Civilization is not about pouring more concrete and more steel. Rather, civilization is about learning from past mistakes and failures, and then to incorporate the new lessons into our future actions. If we keep repeating the same mistakes then we impede the ongoing process of civilization , and thus ensuring our failures in the future.
Learning organizations are the foundations of healthy societies. Organizations, and by extension nations, that fail to learn from past experience means that old ways of addressing our challenges only yield old results – failure.
It is high time we challenge ourselves, to examine and re-examine our challenges, until we are able to bring to bear new solutions to old problems. We can’t allow ourselves to sink deeper into perpetual infighting and eventually into oblivion just for the sake of NOT rocking the boat. We should leave no stone unturned in our quest to find new solutions to old problems.
The rule-of-law can only thrive in an open and transparent environment. It is foolhardy to think that one can play hush politics and yet to expect the rule-of-law to prevail.
Solutions can only be found if we are willing to engage in open debate over issues and challenges. None of us should feel ashamed over our mistakes and failures – as long as we learn from them. After incorporating the new lessons, we will proceed to make new and different mistakes – and we will learn from those mistakes too. Life is all about dynamic learning! Burying your head can never help one to learn. Leadership, grassroots, and generally learning organizations must address challenges head-on in pro-active manner. Overlooking even minor infractions of organization’s laws only creates dangerous precedence. If the rule-of-law is to operate effectively and fairly, learning organizations must practice ‘nip it in the bud’ policy even at the slightest signs of infractions.
It is normally impolite to discuss the turmoil and challenges faced by organizations one doesn’t belong to. But if we don’t discuss and learn from our own and others’ mistakes, then we are condemned to repeat the same mistakes.
We should appreciate EPM grassroots’ efforts to publicize their internal turmoil and challenges. We have vested interest in most of our fellow EDA members’ success because,
- If EPM is able to resolve its internal challenges in prudent manner, it will then become a valuable lesson for all other members within the opposition camp, which themselves are not totally immune from the same challenges facing EPM. We need positive precedence.
- Nothing breeds success like success. That is why we can only wish EPM to succeed. In contrast, organizations with sudden challenges weaken other members of the opposition camp because it creates temporary distraction within the opposition camp resulting in precious time lost, invigorating our antagonists and creating temporary confusion within the general public.
- EPM’s turmoil might be viewed as the opposition camp’s turmoil as far as the general public is concerned, which may have hard time differentiating among the zillion opposition groups. The general public will only say, ‘there they go again!’.
- As Mr. Antonio Tesfai’s astute observation states, EPM’s turmoil should concern EDA because it raises legal questions.
The purpose of this article is not to support one group within EPM against the other. We don’t have enough information to reach a conclusion. I will draw just as much from previous experiences of various other Eritrean organizations, such as PFDJ, opposition political organizations, and local community organization in various cities in Diaspora. One can probably write volumes on this topic, and should be addressed by those who are more qualified – those with legal and organizational experience - to address this issue. I can only highlight this issue more as a layman who is interested to learn from our past mistakes.
Based on our quick observations, the current disagreement within EPM appears to be horizontal, i.e. leaders/CC versus grassroots. Normally, a breakup is vertical with an organization breaking up vertically roughly into two or more equally sized organizations. Vertical split is probably more characteristics of irreconcilable differences among members over policies and strategy issues, whereas horizontal split may indicate serious violations of the rule-of-law. None of the splits might be purely of either horizontal or vertical, but based on certain ratios and criteria, we may be to characterize a split more as horizontal or vertical. Another example of horizontal split might be PFDJ as witnessed during the August/September 2000 Central Committee and National Committee decisions alienating the Executive Committee resulting in total breakdown of these bodies. The fact that the members of these bodies eventually succumbed to coercion doesn’t take away from the observation that it was a horizontal split – or serious violation of the rule-of-law of each body.
Organizations’ Rule-of-Law
Just as a nation must abide by rule-of-law, organizations have their own rule-of-law by which they must abide. Executive Committee, Central Committee, and Members have each their own specific rights and duties, which are outlined in the organizations’ Constitution and By-laws.
When there is a turmoil within an organization, the questions that must automatically be addressed are,
- What exactly is the nature of the dispute?
In EPM’s case, one may say that the General Members [as represented by their Congress] of EPM, who are vested to make major decisions, passed resolutions approving the merger of the five organizations. The question is, did EPM’s leadership violate EPM’s Constitution and By-laws when it allegedly unilaterally changed the General Members’ Resolution to form merger with other four organizations and instead merged with two others only – in violation of a Right vested on General Members only? To make our decision, we must read the exact wordings of the resolution(s) and the vested Rights and authority of each body within EPM.
- Which section of the organizations’ Constitution or By-Laws have been violated? We must be specific in divulging the disputed action and the related section of the organization’s laws that have been violated.
General members of EPM must quote specific sections of their Constitution or By-Laws, or even universally accepted rules and laws governing organizations, that proves their claim that,
- Resolutions (or Motions) may only be owned by the General Assembly [Congress],
- Resolutions (or Motions) may not be arbitrarily modified, changed, or rescinded without the General Assembly’s prior consent and approval,
- Resolutions pertaining to changes to the organization’s Constitution may require two-third of the General Assembly’s approval,
- The powers of the Central Committee and Executive may be limited to the execution of the ‘Will’ of the General Assembly. The fact that 27 of the 33 CC members were present may not give CC the right to usurp general member rights or will.
- Did the general Members’ ask for Special Meeting based on the organization’s rule for calling Special Meetings and leadership refused to abide by such law? Etc…
The latest example is certain dissenting members of Tewhado Church who presented a solid case of the violation of rule-of-law by quoting specific sections of the church law in appointing Mr. Yoftahe Dimitrios. Unless the other side is able to refute this dissention without delay, we have to accept the dissenters protest because they backed up their protest with specific sections of the church laws and traditions.
In our attempt to resolve [esp. organizational] disputes, we must refrain from political bias, and must attempt to resolve issues based on strictly legal and technical perspective. 90% of the time, we can resolve these issues without much difficulty [or politics] if we adhere to rule-of-law. The 10% of the time we are unable to resolve disputes due to ambiguous wordings in Constitutions and By-Laws, we should strive to clarify those issues, agree on course of action, and then incorporate these lessons from our own experience into our modified Constitutions and By-Laws. If we continue to modify our internal laws based on our own experiences, we would be able resolve disputes in purely technical manner 92% of the time the next time round, 95% after the following round, then 97% after that... Gosh, after all we live in the 21st Century, and yet with all our education and exposures we can’t even do what Westerners have been doing for thousands of years? That is pity – no, rather it is a shame! Corrections, we haven’t even lived up to the standards, codes of conducts and ethics our forefathers lived by.
Ultimately, the onus is on the General Members to quickly discern the issues in dispute and to enforce the organization’s laws. We have to remain vigilant to the fact that some leaders and members who may have violated the organization’s laws may resort to engaging in destructive diversionary tactics in the form of personalizing issues aimed at dividing the General Assembly. That is why the General Assembly should never succumb to poisonous propaganda that only consumes and then weakens organizations and its members.
If we are going to build effective organizations … and by extension a nation, the grassroots and General Assemblies should refuse to be played out as pawns. Each member, and collectively as General Assembly,must be enforcers of their organizations’ rules first and then political advocates second. The other way round, i.e. if we are political advocates first, and law enforcers second – we will ruin every organization and, by extension, our country – guaranteed.
Supreme Power of Executive Committee?
The most corrupted, twisted and unsupported argument is that the Executive Committee has the ultimate power between regular sessions of the Central Committee and the General Assembly. With this illegal act of usurping power between sessions, the Executive Committee usurps the rights and authority of the Central Committee, and the Central Committee usurps the authority and rights of the General Assembly. Only banana organizations enact Constitutions and By-laws that give blank check to Executive Committee. In most cases however, Executive Committee is only mandated with the authority to execute General Members’ ‘Will’ or resolutions. Under emergency situations, Executive body may undertake actions on behalf of the General Assembly but only until the next General Assembly Meeting or until Special Meeting is called – based whatever the organizations Constitution or By-law states pertaining emergency situations.
Executive Committee and Central Committee don’t have the authority to govern as they see things fit. That is dictatorship! All of the Executive Committee’s actions must be consistent with and abide by the Constitution and By-Laws of the organization.
PFDJ is a classic example of power usurpation. PFDJ has used this lame justification so persistently to usurp power that we have come to accept its illegal act of usurping the rights of its Central Committee and its Congress. We don’t even begin to mention PFDJ’s usurpation of people’s naturally vested rights and powers - unlike organizations’ laws which are the specifically agreed ‘Will’ of its members.
Goodwill
Although the vast majority of organizational issues can be addressed through technical approach, there is no substitute for rapport or ‘goodwill’. ‘Goodwill’ is about political maturity, confident leadership, and prudence beyond abiding strictly by organizational laws. This means, for example, even if concerned members may not have signed up enough members to call a special meeting, the leaders of the organization must consider the seriousness of the matter as a sign of their concern and goodwill even towards the minority members of its organization. Probably 80% of the disputes can be resolved through open and honest communication. Even if two sides are unable to resolve their differences, they can proceed in their separate ways still with full respect for each other.
Addressing members’ concern in timely manner is another sign of ‘Goodwill’. Leadership should always engage in proactive manner – anticipating potential internal contentious issues and to resolve them before they arise, rather than attempting to put out brushfires everywhere after the fact, or even worse adding fuel to brushfires. If there is one most important function of a leader – it is to communicate with its members and address issues on timely manner. Lack of communication creates ill-will and mistrust that diverts the organizations’ resources away from its objectives.
EDA’s Dilemma
Mr. Antonio Tesfai insightfully stated in his article dated August 15, 2005 that EDA must examine its legal position and handling as it relates to the current turmoil and its possible impact on its membership within EDA.
Let’s suppose, EPM’s General Assembly [or rather Congress], assuming the majority are against Mr. Abdella Adem’s group, expels the latter group and forms new leadership – and both groups claim ownership of EPM. Which group has the legal claim to the organization?
The answer should be obvious! But would EDA’s leadership succumb to political games first, and abide by the rule-of-law second? Allow me to speculate but most of us have uncomfortably noticed the underlying political tangle of web that ties some of the more prominent members of EDA and the outside participants of the 2nd Meeting of EPM’s Central Committee. I will discuss more in depth in my article on EDA soon pertaining to EDA’s failure to address some core issues, and its inability to-date to formulate a coherent strategy to remove the PFDJ regime.
If the dissenting EPM group submits request to suspend and presents documentary evidence that Mr. Abdella’s group has usurped power not vested on EPM’s Central Committee or Executive Committee, EDA should give Mr. Abdella’s group, say, fifteen days to reply. If solid legal defense is not offered, EDA must suspend EPM’s membership until such time EDA makes its own examination – without undue delay. Whatever EDA’s legal decision is, EDA must publicize full evidence and its reasoning in reaching its conclusion. EDA must give a timeline when to expect its decision if and when the dissenting EPM group submit their protest. EDA’s process of decision-making should be transparent. Failing to justify its decision, EDA will ensure yet another crisis – and possibly fatal - within its alliance.
The reviewing EDA committee should be composed of qualified legal experts from different backgrounds. A committee composed of individuals with political agenda and no concept of legal nor organizational workings will ensure failure. All dissenting committee members should be allowed to express their dissenting opinion in the report.
Naturally, until such time the dissenting group has not presented documentary evidence, EDA must continue to work with the current EPM leaders.
EPM Grassroots’ Responsibilities
We have read EPM grassroots’ open protest. The campaign to make the current and future Eritrean government accountable begins by making our own organizations accountable. If we can’t challenge our own organizational leaders by presenting solid legal case against those who violate our organizations’ Constitutions and By-laws, how do we expect to make the current or future leaders of our nation accountable? Isn’t it either ignorance, negligence, or lack of vigor in upholding the rule-of-law in Eritrea that has gotten us into the mess our country is swimming in? We have to change that!
If the dissenting members of EPM have solid case, these members have at least a moral obligation to pursue this matter to ensure the rule-of-law prevails. Politics is only second to enforcing rule-of-law. The rest of us have the responsibility to support their case if the dissenting group presents a documentary evidence, and Mr. Abdella’s group are unable or unwilling to refute it. Once we are able to make our leaders accountable, only then can we proceed to healthy relationship among organizations, and then to a nation. Healthy organizations are the solid stepping stones for healthy institutions in a country.
However, if the dissenting members don’t have solid legal case, despite our sympathy for the dissenting group’s plight, the rest of us must first and above-all honor the rule-of-law and allow Mr. Abdella to continue to represent EPM without any suspicion. In fact, the dissenting group may unfortunately be viewed engaging in incorrect public campaign against Mr. Abdella’s group by giving the impression that Mr. Abdella’s group is violating laws, when in reality Mr. Abdella’s group didn’t contravene EPM’s laws. Whether Mr. Abdella should have shown political savvy is only secondary issue. Poor public relations doesn’t constitute breach of rule-of-law.
On GIC
GIC is one organization that is waging a constant low-level campaign against EDP and other political organizations that fall outside its perceived sphere of influence. In fact, for new observant of GIC’s politics, one would believe GIC’s constant theme is anti-EDP, constant efforts at placing Ethiopia and Sudan at the center of Eritrean opposition politics, and its near absence in campaigning against the PFDJ regime or in mobilizing the general Eritrean public.
Even if we examine its name, we will find much inconsistencies and even misnomer,
‘G’ stands for Gulf. None of us are aware of any ‘Gulf’ in Eritrea. Probably we might know such places as ‘Bay’ of Zula, etc… but not a ‘Gulf’. But ‘Gulf’ is probably the most common name in Gulf States of Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, and Qatar. Why not use Eritrean names such as Ghinbot, Badmena, Kebire as every Eritrean media has done, or follow the popular songs of ‘Wedebat Adei’, Keren, Massawa, Aba Shaul, etc…? Shouldn’t especially a news agency have a common Eritrean name … reflecting the people/audience we presume GIC is trying to serve?
‘I’ stands for Information. Information is neutral. Providing information suggests that one is giving the basic facts without adding personal comments and views. When one adds comments to information – and especially when one is preparing one’s own reports, one is engaging in propaganda. GIC’s reports contain persistent campaign of propaganda for the benefit of its benefactors against EDP in the hope of intimidating EDP into surrender and delivering this organization to its benefactors on silver platter. In the topsy-turvy world of GIC, organizations that stand on their own and widely shared principles are the threats to the opposition movement, but in the end, GIC only manages to expose its own anti-democratic behaviors.
‘C’ stands for Center. In general, ‘Center’ is used by an organization composed of highly academic individuals for the purpose of formulating and advocating of certain policies. Does GIC have such caliber?
The most appropriate name for such ‘organization’ is Gulf Propaganda Against EDP & Serving Others Pretending to be News Service – known by its acronym ( GPAESOPNS) [don’t read too much into the acronym – it is meaningless like …].
As for me if I had a media venture, I would proudly call it Hamelmalo News Service.
Berhan Hagos
August 23, 2005
