Dear Readers,

Here is an Interview by Mr. Abdurahman Sayeed a young pioneer Eritrean Federalist. Given the Importance of the Issue addressed in terms of Mr. Sayeeds vision for alternative Governance in Eritrea, self determination, Ethio-Eritrean relationships and regional peace. We At Dekebat- eritra would like to thank www.gabeel.com and Mr.Abdurahman who allowed us to make it available to our readers in English. We also hope to find its translation to our readers in Tigrina.

Dekebat Team

An interview with the official spokesperson of the EFDM, Mr. Abdurrahman Sayed Interviewed by Gabeel.com October 8th, 2004
As reported by Gabeel.com recently, the spokesperson for the Eritrean Federal Democratic Movement, Mr. Abdurrahman Sayed, in his pursuit for mastering his most favorite subject, federalism, enrolled in a summer program for federal enthusiasts in one of the most distinguished universities in one of the world's oldest and most successful federal democracies, Switzerland. There he reportedly studied, analyzed and exhaustively reflected on the federal experience of the world with experts in the field to gain additional insight into the federal theory in an effort to gain the necessary historical prospective that may enhance the proposal of the Eritrean Federal Democratic Movement. Mr. Sayed was clearly aware of the opportunity available to him and has evidently used it effectively to promote federalism in Eritrea. During his off time from classes and seminars, the Spokesperson, reached out to federal and non-federal official communities and distinguished scholars and academicians from around the world to build bridges between his active and well admired Eritrean Federal Democratic Movement (EFDM), and the community of current and potential federal friends around the world. He also actively explored the opportunity of reaching out to the local Eritrean communities where he reportedly acquainted himself with the supportive and gracious residents of Switzerland to inform and be informed about the merits of democracy and federalism for our young Eritrean nation and exchange views about the current political situation there. The activities and exposure of the EFDM Spokesperson during his recent visit to Switzerland, clearly stands out as a symbol of dedication and devotion for the case of peace, justice and federalism. We at Gabeel.com therefore, insisted on conducting a special interview with Mr. Sayed to further extract valuable information for the benefit of all. As usual, he welcomed our intrusion with enthusiasm and eagerness to tell his short story as follows:

1. Gabeel: Mr. Abdurrahman Sayed, We heard of your recent summer educational endeavor in the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, can you please inform the public about that trip?

Sayed: I enrolled in a summer educational program offered by the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, to study the elements of good governance for multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-social, and multi-religious human societies. It was divided into three subject areas that each addressed a particular issue of governance. For example, the first week mainly addressed the major challenges for federalism and federations, the importance of federalism in constructing dynamic democratic societies as well as the pre-requisites necessary to make federalism compatible with specific countries in addition to some theoretical concepts. The second week was about Nation-State, Federalism and European Integration, which addressed issues of institutional designs and constitutional processes in building federations. We also looked at the European Union institutions that are emerging as a con/federal polity.

2. Gabeel: Sorry to interrupt, but what do you mean by con/federal?

Sayed: Con/Federal is an informal and unofficial classification of what the European Union is increasingly becoming. That is to mean that the structures of the European Union are increasingly combining characteristics of confederacy and federation. The EU is confederacy because it is a union between sovereign states. However, its structures and the powers bestowed to the EU Commission and to the European Court of Justice and other Institutions have characteristics of a Federation as some of their jurisdictions supercede the national ones of the sovereign members.

As a side issue, I think it will be useful for gabeel.com to include a glossary of useful terms for the benefit of the reader.

3. Gabeel: We too think that would be a good idea to do…back to our original question. What was the third week about?

Sayed: The third week was more of a practical nature. After spending the first two weeks on theoretical analysis of different concepts of federalism and political philosophies, we were given the chance to work on a live case scenario of a country that has gone through changes including ethnic conflicts. We were divided into small groups and asked to work on drafting a constitution for the state in question; my group mainly looked into drafting a federal constitution for a heterogeneous state, other groups looked into other options, including decentralized unitary state, confederation etc. Each group was then asked to make a presentation to an audience that reflected the composition of the state in question, which included 16 ethnic groups scattered in the north of the country, one majority ethnic group, another ethnic group with its own territory and links to its kin across the border etc. Each group had to act as International Consultants and convince the subjects of the country in question of their constitutional arguments.

4. Gabeel: Could you tell us something about the Institute for Federalism, where you attended this summer educational event?

Sayed: The Institute for Federalism (IFF) is part of the University of Fribourg's Faculty of Law. The IFF includes a very important centre known as The Centre for International Research and Consultancy, which provides expertise and consultancy on constitutional law and other matters of federalism, decentralization, democracy and good governance. The Centre is also directly responsible for organizing and facilitating the Summer University Program. The Institute for Federalism has a staff of highly visible intellectuals, professors, researchers and constitutional lawyers from around the world, who take part in the various activities of the Institute including the instant Summer University Program.
While we were there, we had a visiting professor from the Republic of Georgia, who presented an introductory lecture on his country, Georgia. As you know, Georgia has been caught in ethnic conflict especially in the region of Abkhazia since the fall of the Soviet Union. One way they are now attempting to address the question of multi-culturalism and ethnic conflict is through federalism. From the professor's lecture, it very much seemed to me that Federalism is already underway there, which is being considered as the most appropriate solution to their conflict.

In a way, we, Eritreans are very lucky in that we are considering federalism before we go through bloody ethnic cleansing and communal conflict. Countries like Somalia, Srilanka, Georgia, Solomon are viewing federalism as an ideal method of conflict resolution and peaceful way of conflict management after undergoing tremendous bleeding and deep-rooted communal hatred. Thank be to our Almighty creator for not reaching those ugly advanced stages of conflict. We must really work harder to stop hatemongering individuals from manipulating our ethnic and social groups towards communal fighting. We must stand firm and promote the principles of federal democracy with greater knowledge and confidence; knowledge not only of academic concepts and theories, but more importantly of our people's diverse social customs, cultures, history, aspirations and realities.

5. Gabeel: What was the profile of the participants in the Summer Program?

Sayed: The main Summer University Program participants were distinguished citizens of about 33 countries including 6 Frankophone Africans, a significant number of East Europeans including the newly Accessed EU countries, Northern Americans, Western Europeans, Latin Americans and federalists from the Indian Sub-Continent, mainly from India and Sri Lanka. There was also another group from the Forum of Federations that joined us for the first week of the programme and then left for Bosnia Herzegovina for field study. The two groups combined represented every continent of our globe.
Many of the participants were both researchers and experts on federalism and conflict resolution who conduct research and/or advise senior government officials and ministers on constitutional and governance matters. This major group of participants created a very priceless learning environment and enthusiasm as they represented wealth of knowledge and experience.

6. Gabeel: How was the format of delivery of this tremendous knowledge? Was it a conventional type format?

Sayed: We had a series of lectures on the theories and political philosophies, concepts of federalism and federal institutions, ethnicity and identity, as well as workshops in the afternoons that divided us into small groups and gave us the opportunity to discuss and debate the lectures and other relevant issues more in-depth. The workshops, just as the lectures, were facilitated by well-qualified professors and researchers, which added to our advantage and enabled us to discuss live case scenarios from our own experiences as well as from cases of interest to the Professors and their work as internationally renowned consultants on constitutional law, good governance and federalism.

7. Gabeel: Needless to say, your participation in this exceptionally important annual seminar in the University of Fribourg is very beneficial in the promotion of federalism and peace in Eritrea. Could you elaborate on that for us?

Sayed: The benefits are really great! They are not confined to the EFDM only, but also to me as a person as well as to our country that we are all seeking to salvage and rescue from the disaster it is in and the catastrophe it is heading into.

As you know, I am one of those individuals who continuously argue in favor of a well researched, academically backed up political proposal for the resolution of the current dilemma, as opposed to political campaigns full of political rhetoric. Therefore, I believe capturing an opportunity to enrich oneself with a useful knowledge for his/her own personal development and for his/her country is a useful and important initiative. I encourage our young generation to seek solutions through education, knowledge, and facts for a better future for our country. What our country and people need at present is not just political campaign but more importantly academic oriented proposals for a political solution and a political alternative to the present dilemma.

8. Gabeel: Sorry for interrupting you brother Sayed, but is there any particular reason why political campaigning is less important to you?

Sayed: Smiles! Good question. It is, may be because I have been a political campaigner all my adulthood and would love to see some change in that pattern of my life. Or may be that now we have more and more political campaigners campaigning against the EPLF/PFDJ regime than the 1990s, when we were few die-hard opponents scattered here and there trying to make a stand with the rest of the opposition groups (Smiles again).

I am of the opinion that campaigning on its own does not necessarily bring a better alternative. It is crucial for the agents of change i.e. the opposition political forces that they carefully study and analyze our country's situation and propose alternatives based not on emotional and political rhetoric but on research and genuine pursuit of inclusive justice and democracy. I am glad that the EFDM in its short history has already become a pioneer in diagnosing and proposing fundamental changes. I hope that we continue to influence and lead the way towards lasting peace, justice and federal democracy.

Going back to the benefit issue, the benefit at a personal level was my exposure to quality education, no matter how intensive, on federalism, multi-culturalism and good governance in a world renowned institution and with the guidance of world class professors like: Professor Lidija Fleiner, Professor Thomas Fleiner, Professor Ron Watts from Queens University in Canada, Professor Schneider from Hanover University in Germany and many others. This was a tremendous privilege for me and an enhancement to my interpersonal and professional contacts. I am pleased to report back that I have established some acquaintances and friendships with fellow federalists from around the world.

The benefits are just so vast and great to be detailed in a brief interview but I would hope to start reflecting on what I have learned through my inputs in the constitution draft exercise that we have been conducting within the EFDM and the continuous improvement to our federal proposal as the best alternative for our people and country.

As for the benefits to the EFDM, again, they are many in quantity and quality. As you reported on Gabeel.com, I prepared a brief academic paper as an introduction for the Swiss federal and Canton ministers and officials, the Canadian Ambassador to Switzerland, members of the Institute of Federalism, and the Center for International Research and Consultancy, in which I pointed out the compelling evidence for the suitability of federalism to our country and how the EFDM is aggressively perusing the federal solution for the benefit of all. We now have an opportunity to seek expert consultancy and advice on our proposals and constitution drafts, which is really a great privilege and honor for all of us. I'm glad to report to you that we have a supportive team of experts not only from Switzerland, but from around the world who have become interested in Eritrea and have expressed their willingness to do all they can to assist our efforts for federalism, peace and justice for all.

Among the federal experts who agreed to share their federal experiences is Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh from India. He has written the best paper for the Institute of Federalism and has also agreed to have it published on gabeel.com. Dr. Singh is a great and humble political scientist, author of several books and articles, contributor to conferences and consultations at senior levels in his own country and region. There were other experts who made similar commitments, which I hope gabeel.com will keep publishing their work to benefit the Eritrean people. I think it is a tremendous benefit to have the support of professional experts and enable gabeel.com readers to view alternative flavors of federalism and a different perspective on issues of justice and peace.

9. Gabeel: In view of this educational experience you had, what is your current evaluation of the federal proposal as presented by the Eritrean Federal Democratic Movement?

Sayed: The federal proposal as adopted by the EFDM first conference and interpreted and understood by many active members has achieved a great deal in diagnosing and addressing the core social and political problems in our country. It is evident that the EFDM proposal is a solid proposal based on facts on the ground, not a theoretical possibility. I think the passion and deep-rooted believe in the principle of peaceful co-existence has enabled us all to come up with a proposal that at least have shaken and awaken the Eritrean political landscape to a new reality called: an alternative system of governance, inclusive democracy (or what political scientists call: democracy for plural societies), to a fundamental change from the ground up! And not just an alternative to the person of Issayas or to his group! This was a historic achievement that all Eritrean federalists, within EFDM or outside, must pride themselves on.

With regard to my current view of our proposal, I became even more convinced that we are on the right track and that we should pursue federalism more rigorously. I understand there are some individuals and perhaps groups, scrupulous and unscrupulous, who tried to dismiss federalism as an alternative system of governance using the pretext of our adopted three state federal system proposal. However, it should be clear to whoever perceives federalism as simply multiple states or provinces, that federalism is not simply that. It is self-rule and power sharing; it is about unity in diversity and not uniformity, about recognizing and accommodating social, cultural, economic and political diversity within a democratically united polity. The federal units or states are only the areas to practice these noble ideas, without which federalism would not be federalism. In addition to this fact, it is not up to the EFDM to impose any number of federal units/states on anyone. The final say on the jurisdiction issue will of course be settled by the people in a democratic manner. We, as EFDM, are here to promote practical ideas for the different segments and cleavages of our society to agree upon.

The EFDM has approached federalism as a very accommodative tool and mechanism of promoting and maintaining peaceful co-existence among Eritreans. Our papers have gone as far as suggesting a "decentralized federal system" that would ensure self-rule not only at the state level but takes it down to the village, municipality, district and town levels. I think this was brilliant and shall stand the test of time. Federalism requires a great degree of flexibility and so was the EFDM federal proposal. The proposal of the three-state federalism itself has actually encouraged well-meaning citizens and groups like Negusse Haile MensAy and the Eritrean Independent Democratic Movement to propose Federalism based on 5 states and 8 states respectively. We did not object or reject such proposals. To the contrary, we welcomed them as well-intended ideas that are enriching the discussion on Eritrean Federalism. These are all ideas and will certainly enrich our collective approach to Federalism and federal solution to our country's dilemma. If we question and argue against them, it is only to highlight the question of feasibility and viability. I know we have repeatedly stated the above in our different writings and interviews, but I see it as still important to repeatedly clarify and state our views so no one is left in the shadows of doubt.

In fact, if economically, politically and technically feasible, it can be argued that having more than two federal states/units is considered to be better for power-balance purposes. If we look at the experience of "failed federations", we actually notice that they were either a one-party system and highly centralized federations as in the case of former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union, or a two state-federalism as in the case of Cheko-Slovakia and Pakistan (West and East Pakistan/Bangladesh, which were separated in 1974 after a bloody civil war). However, It would be disastrous to create federal states/units without the financial means and the Human resource to maintain and sustain their effective functionality. That is why it would be highly recommended to initiate Eritrean federalism with as few as three states with constitutional guarantees for socio-cultural diversity at local, state and federal levels, as well as with constitutional rights to create and recreate federal states/units as and when necessary and feasible to do so.

10. Gabeel: There are some Eritrean politicians who favor ethnic federalism, what do you think?

Sayed: The most important issue here is that we are pro-federalism i.e. we are all federalists.

11. Gabeel: Excuse us Sayed, but "We are all federalists" in what way?

Sayed: We are all federalists in that we advocate federalism of some sort. In the course of this, we may have different views as to how best federalism can be established in our country. I do not see such a difference as a problem at all. To the contrary, I see such differences as enrichment to the discourse on Eritrean federalism. This should encourage and motivate us to inquire and research more into the different federal options that could potentially serve Eritrean federalism.
As you know, there are at least two types of federalism that have been functioning in most of the world federations. These are known as personal federalism and territorial federalism. Personal federalism is the type of power-sharing arrangement that is currently in place in Lebanon. There the power is shared between the different religious sects. The remaining federations are all territorial. Even some countries such as Ethiopia that claim to have ethnic federalism are very much territorial in their federal characters. For example, in Ethiopia, there are 80 or more ethnic groups, yet the federal units (kelil) there are only 9, which mean within each territory there are numerous ethnic groups sharing habitat, power and resources.

Federalism is about accommodating diversity at every possible level. In the case of Eritrea, one can think of different ways of accommodating our socio-cultural diversity. For example, having three or five or eight or even more states/federal units does not mean the end of the story. Each ethnic or tribal or even clan can be allowed to administer its own traditional area (e.g. land affairs) in accordance with its own customary laws under the state constitution. One has to look into the feasibility and other related matters before making a final decision on the optimum division of power. As I mentioned above, the final format will be carried out in full consultation and interaction with the relevant social group.

The reason that federalism has to be accommodative is because there is no fixed answer or magic solution that can be brought about by simply implementing a federal system of governance. Eritrean federalists have to be prepared to continuously seek solutions to every existing and potential problem. The type of federalism that we should seek to establish in Eritrea has to be compatible with our own realities and circumstances. It also has to combine, in my opinion, personal and territorial federalism with a high degree of decentralization and flexibility to ensure the involvement of every social group in the local, state and national decision-making processes as well as administration.

We must remember that although many tend to see federalism as power sharing or division of power between the national and a state, in terms of administrative structures it goes to at least three or even more levels of administration. For example, you may have the national authority, otherwise known as the federal government, and then you have the state/canton/unit etc. followed by municipality/commune/village/council/district etc. Each level must have technical, social, cultural and political justification for its existence. In addition, there may be a need to reach agreement to designate certain areas of national importance, such as ports (e.g. Massawa & Assab) and Capital City (e.g. Asmara), as "federal districts/territories" that would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal/National government.

I am sure within the three or so levels most issues of diversity could be accommodated. In other words, all these entities will be consistent with the constitution of the state and the federal. Federalism does not mean random distribution of power. It means systematically organized sharing of power that improves unity and satisfaction. If there is willingness to co-exist in peace, there would always be ways and means of ensuring fairness, equality and justice for all.

12. Gabeel: let us ask you then a hypothetical question. One may ask: what about the social groups that share territory with a different social group, how would you answer that?

Sayed: Well, that is not a hypothetical issue; it is a real issue that every federation has to face and answer. Almost all Eritrean segments, especially those living in Kebesa and Metahet have always been heterogeneous. This is why the term accommodation is very much relevant to our federal approach. To answer your question, first let me reiterate that not all Eritreans identify their identity with language or ethnicity. It is very crucial for federalists to recognize this as part of the overall diversity that we talk about. Once we do so, then the issue of accommodation comes into being.

In my opinion, a cultural entity that shares habitat with different socio-cultural groups has to be represented in the national and local levels. At the local level such as in towns, village or district, they have to be proportionally represented in the administration and legislative councils. At the state and national levels, they should also have similar representation in both the Upper and Lower Houses of parliament. Again, this is just for brainstorming purposes. The final details of how each social cleavage is represented are a matter for consultation and determination by further studies and consultations with each particular situation.

If I may take you to another issue of relevance to this subject, and that is of the Rashayda Tribe. This is a nomadic tribe with no specific area of settled habitat. They may have caravan routs, but there is no village or district exclusively or inclusively inhabited by them. However, this does not mean they should not be included in the Eritrean political process. They, like all Eritrean social and cultural groups, should be entitled to fair representation in the state and national legislative councils.


13. Gabeel: Lets move to another question but of equal importance. As you mentioned earlier, there are different types of federalism and that each country has to adopt a federal system compatible with its own specific reality. The other differences we notice in the different federations around the world is that some of them are presidential and others parliamentarian, monarchy etc. what would be the best federal system for Eritrea?

Sayed: Again, we have to be very careful about prescribing systems without properly studying their compatibility to the Eritrean reality. No harm in suggesting one system or the other, but "the BEST" one can only be worked out on the ground inside Eritrea. Accepting this principle, I would wish to add that in every system there are always the pros and cons, the good and bad sides. Moreover, what is good for America or Switzerland or India may not necessarily be good for Eritrea, hence the need to do more researches on the ground.

Coming back to your question, there is American style federation where the President is indirectly elected by the people and the executive branch has more or less equal powers as that of the Congress, whose membership are directly elected by the people. There is the parliamentarian system, as is the case with India, with more powers bestowed to the legislative bodies of the country. And then you have the Swiss system, which gives more powers to the Cantons and less to the legislative and the executive. If you take each of the three examples, you may argue that each are good and functions well within the countries in question. However, what one needs to notice is that each country is different to the other. Where there is deep social and cultural diversity, Switzerland and India, there is an executive with less power, and where there is cultural Homogeneity, USA & Germany, more powers are bestowed to the Executive. Thus, when considering the type of federalism for our Eritrea, we have to take into account our own specific economic, social, historical, political and cultural aspects and devise a federal system that can be known and studied as the "Eritrean Federal System/Eritrean Federalism".

But to answer your question, if I am allowed to suggest my modest opinion in this regard, I would suggest that a bicameral parliamentary system of federal democracy would be more appropriate.

14. Gabeel: Can you explain your suggestion in greater detail?

Sayed: Sure, as long as you guys would take the blame for boring Gabeel.com readership with my prolonged answers.

A bicameral system means having two houses of legislative, in other words the Senate and House of Representatives, or the House of Commons and House of Lords as we refer to them here in the UK. Often, the two houses are known as Upper and Lower Houses. The Upper House would accommodate representatives of states and other stakeholders, whereas the Lower House would consist of parliamentarians elected directly by the people. The government would, thus, come from the Lower House.

In parliamentarian federal democracy, the Executive powers would rest within the prime minister and his cabinet that would all be directly elected by members of the Lower House. The President or Monarch would have a symbolic and uniting role, as is the case with Belgium and India respectively.

Another important factor in the bicameral system is that no legislation would be the law of the land before its ratification by both Houses as in the presidential model. I foresee the Eritrean Lower House would be elected directly by the people and the Upper House would consist of state representatives, ethnic, social and religious representatives. These Upper House representatives do not have to be elected by the entire Eritrean people. They would be elected by the Institutions (State, Religion) and Social/Ethnic groups that they would represent. There would be a threshold principle, meaning the minimum number of representatives for each section as well as a proportional representation for each state or social group that consists of x number of population. Because fairness is not only about ensuring minority rights but also majority rights too. There must be a balance and accommodation oriented approach all the way.

As for the president, we could have a symbolic one with constitutionally designated powers. How large or small the powers are could be a subject for greater studies and consultations. But to ensure every Eritrean social group feels represented enough, we could have a rotational presidential system. Each year, we can have a new president from one of our social groups. To be clearer, each year we could have a president and vice president that represent different ethnic, region, religion and/or culture. We can also encourage respect and accommodation of intra-region, intra-religion and intra-ethnic diversity.

15. Gabeel: What do you mean by intra…?

Sayed: I mean, respecting the diversity within. When we talk about Kebessa, we have to respect the regional diversity there among others. i.e. ensure fair representation for Akeles, Hamasenites and Serayans. When we talk about the lowlands, there too we have to respect the regional and social diversities within etc.


16. Gabeel: What is your view on the question of "self-determination up to secession"?

Sayed: I consider self-determination as part of our basic human rights. I think we have to acknowledge the right of individuals and community or ethnic groups to determine their rights and status by their own free will. In the context of Eritrea, I believe that self-determination must be guaranteed in the form of autonomy for each ethnic group to run its affairs within its traditional territories without the interference of others. Thus far, I do not see any contradiction between the right to self-determination and the territorial integrity of our country Eritrea.

The issue of secession is not really an objective of any of the Eritrean political or ethnic groups at present. There might be one or two groups, based on their leftist ideology, which would like to see the future Eritrean constitution including an article that guarantees "self determination up to secession", similar to the one stated in the present Ethiopian constitution. Beyond this proposal, there is no known group of any sort seeking secession in Eritrea. I recently read a political program for the so-called Afar Red Sea group, which indicated their interest to exercise "self-determination up to secession and joining Ethiopia". But I strongly doubt this view is shared by Eritrean Afars. Little is also known about this group and how it came into being.

One thing we should also remember is that the Marxists like Joseph Staling, who preached self-determination up to secession never practiced them in the Baltic States, Central Asian and Caucasian republics. The Bolshevik Soviet Union was very much an imperialist power that resembled Tsarist Russia.

I would also argue that self-determination up to secession in International Law was only recognized after the Second World War in relation to the states that were emerging out from colonialism. The principle itself did not apply to specific ethnic groups within the emerging states. This is why that many of the secessionist movements within the emerging decolonized states had no UN backing to secede.

As you know, our struggle for national liberation was based on the principle that we were a state created by Italian colonialism and with the full entitlement to self-determination. We were not a secessionist movement, but a national liberation movement struggling to liberate a colonized territory and people.

The OAU and AU Charters do not recognize secession on the basis of ethnicity or culture. If such a phenomenon were allowed, almost every single African state would be in danger of fragmentation and the chaos that is often associated with it.

I believe under a federal system, all Eritreans could live in harmony away from any form of alienation. Since the federal system is an effective means of peaceful coexistence between diverse social and cultural groups, I do not see the need for us, as federalists, to advocate for the right to secession for any social group. After-all, federalism is about bringing together the divided and not the other way round.

That said, I am of the opinion that if Eritrea continues to be a unitary state dominated by one social group, the call for secessionism will gain fertile ground. The current situation in Eritrea calls for such ideas to flourish. That is why we are strongly opposed to the chauvinist dictatorship and to any unfair domination by any socio-cultural group. Should we fail to defeat chauvinism and alienation in Eritrea, the consequence will be the loss of Eritrea as a state in the hearts and minds of the oppressed and its subsequent eradication as an entity from the world political map.


17. Gabeel: But Sayed, what if there are Ethiopian sponsored Eritrean groups who may wish to claim right to secession to enable Ethiopia access to the Red Sea?

Sayed: There are two dimensions to your hypothetical question. The first one is: Ethiopian interference in the Eritrean internal affairs, which any reasonable Eritrean citizen or government will tell you is unacceptable. I do not see Ethiopia gaining an inch through such illegal and destructive intervention tactics in our affairs, if it ever happens. It would only deepen regional crisis and instability. Remember, Ethiopia itself is a very fragile state and not all of its ethnic groups would wish to continue living under continuous Abyssinian Christian domination. If the Afars, the Somalis and Oromians are given a genuine right to self determination up to secession, they would opt for it or join their brethren in Eritrea and Somalia respectively rather than live in the shadows of Abyssinian domination. Hence, such unwarranted destabilization would not stop in the borders of Eritrea, but would also affect Ethiopia and any other country that dares to go that route.

The second dimension is the issue of access to the Red Sea. I think the present Ethiopian generation of rulers knows it best that access to the sea was what drove Haile-Selassie and Menghistu to illegally occupy Eritrea for about four decades. But the outcome of such a destructive and ill-thought adventure was destruction and bloodshed for all of us. This means no access to any sea or territory will be gained by illegal and destructive means.

I strongly believe that Ethiopia and Eritrea have more common interest in mutual respect and peaceful coexistence. Ethiopian use of our sea ports would profit Eritrea, increase employment opportunity and economic growth. It is not to Eritrean interest to not let Ethiopia use our ports, provided it is through legal means and based on the full respect of Eritrean sovereignty and territorial integrity.

I understand that since the last so-called border war and the defeat of the PFDJ, there may be some vocal elements within the ruling party in Ethiopia who would wish to revisit the Eritrean question, and perhaps resort to some ill-thought adventures assuming that it would give Ethiopia a corridor to the sea or even re-annex parts of Eritrea if not all of Eritrea. Nevertheless, such elements and any stooges they may create will remain in the margins. The majority of Ethiopians and their leadership are reasonable people who understand that Ethiopian interest is actually in seeking and establishing mutual respect and regional peace and not in undermining the interest and sovereignty of Eritrea.

18. Gabeel: May we ask you another hypothetical question. Some Eritreans speculate that Ethiopia might either go for Somalisation of Eritrea or installing a puppet government. How true could this be?

Sayed: One thing no one can deny is the fact that the TPLF/EPRDF principally stood for Eritrean Self-determination. When many of the Ethiopian opposition, in particular the Amhara ones, were refusing to consider Eritrea as an issue of clonisation, the Woyanes were firmly stating that the Eritrean issue is an issue of colonization that can only be resolved by recognizing the Eritrean people's right to self-determination. I would also argue if it was not for this principled firm stand of the Woyanes and their allies in the EPRDF, our post liberation status would not have been any different to that of Somali-Land. The world was not in any mood to recognize Eritrean independence. For the Africans, Eritrea was always Ethiopia's internal affair. Immediately after the liberation of Eritrea, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry was the first to issue a communiqué stating that Egypt would not recognize the "break away of Eritrea from Ethiopia". Thus Ethiopian support and acceptance of the referendum result in April 1993 gave the world no choice but to recognize Eritrea as a sovereign member of the UN.

Unfortunately, the foreign policies pursued by the EPLF/PFDJ regime were very undermining to the above good gestures and principled stand, which eventually led to the devastating "border" war in 1998. Since then there has been a lot of changing hearts in some circles within the EPRDF.

However, if we were also to look at the Woyane's share in the deterioration of relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia, I would argue it is to be found within the narrow view they seem to hold over Eritrea. The TPLF have always confined their relationship with the "Kebessan-led" EPLF during the struggle years. This led to the marginalization of and suspicion by non-Kebessan Eritreans. Unfortunately, this trend doesn't seem to have changed. Their treatment of the ENA organization is very selective along the same old lines. They tend to look at "Lowlanders-led" organizations with a suspicious eye. Such attitudes would not create stable relationships between our countries.

Moreover, I do not think a "Somalised" Eritrea or a "puppet Eritrean regime" would be to the interest of Ethiopia. Ethiopia would profit from our neighborly relationships if Eritrea were a stable federal democracy. Otherwise, instability in Eritrea would have negative implications not only on Ethiopia, but also in the region. This is why our EFDM leadership is looking into regional confederacy to promote common interest and regional peace and economic integration.

19. Gabeel: One final question, do you think post dictatorship Eritrea will immediately adopt federal democracy?

Sayed: I certainly do believe so. There is no other choice. It is either federal democracy or continuous suffering under unitary systems thereby threatening the very existence of the entity and encouraging secessionism. The indicators so far are very much pro-federalism. I personally closely followed or participated in our Movement's bilateral dialogues with numerous Eritrean groups, attended several of our public meetings and one to one consultations with citizens. I can confidently tell you that there is unanimity in favor of federalism. More and more of our political organizations are actually embracing federal democracy as the best alternative to unitary system.

20. Gabeel: How about proposal of decentralization presented by some Eritrean political groups?

Sayed: Even these groups you are referring to could be considered potential Federalists. Because they have not actually said "unitary decentralization", they just vaguely said "decentralization", correct me if I am wrong. My close observation of these groups tells me that they do agree with the federal principles but may not wish to call it federalism for various reasons. Remember, we are still humans with human instincts that include egoism. Some might be too egoistic to allow themselves to agree on principles already declared by a "perceived other".
Mind you, such attitudes are not confined to groups. Some states behave in similar ways too. For example, most Federalists consider South Africa a federal democracy. Because its constitution include many clauses that clearly have the characteristics of federalism. But if you ask the South Africans, I am told, they would not wish to call their country a Federal Republic because "federalism" was first used in the country by the apartheid regime to create homelands for the Kuwazula Natal and others.

I think, through rigorous pursuit of our CONSTRUCTIVE DIALOGUE & OPEN-DOOR policy, we shall be able to overcome such problems of "perception and psychological barriers". As I said, increasingly more and more Eritrean political groups of all social and cultural persuasions are embracing federalism and declaring their intent to see federal democracy realized in Eritrea. This is very encouraging and motivating. I sincerely believe there will be a solid ground for federalism in Eritrea. I do not believe there is a reasonable Eritrean who refuses the right to self-rule and shared-rule, the right to living in communal harmony, the need to respect and accommodate our social and cultural diversity, the opportunity for inclusive democracy, human rights and justice to flourish in our country. Unitary system, be it centralized or decentralized, will only deepen divisions and harm our fragile national unity and territorial integrity.

Gabeel: Brother Sayed, thank you for your time. We wish you and us the best of luck in our endeavor to see federal democracy flourish in our beloved Eritrea.

Sayed: My pleasure!

Source: www.gabeel.com