The VoEP controversy over the past few days has left sour taste in everybody’s mouth. If anyone is gloating over this unfortunate experience then they either don’t belong in the opposition camp or have little understanding of the overall challenge that we, Eritreans, face.

Regarding this unfortunate experience, the temptation is to simply sweep it under the rug and proceed to the important task of building coalition and removing the regime. But the experience of the last few days has a price tag – it has created ill-will among one group and individuals against another. The cumulative effect of such experiences – from the time of our armed struggle, to ENA, to EPM, to ECP and many other experiences in-between – is to further create entrenched ill-will. In reality, nothing is ever swept under the rug, it only manifests itself in something else. For instance, in the latest incident, NSF may claim that it will overlook this sad chapter for the sake of the more important task of removing the regime. But it is still very difficult for NSF leadership and members, as would be for all us, to erase this from their memory. As anyone of us would do, for example at the next EDA meetings, they may not participate with the same enthusiasm as they would if this latest incident hadn’t happened.

In one form or another, the latest fiasco over the NSF/VoEP has happened to every political organization in the past and will continue to happen in the future. NSF and VoEP have been gracious in replying to criticism. We have much to learn from them. In fact, in my view, Adal61.com is the most tolerant of criticisms against its organization of all the other political organizations’ medias. Still, if we don’t learn from this latest unfortunate experience, we will continue to make the same mistakes, not learning but only accumulating more ill-will until it implodes. On the other hand, if we end up learning from this experience, we will all be stronger and richer in experience by avoiding similar mistakes again.

The latest controversy gives us yet another excellent opportunity to learn about ourselves. The controversial issue raised by VoEP is really hypothetical, and nothing really happened. We all reacted to something that may or may not happen in the future. If we react to hypothetical situation like this today, imagine how we would all react to debates over much more complicated issues in post-PFDJ Eritrea. Unlike today where we are just discussing, debating, and even quarreling over issues that haven’t been or can’t be acted upon, in PFDJ’s Eritrea we will be at each other’s throats over burning issues that need to be acted upon immediately.

Some will say that in post-PFDJ Eritrea we wouldn’t be in highly charged emotion as we are today due to PFDJ’s oppressive and ruthless acts. I totally disagree! Ill-will can easily be created under any condition – whether under dictatorship or democracy. It is more of a personal nature, and this is even more pronounced in our culture which perceives criticism as an upfront and loss-of-face. Moreover, immediate post-PFDJ will be a very complicated period, which will create highly charged emotions.

In writing my last two articles, “Deciphering Opposition Message” and “Reckless” the intention wasn’t to promote any one political organization nor to aimlessly offend those I criticized. As some correctly pointed out, none of us should criticize others as we wouldn’t want other to criticize us either. But those who choose to air/announce their messages to the public must accept criticism and have duties to defend their messages. This is called occupational hazard. As long as the criticism is directed at the message only, no matter how dramatic or propagandistic [‘meragodi’] the criticism may sound, we should learn to accept these criticisms. The only criticisms that should be condemned are those that don’t address the message itself but divert to attacking racial, ethnic, religious, or individual or group traits.

I criticized VoEP with the same intention as I do with EDA and any other organization or individuals. To reiterate, those who express their views in public, or make their organizational charter available to the public must be made to explain them. Some of the criticisms are worded in inflammatory [‘meragodi’] manner within the context of the message itself in order to ensure that reactions are solicited. I strongly believe that the whole essence of democracy is debating different views. Democracy isn’t about a ‘neat’ Charter on paper nor everyone aimlessly pledging for free speech and debate and where everybody is reading from the same page, rather it is about practicing our everyday debates among wide-ranging views and beliefs. As long as we maintain our civil behavior in our debates, when necessary through exaggerations and spicing up, we must rationalize that this is within the freedom of speech that we all espouse. Similarly EDA should be pressurized to practice the important task of public relations. It should be criticized to a point where it has no choice but to defend it. In doing so, we are helping EDA and the cause for transparency and accountability.

In all of my past articles, I have emphasized on freedom of speech and specifically on importance of private media for the same reason. Lively but civil debates can only be healthy – and possibly the most critical component of democracy. It is not unlike Italians and Greeks who debate each other with their noses almost touching and with loud voice that you think that they are to cut each other down, then they sit down and drink coffee together as if nothing happened. In some parliaments, member of parliaments actually beat each other up. Probably the Japanese have more polite but highly respectful culture. We have our own unique culture. We have to understand what our limitations are, and then agree on carefully documented code of conduct that we must adhere to, that allows to debate to a point where no stones are unturned.

Let us not jump to the issue of land, zonal administration, and other tough issues without addressing some of the even more fundamental issues we should address. Systematic and learning organization simply means that these organizations learn from the mistakes they make, and then make recommendations on how to handle the same issues and incidents to avoid from making the same or similar mistakes in the future. The issues I have raised above are deceptively trivial issues, yet these are achievable goals that will define us and give us confidence in what we must do to address the bigger issues tomorrow.

EDA’s Role

The NSF/VoEP controversy weakens the opposition camp in general, and as such EDA can’t be uninterested party. EDA should set-up an ad-hoc committee to study and propose new standards on specific issues.

Issues for Ad-hoc Committee:

Should there be broadcast message [language] standards for member organizations? 
If yes, what should be those standards be? 
What type of [inter-member] criticisms and tone of criticisms should be allowed?
Should member organizations be held accountable for any media they are associated with?
Errors or misunderstanding are facts of life. what should be the standards for redressing or correcting errors. [For example in the recommendation, upon discovery of error in editorials or program, member organization shall rectify error within 24 hours in their websites and in the immediately following radio broadcast]
What are the roles of independent opposition private internet/radio media? Do their roles include criticizing the opposition parties or should they be a propaganda arm of the opposition camp? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both roles? [Once the merits of all the arguments are weighed, the ad-committee would make its recommendation to be approved by the Executive Committee and/or member organizations. After the approval, member organizations must follow the standard in their dealings with private internet/radio media]
[These standards won’t be unlike the posting standards set by most websites. But these standards would refined for an alliance and suitable for public relations and standards for propaganda messages. There would be mechanisms for refining the standards based on experience, how to redress for breach etc… The ultimate objective of such standard is to ensure that missteps don’t weaken the entire opposition camp. For example, Voice of Liberty had its misstep few weeks ago, but EDP addressed it immediately. But EDP, as a member of EDA and opposition camp in general, will be tarnished or sideswiped more by the missteps of the past few days than by its own quick response. That is why there should be standards at EDA level for the sake of everybody within the opposition camp]

Some will say that this is bureaucracy. But that is what developed civil service, organized and developed organization/government is all about. Moreover, no small issue should be overlooked and swept under the rug. EDA should use this opportunity to build a systematic organization by practicing on to formulate standards based on experiences that we just encountered over the past few days.

Post-PFDJ issues will be significantly more challenging. The people of Eritrea have been physically and mentally tortured. The economy is ruins. There are literally thousands of issues. If EDA is to have any contribution towards building a viable and stable democratic Eritrea, it must begin to conduct its affairs in manner that will instill confidence in all of us. It must start today with much smaller issues.

Response to Criticisms

EDA and political organizations tell us that they accept constructive criticisms. How each political organization respond to their internal criticisms isn’t as critical. What is critical is how these organization, including EDA, react to external criticisms.

Telling critics who are outsiders [i.e. versus internal criticism] that they are welcome to criticize but then not responding to those external criticisms may be regarded as insincerity. Critics don’t write criticisms because they have some extra time on the weekend to waste, nor necessarily out of ill-will, nor is it just to blow off some steam. Criticism is normally designed to solicit a reply. For the individual or political organization being criticized, the temptation is to ignore that criticism, esp. if that criticism is very polite.  Politicians, esp., would rather let criticisms blow over than respond to them. The critic can’t force politicians or organizations to respond to specific criticisms. The only tool available to the critic is to present his/her criticism in such away that the general public reacts to it. This in turn will force those politicians or organizations to respond.

How to respond to criticisms? The best saying is, ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.’ The best way to handle external criticism is to respond to it quickly before it escalates. When politicians and organizations are unresponsive, the critic changes tone and turns his/her criticism to reach out to the general public. Such ignoring criticism on hand and insistence for reply on the hand can only lead to ill-will. It is better to quickly gauge the type and direction of the criticism and respond to it quickly. In fact, for well developed organizations, they should be able to anticipate criticisms and have ready replies for such anticipated criticisms. Imagine if one receives criticism, then respond to it within hours by having anticipated such criticisms, the public will appreciate the promptness of the organization, and may even divert public attention from the content of the criticism itself to the quickness of the response. Other criticisms are deceptively designed to weaken an individual or organization. First, this is a fact of life. Second, there are means of dealing with these situations. Organizations can’t convince everyone through effective public relations. Rather it is a tedious and meticulous effort of winning a simple majority, or two-third for organizations, or just to win over new members – one at a time.

For example, there are many criticisms against EDA at individual and organizational levels. EDA tells us that they welcome criticisms, but as long as they don’t address them, it is tantamount to ignoring the critics – and that is political insincerity. Instead, for example, EDA may have regular communiqués, say every month, stating or restating the various criticisms [and suggestions] brought to it and then address them as follows,

Certain criticisms [list them in specific terms] can’t be addressed at this time due to our organizational challenges {and explain the challenges, expertise, time, financial, etc…},
Other criticisms [list them in specific terms] shall be addressed through ad-hoc committees. We expect recommendations in few weeks.
Still other criticisms [list them in specific terms] may be addressed not by the organization itself, but a question to be answered by the general public itself.
Etc…
The path towards democracy won’t be measured by what our [or EDA or any other] position is on land, federalism, Sharia, etc… Instead we should focus on the enabling factors that ensure we have the necessary mechanisms that will allow us to make those critical decisions on those issues. Our views towards the issue of land, for instance, may change due to various factors. If we have learned to refine the mechanisms and rules-of-the-game, then we don’t get paralyzed over changing reality or attitude over land. Issues are never static!

For democracy to blossom, the most critical component is public relations, which indirectly ties to transparency and accountability. If there is one issue that all aspiring democratic governments must understand and master is how to deal with criticisms and the public in general. Noam Chomsky has written some excellent books, including “Manufacturing Consent” and “Necessary Illusions”. Even dictatorial regimes must practice illusionary public relations. For instance, PFDJ has its satellite television for those in Diaspora, and many of our fellow countrymen fall for it. For dictatorial regimes, if their public relations fails they always can resort to their sticks. For democratic governments, they must have thorough understanding of public relations and be able to use it to advance the cause of democracy. Public relation is antithesis of absent leadership. In the West, there are daily and weekly briefings, regular public addresses designed to ensure that public knows the government’s side of the story. Do we know EDA’s side of the story, other than to be told that PFDJ is bad and that they had another successful meeting but never told the specifics?

For our aspiring politicians, instead of debating on complicated issues that they have little control over, it would be more productive, if they already don’t, to spend more time discussing and debating at a philosophical level than regurgitating rumors. At the end of their meetings, their recommendations should reflect a blend of philosophy [which can beget shared principles]with political realities.

To me, the biggest failure of EDA is its inability to defend its Charter in manner that conveys leadership and conviction. The Charter has its flaws but that is not the critical problem. Members of EDA used certain rationale to arrive at the Charter. All EDA needs to do is to share the rationale with the rest of the public. Some of the rationale might be of confidential manner, then create some spin to it as long the spin is believable and coherent. If EDA engages in positive public relations, it will be judged as much by its style as by its content. For now, EDA has no style [i.e. active leadership and transparency], and thus it is solely judged by its Charter [content], which EDA is perceived to have problem defending. To divert some attention from content, better to develop strong style that will dilute the shortcomings of content. Style is always easier to achieve than content!

For greater emphasis let me summarize. If we fail to understand, at a philosophical level, the challenges, roles and purposes of criticisms [no matter how inflammatory but within the issue itself and not based on racist-type of remarks] then we will all eventually sink into advocating for banning of free speech and private media. The purpose of criticism may be to solicit clarification, to win over supporters, or any other legitimate reasons. As for destructive criticisms designed to slander others based on other factors than the issue at hand, the public is mature enough to ignore it. In democratic Eritrea, these type of pseudo-critics would have been sued for slander and defamation [and we must have understanding of these terms within legal definitions – not give them our own individual definitions].

Berhan Hagos

April 16, 2006