ARE THE OPPONENTS OF "FEDERALISM"
IN ERITREA, CONTENDING:
The VKP ( January 1, 2004 )

1.- the meaning of the term itself,
2.- the principle of "federalism" in general or simply denying the fact that,

3.- Eritrea and the Eritrean society are territorially, ethnically and socio-culturo-linguistically,already and naturally well-established, on a federally modelled type of system?

There is a lot of written as well as discussed upon and spoken about material on “federalism, unitary or ethno-based” the idea of forming a “federal state, region, federated states” and so on. Depending on various views and opinions on “federalism,” there are also various and varying opponents as well as pro-elements to “federalism.” The crunch of the question/issue therefore is, what differentiates the contra from the pro-elements to “federalism?” What are the basic reasons as well as the valid arguments supporting the ones or opposing the others? Are there and could there be definite and common reasons and arguments which could finally draw near or even unite the two schools? Could “federalism” get and have any place in a “democracy”? How compatible are the two principles? Where can the two lead us to?

As only questions do not, very often, satisfy our inquisitive minds but, above all, as true supporters of our kind of “federalism,” we shall try to fathom out, what the opponents of “federalism” in Eritrea do and may contend and are contending. Do they contend the term itself, the principle or the reality of Eritrea and of the Eritrean diverse society naturally formed and based on a federal type of system? This is the area of enquiry of this piece of writing.

As a term, in its root meaning, “federation”, is a social or a “political system in which a union of states, leave certain powers to the central (Federal) government but retain powers of government over some internal affairs.” This definition obviously is given by the western scholars for and based on their own concepts, understandings and experience of their own types of “federations”, where their citizens and states are ethnically, socio-culturo-linguistically and economically homogenised and standardised. Their federal systems therefore vary only in their practical actualisation but not in their concepts and principles. In their forms, the Swiss may differ from the Canadian or US types of “federalism” but the concept of the decentralisation of powers remains as the basic principle and “modus operandi.”

In a country characterised by a diverse ethnicity, language and culture, the concept of federation and of “federalism” is subject to varieties of views, understandings, interpretations and even of misinterpretations of the term as well as of the principle itself. Consequently, for and by the pro-elements, “federalism” can be viewed as a viable system, as it protects their interests, whereas for the contra-elements it can be extremely frightening as a “federal” system may restrict certain socio-political, economic and even culturo-linguistic powers of those holding the majority rule at the Federal State level. In an ethnically diverse, like the Eritrean society, ethnic element can play a very decisive role and therefore a demographically superior ethnic-group, like the Eri-Tigrian component in Eritrea, is likely to be a contra-element of “federalism.” Very often therefore, it is the principle itself of “federalism” which is deeply frightening certain Eritrean political organisations, their leaders and supporters. As a matter of fact, no Eritrean, no matter at what social or political level, would ever contend (as this would mean denying one’s own identity), the naturally established status, on a federal type of model, of our respective ethnic-groups in their distinct ethnic, territorial and internal administrative entities. For us Eritreans and for our own respective ethnic-groups, “federalism,” as a way of a communal policy to be, not only as “federated” but even as independent nuclei, leading and preserving a peaceful system of coexistence, is just as viable and as old as our ethnic-groups themselves. The principles of the “historically and geographically” established types of “federalism” are neither traditionally nor empirically deep rooted in constellations and values of our ethnic-groups. They were and are foreign made principles, imported and imposed upon our ancestors. It is no wonder therefore, the very slow pace of either our ethnic-groups’ amalgamation with each other or our national homogenisation process. A viable principle to develop is only the one already existent, no matter in whatever rudiment state, within and among those for which it is intended.

We Eritreans are today accusing the PFDJ regime of Mr. Isayas Afwerki for having forcefully brought about radical changes in the geographical and administrative borders of the Eritrean regions, thus disrupting, not only the century-old territorial and ethnic borders but also giving new names to our regions, which purely reflects the culturo-linguistic dominance of the ruler himself. The principle of “federalism” therefore, terribly frightens the present Eritrean leader himself, undermines the whole of his socio-political and economic systems and puts at stake also the social, political, territorial and economic interests of the Eritrean elite which has been and is supporting his regime. Mr. Isayas Afwerki himself and his top-leadership-members too very well-know and are well-aware of the social and territorial damages the PFDJ regime’s dictatorial system has brought about now in Eritrea. The changing backwards of the socio-political and territorial gears by and in the present Eritrean regime’s system is very unthinkable. The biggest worrying element is however the abundant existence of the same types of people being, leading and operating within the Eritrean opposition forces too. Though very knowledgeable of our Eritrean diverse ethno and culturo-linguistic composition and conscious of the particular demands and expectations of those various groups, some of our leaders and their supporters are still being overpowered and obsessed by their own principles and power-hunger, eagerly sought after, irrespective, whether those principles of theirs are to the benefit or detriment of our people. For these, “federalism” is anathema.

We Kunama have, ever since, been preaching “federalism-a-la” our existing ethnic, culturo-linguistic and territorial roots and bases, where our ethnic-groups and their members themselves are the makers, the shapers and architects, in the best ways they know, of their own affairs and destiny. This would be one of the sound bases, to tackle, begin solving and preventing conflicts, integrating and amalgamating our ethnic-groups, creating and favouring a peaceful coexistence and inciting even a slow but surely a steady upward mobility towards our final national homogenisation and unity. We cannot reach our total national unity unless we start partly building in its foundations at the ethnic, territorial and regional bases. It is not therefore either the regime, which sits up there or the opposition forces which are alien to our needs and demands and often denying us our ethnic and territorial rights, that are going to care about us and about our own immediate affairs and needs, but we ourselves are and should be the ones caring about our own selves, about our own welfare and well-being. To our view therefore, this is the only viable system, call it “federalism” or other, which guarantees and can guarantee our real progress in democracy and justice.

Our wrangling over, pro and contra, “historico-geographical, unitary, regional, ethno-based” and all the other names given to and types of “federalism,” of “federal” principles, single or multi-party political systems, we are proposing and suggesting to be implemented in the future Eritrea, would be all a package of political garbage, far removed from the reality of our Eritrean multiple society, unless we were to agree that, we are to begin to democratise ourselves, our people and country at and based on our already existing etnic, socio-culturo-linguistic and territorial entities and values. The language, the theories and the principles of the “riff-raff” leaders and of their supporters are to cease.

The VKP ( January 1, 2004 )