one room. That is a formula for paralysis. The process must start with a small, competent preparatory committee—seven to nine individuals drawn from political organizations, civil society, independent actors, and legal and administrative experts.
Their mandate should be strictly technical:
- define the scope
- set the rules
- design a process that prevents mission creep
This is not an attempt to undermine existing organizations; it is an attempt to empower them to become relevant. Besides, it is difficult to undermine what has no real authority. If this approach is not preferred, the alternative is to convene a unity congress of individuals rather than organizations, as Ismail AA has long argued. At least one current chairman told me candidly that the only way to unite the opposition is to liberate leaders from the constraints of their own organizations, where loyalty often overrides rationality and success.
We should never forget that organizations—important as they are—are merely instruments. They are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. And when they cease to serve the national purpose, we should not hesitate to change them: sometimes by burying them, and sometimes by restructuring them to make them vital and relevant.
A credible accreditation system must follow. For too long, ghost organizations and self‑appointed leaders have diluted the opposition’s legitimacy. It is embarrassing to see “organizations” whose members can be counted on one hand. We need to drain the swamp. Unity built on fiction collapses under truth.
- Building the Institutional Backbone (60–120 Days)
No coalition survives without administration. A permanent Secretariat—staffed with professionals in finance, communication, legal compliance, and administration—must become the engine of the unity project. Eritrea’s opposition has repeatedly collapsed not because of ideology but because of the absence of institutional muscle.
A conflict‑resolution mechanism is equally essential. Disputes will arise; they always do. What matters is whether they are resolved or allowed to metastasize into new factions. A small arbitration panel with the authority to interpret rules and enforce discipline can prevent the splits that have haunted us for decades.
Then comes the Code of Conduct: clear rules for public communication, internal dissent, transparency, and consequences. Without rules, unity becomes a polite fiction. Long ago, my friend, the poet Kiros Yohannes—recognizing the erosion of civility—wrote Ten Commandments for Eritreans. They remain a worthy starting point. At the very least, the opposition must embrace what Sal Younis once called Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment: Thou shall not speak evil of a fellow member of the opposition.
- The Unity Conference (120–180 Days)
A delegate‑based conference—small, empowered, and disciplined—must adopt a minimum agenda focused on what matters now. This aligns with what Dr. Araya Debessay has been arguing for years, but it should not be anchored in locality, nor confined by it. The point is to gather capable individuals who can think beyond organizational boundaries and geographic silos, and who can act with the clarity and urgency the moment demands.
- ending authoritarian rule
- supporting internal resistance
- preparing for a transitional charter
- laying the groundwork for constitutional processes inside Eritrea
This is not the time to debate federalism, land, identity, or historical grievances. Those belong to a national dialogue inside Eritrea, not a diaspora conference.
The conference elects the following:
- a spokesperson
- an executive committee
- an arbitration panel
- an advisory council
Leadership must be rotational, time‑limited, and accountable. How we begin will ultimately determine how we end. In the early years, any organization is only as good as the people behind it, and it is essential that we entrust responsibility to the right individuals—those whose judgment, discipline, and integrity can set the standard for what follows.
- Implementation and Expansion (180–365 Days)
Unity without action is performance. Once leadership is elected, the coalition must launch a unified communications strategy—weekly briefings, monthly reports, coordinated messaging, and a crisis-response team. Fragmented messaging has been one of the opposition’s most damaging weaknesses.
External partnerships must follow: regional governments, human rights organizations, think tanks, diaspora communities, and civic networks inside Eritrea. Diplomacy is a force multiplier.
A transparent transitional support fund should finance administration, advocacy, research, and emergency support for activists. Transparency builds trust; trust builds unity.
Finally, a monitoring and evaluation framework—every 90 days—keeps the coalition honest, focused, and mission‑driven.
- Preparing for Transition Inside Eritrea (Year Two and Beyond)
A unified diaspora opposition is not the destination. It is the bridge. Once stable, it must prepare for the real work:
- developing a transitional charter
- supporting national dialogue
- training technocrats
- strengthening internal civic actors
- building a roadmap for post‑authoritarian stabilization
Much work has already been done in this area over the last two decades. These efforts must be resurrected, refined, and integrated on the basis of consensus and a minimum agenda. Years ago, I was entrusted by the now‑defunct Medrekh to assemble highly qualified Eritreans to draft transitional documents. Even today, I believe they did an excellent job, and their work could be adopted—if not in its entirety, then in large part.
Unity is not a slogan. It is an engineering project.
Conclusion: Unity Requires Discipline, Not Sentiment
For decades, the Eritrean opposition has relied on goodwill, emotion, and declarations to achieve unity. These are not enough. Unity requires structure, discipline, institutions, timelines, enforcement, leadership, and administrative capacity.
The roadmap above is not theoretical. It is practical, achievable, and grounded in lessons from successful transitions around the world.
If the opposition follows it, unity becomes possible. If it does not, fragmentation will continue—and Eritrea will continue to pay the price.
To contact the author: weriz@yahoo.com
Comments