PFDJ self-appointed Matchmakers

A stranger followed a young girl to her house. After a short time, he knocked on the door, and an elderly man answered. The stranger, seemingly uncertain, asked, “Is the girl who just walked in your daughter?”

“Yes, she is my daughter. What’s the matter? What did she do?”

The stranger assured him, “Nothing. What’s your name?”

The father introduced himself, “I’m Kidane. Did my daughter do something?”

“No,” the stranger replied. “I’m here to ask for your daughter’s hand in marriage.”

Kidane was surprised, “for you?”

“No, no,” the stranger clarified, “I’m old enough to be her father. I’m married with children. I’m asking on behalf of a perfect, hardworking, and financially stable man who lives down the street, not far from here.”

The elderly man seemed to ponder, “Well, what’s his name?”

“I didn’t ask him”

“And what about his family?” Kidane asked next.

The stranger hesitated and answered, “Sorry, I didn’t ask about that either.”

The elderly man’s skepticism grew, “You don’t even know his name or his family? On what basis are you here?”

The stranger quickly responded, “If I didn’t come here quickly, someone else might ask for her hand, and I know the man I told you about, and your daughter, are well-suited for each other.”

Kidane paused for a moment, then suggested, “In that case, let him send his parents, and they can ask me in the proper traditional manner.”

“Good. I’ll ask him to send them over,” said the stranger, heading toward the door.

“Wait a moment, drink something…” Kidane urged.

“No, I’m in a hurry,” the stranger replied. “I need to reconcile two people who were bickering.”

The stranger then hurried off and disappeared down the street, heading to a nearby store. Once there, he approached a man inside and asked, “Did you reconcile with the man you were fighting with last time?”

The man responded, “No. Why do you ask?”

“I’m here to help you make up,” the stranger replied earnestly.

“I’m sure you don’t know me,” the man said skeptically. “Do you know the man I fought with?”

“Sorry, I don’t know either of you,” the stranger replied.

“Well then, go away. Mind your own business,” the man said, dismissing him.

This encounter reveals an important point: Those who wish to reconcile adversaries should, at the very least, know the details of the situation. Similarly, when it comes to matters as serious as asking for someone’s hand in marriage, the individual making such a request should know the people involved and be authorized to speak on their behalf. Without the necessary knowledge or experience, such endeavors are doomed to fail.

Cutting to the Chase

As many of my readers know, I have long advocated for reconciliation, often publicly calling for it. This desire stems not only from my principles but from painful personal experience.

Two weeks ago, Meron Samadar invited me to a Zoom panel discussion hosted by a group affiliated with Berkeley University. I didn’t ask as many questions as I should have, but I couldn’t turn down his invitation. I accepted, thinking the event would be an opportunity to engage with representatives of the Eritrean regime and address the issues I have long advocated for.

The preparation for the event, however, was unnecessarily exhausting. The number of emails, texts, and phone calls became overwhelming. At one point, after a heated exchange, I almost withdrew from the event altogether. I didn’t appreciate some of the insensitive remarks Meron made. However, I managed to calm down and proceed.

The problems only continued when I noticed that Awate and Negarit, two important media outlets, were not included on the event’s promotional poster, even though they should have been. I spent a few minutes making a quick Photoshop fix, but technical issues with the event’s links—especially those for Awate and Negarit—led to dead ends that were not resolved until the event had already begun. Ultimately, I had to delete both links from the event page.

It became clear to me that overcomplicating a simple process only leads to further complications. This is a lesson I have learned over time: sometimes, the simplest solutions are the best solutions.

When the panel discussion finally began, I entered it with a very positive attitude. However, I was immediately confronted with an issue. I was asked to answer the first question in just three minutes! This was impossible, given the complexity and depth of the 15 questions that had been prepared. Each question could have easily filled an entire episode of my Youtube channel Negarit, which is typically around 20 minutes long.

If each of the five panelists and two moderators responded to each question in just 3-4 minutes, each participant would need at least 45 minutes to fully address each question. This would amount to 7 or 8 hours, excluding addressing common technical issues like muted microphones, poor sound quality, and other distractions. The questions, it seemed, as if they could be answered with a simple yes or no.

The second question was similar. By the time it was my turn to speak, over an hour had already passed, and I couldn’t see any meaningful benefit to continuing the discussion. But even more troubling than the lack of progress was my growing frustration, which eventually led to my decision to withdraw.

Why Did I Withdraw?

Withdrawing from a meeting or discussion is a democratic right. Parliaments, organizations, and associations all exercise this right when necessary. If you recall, during the UN discussions on Gaza, many ambassadors walked out in protest. I chose to participate, but later realized it wasn’t the right decision, so I withdrew. It was as simple as that.

However, since many expressed interest in my action and some criticized or cheered my withdrawal, I feel I owe then an explanation of my reasons.

I have strong, deeply-held views about the Eritrean regime, which I have been expressing for decades. These views have not changed one bit, and I will not alter them unless I see concrete, positive changes in the regime’s policies or attitudes. However, I have never shied away from dialogue with fellow Eritreans, regardless of their views, as long as they respect the boundaries of my principles. I will not engage in discussions with those who change their principles like they change their shirts.

Here are the key points that form the foundation of my red lines:

1. I am a free citizen. I join these discussions representing my own views, grounded in the Eritrean struggle for freedom, justice, and the rights of citizens. I stand for all my compatriots who love their people and country, and I defend the ideals of justice and fairness. I will not tolerate any disrespect of our martyrs and veterans.
2. Eritreans are unfortunate to live under an unjust, unfair, and oppressive government. They have been fighting for justice for many years, yet justice continues to elude them.
3. Eritreans demand their violated rights be respected by the autocratic regime that denies them justice and fairness, and that continues to rule through the power of force.
4. The opposition to the regime consists of citizens and groups that demand rights on behalf of the oppressed. This opposition is not equivalent to the government, which refuses to respect the rights of the people. I cannot understand how anyone would equate the two.
5. I support reconciliation. I believe it is vital, but it cannot happen unless the regime and the political representatives of the people are on board. I cannot accept a powerless citizen as a representative of the Isaias regime, and I do not represent opposition groups either.
6. The opposition is not monolithic. It is made up of many fragmented entities. Importantly, I would not even touch some of them with ten layers of gloves. Generalizing is not proper.
7. Eritrean citizens must learn to talk to each other with decency. They should push for the government to call for a reconciliation conference that leads to a national unity congress. Everything that activists and politicians do should work toward this goal. If you think there is something that should be done but hasn’t been done yet, take the initiative. Don’t wait for others to do it while you sit back.

The Issues at Hand

From my years of experience, I’ve learned that the regime is fundamentally allergic to reconciliation. Its supporters accuse the opposition of being full of grudges. Really? It is unwise to belittle the weight of their grievances. Since World War II, Eritrea has not witnessed a more toxic entity than the PFDJ. Just ask what it has done for reconciliation in the 35 years since Independence Day! It is a regime defined by its grudges and unwillingness to reconcile. In fact, the PFDJ is the champion of grudges.

Given these realities, I found the panel discussion turning into a litigation, with some panelists acting as judges, apportioning blame for the failures of Eritrean regime’s governance to the opposition. Worse still, some panelists were apologizing for the government. I was shocked to hear such sleek advocacy on behalf of the regime. I wish they had sided with those calling for justice, rule of law, and reconciliation.

Do opposition groups collect taxes? Are they responsible for ruling Eritrea in such a despicable manner? Do they control the country’s military, security forces, finances, and all the tools of governance, or misgovernance?

I withdrew because I was unwilling to remain in a discussion where I would be described and accused as if I was complicit in the regime’s poor governance. I would rather see discussions focused on issues of justice, prisoners, and the stifling of citizens’ rights.

The idea of equating the oppressed with the oppressors is despicable. If someone doesn’t care about that, they should at least respect others who do. Political positions can change, but principles should not be so easily discarded. I won’t change my principles unless those who have abandoned theirs can prove to the public that their new ones are truly productive and meaningful.

In conclusion, the essence of my message is clear: principles must guide us, especially when engaging in serious discussions about the future of a nation. Reconciliation cannot be achieved without a willingness to confront the truth, to stand firm in our values, and to demand justice for all.