Eritrea: Brief discourse on difficult issues of guilt, blame, responsibility and reconciliation-in the Eritrean context.

Dictators fall sooner or later, sometimes facilitated by their own self-destructive inertia and often leaving chaos and destruction behind them. This is prone to occur in a society where there are no well-organized opposition groups determined to initiate and coordinate popular resistance from within, no consensus on the modalities of struggle, no or limited culture of civil disobedience and an abundance of firearms in circulation - a situation like that of current Eritrea.

The  greatest challenge facing post-dictatorial Eritrea will be how to build peace in harmonious ethnic, religious, cultural and political diversity and avert the very real risk of becoming a yet another failed state in the region. If Eritreans are to reconcile with each other and avoid stumbling into the same pitfalls one sees in many post-dictatorial states, where politics based on hate and fear quickly takes its grip, Eritreans will have today to address and resolve the painful issues of guilt, blame and responsibility, both in the legal and moral sense, and explore the possibility of a reconciliatory exit option from the threat of a societal meltdown just when such an option seems most utopian in the present. (1)

The dilemma to address and resolve is therefore, how to morally and as far as possible even legally satisfy the dual requirements of respecting the victims’ experiences and their need for justice, while at the same time forgiving, with or without forgetting, many of those who undertook the evil actions. One needs to understand not only the criminal transgression but also the failed humanity of the trespassers - former liberation fighters ”tegadelti” who not long ago were greeted with jubilant festivity, great expectations, blind trust and loyalty. Former liberation fighters or ”tegadelti” who take great pride and credit for the enormous sacrifice paid in the struggle for independence but who have today become so sceptical and unsure of themselves in matters of norms and values that they no longer see themselves as warriors in the fight of good against evil. Paradoxically, therefore, the selfless heroes of yesterday do not lift a lift a finger in defence of their people or their fallen colleagues and comrades-in-arms when oppression emanates from their own organization.

The question is not simply who is to blame, for in one way or another, many, if not all, may bear some blame or responsibility for Eritrea’s current predicament. But more importantly, how do Eritreans today think about and understand their individual contribution to, and/or their responsibility for, the causes and outcomes of the independent struggle and the presently ongoing political, social, gender and ethnic-cultural injustice?  The credo of Jesus Christ - ”let him who have not sinned throw the first stone” (2) - is indeed an appropriate point of departure. For the objective should be not only to redeem the abused but also to rehabilitate the abusers.

Initiating processes of dialogue and reconciliation, - building-blocks fundamental to the work of achieving peace in harmonious diversity - requires rendering retroactive and restorative justice to all the victims of the Eritrean People´s Liberation Front (EPLF) which rules the country today as the People´s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) - in particular religious and ethnic victims of the regime in the Eritrean Lowlands. It is equally important, however, that those who seek justice for the victims of the regime do not fall into the trap of succumbing to their own urges and desires for vengeance. Eritrea, the place in which the poison of hate as well as the antidote of future peace will be distilled, belongs indeed to all. The choice is as usual ours to make, but many of us who have not worked through our own issues of hatred and mobilize our constituency by appealing to the negative forces of the unconscious based on deep rotted inter-religious suspicion, cultural prejudice and stereotypes  are simply not in a position to play a responsible part in the collective.

If one is to come to some meaningful dialogue and understanding of the issues of guilt, blame and responsibility within the Eritrean context, it is important to approach the issues along lines and distinctions proposed by Hannah Arendt amongst others in her controversial and authoritative book ” Eichmann In Jerusalem: A Report on the the Banality of Evil” published some 50 years ago, initially as a series of articles on  the trail of Nazi SS officer ”Obersturmbannführer” (lieutenant colonel) Adolf Eichmann, who organized and managed the logistics of the mass deportation of the Jews to concentration and extermination camps. (3) Arendt makes a very important distinction between the concepts of guilt and responsibility. Arendt insists that moral and legal concepts such as guilt (or innocence for that matter) apply to individual deeds. (4) Guilt loses its meaning if and when applied to a whole group or community related by association to a wrong. If we are all guilty nobody is. Guilt, unlike responsibility, always singles out, it is strictly personal. This is to say that a person or persons, by what they have done, bear not only simply moral responsibility, but more importantly, legal responsibility, for a crime or wrong done.

All repressive and violent regimes like that of Eritrea ”popularize” violence-promoting norms by broadening  the number of perpetrators to include as many as possible. Dictatorial regimes have a vested interest in making culprits of everybody and involving as many as possible in their acts of violence. Loyalty to the regime is ensured when people are entangled in the web of criminal acts spun by the regime. Likewise, their credibility is easy to tarnish or question, if one at a later day decides to oppose the regime and expose its crimes. On the day of reckoning, the logic of evil is that if everybody is guilty then nobody is guilty.

Attributing all the blame for the current Eritrean tragedy to a single person - the dictator Isaias Afwerki -  or adopting the theory of a one-man regime, a theory subscribed to by many, in particular the former supporters of the regime, is indeed convenient. It is a convenient alternative, as it absolves from any personal responsibility many if not all of those who have in one way or the other contributed to the establishment of the system. Concentrating the blame upon the dictator and a few people around him, regarding them as both personally and collectively responsible, may even be a sound strategy to facilitate the needed processes of reconciliation and healing in the country.

But dictators are not created in empty space. There are always social, historical, and psychological patterns that are conducive to and determinant for their creation. What breeds dictatorship is above all the disgraceful silence of complacency. It is those who looked the other way because they did not want to see, those who did not see although they could see, those who are neither deaf nor mute but refuse to hear to the cries of suffering compatriots and refuse to speak on behalf of the persecuted. For far too long Eritreans have worshipped and glorified the dictator Isaias Afwerki and have tolerated and justified the crimes of his regime with all kinds of pretexts and lame excuses including concerns for national security and looming treats from external enemies, until repression finally threatens their very own physical existence. Because at the end of the day the dictator extends the boundaries of his repression to embrace all, even those who had until the very last moment thought they were protected by collaboration or by silence.

It is true that all or most of the crimes are not committed  in person by Isaias Afwerki and his henchmen. In fact those who design evil are not necessarily those who enforce or give effect to it.  It will therefore be difficult to try them in a court of law let alone prove them guilty beyond any shadow of doubt for individual crimes. The leadership has certainly command responsibility and in the event of a trail, more evidence will emerge that shed light on the direct involvement of Isaias Afwerki. However, if regime change occurs as a result of a popular uprising or an internal coup, the dictator and his henchmen will probably be tried swiftly in kangaroo courts or be lynched by angry mobs. Interestingly though, even today, hardly any of those responsible, particularly those who find themselves in exile, have shown any remorse, and only a handful say that they are willing to face their accuser and stand before ”a free court of law established by the Eritrean people”. (5) Naturally, given the total lawlessness of the country, the establishment of an independent and functional judiciary system will probably take decades. Abject muteness until that day arrives makes, however, all forms reconciliation and rapprochement difficult because the prerequisite for reconciliation is the admittance of responsibility and a formal and hopefully sincere apology to the victims or the relatives of the victims. Being accountable implies the acceptance of at least moral responsibility and it is only through the acceptance of some responsibility that one can render some justice to the victims of the regime. The endeavours of the Eritrean Diaspora, in particular the recent refugees, in telling their stories and giving testimonies to the Commission of Inquire on Human Rights in Eritrea are indeed indispensable for future Eritrea. (6) It is by collecting empirical data and by remembering the victims that one redresses past and current violations of human rights by a regime. It is through the testimonies of all who know, that we remember the righteousness of victims, and by doing so can free the future from past harm and can pave the way for a democratic transition in Eritrea with minimal violence.

One of the unique characteristics and modus operandi of the EPLF/PFDJ dictatorial regime, which makes discussing and resolving the issues of blame and responsibility extremely difficult, if not impossible, is the total absence of any forms of documentation outlining formal accusations, charges or sentences of the victims. (7) All is done in secrecy. All arrest orders are given orally in a chain of command from superior officers to a subordinates and expected to be accepted and implemented without question, with matter of fact certitude. Those who reinforce and implement orders are often precisely like the victims, uninformed and ignorant of the accusations directed against the victims. The EPLF/PFDJ code of conduct developed during the guerrilla era when the end justified the means, is “don´t ask, don´t tell and don´t inquire”. In the EPLP/PFDJ world of Kafkaesque justice, once people are arrested they cease to exist - the henchmen want the victims to be missed by none and forgotten by all.

Those who imprison, torture or kill other Eritreans are precisely like the prisoners they apprehend - Eritreans - often nameless local chiefs  - ”azaz ganta” or ”merah gujile”. Many of the foot-soldiers who reinforce evil may be specially selected for the purpose, and simply do their ”duty” in a system where they hardly have any other choice than to follow orders. Many would claim, perhaps even rightly so, that their actions were not their own, but that they acted under orders, under duress. Many of those who yesterday committed executions and other crimes as security officers of the regime are themselves victimized by the regime. Many are liquidated, while others languish untraceably in jail, without visitation rights, making many both perpetrators and villains at one and the same time!

But for the victims, a former liberation fighter, a former friend, neighbours and even relatives will see the matter differently. They will see the ”merah gugile” or the ”azaz ganta” who  performs the actual killing and torture as being part of the system, as a guilty partner, and therefore accountable. The question is - will the victims accept remorse and the exposure of the system as enough to absolve these perpetrators of responsibility and possible punishment? One such example is the testimony of the former guard at the maximum security prison in Erairo who has defected and who has, in lengthy interviews, exposed the inhumane and degrading conditions of prisoners of conscience, who are mostly high government officials known as G-15. Interestingly, what forced  the prison guard flee and seek asylum was his realization that he too was disposable - when all the prisoners die it will be his turn to be eliminated as a precaution for destroying all forms of incriminating evidence. (8) In essence even the diligent and loyal foot-soldier will sooner or later become a victim of the very system that he daily reinforces.

In a sense, even in ideal scenarios where there is a functioning judiciary system, those who will be tried before a court of law and found guilty or innocent will not be more than a few individuals who occupy the highest echelons of the regime. But those who share moral and political responsibility by virtue of participation in the creation of the entity EPLF/PFDJ  that dominated political power in the new nation are many. Being politically responsible, but not guilty of a crime, applies to all those Eritreans whose active and passive support to the regime and its institutions inside and outside Eritrea has enabled culprits to commit crimes with impunity. These are Eritreans, who are or were sympathetic to the regime of Isaias Afwerki, aided his rise to power, applauded him or watched mutely when people were imprisoned without charges or trial, beaten, their homes confiscated, or did nothing to prevent the enactment of a wrong.

Political and moral responsibility entails not only committing wrongs but also refraining from action, watching passively when wrongs are committed. In this sense all former liberation fighters or tegadeltis are politically and morally but not legally responsible for all the crimes that are done by the organization of which they are part, and of which they are often proud – the EPLF both in pre- and post-independence Eritrea. Political responsibility devolves even into persons who have not committed wrong, but who are nevertheless connected to them. The basis for this responsibility may be our membership in a state dominated by our ethnic group and which no voluntary actions of ours can dissolve. In this sense even those of us who took actions to distance ourselves from the wrongs committed by the EPLF/PFDJ regime and publicly oppose or continue to resist the wrongful actions of the regime may be included, if we persist in remaining insensitive to the demands of the national minorities and the victims of religious persecution or gender oppression.

To be sensitive to the legitimate demands and needs of the ”others” does not mean that one suffers a ‘a crisis of consciousness’ because the regime’s policies are understood as favouring the domination of the tigrinja-speaking ethnic group over the others. It is true that the regime is dominated by tigrinja-speaking males and that it still commands substantial support amongst tigrinja speaking Eritreans in the Diaspora, particular among second generation youth. But the EPLF/PFDJ regime is probably the worst regime in their history, as it has been meticulously destroying the values and the cultural and ethical pillars of Abyssinian society, and this has been done, and is being done, in order create a permanent ahistorical cleavage or fracture between  the tigrinja-speaking Eritreans and their brethren on the Ethiopian side. Besides, the tigrinja-speaking Abyssinian highlanders in Eritrea, like all the other ethnic groups, have paid dearly for the independence of Eritrean, and remain today as one of the prime targets of the EPLF/PFDJ regime’s undiscriminating repression.

Naturally the continuous suppression of all ethnic and religious identity can extend and escalate mutual ethnic-religious irritation and anger, and will lead to polarization amongst Eritreans along ethnic and religious lines, and increase the likelihood of conflict in post-dictatorship Eritrea. Conflicts, particularly armed conflicts, will further reinforce polarization. It is obvious therefore that those who hope for reconciliation in post-dictatorship Eritrea will have to find ways to deal with issues of diversity among various ethnic groups by managing ethnicity and by recognizing the rights of nationalities to promote their ethnicity, and above all to ensure the return of forcibly confiscated ancestral, community, village or private land to its legal owners, and to engage in the introduction of legislature for the regulation of land ownership. Indeed, to promote peaceful ethnic coexistence and reconciliation, a bargaining process - a kind of an ”ethnic social contract” will have to be charted that will recognize differences by striking a balance among groups and correcting injustice as well as by advocating equal opportunity for all regardless of their ethnicity.

The Eritrean dream of independence and all the sacrifices needed to attain it, is about a desire of building a new multiethnic, multicultural and multi-religious nation based on a shared colonial experience within boundaries once delineated in the crudest way to suit the convenience of European colonial powers riding rough-shod over ethnic and linguistic distinctions. The regime’s strategy of new nation-building is to embark on a social engineering experiment with a the  propagandist term ”hade hizbi hade libe” meaning “one people one heart” - a strategy that uses social cohesion, acculturation and brute force to mould the amorphous Eritrean social formation for the purpose of making one set of people with one purpose. To use a metaphor, the regime’s project is to grind a multinational, multicultural and multi-religious Eritrea through a societal mill with the purported aim of creating a new Eritrea and Eritrean based on its citizens’ obligation to perpetual sacrifice (gedli) and perpetual gratitude to the EPLF, with no historical consciousness, no social obligations, no religious beliefs, no property rights, and using the guerrilla organization and experience as a prototype. The violent policies and practices of the regime are not unfortunate and regrettable excesses committed by individuals but conscious state strategy of using institutionalized violence aimed at destroying the old and building the new - a policy reminiscent of the regimes of Stalin and Pol Pot. The regime sees structural violence not only as an indispensable necessity but as a determinant for its project of nation-building. It is only in this way that one can make some sense of the senseless violence that the regime of former liberation fighters practices on its own people.

If Eritreans are to break the cycle of violence and counter-violence and retreat from the path of self-destruction, they have to take great leap forward of behalf of the future generation not only in Eritrea but in the entire region of north-east Africa. The Diaspora, in particular those of us who live in peaceful and democratic countries, have the responsibility of paving the way and sowing the seeds of peace where future generations can live in harmony. Regime change is indeed an urgent necessity for building peace in harmonious ethnic, religious and political diversity.

With wishes of Peace and Prosperity

Footnotes

1.     The Barbarism of war or a peaceful exist option, Tedros A. Ghebrelul, Awate.com Jan 2009

2.     The Holy Bible, the Gospel of John 8: 7

3.     Arendt, Hannah: Eichmann in Jerusalem - A Report on the Banality of Evil (Penguin Classics 2006)

4.     ibid p.250-51. The twin themes of guilt and responsibility and the difference between them are key issues for H. Arendt and discussed even in the essays on Collective Responsibility pp. 43-44, as well as in “Organized Guilt and Universal Responsibility” (1948).

5.     Mesfin Hagos: Reportage of Meeting of EPDP Members in North America with Leadership

Member Mesfin Hagos, harnnet.org, 28th Nov. 2012. Mesfin was a prominent leader of the PLF during the repression of the first democratic opposition of 1973-74, referred to by their enemies with by the derogative term ”menkae”. The leaders including Yohanes Sebhatu, Musie Tesamariam, Afwerki Teklu and many others were ”sentenced” to death by a military ”tribunal” and subsequently executed in 1975.

6.     The Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea accepts submissions in English

by 31 January 2015 at the latest via This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  or UNOG-OCHR, 8-14, Rue de la Paix, CH-1211  Geneva 10, Switzerland.

7.     Lebona, Zekere: Eritrean Quietness and the Disposing of Victims without a Trace 2014-05-21  

Asmarino.com

8.     Eyob Bahta Habtermariam interviewed by Elsa Chyrum (Human Rights Concern Eritrea), uploaded to youtube:

18 Sept. 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEs28Pwotz4 

8 Oct 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hXjNTNJ5g4