Eritrean Law Society

Congratulations!

Of course the sky is falling down. It is only that skies fall down from so high that they need time before they physically crush down so loud and every body hears the noise. In fact, it has already fallen down in all of the most important aspects of falling down. The Eritrean government has lost the heart of its people and the international heart; its own sky is enclosing on it and squeezing out its last breath. Now, the big question is: are the anti tyranny forces ready to fill up the Vacuum? The so-called ‘organized opposition’ is institutionally & technically poor in addition to being ideologically and politically amorphous and still disunited. Perhaps it is good that the sky falls down slowly. It already gave time to four organizations to unite themselves under one name.

It also gave our lawyers the time to establish an Eritrean Law Society. Probably no other country needs such a society more than the totally lawless Eritrea. I hope that it will give enough time for other professionals to get organized. I would even pray that it gives us enough time to form some kind of an Eritrean Government in Exile.

Anyway, I am pleased very much that now we have such an organization. I am pleased not because of the merits of its goals only, but also because it is an additional sign that the sky is falling down. Otherwise, we needed it since a long time ago.

One primary goal of this society is to promote the Eritrean Legal System in accordance with the Constitution of Eritrea and its subsidiary laws and regulations. Now, wait a minute—which constitution are we talking about? Do we have an Eritrean Constitution? Ah ya…! I remember now. We are talking about the constitution that was never implemented. I even remember reading it. God, it was a long time ago that I almost forgot we had one. It was very mathematical in its democratic and organizational aspect; it is still anchored in my memory. Full of fractions and percentages that I, being poor in mathematics, had to use my calculator to comprehend some of the conditions for the formation of parties. And I remember wondering that if a certain ethnic group wants to form its own party, it must include a certain percentage of other ethnic groups. If it can’t, bad luck, no party. Also, is it a must that a Social Democratic Party be forced to constitutionally include a certain percentage of national rightists? Or a Christian Democratic Party to include some communists and Islamists? The goal might be the great consolidation of National Unity. The effect is, but, self -neutralization of parties. I still wonder whether it is democratic to force people to mix based on constitutional rules.

The writers of the constitution must have had good reasons to write it the way they did. Of course, the tyrannical spirit of Isaias was hovering over all things that it could have been a kind of a compromise between the tyrannical and democratic trends at the time of its writing. It would be difficult for many people to call it their cherished ‘Eritrean Constitution’ as they were excluded in its conception and promulgation. The Law Society must ask itself and answer the question whether this constitution is a legal constitution at all? Whether it is promotable?

But, it can certainly be used as a manuscript upon which future Eritrean constitution can develop and can be used as a learning look (a reference document) in educating us in constitutional thoughts and mechanisms.

If a new constitution would be written, or the old that would now be amended, I have already three good ideas that I feel must be considered.

1. An obligatory requirement of expert psycho-medicinal certificate that attests of the sanity of every politician and individual that contends for any political office in Eritrea—I can’t drive my car on public streets without an expert attesting of its technical viability. Technically unsound cars are dangerous to public safety. Politicians are even more dangerous than cars. If we had such a provision in our constitution, Isaias would never have been selected as president, as he couldn’t have passed the IDIOTS’ TEST. He was already deranged. I mean clinically mad. We must be cleverer in the future.

2. Our constitution (In fact in the constitution of every African country) must provide for the execution of all presidents after the termination, by law, of the ascertained, a fixed presidential term. Would-be presidents must sign such a Candidates’ Contract before they run for the most high and holy of offices.

Regicide was a commonly used method of terminating kingships in the ancient worlds of African clans and ethnic groups; Africans (old clans in today’s La Riccia), Assyrians, Babylonians and Khassars of southern Russia. They had rulers who wanted to rule until they reached the age of senility and despite their failures. And these brave ancient peoples solved this problem by forcing their rulers to pre-agree to be put to death (and that is willingly!) at the end of their term. We Eritreans, with all our ignorance, must be as clever as these ancient societies. We have the advantage of experiencing Isaias’ tyranny, an experience which most probably the ancients didn’t have the good luck to have. If we can’t learn from our Great Leader, the Great Everything and the Great Teacher, we would never learn. And with such a constitutional provision we can never make a mistake. Only the wufuyate patriots would ever present themselves as candidates.

3. Every civilized constitution provides for uncrippled rights of self-expression; but what is the use of rights if there is no corresponding constitutional duties. No audience, no right. The right to be heard, read and seen implies constitutional duty to hear, read, and see. I will try to illustrate: Ali Salim has a constitutional right to write what he wants to write (probably it is the American constitution). He has the full right to generalize, exaggerate, agitate, twist, shock, insult etc. But what benefit does this right give him if the audience gets bored and stops reading him and won’t be agitated, twisted, shocked and insulted? The audience must be obliged, constitutionally, to read him. Otherwise what does the whole rights of self-expression benefit him? I read him to the last word, patiently deciphering his slang and politico-mathematical formulas because it is my constitutional duty to respect every person’s right to.

Wish you all success.

Herzlichst.