Organizer: the EMDHR
Date and time: 12 November 2005
Venue: Sunnyside, Pretoria
As part of the activities of the civic awareness project[1], the EMDHR conducted a workshop on 12 November 2005 in Pretoria. It is to be recalled that the project involves the development of an educational manual on nonviolent action for protesting human rights abuses. This workshop was undertaken with the objective of discussing among Eritrean youth in Pretoria about one of the proposed topics of the manual known as “Authority and Legitimacy, with a special emphasis to the Eritrean present reality.” This workshop is one among the series of workshops which are planned to be conducted in South Africa. The expense of these series of workshops is funded by the Grassroots International[2].
During the session workshop, a brief report about the past progress of the project was been explained to the participants by the manager of the project Mr.Yoel Alem. The report divulged that so far the project has got 25 team members from all over the world, who are participating in the actual development of the contents of the educational manual and that the number of the team members is not limited but it is increasing from time to time. Moreover, it was explained to the participants that, in the ongoing activities of the project, the discussions and communications among the team members are attempting to analyze the concept and practices of nonviolent action. They are also examining on how this means of action can best be employed by the people for achieving sustainable justice and democracy in Eritrea. The discussions and communications have been undertaking, among others, using the Web and email. They are attempting to develop a common understanding among the participants. In so doing, Mr.Yoel said that…‘we would eventually be a group of activists who would conduct educational campaigns that promote nonviolent action among the Eritrean public’.
Following to the report on the activities of the project, the workshop proceeded to the proposed topic of discussion – “Authority and Legitimacy”. Mr. Samuel Bizen, chairperson of the EMDHR, presented a discussion paper titled ‘Authority and Legitimacy: Present Eritrean reality’, to the participants. In his presentation, Mr. Samuel started by explaining about what political authority and legitimacy are all about. He explained it as:
“Political authority comes from below – from the people. A state is basically created by individuals and for individuals; it existed in order to serve their needs and interests. Government arises out of agreement, or consent, of the people. If a government is based upon a social contract (usually a constitution), entered into between the people and the government, then the government has the authority - the right to rule and demand obedience from the people in accordance with the terms of the contract. In modern democratic societies, national election results legalize the authority of a government to rule. The government may not break the terms of the social contract. If it does so, then it means that the contract between the people and the government has been violated, which is a major factor for the loss of apparent legitimacy of the government to rule. The material breach to the contract by the government is therefore providing the people with the basis for renouncing their obligations to obey, support, and cooperate with the government.”
In addition, he also related the above concept with the present Eritrean reality. He did so as follows:
“…The present leadership in Eritrea, led by President Issayas, assumed power directly after the EPLF liberated the country by defeating the Dergue army in 1991. Power was assumed as an inevitable historical development and as of necessity to run the newly liberated country with the public trust laid on the EPLF… Eritrean people waged war for decades in order to ensure the independence of the nation as well as the freedom of everyone for life, liberty, property and self-determination. The present leadership was established in order to protect the basic rights of everyone by preserving public order and providing defense from external attacks. Other issues and responsibilities are supposed to be the concern of the private individual… According to the trust the people laid on the leadership, the leadership was expected to work towards establishing a sovereign government as a nation by promoting peace and reconciliation among the different political and social groups, mostly between the EPLF and ELF rivalry; drafting the Constitution of the nation and conducting national election, thereby ensuring the transformation of power to the sole owners, the people, as what the 1987 EPLF Congress agreed upon, without which it is understood that orderly and stable life could not be possible. By forming a provisional government of Eritrea, the leadership also tacitly agreed on these functions. Under such assumption, the leadership was expected to conduct its function in accordance with the trust of the people and the people should reciprocally then respect and obey the laws promulgated by the provisional government… There has never been any kind of social contract entered between the government and the people. It was only a public trust which might be tantamount to tacit social contract.”
Mr. Samuel then noted that, fifteen years after independence, contrary to people’s assumptions and expectations, Eritreans are still living under extreme oppression where their economic, civic and political rights are continually being suppressed; that there have never been any initiatives of conducting national peace and reconciliation; that there is no implemented constitution that otherwise would have protected the rights of citizens. After illustrating the socio-economic and political crisis that Eritrea is enduring as a result of the lack of a system of constitutionalism and rule of law, Mr. Samuel concluded his presentation by posing the following two questions to be discussed among the participants:
- Based from the above reality, would it be possible to say that the government in Eritrea is a legitimate one?
- It looks also important to see the issue of legitimacy from the point of view of the government. The government says that it is unrealistic to implement the constitution while the border conflict with Ethiopia is yet unresolved. Does the border issue have anything to do with the implementation of a system of constitutionalism and rule of law in Eritrea?
Following, the participants extensively discussed on the points stated above. A summarized version of the issues raised and the opinions of the participants are outlined on the following bullet points.
- The aspiration of Eritrean people was a sovereign Eritrea founded on the bases of constitutionalism and rule of law in which the rights of everyone shall be protected. The fact that a government is the servant of the people, the government of Eritrea, in order to retain its legitimacy that was awarded to it in a form of trust from the public, should have strived towards realizing the above aspirations of the people. It, however, appears that the government denied itself of its legitimacy to rule and to claim obedience from the people merely due to the fact that it failed to provide a platform for the conduct of national peace and reconciliation among the various political and social groups as well as it refused to allow the implementation of the constitution that was ratified in 1997.
- In present Eritrea, where abuses of human rights are widespread, it is logical that we witness people fleeing the country to Sudan, Ethiopia and other countries. Particularly the national feeling of the youth has seriously been destroyed. Unity and solidarity among the different political and social groups is limited. Had the constitution been implemented, the rights of citizens would have been protected and it should have been serving as a common legal and moral ground for uniting the people. One of the participants explained it as… ‘a nation without a constitution is similar to unvaccinated child who will in due course develop serious health problems.’
- With regard to war with Ethiopia, border conflict is not an exception to Eritrea and Ethiopia. A number of nations have conflicts over their boundaries. Avoiding war is somehow dependent on the willingness of the two leaders and it is for the best interest of the two neighborly people. It seems that the two leaders are using the border conflict for their own political maneuvering, notwithstanding the suffering of the people. If this is the case then, the government of Eritrea is not acting in the best interest of the people of Eritrea which is tantamount to the loss of its legitimacy to govern.
- If we think that war would be inevitable with Ethiopia, then it is the people who should decide about it first. Had the constitution been implemented, a state of emergency would have been declared with the consent of the general public and in accordance with the constitution. The provisions under the state of emergency are essential for ways of addressing war or any other national disaster without derogating the rights of citizens. In this way, violations of the rights of citizens should have been limited. Thus, the border war cannot be a justification for the government of Eritrea to forbid the implementation of the constitution.
- The phrase ‘Eritrea first and human rights issues second’ was also noted. This phrase is always used in defense of the current crisis in Eritrea. It is very important that we examine what this phrase would mean. Naturally, people start to live together, develop a sense of togetherness and cooperation. This is being the essence of the nation; it is the people that bring the identity into being. It means that the substance of Eritreanism lies in the people before the land and geographical territory. The people of same background, way of life, identity, and culture own a geographical territory and they name it, build it and protect it. Therefore, whatever and wherever the geographical location it might be, the land Eritreans own would be called Eritrea. It is not the physical land, rivers, and mountains that make the people of Eritrea ‘Eritreans.’ Whatever land, river, and mountain which Eritreans own is called Eritrea. Following from this argument, when we exclaim ‘Eritrea First’, it should be clear that we are talking about the people who would take care of their belongings inherited from fathers and forefathers, which include land, culture, way of life and identity. Therefore, without Eritreans, Eritrea would be renamed to some other name. If we are degrading the national feeling of Eritreans by violating their rights, and if we are compelling Eritreans to flee the country, then it means that we are destroying the very people who are supposed to claim their ownership of the land called Eritrea. Had the constitution been implemented, the rights of every Eritrean would have been protected and there would not be any uncertainty whether the land of Eritrea would be persevered forever or not. Thus, the refusal of the government of Eritrea to implement the constitution is no more justified, as this is causing to the extinction of the nation.
The participants of the workshop concluded their session by posing the following question to be discussed among the Eritrean public.
What makes the government of Eritrea legitimate so that the people would not be forced to renounce their obligations to obey, submit and cooperate with the government?
END OF REPORT
Haileab Kidane
EMDHR: Director of Public Relations
[1] For detailed explanation of the civic awareness project, refer to the following two web links; EMDHR, Press Release (officially launched a civic awareness project) available at < http://emdhr.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2005/8/16/1141482.html > (accessed on 16 August 2005); EMDHR: Civic Awareness Project, available at < http://emdhr.civiblog.org/blog/_trackback/1407592 > (accessed on November 16, 2005).
[2] Grassroots International Backs Human Rights for Eritrea, available at < http://emdhr.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2005/11/4/1341791.html > (accessed on 4 November 2005).
