Excuse Me PFDJ, I’m Sorry
I’ve been aware of the rumors circulating for some time now about Isaias grooming his son, Abraham, to be the next president. If your father is a carpenter, he’ll take you along to work, and naturally, you’ll pick up the skills of a carpenter. All parents do this in one form or another.
So, what would a president do if he wanted to share his profession with his child and instill in him love for it, just like a carpenter or mechanic would? Think about it, but try not to politicize it.
However, the Eritrean situation is different. Abraham’s father isn’t just any man—he’s a dictator. And there are plenty of examples around the world of leaders grooming their children for top positions: Ali Abdullah Saleh did that with his son, who became a colonel or general, before he was killed by rebels; Yoweri Museveni has been grooming his son, who is already a general; Hosni Mubarak tried to do the same with his son, though the Arab Spring cut his plans short; Muammar Gaddafi did it with his son, who was killed by Libyan rebels; and Idris Deby succeeded, at least posthumously; his son is now a general and the president of Chad.
Such leaders, who would rather be kings, often aspire to establish dynasties; if they fall short, they set up systems of nepotism or oligarchy–it’s an established trend in the region.
But how would Isaias train his son? Keep in mind that Abraham, as a citizen, has the right to run for president if his father had established a just rule and a free society. Even then, it wouldn’t be easy in Eritrea. Regardless, children should not be held responsible for the actions of their parents—it violates their basic rights and is unjust. Of course, these are my personal “views on the news”—my take, not Sajid’s.
Sajid made a big issue of the news about Abraham. First, the more people are obsessed with the “breaking news” in every video they put out, the more mistakes they’re bound to make. Secondly, there are many who think they’re experts on a country; they assume by extension they are experts on all neighboring countries. If one is an expert on Ethiopian issues, he assumes he is qualified with authority on Eritrean issues. But that’s just not the case.
Martin Plaut is another one who offers his “views on the news.” I am amazed by his gaffes, even though he’s been covering Eritrea for what seems like forever—since Moses split the Red Sea.
To many Eritreans, the current situation feels like something straight out of Tayeb Salih’s novel (Season of Migration to the North.) Only this time it’s a season of migration to Eritrea.
Since the recent end of the Ethiopian war on Tigray (not while it was still raging), some Eritrean refugees and émigrés—mostly pseudo-opposition figures—have been lured by the idea of amending their loyalty status with the ruling party, and the easiest way seems to be surrendering to it. The real opposition has watched as many people they thought were allies traveled the journey to kiss the ring of the ruling party and join the PFDJ choir. I know a few people who were just tired of the struggle and wanted to give up. I believe they are the politically unstable types and didn’t matter much.
The real opposition went through a difficult time during the Tigray conflict. They were caught between two forces: those chanting Tigray tese’er and those chanting nHna ms mengistna”—sometimes flipping between the two positions, as if one was a superior slogan to the other. However, the difference was minimal—both sides wanted a pledge of loyalty, whether to the Eritrean ruling party or to Tigray.
The military, after all, is organized as an arm of the ruling party. It’s not governed by a constitution; it functions more like a militia force, indoctrinated by the party’s ideology and led by loyal party hacks.
Recently, Abiy Ahmed hosted some groups opposed to the PFDJ. Some found that to be a convenient excuse; they are abandoning their pretend principles and jumping to the PFDJ lap.
Holy books and the value of words.
The Bible says, “In the beginning was the Word,” and the Quran says Allah taught Adam the names of things so that he could communicate properly.
At its core, the main demand of the Eritrean opposition is the right to associate, to speak freely, and to debate openly in order to find common ground. If someone ignores that, they’re no longer committed to the principles of the opposition. Simply, they’ve abandoned the cause.
If someone has to sign a document of regret to the government for previously opposing its policies or for escaping its injustices, that’s a sign they had a legitimate reason for opposing the regime in the first place. But what happens when someone regrets believing so?
Suppose you have money in your pocket, and a highway robber takes it all! You can’t say you still have the money. Similarly, if you willingly sign a document regretting your opposition to the regime, you have no principles left. Nothing.
I’ve seen and heard the self-righteous talk of those who regret their past principles. They forget that, during the era of the Eritrean struggle against the Ethiopian occupation, there were some who surrendered to the enemy. These people were called Wedo-Geba, those who “returned” to the enemy’s side. The Dergue declared, “If you sneaked out to join the rebellion, now you have permission to sneak back in.”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I want the PFDJ to apologize to me for all its injustices in writing, in a signed document of regret. Otherwise, I’m staying as a free man where I am; I don’t have principles that can be bent.
The ultimate goal of a peaceful opposition should be to pressure the regime into negotiation through persistent struggle. The more people become self-centered and abandon the idea of collective struggle, the more the nation loses. Yet many complain. Can anyone explain to me why they signed a regret document? What is it they regretted believing or doing? What triggered that step?
Awate Forum