My recent article on the G-15 drew a passionate response from Semere H. who doubled down on his claim that the G-15’s own letters conclusively prove their commitment to democracy. And probably anticipating my response, he later added in the comments: “Remember that I have no problem with you saying that you don’t trust them but you cannot deny them what they have written and what they have done.” He also told us pointedly how much he knows about the G-15 and how “the entire process evolved,” and that he is privy to some insider knowledge the rest of us apparently lack.
I was genuinely baffled by his comments because he seems to have misunderstood the core message of my article. The central point of my previous article is encapsulated in its very title, “Rhetoric or Reality?” I was arguing that statements, rhetoric, and words do not always align with reality particularly when mouthed by fawning politicians who loyally served a dictator for years. I never imagined anyone would disagree with such a postulation but Semere did. In fact, he has chosen to do the exact opposite: to treat the G-15’s own words, their rhetoric, lock, stock, and barrel, as if they were, by themselves, self-evident and incontrovertible facts.
But he then tells us he has no problem with me saying I “don’t trust them,” and that he only wants me not to “deny them what they have written and what they have done.” The “them” in his comment refers to the G-15. This is a strange take, to say the least. If he has no problem with my distrusting them, what on earth are we arguing about? And who denied them “what they have written and what they have done”? With all due respect to him, Semere isn’t making sense here unless he is conceding the point!
As to Semere’s superior knowledge of the G-15 and their history, I can readily grant him that and judging from the glowing eulogy he bestowed on them in one of his recent articles, he is clearly one of their ardent admirers. No issue there but help me readers: what am I supposed to do with such an appeal to ‘insider knowledge’? Defer to it and concede?
By resorting to such bravado of claiming to know more about this subject, isn’t Semere undermining his own position? Why not simply let the depth of his knowledge speak for itself through the strength of his case rather than through invocations of authority? It puzzles me.
Now, let us continue to explore the topic together. Let us ponder and ask: if words or rhetoric alone could truly conjure up democracy, why is Eritrea still a dictatorship despite our repeated chants of democracy and pluralism from the pulpit since the very inception of our nation as an independent state?
Consider the following declaration:
“The people of Eritrea have forever altered the course of Eritrean history and launched a new phase in the struggle for democracy, equality and freedom… and the emergence of a pluralistic system that encouraged both political parties and civic organizations” (emphasis added).
When, and who, do you think penned those lofty democratic pronouncements? That, respected compatriots, was a declaration made by none other than the Eritrean government itself, our dictatorial government, in its 1993 publication Eritrea: Birth of a Nation! Of course, none of it materialized. It was all empty rhetoric, nothing more.
The incongruity between the Eritrean government’s rhetoric and its actions is a prime example of why words alone cannot give us an accurate assessment of any political entity. If democratic language and democratic intent were synonymous, Eritrea would have been a democracy decades ago, and Isaias would be within his rights to declare himself the greatest champion of democracy in the world!
Regrettably, many were brainwashed or bamboozled into embracing such rhetoric or propaganda in the past, and some are still falling for it. One case in point among many is a debate I once had with a fellow compatriot about democracy. In the middle of our discussion, he angrily blurted out that Eritrea was the best democracy in the world! At the time, Eritrea was (and still is) an entrenched dictatorship. Given the sheer absurdity of the claim, one might think it was asserted by an uninformed or uneducated Eritrean, yet quite the opposite was true: it was declared by a highly educated individual who would later become a member of the G-13!
That is why we must never fall for rhetoric alone without first subjecting it to intense scrutiny, which was the aim of my previous article. Blindly believing politicians is not only naive and unwise but can also lead to grave consequences, as it did in Eritrea.
On Semere’s “universal solvent” argument
Semere argued that pointing to motive is a “universal solvent,” meaning it can be applied to anyone, at any time, and is therefore irrelevant. It is true that motive can, in principle, be questioned about anyone. However, such an argument is vacuous in this context because I never once claimed that motives should always be doubted as a matter of principle. But when dealing with politicians, we must remember the well attested and widely acknowledged fact that they sometimes lie. That is why we need to look at additional clues to assess their words. That is exactly what I did in my previous article. Moreover, my contention was not based on an unfounded blanket suspicion. Rather, it was based on specific, tangible facts. The facts as stated in my article include:
- The G-15 were not ordinary Eritreans but high-ranking officials who carried out the president’s directives for years.
- Prior to their protest, their own power was steadily being stripped away by the very president they served.
- Prior to their protest, they organized no public rallies or demonstrations to call for democracy or to protest the regime’s human rights abuses, which were occurring under their very nose as high-ranking officials of the government.
- They acted only after a catastrophic military defeat.
Taken together, these facts give us ample reason to question their true intentions. That is not conjecture but an inference drawn from chronology, conduct, and the public record.
In my next piece, I will inshAllah address some of the specific historical claims Semere raised.
Contact: ismailomar10@gmail.com