The Eritrean Mereb

Eritrea: Remembering Abraham (MIT), Remembering a Generation

2019-01-09T09:30:00.000-05:00

This article was written in Asmarino.com by its staff.

Eritrea: Remembering Abraham (MIT), Remembering a Generation

· by AI Staff

· on 25 September 2015

· in Editorial

This article is written in memory of Abraham Ghebreghiorgis (aka Abraham MIT) on the first year anniversary of his death. Abraham, one of the dynamic writers gracing asmarino.com as early as 2000, had been a regular contributor to the article section of the website for many years. He passed away on Sept 10, 2014.

Abraham’s story happens to be a quintessential Eritrean story of the generation that has lived through all the ups and downs of the Eritrean revolutionary journey. In it, we find all the phases that many of that era’s generation underwent as the Eritrean political and social landscape kept undergoing dramatic upheavals. In particular, his story gives us a synoptic picture of how diaspora students responded to the Eritrean call, best exemplified in the militant student organization known as Eritreans for Liberation in North America (EFLNA), more popularly known by its Tigrigna acronym “ENASEA” (ኤናሰኣ). Thus, in telling the story of Abraham in the US, we are also telling the story of the student organization and vice versa, for their respective trajectories in the political transformations they underwent happen to overlap to a great extent; that is, their stories will be used to throw light on one another so as to develop a better understanding of both; and, thereby, on that revolutionary era.

Below we will, first, briefly go through Abraham’s academic achievements. Second, we will take a closer look at EFLNA; in particular, at the ethos of sacrifice that defined it throughout its duration. Third, we will look at Abraham’s EFLNA years, and how he responded to the “Eritrean call”. Fourth, we will look art how painful was the organization’s breakup from the EPLF, and Abraham’s critical role in midwifing this divorce. And, fifth, we will go over some of Abraham’s contributions in asmarino.com.

In this article, Asmarino staff will focus only on the “political” Abraham. For the “family man” Abraham, we have asked the family members to write a brief profile to be added to this article; thus the best part comes in the last section.

ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE

If there is one phrase that describes Abraham’s school years from elementary to higher learning, it would be: academic excellence.

Abraham was born in Adi-Quala to his father, Ghebreghiorgis Ghebreyohannes, and his mother, Sebene Kahsai on July 7^th, in 1949. He grew up in Asmara, where he received his elementary (1955-1962) and junior secondary (1962-1964) education, at Geza Kenisha and Biet Ghiorgis respectively. He ended both his elementary and junior secondary education with great distinctions and received many awards. In one instance of early academic achievement, Abraham was awarded a prize by the hands of Lt. General Lij Abiye Abebe who was the representative of Emperor Haile Selassie in Eritrea during the Federation era.

As such, he easily managed to enter the prestigious General Wingate High School (1964-1968), with full scholarship. The school used to select exceptionally gifted students from the provinces. Abraham highly enjoyed the General Wingate School and developed voracious reading habit there that stayed with him for the rest of his lifetime. He also excelled in his Matriculation Exam, with straight ‘A’s for all the eight subjects he took, a rare achievement that earned him the Haile Selassie Prize Award. He received an Omega golden watch from the hands of Emperor Haile Selassie and 100 Birr per month allowance (equivalent to a teacher’s monthly salary at that time) in his campus years. In 1968, this award for unusual academic excellence was shared with only one other student in the entire country.

Continuing this tradition of academic excellence, Abraham won Fulbright Scholarship from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1970-1973) while he was a second year student at Haile Selassie University in Addis Ababa (1968-1970). He happened to appreciate the dedication and competitiveness of MIT student life. His forte was in modeling and rigorous mathematics. But it was not all academics, for it was in MIT that he was exposed to the intricacies of the Eritrean liberation movements and the Eritrean Diaspora in Boston. As a result, for the first time in his student life, he started becoming active in politics. He graduated from MIT with Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering.

And again, consistent with his academic achievement in the past, Abraham was given full scholarship for PHD in Mathematics from John Hopkins University. He declined the offer. This was the first time that Abraham prioritized something else over his academic pursuance. He believed that there was greater need for him somewhere else: the struggle for the liberation of Eritrea. Here, we witness a tangible enactment of the ethos of sacrifice that was to define the Eritrean community in North America during the 70s.

Abraham was to return to campus only after the demise of EFLNA. He entered Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1980, and achieved a Master’s Degree in Law and Diplomacy in 1982.

Those who knew Abraham in his school years remember him as a very serious student singularly focused on his studies; that is, even in his early years. A friend at Biet Ghiorgis School remembers him as a sober student, and somewhat introvert; that he was more of a listener than a talker, rarely initiating response on his own and often the last to respond in class. Another friend from his Wingate years similarly remembers him as a hard working, studious student. And those who knew him at the university in Addis Ababa remember him as remaining totally apolitical throughout his campus years [to the resentment of some of his peers], and entirely focused on his engineering studies. The tumultuous leftist student movement of that era, which was very active in those years, hardly affected him. This is indeed in great contrast to his EFLNA years; that is, Abraham became politicized not in Eritrea, not in Ethiopia, but in the USA – which, by itself, is an interesting phenomenon.

In 1983 he was employed at Verizon, and had been working there for 25 years, first as an economist, then as financial analyst until retirement in 2008. He passed away on Sept 10, 2014 as a result of colon cancer. He has been survived by his wife Azezet Abraha, his sons Andom and Semere and his daughter Zied.

Now, let us look back at those intense EFLNA years, with the spirit of sacrifice that defined a whole generation as our primary focus, since only within that background would the Abraham’s story that we want to tell make sense.

A GENERATION’S SACRIFICE

Often, when the subject of “sacrifice” in the Eritrean context arises, it is the sacrifice of the teghadallti (the guerrilla freedom fighters) at mieda that is mostly pointed at. To a lesser extent, the larger population in mainland Eritrea that supported the struggle in various ways and had to go through many hardships is also mentioned. But to fully grasp how the spirit of the times engulfed the Eritrean mind, there is no better place to see it than in diaspora; and among the diaspora, the student organization in North America.

In the 70s, a nationalist fever engulfed the Eritrean students in North America. In its strict adherence to its self-imposed revolutionary principles, a quasi-religious atmosphere prevailed among EFLNA’s members. Some would even go as far as saying that it was more of a cult-like climate. When one of the leaders of the organization interviewed for this article was asked on how this cult-like phenomenon evolved, he says that it should be looked at from the greater context of the times, and that we shouldn’t be judgmental. Globally, it was an idealistic era, with the idea of revolution finding resonance among many of the so-called enlightened groups. And then, of course, let’s not forget that in mainland Eritrea, the revolution was framed in similar terms: the oppressed Eritreans fighting against the Ethiopian imperialists. Besides, peer pressure and guilt consciousness had a great role to play, he adds.

But there are others who disagree, and instead invoke not only the idealist era but also the participants’ young age to fully grasp the unusual realty that emerged then. Another friend of Abraham, who was also part of the broader leadership, objects to the label “cult-like” altogether; and instead points to the fact that almost all of the members were young, in the ages between 20 and 30, and hence that the then prevailing atmosphere has to be looked at with that particular extenuating circumstance in mind.

Whichever way the era was described though, there is one thing that all seem to agree: that it undoubtedly was an era of sacrifice. All agree that a highly disciplined student community whose sole priority was securing the liberation of Eritrea emerged in those years, making sacrifice the ultimate virtue. Some sacrificed their education; others their livelihood; others family life, and still others postponed all kinds of private life. The goal was to emulate the ascetic life of the freedom fighters in the fields of Eritrea.

The ascetic life was to be seen everywhere, in almost everything that the students did. All kinds of excesses were denounced and frugality was championed across the board, with the critical difference in time, resources, money and even emotion to be sacrificed; with all that had been “frugally saved” being promptly channeled to the revolution. In short, one’s private life had to be almost given up for the Greater Cause. Anyone that dared to wear flashy or expensive clothes or who frequented nightclubs or other entertainments was frowned upon. Eating community prepared meals at meeting places of the organization was encouraged. Many others lived in crowded apartments, trying to save as much as possible from rent.

The payoff of this across-the-board sacrifice was to be seen in the staggering amount of money they used to collect. Besides the amount of money that each chapter was assigned to raise, there were competitive donations that were made in various occasions. In an organization of around 800 members only [the Eritrean diaspora population in North America was very small at that time], and for that made up mainly of students, the money channeled to the coffers of the EPLF was of huge amount. For instance, by 1979, when the organization decided to disband, it had almost one million dollars in the bank; money that eventually was to be forwarded to the EPLF.

The role the diaspora money collected [not only from the students in North America, but also from the housemaids in Italy and Middle East] played at mieda shouldn’t be underestimated, especially since it came at a very critical time. With the expulsion of Saleh Sabe from the EPLF, the money source from the Arab world had dried up. Thus, the diaspora money arrived when the EPLF was facing a dire financial crisis to meet the minimum demands of the extensive guerrilla warfare it was conducting then.

This self-imposed frugality was also to be witnessed in the precious time the students were willing to spend in the service of the Struggle. Every Sunday, there was a general meeting with its emphasis on political education that everyone had to attend; no excuses were accepted. If one was unable to make it, he/she was heavily criticized in the leftist format of “criticism and self-criticism”. Any straying from the party line was a no-no – the endless meetings were meant to instill this fact above everything else. In addition to the general meetings, each one was advised to be active in at least one of the various committees. Every member had to take turn in attending to the household chorus in the meeting places, such as cooking, dish washing and cleaning. In short, the life of the students seemed to revolve around this single issue of the Struggle; everything else became secondary.

But this ethos of “sacrifice” is understood best if it is stretched to include the emotional involvement that one was willing to invest. That is, one’s emotional displays towards others – one’s own family members, friends, lovers, acquaintances, etc – had to be frugally saved for the Greater Cause. One of Abraham’s friends, while reminiscing on that era, provides a memorable example. He says that they were not even allowed to mourn the death of their dear ones properly, the rationale being that one shouldn’t put one’s personal loss above the national one. He was speaking from his own experience; when his father died, he had to keep the pain pent up within himself, any emotional display being taken as sign of weakness. At a time when thousands were getting killed at mieda in the war of independence, focusing on one’s own individual losses was totally discouraged.

The EFLNA members were so engrossed in their Cause that the rest of the world was shut out. They did this in two ways: by making a minimal social contact with Eritreans who were unwilling to be part of the organization and by ignoring the larger world in whose midst they were living. Thus, a somewhat insulated world was created.

Above, we have been looking at the 70s era of sacrifice as embodied in the Eritrean students of North America, in almost everything they did: from the cheap clothes they wore, the shared foods they ate, flashy entertainments they avoided, crowded apartments they slept, precious times they spent on the Cause to the communal lives they lived. Now, we will see how that era of sacrifice exhibited itself in one man, Abraham Ghebreghiorgis.

ABRAHAM’S SACRIFICE

We see the generational sacrifice described above in Abraham EFLNA years in three areas: education, career and family. This is because he felt that he would need all his resources – time-wise, financial, mental, emotional, etc – should go to the Struggle. The fact that Abraham was not only a member but also one of the leaders also provides us with a unique perspective to understand that era better.

The Strive for Education curbed

When Abraham finished his undergraduate studies at MIT, as pointed above, he was given the option of joining the prestigious John Hopkins University, with full scholarship for a PHD in Mathematics. But he declined the offer believing that it would derail him from serving the Eritrean cause in his capacity as one of the EFLNA leadership. When Abraham was asked by EFLNA to join the leadership, he had convinced them to let him finish his undergraduate study first given that it was only one year left for him to complete it. After that, there was no way he could plan for a post-graduate study. As many of his other colleagues, it is clear he had to curb his ambition in education and career for the sake of the Cause.

Once he became one of the five in the leadership position, he had to commit himself totally to the Cause. That means this was to be a full-time job. As a Political Commissar, he was in charge of the political education of the members. And as a militant political organization, it was imperative that the organization had to build the political consciousness of the members to a high level. As such, Abraham was selecting and preparing (and sometimes translating) topics for studies, reading and tutorial. This included Eritrean history, the then current situation in Eritrea and, of course, the indispensable theoretical framework of Marxism-Leninism through which prism everything was assessed.

So how did the leaders who were committed full-time to the Cause manage to live? Well, it goes without saying that they had to lead by example. The five leaders used to live in one bedroom apartment. All they used to get was $200.00 monthly stipend from the money collected from members. Even though their rent was also paid by others, you can imagine living in New York (out of all places!) with that kind of money. No wonder then that their lives were extremely ascetic, proudly reflecting the life at mieda. These self-imposed hardships made sense to them because the benchmark of comparison was always the hardships of the freedom fighters.

In many instances, this demand for sacrifice was not only imposed upon themselves, but also upon their beloved ones. In fact, there is an interesting story to tell that sums up this ethos of sacrifice that defined that era that didn’t even spare one’s own family – a “farewell letter” that Abraham sent to his parents years after he decided to fully commit himself to the Cause.

The Farewell Letter

Abraham came from a modest family and all his adult life he strived to help his parents as the eldest child; that is, except for that brief era of sacrifice. His attempt to financially support his family started when he was a student at Haile Selassie University. Being fortunate enough to get 100 Birr a month allowance for his academic excellence, he was able to financially help the family at that early age. Once he was given a scholarship abroad though, he was forced to discontinue that help for he had to save for various expenses, however painful to him that decision was. Nevertheless, he started to help his family again as soon as he found his footing in the US; that is, while he was still a student. It is important to know all this background, for what he was about to do was radically the opposite: he was willing to stop all the financial help to the family in order to divert his energy to the Cause. The spirit of the time as embodied in the Eritrean students in North America seems to be encapsulated in this unarticulated motto: the greater Eritrean family over the nuclear family! This “nuclear family” has to be understood in two senses: not only were the parents and siblings one already had were to be bypassed, but the family that one wanted to have was to be postponed [Abraham was married in 1984].

When Abraham decided that the nation came ahead of the family, he cut off his contact with his family for years. In his letter, he provided a belated explanation why he had to do this. The statement that notoriously summed up his state of mind in that letter was: “The family problem cannot be solved until the Eritrean problem is solved.” And he acted upon this strange belief that defined the times: he went on to solve the national problem (as he understood it), fully deferring the family problem. His father understandably got furious, and he purportedly said, “How dare he equate me with the rest of the nation? Wasn’t I who brought him up to this position?”

Abraham’s brothers tried to reconstruct the letter from memory:

መልእኽቲ ኣብርሃም ገብረጊዮርጊስ ኣብ 1977 ድሕረ ምምላስ

ካብ ቀዳማይ ውድባዊ ጉባኤ ንስድራ ቤቱ ዝለኣኾ ደብዳቤ

ክቡራት ስድራ ቤት

ብመጀመርታ ብዙሕ ናፍቆት ዝበዝሖ ሰላምታ፡ ቀጺለ ድማ ን 3 ወርሒ ዝኸውን ኣብ ሜዳ ኤርትራ በጺሐ ከምዝነበርኩ ክሕብር ይፈቱ። መጺእኩም ክትሪኡኒ እዃ እንተበሃግኹ፡ ናይ ሰውራ ጉዳይ ብሚስጢር ክተሓዝ ስለዘለዎን ሓደጋ ከይበጽሓናን ብምሕላይ ኢየ።

እምበኣር ንነዊሕ ዓመታት ብምጥፈኤይ ከይገረመኩምን ከይተሸገርኩምን ኣይተርፍን፡ የግዳስ ኣነ ንሃገረይ ክገልግል ስለዝመረጽኩን ስለዝተወፈኹን ኢየ። ኣነ ብመጀመርታ ንኣቦይን ንኣደይን የፍቅር፡ ፍቅሪ ወለደይ ድማ ንሃገረይ ከፍቅር ደሪኹኒ። ትምህርተይ ተከታቲለን፡ ስራሕ ሰሪሐን ሽግርኩም ንክፈትሕ ምፈተንኩ፡ ግን ናይ ሃገር ሽግር ክይተፈትሐ ሽግርኩም መሰረታዊ ፍታሕ ክረክብ ስለዘይክእል ንሃገረይ ተወፍየ ከገልግል መሪጸ።

ብኩነታተይ ብዙሕ ኣይትሻቐሉ፡ ዓወትና ናይ ግድን ስለዝኾነ።

ምስ ብዙሕ ሰላምታ፡

ወድኹምን ሓውኹምን

ኣብርሃም ገብረጊዮርጊስ

This idea of giving oneself totally to the Cause, with no divergent attention demanded by family or career, clearly depicts the state of mind of the EFLNA. And for those at leading position, this self-imposed demand was no less than 100 percent. That is why Abraham felt that he had to divorce himself from family matters completely if he was to serve the Struggle in his full capacity as one of the leadership.

THE SCHISM

Even though Eritrean students in North America began to organize themselves around 1970 under the name of Eritrean Youth for Liberation, it was done locally and lacked a unitary structure. To redress this, in 1971, the organization conducted its first congress, and renamed itself as Eritreans for Liberation. It took one more year for it to adopt the name by which it has been known ever since – EFLNA. Even though it had made contact with the EPLF since 1971, it took five years more, in 1976, for it to officially identify itself as part of the EPLF body. And in 1977, as part of that body, the student organization sent its delegates to attend the Congress at mieda. Abraham was one of the 9-members group of the EFLNA that went to join the 1977 Congress.

After the student delegates came back, the climate was positive and upbeat. Andemichael Kahsay came to visit the organization with a message of solidarity from mieda. It was not until 1978 that cracks began to appear. The breach was based on the relationship of the Soviet Union and the Derg vs. Eritrea. The members couldn’t understand why on earth the EPLF would refuse to condemn the Soviet Union, even as the latter kept arming its mortal enemy, namely Ethiopia, to the teeth. The students invoked a theoretical framework to their help: given that to forgo communism was unthinkable, they labeled the Soviet Union as “revisionist” and “social imperialist”. This way, they could keep their communist ideology as they kept condemning the Soviet Union, with China or Albania filling in the gap for ideological guidance. The crisis reached its final stage when in 1978 the EFLNA leadership and members condemned the EPLF leadership and dissociated the organization from being part of the EPLF body.

Till the day of the split, even during the years when it was unambiguously part and parcel of the EPLF body, EFLNA had kept its organizational autonomy and was publishing its own periodicals. This fact made the dissociation easy to perform at a technical level. That cannot be said though at the emotional level.

Soon after the breakup, an existential crisis began to emerge in the organization: What was EFLNA supposed to do after having severed itself from the freedom fighters in Eritrea? How was it supposed to retain a link with mieda once it had cut off the connection with the only movement the members had believed to be the vanguard of the revolution? The lack of clear purpose that emerged as a result of the split was almost killing the organization. It was not long before many of the members began to wonder whether they had gone too extreme in totally severing the link. Already, many had defected to the EPLF camp. And the rest needed a framework that would provide them with an honorable exit without capitulating to the EPLF. And here is where Abraham, who was still part of the leadership at that time, came up with a brilliant compromise.

Characteristic of Abraham, what he recommended was the two consecutive steps that have been the hallmarks of his workings: first, to undertake a rigorous study in regard to the problem (and involved the members in the undertaking of the study) and, second, to seek consensus or compromise before offering a solution. As such, Abraham was central in developing the Timre-Temkro – that is, the appraisal of the decisive resolution taken by the organization and its results – which was critical in finding a resolution to the dead end brought by the organization’s new radical stand against the EPLF. Basically, it was a summation and evaluation of the organization’s one year experience after the schism with EPLF.

The Timre-Temkro comprised of two important points that, looking back, should be considered quite new phenomena in ghedli experience. First, the leadership admitted mistakes taken in both strategy and tactics, making EFLNA the only Eritrean organization that evaluated its experiences and left a summation of its achievements and mistakes in print. No other organization from the ghedli era has ever done that. Since this self-critical approach is still lacking among the opposition camp, this step taken by EFLNA is not to be underestimated in terms of the legacy it left for future organizations to emulate.

Second, Abraham cleverly postulated on who is “nationalist” in a way that would allow the EFLNA to pass in between the two horns of the dilemma it had created for itself. At those times every Eritrean group and organization were accusing other organizations as non-nationalists and reactionaries. Abraham’s reformulation was that “a nationalist is whoever is struggling to make Eritrea free”. Hence, for the first time in EFLNA, the ELF, EPLF and other Eritrean groups started to be taken on equal standing within the organization. This is indeed a great step for the organization, which until then believed the EPLF to be the only vanguard of the revolution.

It is not that others before Abraham failed to equate ELF with EPLF; actually many did. Thus, the merit of Abraham’s approach is to be found not in the equating itself, but in the categorical approach that allowed this equating, albeit at a lower level, within the organization – among others. Let’s see how the invoked distinction achieve that.

The honorable exit that EFLNA members were seeking was to be found in this new distinction between being merely nationalistic or patriotic and being the vanguard of the revolution. It required being fully revolutionary in all its communist sense to qualify as the latter, while any force that fights the enemy in the name of the nation would qualify as the former. An example that Abraham invoked in his defense of this distinction was the Chinese experience. In the fight against the Japanese occupiers, the brief alliance between the Communists and Chiang Kai-shek imperial forces provided a theoretical/ideological framework for EFLNA’s resolution, the rationale being that it was OK to make alliance with nationalists when there is a bigger enemy that threatens the nation.

Given that the EPLF had failed the revolutionary test (after having failed to denounce “revisionist” Soviet Union), it was downgraded to being merely a nationalistic movement. Now, instead of total severance, this downgrading made three things possible. First, it made sense for the EFLNA to continue working with the EPLF, if the latter would allow it. Second, it made the ELF as acceptable as the EPLF. Third, the analysis would leave EFLNA as the only true vanguard of the revolution.

Looked at retrospectively, all this might sound like semantic splitting. But at the time, any solution had to come in its communist grab, or it wouldn’t be found acceptable by the members. But however ingenious was the solution, it depended on the movements at mieda to provide purpose to the EFLNA’s mission. Needless to say, both ELF and EPLF rejected the extended hand, albeit in its qualified form, of the organization; the former still smattering from the years of antagonistic stand it faced from the student organization and the latter totally outraged by the audacity of the upstart students. Deprived of its mieda link, it was clear then that the student organization wouldn’t last long. On the year of 1978, it came to its final dissolution. Thus, even though the distinction provided many members clear conscience with which they would be able to cut off their former revolutionary link with EPLF, in the end they couldn’t find enough of a purpose to hold their organization together.

Years passed between Abraham’s EFLNA years and asmarino.com (as a writer) years; and there is no better comparison to look at for the radical political transformation that Abraham underwent.

ASMARINO YEARS

In his Asmarino years, Abraham wrote on a number of subjects, both under various pennames and under his real name. As early as 2000, he was critical of Eritrean intellectuals, of having failed across the board in challenging the regime in Asmara in its humanitarian abuses and in its economic, political and war policies. But the three subjects that mattered to him most, and to which he kept coming back again and again to address them exhaustively, were those of the “constitution”, “rule of law” and “national language”.

He was very logical in his approach, and at times it required courage to address them. Now compiled in his website eritreanmereb.blogspot.com, its entry makes it clear: “The Eritrean Mereb advocates for constitutional liberalism, the respect of the rule of law, the protection of property rights, peace and free trade in Eritrea.” If one goes by the content of this website, it is clear that Abraham was consumed by the rule of law and constitutionalism. Even the subjects of language, religion and minority rights are addressed within the parameters of rule of law and constitutionalism.

Abraham believed that, in spite of its shortcomings, the ratified constitution should not only be the base upon which the future democratic Eritrea has to be built, but also could be effectively used as a rallying point for the opposition. He thought that, given the fractured nature of the opposition, the constitution could be the minimum program upon which all could converge:

On the rule of law, the most memorable quotation says,

“We know that there is no rule of law in Eritrea, worse; there are no known rules of any kind, only arbitrary edicts and decrees. In fact the very People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) itself does not abide by the rules of its own organization. It is an organization that is gliding haphazardly without political radar even of the socialist kind.” [The Coup D’etat in Eritrea]

Even though he was a vocal proponent of democracy, he didn’t fall into the wrong description of the regime that the majority in the opposition subscribe, namely that the problem of Isaias regime is merely the failure of democratic credentials (or the non-implementation of the constitution). Even though he was an ardent believer in the ratified constitution, he did realize that the extent of the malady that afflicted the system went beyond the failure of its implementation. The fact that the organization cannot even follow its own rules means that it could only thrive in an arbitrary world symptomatic of highly authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Thus, according to him, the Eritrean masses are not simply the victims of lack of democracy, but of lack of any kind of rule of law that you find even in absolute monarchies or various dictatorships. Abraham’s phrase “a regime that doesn’t even follow its own rules” aptly captures this abnormal phenomenon that has victimized the nation for years on end.

Another principled stand that Abraham courageously took was against the standard view of the majority that had to do with the status of Arabic as a national language. He firmly believed that was a short sighted stand that had no logical basis and that would have dire consequences in the future. Again, he was being scrupulously logical in his approach, as he kept demolishing one argument after another, without giving in to public opinion or political correctness. He always considered that religion and national language should not be linked in any way with one another, a pitfall that Eritreans keep ignoring to their peril.

Instead, he boldly proposed that English should be the working language of Eritrea. His approach, though scrupulously logical, was entirely pragmatic; his assessment was based on the merits of adopting English language in the 21^st century: as the most universal language, as a language of science, as a language of books, as the language of future, as a language of internet, as a language of trade and commerce, etc.

His mixing of rigorousness in study with flexibility in suggestions that have been his hallmark in finding resolutions to problems can also be seen when he amended his proposal to meet the plausible demands of many of his readers:

“In my first post, I received some constructive criticisms by wise and astute compatriots. I went back to the drawing board and did further research. Now, I admit that one cannot conduct affairs that are of cultural and national nature in a foreign language, though this is usually of a symbolic nature, for example the conducting of as simple as a national anthem. This involves matter of national identity, dignity and pride. That is also how Singapore addresses its working language issues; that is English is the working language of all matters; however, when it comes to issues of identity then affairs are conducted in Malay, one of the three official languages along with English. I reconsider my original position of sticking only to English as the working language of Eritrea. Instead, I recommend that English to be one the working languages of Eritrea, along with Eritrean native languages. As to the native languages, my personal desire is to designate Tigrinya and Tigre as the official languages of Eritrea because of their wide coverage of the Eritrean population.” (The Language Question Revisited)

One thing that seemed to be frustrating to Abraham was Eritreans’ tendency to look at things collectively rather than individually. Abraham realized that a collective approach to the recalcitrant problems of Eritrea was doomed to fail; hence his holding the individual above the collective in matters of “rights”. For instance, in the land issue, he persistently advocated for private ownership, even as he sympathized with the collective grievances that the regime’s land policy engendered. So is it with minority rights; he advocated that individual rights would address most of the collective concerns.

Conclusion

There is something enduring that characterizes Abraham both in his consistency and transformation, however contradictory that may seem at first look. If one looks at his “methodology” throughout his ELFNA years or in the years since, what remained consistent is the two-step approach we have noticed above: first, undertaking a rigorous study of the problematic subject matter; and second, seeking a consensus or compromise in the solution offered. We have seen how this methodology was applied not only in the EFLNA crisis, but also in all the issues he addressed in his asmarino.com years: the constitution, the language issue, the land issue, the minority rights issue, etc.

But consistency in methodology doesn’t mean consistency in political outlook; hence, his political transformation. In his EFLNA years, especially in his leadership years, as a political commissar, Abraham was the one who was not only selecting the leftists reading material for political consciousness, but was also translating Stalinist literature. On the other hand, in his asmarino years, he became an avowed advocate of individual liberty. To grasp how big this transformation had been, one need only realize that Abraham’s most quoted writer was none other than Friedrich Hayek, a man famously known for his defense of individualism and classical liberalism. From collectivist ideas of Marx to the individualist world of Hayek, that is indeed the longest road one could transverse in the political world.

Thus, if there is one phrase that aptly describes Abraham, it would be: scrupulously logical and principled without being dogmatic.

So long, Abraham – Asmarino misses you!

Asmarino Staff

09/25/15

COMMENTS:

· MW • 2 years ago

Dear all,
In the above article I noticed a curious comment that considered the particular brand of Marxism-Leninism that Abraham Ghebreghiorgis and the EPLF were enchanted by. They branded the Soviet Union as revisionist and social imperialist and debated the need for the denunciation of it. About the same time that debate happened the TPLF and the EPRP had also the same deliberations. Since the TPLF was hooked up with the EPLF, it can be thought that the EPLF shared ideological updates with the TPLF. On the other hand, they both claimed they had differences in the past so whether they sat together to formulate emerging ideological updates is not clear. However, the EPLF and the EPRP were not doing ideological peer reviews of each other. In fact the TPLF and the EPRP were enemies seeking the demise of one another at the time. How is it possible then that all three came up with identical ideological updates with exactly the same terms and expressions describing positions? It is not possible unless there is a third party common to them all reviewing their doctrines. My suspicion is that they all had a common foreign puppeteer captaining them.

r.dachuben • 2 years ago

"To me, that story narrated above is about her - a story of a great Habesha woman. She is the one who deserves admiration"

Dear MW, Sir
I agree with you a million times about the indefatigable,wise and loyal Habesha WOMAN. And I am also in tune with your analysis about the LOST generation of Habesha Intellectuals with their toxic "modern education" system -- which leaves its victims with artificial superiority complex, camouflaging the true consequence i.e. INFERIORITY complex.
Over the years ( indeed, a long time) I have already enunciated my opinion in fragmented pieces, here and there, written and verbal.
"Eritrea" will NEVER reach it potentials greatness unless it is prepared to recognize and accept the REALITY of its true TRUE history -- along with the reality of international politics

o r.dachuben r.dachuben • 2 years ago

CORRECTION
Re: Lat paragraph
" it potentials", please correct it to read: "its potential"
"true", delete. [retain TRUE as is]
Thank You.

Daniel Yemane r.dachuben • 2 years ago

I don't believe my own eyes! Is that you, r.dachuben, Asmarino's asset? Welcome back brother. I/we missed you a lot.

Whenever I read the breathtaking comments of MW, It reminds me the book, THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION.

r.dachuben Daniel Yemane • 2 years ago

Dear Brother Daniel Yemane,

You better believe your eyes. Yes, I am the r.dachuben -- still flapping and swimming (erratically as it may be)! Long story!

Thank you very much for the generous and heart-warming
welcoming gesture (I mean it).

May “Eritrea”, one bright day, come to its senses and find
its way by itself for its OWN benefit. Fragmentation requires no imagination.

Daniel Teclegiorgis • 2 years ago

This is a phenomenal summary of the sacrifice paid in the making?? of Eritrea. Trying to read it line to line with a sensation of the immense sacrifice, the tragedy and loss of direction in the Eritrea of now takes graphic image, job well done Asmarino staff!

But the challenge out of the box of sacrifice is obscurity in bridging the starting and end points in the process. In other words to make it easier understand where we are now history needs more about where we were. And if the style of the emperor who recognizes quality and intellect by awarding scholarship plus an omega watch was part of where we were, no wonder confusion or loss of direction to be part of an image of where we are.

John591 • 2 years ago

Lebona's question is mean and out of place. Abraham was naturally a smart guy and took advantage of every academic opportunity availed to him. Why is Selassie the bogey man here? The king was 1000 times better than the afaf IA. We all got the best that Haile Sellasie can offer in terms of education opportunities granted to selected few while Haile Sellasie was simultaneously suppressing Eritreans' resistance to his iron will. I knew Abraham barely and he was a decent man-- even a little shy or aloof but nevertheless the smartest guy in the room. Leftist ideology in the 70s was the thing to do as well as having afros, bell bottom pants, and platform shoes..it was a generational thing and life experienc.. So Zekere calm down...you should have enjoyed the beautifully written memorial of MIT as was known then.. Asmarino should be thanked for remembering a good man who is no longer with us.

Zekre Lebona John591 • 2 years ago

Dear John592,
I promise to calm down, and say this: the emperor was progressive in his early years governing Ethiopia; say some historians. Had he stepped down and let some sort of constitutional monarchy or other kind of government, the empire would have been spared the military regime under Mengistu, and equally the guerrillas, who are simply glamorized military, who weren't from the barracks, but student radicals who lived by imposing themselves on poor peasants in Eritrea and the rest of Ethiopia. Had he stepped down, the minuscule bureaucrats and technocrats together with the support of the West would probably have come up with a better governance and avoid the war by the fanos of the left. I therefore blame the emperor and the nobility for leaving us with these wolves. I blame however much more my generation, and myself for the horror we delivered in the region. Your comparison to student riots in the West isn't fair at all. People in the west demonstrated, grew their hair, and wore bell bottom pants, took drugs, but society restrained them before they were able to launch millenarian movements. Our society failed to do that for many reasons, and lived in hell for decades.

Some communist guy • 2 years ago

I believe there's nothing surprising in the "I became poitically active in the US" part of comrade MIT's life. Most African students - including Eritreans - were turned into hardcore revolutionaries because of their stay in the US.
Most of them faced racism for the first time. The only antiracist campus movements at the time were Marxist-Leninist organizations (Spartacist League, RCP-USA, Black Panthers...etc) or Panafricanist movements.
Kwame Nkrumah became politically active only after his studies in the US for example.

They also became aware of Eritrean nationalism because of the conceptual framework they evolved in their American years. For the first time, key issues such as self-determination and social justice were openly discussed.
On the other side, they gave their friends and siblings at home revolutionary material that didn't exist in Addis or Asmara (cf Bahru Zewde's research on the Ethiopian student movement.

Very interesting article ! It's the first time in a long time i found anything that interesting on asmarino.com

Simon Kaleab Some communist guy • 2 years ago

Selam Some communist guy,

Haile Selassie University's Kennedy library was full of the works of Marx, Engles, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and other communist authors at that time. It was also possible to get these Marxist books and Peking Review, for free, by writing to the Chinese Communist Party publishers.

Simon Kaleab • 2 years ago

Abraham Ghebreghiorgis, what a marvellous chap!

To be a left-wing Marxist when young, and to turn into a full blown liberal at middle age is a natural path of development for many a healthy and dynamic mind. For example, if one checks the backgrounds of most of the prominent neo-Con individuals in the USA, one will discover that they used to be Trotskyists in their youth.

The 60's and the 70's were times of revolutions. From Latin America through Africa and all the way to the Far East, a universal feeling of change was in the air. Even the USA and Europe were not spared from this emotional tide. Frustrated with the failure of the post-war dream, the hippie and anti-war movements in the USA, student uprising in France, the Baader-Meinhof terror gang in Germany, the Red Brigades in Italy were all caught up in the tide of youth idealism trying to challenge the established order. All of these were leftists, some were seriously enamoured with Marxism as a panacea for all ills of society. But this was a false path, as history has shown.

Meanwhile, in the countries that the Western and Third-World youth idolised, i.e. the Soviet Block, China, North Korea, Cuba, and later on in Indo-China (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos) dictatorships were being consolidated, and individual rights being crushed. Tanks were rolling in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the notorious cultural revolution was in full swing in China, all crushing every sign of dissent in their path.

A friend of mine with cynical and sarcastic inclination once observed as follows: A paradox - Most of those Third-World students who go on scholarships to the West end up being left-wing Marxists, while those sent to the Eastern block turn to be business men.

I can with a good deal certainty state that Marxism was imported to the Ethiopian student movement, single handedly, by none other than Dr. Eshetu Chole (Economics) of Haile Selassie University. Eshetu was on a scholarship to the USA. Well known friends of Eshetu were individuals such as Yohannes Sebhatu (Eritrea- Digsa) and Afeworki Teklu (Eritrea- Adi Teklezan), who, after joining the EPLF, were labelled, defamed, isolated and murdered by Isaias and his friends (some of whom, now, claim to be democrats and are thrown, by their former friend, to prison).

The youth were caught in the spirit of the time. During the French Revolution, the English poet William Wordsworth wrote:
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!

Of course, there were problems during the Haile Selassie's regime. The most important being:

1) An unjust land holding system,
2) Economic stagnation and lack of social mobility,
3) The exclusion of most ethnic groups from power sharing (southern groups were made invisible, punishment was meted out to Tigray etc.)

These and some others provided an alibi for a revolution.

But in Eritrea, there were two major problems. The age old ambition of Muslim Arabs to complete the unfinished business of capturing highland Ethiopia/Eritrea through their proxies (local clones), and the intense desire of the urbanized Eritrean highland petty-bourgeoisie to be its own boss.

The rest is history.

But, now, with sufficient hindsight, have any lessons been learnt by all those groups, on both sides of the problem, or are they still in denial?

Amha TD • 2 years ago

Touching. Endearing. Abraham’s life is emblematic of sheer brains, exceptional intellects, along with the corresponding pristine personality make-ups that a certain 'rising' Eritrea had produced. Dashed, lost in the march of history cum other translations, or still living as a model, a guide, of what should be about a good and true Eritrean today and in the future? The most outstanding aspect of this piece is that it is by its very composition much more than a standard eulogy of a departed, It records, it opens a register, for lives and itineraries of the many 'unsung', It provides crucial elements that have to,,one day, be factored in and knowledgeably processed to seriously understand the free fall of our society and the tenebrous situation it is i these last decades.

pdelargy • 2 years ago

These two articles, reflecting very different sides of a truly remarkable man, not only help us all know him better but also bring Eritrean history alive. They tell so many stories which are so important for all Eritreans to know. Stories not only about how the young revolutionary Eritreans thought about things and organized themselves in those early years of the struggle but also are a reminder of the most important aspects of Eritrean culture - love of learning, commitment to justice, gentle caring for friends and family. In these difficult times, these values are the anchors which all Eritreans (and those who love Eritrea) should hold on to with all our strength.

Zekre Lebona • 2 years ago

I think, this article is the first of its type to discuss the role of an Eritrean nationalist and his generation in a critical way. In methodology, it resembles the works of the deceased. What I don't understand is this: how did the educational system in Ethiopia produce such kind of people like Abraham and the rest of his generation, who easily get smitten with foreign ideologies, but had little understanding of the political and social landscape of their country, and not least the obligation to the family. Did Haile Selassie's educational system fail them? Or, were they the ones at fault, or both? What went wrong with the primers like Lema Be Temheri Bet, and Lema Be Gebeya etc.? The Omega watch was the familiar prize from the emperor for gifted students, but did the winners understand their times. If not, does this generation deserve an homage?

Some communist guy Zekre Lebona • 2 years ago

How did the education in Ethiopia produce such kind of people like Abraham?

1) Odd Arne Westad's "The Global Cold War": Ethiopia in the early 1950s and 1960s did not have enough teachers so the Imperial government relied on foreign teachers as the peace corps p.e. Westad explains that many of the US peace corps were leftist sympathizers and brought their ideologies with them in Third World countries.

2) Its not only the educational system but also the social and political tructure. Feudalism was a reality to many Ethiopian farmers. Modern education and feudalism are incompatible. And of course, the lack of democracy contributed to radicalize student and workers' movements (Also remember that for a short 10 years period Eritrea had autonomous institutions and a vaguely democratic society which was replaced by Ethiopian feudalism that triggered a lot of reactions).

3) Why foreign ideologies? As soon as the Eritrean national movement and the Ethiopian student movement started to embrace Marxism-Leninism, theoretical discussions were so profound that they produced local interpretations of socialism and communism. The EPRP, the EPLF, the ELF or MEISON were not copycats of the Soviet Union communist party, they were truly unique!

-> Of course this generation deserves an homage. For the Eritrean cause, they incarnated the second wave of heavy politicization (after the 1950s). For Ethiopia, they were the first to openly discuss social and democratic revolution. What actually defeated this wonderful political period is Mengistu's clique.

MW Zekre Lebona • 2 years ago

Dear Zekre Lebona,
While dinning at a restaurant together, a self-proclaimed Ethiopist - Chicago University Sociology Professor Donald Levine, once told me to my face that there is no Ethiopian scholar -modern scholar- at all. I was confused at the time. Delving into the matter more later, I saw that he was right. There is no such thing as modern Ethiopian scholar at all. There is only modern zombie.

My answer to your question will be this: I think Atse Haileselassie failed them. After his return from exile the British had already entrapped Atse Haileselassie while in exile. The British accompanied the king in ousting Italy not because they wanted to help Ethiopia but because they wanted to enslave Ethiopia. When the British came to "drive out" Italy, there was a flurry of Q'nie (allegory synthesis) being spun in Q'nie bets and in traditional schools. Among the Ge'ez Q'nies, one roughly translated goes:

Here comes one vowing to drive out the other.
What are we to make of it?
When the good book warns to wit
That Satan never casts out Satan
Except even more to indwell therein.

So the British came and demanded to occupy Midre Bahri peaceably
and they pushed and pressed the Muslims to write in Arabic and to demand more space for Islam. They also incited the locals, especially manipulating those who were imbued with foreign religion-like doctrines like WoldeAb WoldeMariam for turmoil. Meantime in mainland Ethiopia they demanded to start modern (European) schooling and by peace they got what they asked for. Quickly they provided soaps, goat milk and other luring tokens to get the public to send children to school. The British (and the Americans later) formulated curricula of indoctrination (not education). In brief the schools indoctrinated students on the supremacy of Europe over Ethiopia.
In subtle language the schools taught children how to look down upon their
ancestors, the immediate need to throw away their faith, that heroes are in Europe and never in Africa, that speaking English is a mark of great distinction but speaking Ge'ez is woefully primitive, that opening up one's resources for foreign plundering is stylishly modern, that protecting the national treasure is backward and dictatorial. The schools told students that Ethiopian history is to be told strictly by the European and all documents and monuments and artifacts and oral tradition in Ge'ez, when used by Ethiopians, are to be seen as non credible and ignorant but these same documents can be deemed credible only when a European cites them. So
these students excelled in the indoctrination and many became doctors in
"economics" and in "philosophy" and in linguistics and in sociology and in engineering and in physics etc. So, dear Zekre, it is this indoctrination that produced that destructive and mindless generation. I think Atse Hailesselassie, being a negligent shepherd, gave up the sheep to the wolves.

Addis Alem MW • 2 years ago

Hi MW, I am not convinced at all if it's fair or justified to dump all blame on Haileselassie. It's just a matter of fact that any long declining power like Ethiopia would have to contend with the whims of the contemporary super powers such as GB; Haileselassie simply cannot demand to be the exception since no super power can be expected to line up its power in the service of charity. Empty pride simply won't cut it. So, Haileselassie tried to do the one thing that was in his power to restore a semblance of dignity to his nation by sending her children to the best schools he can hardly afford! I just don't see why it was his fault those students resorted to turn against their own people! The students were supposed to transform the backward nation into a modern one, step by step; not drag it through a bloody, aimless revolution that slowly degenerated into primitive tribalism! I have always blamed Haileselassie for hanging onto power, an old helpless man, for a little too long, thus plunging the nation into chaos! But no, I won't blame him for the madness of these students!

G. Gebru Addis Alem • 2 years ago

You are right every one his merits and demerits and is with the Emperor. But unlucky he is criticized by the very people who were educated under his belly

MW Addis Alem • 2 years ago

Selam Addis Alem,
There is no dignity in "western education". There is only disgrace. To explain what indoctrination is and what it does, I shall tell you about a conversation I had with a couple of friends few weeks ago. We were discussing European colonialism and stuff. One of them said: "if someone advances to colonize and conquers your territory, you can fight and recover both the territory and your freedom. However, if your enemy conquers your brother's mind, you can't fight and free yourself from it". He cited the Arabs as an example. He said: "it was better the Arabs came and settled, then we would fight to drive them away. But the Arab made our brothers and sisters Muslims. Now the Arab does not have to leave Arabia to colonize us. He has our brethren as agents to do his bidding. What do you do when your brother becomes a Muslim and demands to cater to the Arab desires in your midst? It is not something you can fight, not something you can be free from, it is just an endless nightmare". The guy who said this did not go to college and he is from rural Ethiopia and he taught me better than any professor I had known in school.

Seeing its dramatic effects, the European copied the art of
mind conquest from the Arab but he improved it and made it a little bit more subtle and complex. The European went about mind conquest in multiple avenues. One such avenue is the liberal so called "education" which in fact is indoctrination. Western "education" doesn't teach you beneficial wisdom, but exercises deception upon your mind and provides a false show to the fancy of your thought. It is an extended practice of cheating the senses. In practical effect, it makes you ambivalent toward things that matter and passionate about things that don't. We can take a simple example. Really, the most pressing problem of greater than ninety percent of Ethiopians today is the absence of food on their table or on their lap for the daily nourishment. And you have greater than ninety percent of the western educated elite railing for "democracy." See there? People are dying of starvation and the elite's demand is some illusion called democracy from their morbid imagination. There is no correlation between absence of this illusory "democracy" and the absence of food, but even if there was, why would you demand for something which is vague and unknown quantity when you can directly demand for the real deal? In fact going directly for the things that matter will result speedy changes and improvements, but by design the elite was trained to be delusional. Let me put it in one sentence. The reason greater than ninety percent of the Ethiopians don't have food to eat is directly caused by western indoctrination.

The other avenue the European uses is, like the Arab did,
bamboozling using Protestantism. These mind conquests using "religion" is like afflicting society with generational disease. Unlike Islam, which comes with a raised sword in the open, Protestantism walks right into a Tewahdo Church and removes the faithful from inside and makes them the enemy of the Church and Ethiopia instantly. It separates sister from sister, brother from brother, children from parents, husband from wife, society from society. It is a social disease - a social leprosy. Leprosy, like Protestantism, separates your fingers, your limbs etc from your body while you watch - right under your nose. The first day an Ethiopian becomes a protestant, his or her first words are: "we should give away the Ark of the Covenant to the Jews".

All that we discussed above was conceded by Atse Hailesselassie. He was great but he was also fallible. He could resist like the Japanese did, but he didn't. The Japanese, confronted with western "education", took what they deemed good and rejected what they thought was bad.

Addis Alem MW • 2 years ago

Dearest MM,
But first, I would like to extend, once again, my deepest admiration to Asmarino for its tenacity in the defense of unrestricted flow of ideas. Nobody can do this better than Asmarino. If the gang in Asmara is a brute oppressive force beyond accountability; Asmarino is quietly pushing back forcefully by offering its powerful, unapologetic antidote - the most serious and free arena for open discussions. God bless Asmarino!
Now, dearest MW, I am afraid you would never convince me to see the so called "Western education" as something to be dreaded and avoided at all cost. I just don't buy into the notion that science is the sole-personal property of the West. Its mastery of science at this very moment in history might give the appearance that the West discovered it for the first time; while in fact, it only borrowed it from other prior civilizations and improved upon it. But most importantly, nobody can ever afford relegating the general sphere of science to the West alone. That is not how Japan did it. The Japanese copied furiously, until they made science their own. The South Korean's and Chinese won't be where they are today had they banished science as a Western pest. But, and this is a huge but, I agree with you completely with what you said about how Haileselassie let his guard down to the spread of Protestantism in Ethiopia; most costly, in Wollega, where the brightest of Oromos hail from; and with the adoption of this foreign religion, they were rendered less inclined to embrace their own Habesha identity. For God's sake, they just discarded our precious Habesha alphabets as a tool of cultural domination, and embraced a foreign alphabet! So, yes, Haileselassie failed miserably on this issue. I have always bitterly lamented the failure of Haileselassie to open Ethiopian Tewahdo churches all over Wollega and staff each one of them with native Oromos. Alas! He left and abandoned all these brilliant virgin Ethiopian minds to fall for this foreign religion! Not that I am suggesting that this foreign religion is breeding terrorism like the Saudis; only that there is no doubt in my mind Ethiopia would have been much better-off had Haileselassie won the hearts and minds of these brilliant Ethiopians before the foreigners arrived with their destructive indoctrination agenda. So, dear MW, if what you mean is the indoctrination of religion, and not science; then yes, Haileselassie failed the Habesha nation miserably!

MW Addis Alem • 2 years ago

Selam Addis Alem,
Gimme the meat. I think the discussion must base itself on
data, so give me data - even indirect data will do.

To be fair to you, besides you also there are many Habeshas
here, many with PhDs and I think they should engage as you do. I will try to provide data for every claim I make but I expect others to say: "no that is wrong, your data can be falsified by the fact of such and such data etc." For the colossal problems we have as Ethiopians (pardon me, Midre Bahri is forever Ethiopian for me although current data contradicts me for the time being) to read and keep quite is a bit selfish.

So I'm saying western "education" is not really education but rather indoctrination. In fact it is the opposite of education. It's proper name should be western delusion. I have already provided one data. More than ninety percent of the western educated Ethiopians who engage in the so called "politics" devote their time demanding "democracy" and they say they do that for the "wellbeing of the Ethiopian people." A recent economic study from Addis indicated that ninety percent of people in Addis don't have enough food to eat. Nation wide, close to fifty percent of the people don't have enough food to eat (irinnews.org). In fact, it was shown in the data that Ethiopia produces food that is sufficient to all its citizens. In fact the amount food it produces can also feed Somalia, Djibouti, Midre Bahri and the Sudan too. The food is produced but the people don't have it. The people need food but the elite want to give them an illusion called democracy. It is easy to see that the elite are possessed by some kind of disease - intellectual disease, which I say is a result of being indoctrinated by the western delusion. I know you don't see it and many here don't see it either because we are all inflicted
by the same disease. Everyone has gone bonkers by the indoctrination.

Let me be a little more analytical on this. Last week the Roman Catholic Pope addressed the United States Joint Congress. In a very polite and subtle language he indicted Congress in his speech. Despite his words being one of rebuke, Congress received his speech with multiple standing
ovations. He relayed his indictment not directly but by implying. Here I summarize his indictment and they have twelve points. These are his accusations against those in the audience, in other words, against the US:

1- Your policies make global slavery
2- Your politics is a slave to your economics and finance
3- You are hating immigrants forgetting that you too are immigrants
4- You seek security while denying security to others
5- You love life while denying it to others
6- Life is sacred but you have legislated death penalty
7- You did not defend life at every stage (in the womb)
8- You are rearing conflicts around the world
9- You sell weapons to those who kill, which means you partook in the killings
10- Your country was built on the family, now you have
demolished its foundation by legislating sodomite marriage
11- You have disoriented the young and they are trapped in
bloody violence yet you consider it not to be your problem
12- You have instituted a culture to discourage the young
from starting a family

A radio journalist (some call him conspiracy theorist) named
Alex Jones responded to the popes message as being communistic or some kind of income redistribution scheme. He said: "if the pope's message were to be heeded, a billion third world people will die tomorrow." So he accused the
pope of intent to kill one billion people. He argued that people in third world countries are able to live simply because rich western nations are giving them charities so these people can survive. So, what he is saying is that the exploiting of third world resources by the west is a necessary condition for the survival of third world people. To be fair to him, this is actually a standard western view.

Now back to you. Alex Jones is not wrong because third world people like Ethiopians depend on their distant exploiters for their survival. Why? You can see the power of the distant exploiters by going to Ethiopia with a few bucks. For one thousand dollars you can buy the entire treasure of a village. The simple math is that if the government in Ethiopia wants to buy a passenger airplane, it has to starve at least one million people for about three months to generate the dollar equivalent of the price of a Boeing 737. That is equal to a day's meal of the entire Ethiopian people. Western nations on the other hand prosper by what they extract from third world people. In other words, countries like Ethiopia pay for the luxury of the West.

Before there was any western delusion (western "education") in Ethiopia, Ethiopians produced what is good and enough for them from within. For example even massive structures like the Fassiledes building in Gondar, the MoTa bridge by Gojjam, the massive Lalibela structures with the fascinating doors, hinges, stair cases, upper floor rooms, drainage ditches, reservoirs, the meticulously built Axum structures, the stair cases, the corpse preserving capsules etc were built
out of materials produced from within Ethiopia. The techniques of building were homegrown, so they are mastered. Nothing was imported. On the other hand today, Ethiopians can not build even a small residential structure without importing stuff from overseas. The reinforcement bars used in concrete structures are imported. The Portland
cement is imported. The roof materials are imported. the windows and doors and decorative materials are imported. Even if the government builds cement plants to produce cement for concrete structures, the equipment and spare part needed for the production of cement are imported. So the first thing the western delusion did to the Ethiopian mind was make it impotent as to make it incapable of creating the tools for self-sufficiency. The Ethiopian mind is trained and certified as far as being useful to western needs. Then the delusion does its most devastating bite on trade - the so called international trade. Since those who engage in the trade transactions are western trained, they take the language of trade as it is defined by the west no questions asked. There is no such thing as "fair trade" for Ethiopia in western quarters. Countries like Ethiopia are targeted for natural resource exploitation but they are not entitled to any fair value reciprocity. For plundering Ethiopia's resources the west awards Ethiopia with what it calls "charity" (Frankel 2010). In other words, nations like Ethiopia are designed for poverty in the book of western education and the purpose of their poverty is to enrich the west. How does the west achieve this? The west has devised many venues to achieve this. One is indoctrination and duplicating elites - the more elite Ethiopia produces the more starved it gets. The other venue is corruption, by installing puppet regimes it can maneuver.

So this mental disease is everywhere now. The disease gedli-Asmarinos have is a version of that disease too. The Ethiopiawinet of the Asmarino is made by God. The non-Ethiopiawinet of the Asmarino is made by Europe. Therefore, the Asmarino that goes around saying: "I am Eritrean" carries in him a worship of the ferenji though outwardly he is not aware of it.

Before I conclude, I should mention that when reading Abraham Ghebreghiorgis' story what I saw was a declining Abraham lifted up from near ruin by a woman - his wife. I can see that he was by nature a good person from a peasant country and he had his parents in his heart when he thought of them by sending money out of his 100 birr stipend when he was in Addis Ababa. As he got more and more indoctrinated overseas he lost his natural warmth and compassion and he abandoned his parents. From what I can tell from the story, if he had not met his wife in 1984, his life would have been a total waste. She came and turned him around. She showed him affection, gave him family, gave him new value to cherish life - his beautiful children. She turned his heart back to his parents and she made him a full-fledged man - an Habesha man. To me, that story narrated above is about her - a story of a great Habesha woman. She is the one who deserves admiration.

Addis Alem MW • 2 years ago

Dearest MW,
Maybe you are right we need PhDs to sort all this out. No, I am kidding; I think I know what is really bothering you with this Western education stuff. You are kind of all over the place to address each of your concerns one by one, but what you are really afraid of I believe is Western democracy. I have myself reservations about rushing to impose a Western style democracy in Habesha lands, but not for the same reason as you do. I do believe that there is no better way to impose accountability on governments than representative democracy. There is no better way to preserve and protect the dignity and human rights of the individual than through democratic institutions that are anchored in the rule of law; all sanctioned by a representative democracy. Even markets function better, not perfectly, in democratic societies. There is no better way to unleash the full creative potential of the individual than to allow him to exercise his/her full right to life, thought, and speech. But I also know that, in today's hyper competitive world, where most of the prosperous and powerful nations tend to be democracies, poor nations like ours are often pressured to "adopt democracy" - while in reality what these rich countries mean is open your markets and resources for us to plunder! I don't want our Habesha lands to fall for this. Once you hand economic control over to foreigners, like it is the case in most African countries, then your so called democracy is tainted, and would never be free enough to really serve your own people. So, you see MW, I have myself reservations over the timing of the implementation of representative democracy in our Habesha lands. But unlike you, I am not really afraid of representative democracy. Yes, MW, you might as well run with the banner of BOKO HARAM! No, I am not saying you would sanction the barbaric actions of those deranged Muslim Nigerians; but in all honesty, yes, I do think that you are both motivated by the same fear! Fear of the "sodomite marriage"! Fear of abortion! Fear of the death penalty! You know, all the things the Pope said to Congress! You see, this is why you are confusing me. You lead me to think that we were discussing the merits or demerits of Western education, but you are actually worried about Western democracy, and its excesses. I don't think these excesses of democracy are anything to be lauded. Some of these excesses disturb me to my core. For example, I worry about how some of these new couples ecommercialize the sacred act of human procreation; dismissing the delicate and complex psychological needs of children, and treating them almost as if they were pets! I don't like the fact that some gay couples want to have their cake and eat it too; dumping all the social and psychological costs on the poor heads of their children! But, alas! I still DO NOT think these excesses of democracy are bad enough to join BOKO HARAM!

MW Addis Alem • 2 years ago

Selam Addis Alem,
I know you are an intelligent person, you can't miss my points that horribly. You must have written that in jest, to make fun being simplistic.

If You and I lived in the same compound and I told you that you have the right to breathe, did I give you democracy? My friend, when someone declares to you that you have the right to do this and to do that, remember that he just owned you. I'm compacting ideas hoping to be understood and it frustrates me losing an audience. Who else can I tell these stories to if I fail to relay it to a caliber such as yours? the reason I brought the pope and Alex is to tell you that the problem is real, verified in two diverse corners. under a diversionary delusion named "democracy," most Ethiopians are being starved. Resources are finite. By the time we wake up we will probably find our resources completely drained and along side the barren house, we will probably find ourselves enveloped in an environmental horror too. Imagine a stranger went into a family home and told them that there are killer insects in their basement and told them that life is to prevent these insects from coming out of the basement. So he refocused the purpose of their lives to fighting the insects. So they started spraying insecticides and he started living there takes their food and clothing etc. That he is taking their meals and clothing is no object because they have other priority now: the insects. By the time they found out that there were no insects, all the food they had and the clothing and the money gone. That is what the so called democracy is. It is an illusion, a diversion. It doesn't exist. I don't know why you are discussing its applicability in Ethiopia when my discussion is way beyond that? What I am telling you is that if the elite, who are made delusional by reason of indoctrination, start addressing the real problems like lack of food, lack of shelter etc, then you can be sure that can be addressed for sure because these things are measurable and are immediately verifiable. But to demand democracy and get people killed for it is nonsense. Why would you get people killed for an illusion? The Derg said it was a democracy. The current rulers say they are a democracy and they have the West blessing their claim. Those who oppose the current rulers say they oppose the government because they want to furnish democracy. The reason everybody, including diametric opposites, claim to be it is because it is an illusion.

I am not sure if you understood what I meant by the problem of trade. There is trade imbalance, in fact trade robbery. The economists, the finance people etc that we have in Ethiopia are simply people who speak the language of the West. All you hear them say is "hard currency, hard currency." They will sell the whole nation for "hard currency" and this hard currency is just paper someone else prints on a printer somewhere to give it the fools in Ethiopia to collect all the produce, the coffee, the gold the hide and skin, the grain etc. It is just as simple as me printing a couple of papers on an inkjet printer and coming to you to ask you to give me all your furniture in exchange for the papers. If you are an economist, tell me if that is not the case. If you are not, go research it and that is what is happening.

I think you misunderstood me. Perhaps western "education" has benefited me personally more than most Ethiopians. The best thing for me to do in person would be just to say things are fine because life is enjoyable to me the way it is. If I were an atheist I wouldn't even care for the poor, I would simply say, they are weak and I would marvel at the strong who robbed them and would be with the strong, because there is no standard morality I would name to feel one way or another. Then morality would be to do what is expedient and profitable to me in person. In the case of atheism the mighty make the rules and the weak will have to live with them. But I believe in God and God's ways are to defend the poor. That is the singular reason why I am discussing these things here.

Addis Alem MW • 2 years ago

Dearest MW,
I want to assure you from the onset that I was not at all trying to make fun of your profoundly beautiful religious convictions. I was intending no offense whatsoever; only frankness, and I reserve this only to people I have a great deal of respect for. I had a feeling that your strong religious convictions, and the optimism that comes with it, is making you to nonchalantly dismiss the tremendous potential for utter cruelty and human rights violations of non-democratic regimes, including ours. You know how they say absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fact of the matter is, we don't live in heaven; we live in the real practical world; but I completely appreciate that you are entitled, even justified, to project your positive attitude on human nature to our brute world. I have always deeply admired good and decent spiritual individuals who do not hesitate to engage in acts of extraordinary selflessness, often assuming significant risk to their person; but still, while applauding their convictions and courage to do good, I also believe that the practical ways of the world doesn't always heed to their expansive humanity and sacrifices. For example, I may not agree with the actions of this Kentucky Clerk who refused to issue Same-sex marriages, but I am also deeply moved by the strength of her convictions to stand for what she assumes to be a good service to humanity. I mean, at some point this woman was ignoring the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States! It's not lost on me that it was exactly extraordinary individuals like her who fought bravely the savagery of slavery in this country against a frightening array of odds. However, I also know that decent individuals like this woman, or you for that matter, can dare hope to change the brute ways of the world all you want, but your generosity of heart is not often adequate to make the required positive impact. I still believe that the effective antidote for brute undemocratic regimes remains to be the accountability that can only be achieved with representative democracy. As moving and humbling individual acts of generosity remains to be, it's never enough to alter the brute currents of an unforgivingly practical world. If we are to live in a decent world where our individual rights are protected, then I strongly feel that we are better off to aim and shoot for the possible; and not simply for the ideal, which is inaccessible outside of the realm of our dreams and hopes. The practical world, in my opinion, responds better to democracy than our individual acts of decency to make it a decent place to live.

MW MW • 2 years ago

Sorry for the typo and stuff, I had an inconvenient device

Daniel Yemane MW • 2 years ago

Stunning and sensational.

Addis Alem Zekre Lebona • 2 years ago

I just love Zekre really. I was myself anguishing over the exact same questions you raised. An Omega golden watch and a stipend big enough to be a teacher's salary from such a dirt poor nation and .... a stab in the back! I don't know if Kebessa is lacking the simple decency or the basic intellect to appreciate the moral paradox that is packed full in this sheer betrayal. He actually feels no shame whatsoever to declare that it was only appropriate that the education they got from Ethiopia helped them to "recognize the wishes and heartbeats of their people resulting in answering the call of duty." He talks as if the peasant masses, and not these students, ignited the ghedli madness! How could a person who talks like this not be a Sudanese nomad? And, I swear I don't mean this as an insult; just thinking out loud. Thank God there are decent and courageous Habeshas like Zekre who won't shrink from tackling the mind boggling state of Habesha affairs.

§ 1

Adhanet Zekre Lebona • 2 years ago

Dear Zekre Lebona,

If history is to be fair to Emperor Hailesellasie, it will be his radical and abrupt departure from his predecessors who had been in the gutters of morbid backwardness where he clearly understood the transcendental value of modernism and invested heavily in higher learning education among other things. Sure enough, partly to appease particularly Eritreans who hailed from the highlands, they reaped benefits from the perks where it is safe to say that Abraham was a quintessence to that effect. However, the Emperor's genuine effort to modernize the nation came with a detrimental price when he suffocated the political space by abrogating the Federation. The historical watershed if you will pushed a generation to extreme measures where the much touted investment in education particularly on the highlanders became a thorn on the Emperor's legacy.

Addis Alem Adhanet • 2 years ago

What kind of reasoning is this? You can't just laud the investment in education as "much touted" and then quickly dismiss it as a "thorn on the Emperor's legacy" in the same sentence. Some of you here make it sound as if the students were sent to do hard labor in some godforsaken labor camps; and not to places of higher learning, out of which they were supposed to come out and lift the Habesha nation out of its backwardness as it hoped, not plunge it into primitive tribalism!

Kebessa Zekre Lebona • 2 years ago

Selam ZL,
"What I don't understand is this: how did the educational system in Ethiopia produce such kind of people like Abraham and the rest of his generation, who easily get smitten with foreign ideologies, but had little understanding of the political and social landscape of their country, and not least the obligation to the family."

Here is my question: did the educated like Abraham and so many others voluntarily join the fray because they got smitten by "foreign" ideology, or did education help them recognize the wishes and heartbeats of their people resulting in answering the call of duty? You read Abraham's story. Did you get any impression him holding unusual or some sort of Arab or foreign views? To suggest that they were after foreign ideology is to suggest they were out of touch with the general public which opposed them, which opposed Ghedli and that's why independence never materialized.
To put it differently, If we assume HS education system indoctrinated the educated in favor of the "alien" or "foreign" idea of independence, who or what will be responsible for the fact that the vast Eritrean masses from all walks of life (the majority being uneducated) were just for that - independence?

What is Crucially Missing in Eritrea is Exchange of Ideas without Fear of Retributions : A Criticism of Eritrean Intellectuals

2016-10-31T06:14:00.002-04:00

This article was written by the late Abraham MIT immediately after the final battles of the Eritrean-Ethiopian war in 2000.

What is Crucially Missing in Eritrea is Exchange of Ideas without Fear of Retributions
A Criticism of Eritrean Intellectuals

By Abraham G. Ghiorgis (MIT)
New York, USA
July 17, 2000

The dust has not yet settled. The Eritrean-Ethiopian war is not over yet. We still have to support the Eritrean Government. It does not mean, however, that we should not exchange ideas and sum up our experiences so far. On the contrary, we should vigorously debate and discuss even ideas considered to be "taboo and sacred."

At all times our measuring stick should be the welfare of the Eritrean people, and not the welfare of a political group. It invariably happens, not only in Eritrea but also in other countries of the world including the venerated USA that the welfare of a political group could sometimes be in conflict with the welfare of the overwhelming majority.

What should our support consist of? Financial comes first. The Eritreans in the Diaspora have done an excellent job at that. Eritreans through concrete actions have proved it time and time again that they are extremely generous to their people. Eritreans do not need lectures from anybody on the soundness of their efforts. If anything, other nationals should emulate this very positive Eritrean tradition.

Sadly enough, though, our support has been limited to financial support only. All our education, wisdom and experience are wasted, if we willingly limit our support only to financial aid. What have been crucially missing in Eritrea are the exchange and debate of ideas without fear of retributions.

First and foremost, we have to admit that the leadership of the Eritrean Government, despite the fact that it is composed of incorruptible, disciplined and heroic individuals who are dedicated to Eritrea, has a lot of limitations due to lack of university-level academic training (in particular in the fields of Economics, History, Science and Diplomacy), exposure to the outside world and not having experiences of working to earn a living and for wages in a real competitive marketplace.

This is not something that is unique to Eritrea. It is something that is normal with all nations that went through a bitter armed-struggle to establish their independent statehood, and as such these limitations and constraints will be with us for a long time. Such limitations are okay if the leaders acknowledge their limitations and openly solicit assistance and guidance from Eritreans with knowledge, education and practical real world experience. The problem in Eritrea is that at times some of the leaders act, and arrogantly at that, as if they were "Mr. Know it all" in fields that are completely foreign to them, and the intellectuals either out of politeness or timidity silently accept and support some policies when they fully know that such polices are counter to the interests and rights of the Eritrean people. The result of this is a disaster. This needs to be corrected.

It is my understanding that for the most part the Eritrean intellectuals were blindly parroting certain premises advanced by the Eritrean Government without adding any values. It is to be remembered almost the whole world, including the USA and the Pope, begged us to withdraw from the "contested territories" in order to secure peace and save lives and properties before the battles of Badme and Tserona. All those pleas fell on deaf ears.

No Eritrean intellectual worth his salt openly and publicly advised the Eritrean Government to withdraw from the "contested territories" and pursue the Eritrean-Ethiopian conflict through legal, peaceful and diplomatic means. The Eritrean intellectuals could have effectively alleviated a bad situation from getting worse. These are lost opportunities! Each and every one of us has to search our souls and find the culprit within ourselves. We miserably failed our people. We should be strong enough to admit that we are also culpable. Now, we cannot point-fingers at the leaders and blame them for everything. That will not be fair.

We have to intimately familiarize ourselves with international laws and norms so that we can legally play them to the advantages of the Eritrean people. We should not give the outside world an appearance and an impression that we "violate" international law. First impression is important. Most importantly, a small nation such as Eritrea will always need international law be on its side. Even mighty nations such as the USA always take extra caution and do the laborious leg work of covering all bases of international law and diplomacy before they engage themselves in military activities. They say appearance is deceiving, though in the diplomatic world appearance is reality. Once a false appearance takes a grip it becomes difficult to change it to conform to reality. Because we failed miserably in that diplomatic endeavor it appears we handed Ethiopia in a silver platter an excuse, a flimsy one at that but nevertheless an excuse, to invade sovereign Eritrean territories and create a humanitarian crises unprecedented in Eritrean history. All these crimes were committed under the pretext that Ethiopia was "recovering its territories" taken by force by Eritrea. The world did not even raise a voice. Still, we cannot demand or expect the world to raise its voice on our behalf. If history is a guide the world remained silent during the dark hours of the Jews in Europe, Armenia, Rwanda and in Kosovo until it was too late. The world, in particular Africa, is crowded with savageries and cruelties. In such a brutal world we, Eritreans, are not a special people that deserve extra consideration and attention. We have to digest this hard and pragmatic world reality. Our actions should take into account these world factors. We cannot use the UN, or the USA, or the OAU as scapegoats for our own failures and mistakes. We should always control our destiny and never allow our destiny to be determined by the political and diplomatic wishy-washy world.

Who is responsible for the humanitarian crisis of almost biblical proportions that is looming in Eritrea? Definitely the cruel Ethiopian regime is responsible. There are no questions about that. Assigning the biggest blame on the Ethiopian regime is the easy part. It is necessary to note, however, that only fools expect a humane treatment from an enemy, and the Ethiopian regime has proved it through its actions that it is an avowed and a primary enemy of Eritrea and the Eritrean people. However, it is laughable and sad that when one hears some Eritreans trying to pass the buck solely to the enemy and absolve Eritreans free from any responsibility and blame of this tragedy. Are Eritreans scot-free from any blame? This will not fly.

The question that has to be answered is did the Eritrean leaders manage the Eritrean-Ethiopian conflict properly? We need a summation of that experience, even though technically the war is not over yet and that peace and harmony have not yet been restored between the Eritrean and the Ethiopian peoples. It will be a disservice to our people, if at the minimum we do not do that. Only then will we be able to properly manage the next challenges that may be thrown at us by our enemies. The Eritrean leaders have to learn a valuable lesson. They cannot keep close to their chests issues that significantly affect the lives and properties of Eritreans. They should not keep the Eritrean people in the dark. The most important point is that they have to ask the Eritrean people for advice, guidance and concurrence on issues that are of life and death. In short, the Eritrean people should not be taken for granted.

Once the Eritrean Constitution is implemented these issues will be that of the parliament, the courts and other democratic institutions. It is a pity that after nine years of de facto Eritrean independence, Eritrea has a government that still operates without a constitution. At the snail-pace that we are marching on, no one knows for sure when we will have a government that operates based on a constitution. I am not so naïve to believe that the implementation of the Eritrean Constitution will be the panacea of all Eritrean political and economic ills, far from that. Still, we have to take the first step towards creating a liberal democratic society. The constitution is that first step. The Eritreans fought for thirty years not only for independence, but most importantly in order to have a state that is governed by the rule of laws and not by the rule of men. There should be absolute agreement among all Eritreans of all political persuasion on this cardinal truth.

Lastly, one of the scenarios is that the Eritrean-Ethiopian conflict could end up in court for arbitration. We need a contingency plan. We need to hire well-known American or English experts in international law to legally represent Eritrea. These foreign experts could work in collaboration with Eritrean lawyers. I am confident that most of the contested territories will legally fall into Eritrean hands. However, there is a catch. In court it always helps to be represented by the best lawyers money can buy. It is my sincere hope that this will not be bungled. We have to put the fallacious ideology of "self-reliance" aside when it comes to who best will legally represent Eritrea. Our goal is to legally win the case.

While I am at it, it is necessary to highlight that "self-reliance" does not exist in a global market economy. "Self-reliance" was important during the liberation struggle. It has to be noted, however, that during the liberation struggle for all intents and purposes, we were running a household economy, and we had no choice since no country recognized us as an independent state. We are an independent nation recognized by the whole world now.

Thus, we cannot conduct economic policies that were relevant during the armed liberation struggle, at a time when we are a member of the family of independent states. We have to be able to change gears and recognize this fundamental and radical change of realty. In the present world, unless we want our people to perpetually live in subsistence living, and we foolishly want to run an economy that is based not on exchanges, trades and specialization but in household economy, self-reliance has no place. Even mighty nations such as the USA, Canada, Japan, England, Germany and all countries of the Western World do not conduct economies that are based on "self-reliance." These powerful countries are not self-sufficient either in many products. Their economies are based on exchanges, trades, specialization based on their comparative advantages and competitive world marketplace. The defunct ideology of "self-reliance" exists only in failed states such as North Korea, and is usually associated with wretched poverty, malnutrition, diseases, low-life expectancy and political instability. I do not believe any one wants Eritrea to be like North Korea.

"Self-reliance" is dead and buried in the old Soviet Union. Let us not try to revive it in Eritrea.

I hope finally peace and harmony will be restored between the Eritrean and Ethiopian peoples.

Let us support the Eritrean Messages: Release all prisoners of conscience and implement the ratified constitution

2013-01-25T11:18:00.003-05:00

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

What happened on Monday, January 21, 2013, at the Forto in Asmara, Eritrea is not completely clear. We still are not sure who was behind the demonstration that exposed the absence of the rule of law in Eritrea - arbitrary arrest and incarceration in the dungeons of Eritreans without due process of law and the lawless nature of the regime in Eritrea, which is ruling Eritrea without the ratified constitution through arbitrary edicts and decrees as if Eritrea were still conducting an armed struggle against an"imagined enemy." In practice to the Eritrean regime the "imagined enemy" happen to be the Eritrean people both inside and outside of Eritrea.

In my opinion for now we should not concern ourselves with who was behind the demonstration - a courageous one at that I might add. Our concerns should be the messages that were relayed by that demonstration to the whole world.

Do we support the messages? What we know for sure is that at least two fundamental issues that haven been center stage to many of us who are concerned with the violations of civil liberties and human rights in Eritrea at least since 2000, took a center stage. Our simple messages have now penetrated all the way into the upper echelons of the PFDJ. This is a victory of a sort though it has taken a long time.

What are the two issues again? The implementation of the 1997 ratified constitution, and the release of all prisoners of conscience. These two message easily get the support of the international community. These two messages have the overwhelming support of the majority of the Eritrean people. These are winning strategies. If the majority of Eritreans inside and outside Eritrea unite on these simple but powerful messages, winning will be easy - the international community will be behind us. Moreover, theses two messages will effectively isolate the devil incarnate, Isaias Afwerki. These two message will unite all Eritreans and that include even those who are members of the PFDJ. Again our enemy is Isaias, and not members of the PFDJ irrespective of how high they maybe in the food chain of the power structure.

I strongly believe that we should welcome all who support these two messages. We should forgive and forget for past sins. We should not be judgmental. We should not be vindictive.

At the same time we should be cognizant of the fact some in the opposition in particular those who are domiciled in Ethiopia do not support these two powerful messages. They want to reinvent the wheel and write dictatorially a new constitution for Eritrea; they are ignorant of the fact that Eritreans inside Eritrea who are the prime force for a democratic change see that change through the implementation of the ratified constitution. Also, the Awate Team has to understand that it is not in the same wavelength with the Eritrean people when it comes to what matters; it is about time that it supports the ratified constitution instead of derailing the democratic change by raising issues that are secondary and issues that are not in conformity with the sociological factors that make up the Eritrean people.

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

Inventing Democracy

2012-12-10T12:07:00.001-05:00

Bill Keller

The New York Times

This is a great vantage point for watching the Arab world struggle to tailor itself a set of new democracies. It is nearly a generation since South Africa assembled its warring peoples and wrote what is certainly the most progressive constitution in Africa, perhaps on the planet. It prescribes all the safeguards of a democratic, humane and inclusive society. Its experience should be a shining model for the aspiring democracies at the other end of the continent as they fabricate basic laws and institutions.

I wish I could say the lessons from here are easy. But it is becoming clearer by the day that a glorious constitution carries you only so far if its values have not taken root in the culture.

So South Africa has an exquisite balance of powers on paper — but is, in effect, a one-party state, riddled with corruption. It has a serious independent judiciary — but is now contemplating loopholes to let tribal courts practice South Africa’s version of Shariah. This country was years ahead of the United States in recognizing the rights of homosexuals, including same-sex marriage — yet there is no openly gay leader in the ruling African National Congress, and lesbians have been targets of punitive rape and murder. It has a vibrant, diverse press — and a president who keeps trying to muzzle it.

As a witness to its birth, I would not say the thrill of South Africa’s democracy is altogether gone. South Africans are resilient, blessed with tourist-alluring beauty and abundant natural wealth; there is a growing black middle class and a robust civil society. And 18 years is still young. But I imagine that some days the news — if it penetrates the fog that I’m told enshrouds the 94-year-old Nelson Mandela — must break his heart.

In the course of a reporting trip for a forthcoming article, I’ve been asking some of the authors and guardians of South African democracy what advice they would offer to an Egypt, a Libya, a Tunisia and other places that are struggling to emerge from various forms of oppressive rule. Here’s how I’d sum up the best suggestions.

Take your time, talk to everyone and don’t be too proud to borrow.

For South Africa, there were five exhausting years — from the first talks, through statements of principle and interim versions — before its democratic Constitution went into force. The negotiating included 19 parties, factions and tribes, a huge public comment effort and copious study of the experiences of countries around the globe.

“We were shameless,” said Nicholas Haysom, a legal adviser to President Mandela in the ’90s who now works for the United Nations. “We looked at everyone. We took jurisprudence from Canada. We took power-sharing from Germany. We took constitutional principles from Namibia. The true exercise of sovereignty is in how one adapts these institutions to your own country, not in confining one’s imagination to one’s own limited constitutional traditions and experiences.”

Not everyone has that kind of patience. Egypt’s constitution-writing assembly, stampeded by President Morsi’s Islamist majority, has spawned a mess of boycotts, street clashes and confusion where consensus and legitimacy are desperately needed. (Iraq, stampeded by President George W. Bush’s desire to demonstrate the flowering of freedom, had a similar farce when it rushed its version of democracy.)

Peace before justice.

South Africa set out to heal the deep wounds of a ferociously cruel regime by creating a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Those who tortured and killed for any cause could, by fully disclosing their offenses, win an amnesty. The result was not invariably full truth or full reconciliation, but by and large it worked. Alex Boraine, who ran the commission under the flag of its revered chairman, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, has spent the ensuing years traveling to other countries that want to copy the South African model.

Often, his advice is: not so fast. In some cultures the urge for vengeance is too strong to be curtailed by confession. Efforts to emulate South Africa, he said, have been pretty successful in Peru and Mauritius, but failed in Guatemala and Liberia. He expects that much of the Middle East is too raw for a truth commission. But he advises new democracies that there are other ways to slow the cycle of revenge, build confidence and secure a stable foundation for a new order. For example, should Syria’s opposition succeed, Boraine said, there will be a clamor to take President Bashar al-Assad before an international criminal court. “Another view would be: give him safe passage to Moscow. It’s not fair. it’s not just. But you’ve got to start somewhere, to stop the killing.”

Activist judges are not so bad.

South Africa’s Constitution is in several respects more liberal than South African public opinion. Because the drafters included admirers of Western liberal democracies, and because they emerged from a regime that treated its citizens as essentially chattel, the Constitution is expansive in bestowing rights. It prohibits discrimination based not only on race and gender, but also on “sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, color, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.” The Constitutional Court has been similarly expansive in its interpretation of this language. The court outlawed capital punishment in 1995 and ruled in 2005 that gays and lesbians are entitled to marry. Neither of those outcomes would likely survive a popular referendum, even today. (South Africa, white and black, is socially conservative.) If proposed laws expanding government secrecy and empowering tribal justice pass the legislature, the high court will be the last line of defense. In America we disparage “activist judges,” but the willingness of South African courts to be assertive on matters of rights seems to have won the judiciary tremendous respect and moved this fledgling society toward greater tolerance. President Morsi, take note.

... Up to a point.

The relatively high esteem accorded the courts and the increasingly widespread disdain for the other branches of government have made South Africa’s courts the destination for disputes that have no business there: should Johannesburg install electronic tollgates on a stretch of highway? How many days should the Parliament be allowed to wait before voting on a no-confidence motion?

“People use these lawsuits as a substitute for political engagement,” said Steven Friedman, director of the Center for the Study of Democracy here. Politicians will never become good at their jobs if courts take their place.

Make citizens.

The curse of many transitional states is that they have no cohesive sense of nationhood, no common sense of purpose or responsibility. Instead of Iraqis or Syrians or Afghans or Egyptians, you have Sunnis and Shiites and Copts, Alawites and Kurds, Pashtuns and Tajiks. A generation past liberation, South Africa has had inspiring moments of unity, but it still has not fully coalesced. A new survey finds that fewer than 1 in 10 adults — and even fewer young people — identify themselves as “South Africans first,” over language, race or ethnic group. The country’s many peoples are equal under the law, but in some ways as “apart” as under apartheid.

Mamphela Ramphele, a wise and nonpartisan anti-apartheid activist and academic, attributes this in part to the sense of impotence that infected South Africans — and not just blacks — under the bleak tyranny of apartheid. And it is partly due, she says, to the cynicism generated by pervasive corruption under the African National Congress government. She has launched a new movement aimed at awakening a sense of citizenship, including through some institutional reforms, such as having most members of Parliament accountable to specific districts rather than answerable only to the ruling party. Freedom, she would advise the founders of new democracies, has to be won over and over.

“South Africans liberated themselves,” she told me, “and now they must do it again.”

Bill Keller, an Op-Ed columnist, was The Times’s Johannesburg bureau chief, 1992-95.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/opinion/keller-inventing-democracy.html?hp

Majority Rule / Minority Rights in Eritrea

2012-12-04T13:57:00.003-05:00

Majority Rule / Minority Rights

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

Pasted below is an article from the “Democracy Web” that succinctly elucidates the principles of majority rule and the respect of minority rights in a liberal democratic society. Considering what is transpiring at the ENCDC meeting, this article may be relevant to the issues of the freedom of expression and the respect of minority rights.

Some in the opposition understand that burning issues in a democracy are decided only through majority vote. This however disregards among other things the respect of the rights of minorities. If that were to be the case then we will have all kinds of the “tyranny of the majority.”

For example, it is plausible that a demagogue can easily abolish all religions in Eritrea except the Tewahdo and Islam through the simple exercise of a “democratic majority vote.” And he can defend it easily by raising the banner of a “majority vote.” The demagogue does not understand that the right to freedom of religion is not subject to a majority vote. Majority rule is dangerous and dictatorial if it is not coupled by the respect of minority rights and the respect of the rule of law. Remember Hitler came to power through the mechanism of a “democratic majority vote.”

“Majority rule can not be the only expression of ‘supreme power’ in a democracy... If so, … the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority.”

“Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning.”

In real liberal democracies, there are certain rights that are off limits from democratic majority vote. These are generally referred to as negative rights like: the freedom of expression, the freedom of association, the freedom of religion, the respect of property rights, the due process of law and etc.

The majority cannot use its numbers to abolish the right of freedom of expression, that include expressions that may be detestable and abhorrent to the majority. The majority in a society cannot decide whether one is free to express his opinion as he sees fit through a “democratic” majority vote. Otherwise civilization will not advance. The principle of the freedom of expression in its fullest sense does not give a hoot to whether the opinion one holds conforms or not to that hold by the majority in a society. That is the whole essence of the principle of the freedom of expression, and that is also the reason an opinion of a citizen how “foolish” it maybe is not subject to a vote. Rather it becomes a subject to a debate. Only autocrats hate debates. The ENCDC do you hear me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Majority Rule / Minority Rights

by Democracy Web

"If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them."

Alexis de Tocqueville, "Tyranny of the Majority," Chapter XV, Book 1, Democracy in America

Majority Rule

Democracy is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary as:

Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them either directly or through their elected agents;... a state of society characterized by nominal equality of rights and privileges.

What is left out of the dictionary definition of democracy is what constitutes "the people." In practice, democracy is governed by its most popularly understood principle: majority rule. Namely, the side with the most votes wins, whether it is an election, a legislative bill, a contract proposal to a union, or a shareholder motion in a corporation. The majority (or in some cases plurality) vote decides. Thus, when it is said that "the people have spoken" or the "people's will should be respected," the people are generally expressed through its majority.

Democracy Requires Minority Rights

Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again. This holds equally true in a multiparty parliamentary democracy, where no party has a majority, since a government must still be formed in coalition by a majority of parliament members.

The Constant Threat

The American founders—Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike—considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum. In theory, majority rule was necessary for expressing the popular will and the basis for establishing the republic. The alternative—consensus or rule by everyone's agreement—cannot be imposed upon a free people. And minority rule is antithetical to democracy. But the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warn in their letters about the dangers of the tyranny of the legislature and of the executive. Madison, alluding to slavery, went further, writing, "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."

A half century after the United States was established, Alexis de Tocqueville saw the majority's tyranny over political and social minorities as "a constant threat" to American democracy in his pre–Civil War travels. While visiting the state of Pennsylvania, when he asked why no free blacks had come to vote in a local election he was observing, he was told that "while free blacks had the legal right to vote, they feared the consequences of exercising it." Thus, he wrote, "the majority not only makes the laws, but can break them as well."

Minority Rights I: Individual Rights vs. Majority Tyranny

Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning. In the United States, basic individual liberties are protected through the Bill of Rights, which were drafted by James Madison and adopted in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These enumerate the rights that may not be violated by the government, safeguarding—in theory, at least—the rights of any minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.

The British political philosopher John Stuart Mill took this principle further. In his essay On Liberty he wrote, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others." Mill's "no harm principle" aims to prevent government from becoming a vehicle for the "tyranny of the majority," which he viewed as not just a political but also a social tyranny that stifled minority voices and imposed a regimentation of thought and values. Mill's views became the basis for much of liberal political philosophy since, whether it is free market or economic liberalism or social liberalism.

How do majority rule and the protection of minority rights function in practice? Clearly, the two can easily collide when the assertion of Madisonian rights and Millian liberalism confront an unmovable democratic majority. In politics, the regularity of elections and the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances (see "Constitutional Limits") are the means for ensuring debate over the people's interests and views.

Minority Rights II: Protecting Minority Groups in Society

Madisonian and Millian principles safeguard individual and political minorities. But the danger of majority tyranny lies not just in the infringements of individual rights or the marginalization of a political minority, but in the oppression of minority groups in society based simply on criteria such as skin color, ethnicity or nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. Judicial checks on majority tyranny were supposed to expand political and civil rights over time; however, the American courts were themselves often a part of majority tyranny, as numerous Supreme Court cases attest. The 19th-century Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions ruled that African Americans were socially inferior and thus not guaranteed equal protection of the laws (see descriptions of these two cases on the African American History web page).

The African American Experience

In the United States, it is the African American experience that most warns of the danger of such majority tyranny. The Constitution, officially implemented in 1789, flatly contradicted the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Its infamous "three-fifths compromise" (which determined that a slave constituted only three-fifths of a person) sanctioned slavery and the terrible mistreatment of millions of Africans brought to America in chains. Even after the Civil War's end, amendments to the Constitution abolishing slavery and guaranteeing equal rights did not prevent the adoption of Jim Crow laws in the Southern states, which collectively maintained a system of institutionalized segregation, or pervasive discrimination against African Americans in the North. In the South, whites disenfranchised black voters through so-called literacy tests, poll taxes, and property qualifications that were never applied to poor and illiterate whites.

To overcome this form of majority tyranny, maintained for nearly 100 years, the African American minority, just over 12 percent of the population in the late 1800s, had to confront the reality that nearly all political avenues were closed to it. In the South the right to vote had effectively been taken away, and in the North it was ineffectual. In the early 20th century, some African American leaders therefore adopted a strategy of nonviolence and civil disobedience that took the fullest advantage of the freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights and challenged American institutions to live up to America's democratic principles. In their strategy, the rational answer to systematic denial of freedom was the exercise of freedom. The answer to systematic denial of inequality was demanding legal equality and justice in the courts. The ultimate success of this strategy—which began in 1905 with the Niagara Movement of W. E. B. Du Bois and demanded equal rights and eventually led to the development of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)—fulfilled the stated ideals of American democracy and as a result made the African American civil rights movement an enduring international symbol for world freedom. Its nonviolent method has become a much-used model for how an oppressed minority can seek freedom through the peaceful use of democratic rights.

The Persistence of Discrimination

America's experience is unique in scope, but all democracies have witnessed "the tyranny of the majority" applied against different social groups. Nearly all democracies, for example, restricted voting to specific economic groups, most frequently to male property owners, and only slowly expanded the franchise to men generally. Women were systematically denied equal political and social rights. The first state to grant equal suffrage was Wyoming, then still a territory, in 1869; the first country to do so was New Zealand, but only in 1893. British women over the age of 30 were given the vote in 1918, and in 1928 the age limit was lowered to 21. Women in the United States gained suffrage in 1920, while France did not adopt universal suffrage until after liberation from the Nazi occupation in 1944. Despite having the right to vote in most countries today, women still suffer formal discrimination in many places in the world.

In Europe, minority Muslim communities from former colonies in northern Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia have struggled against pervasive discrimination and the denial of equal opportunities in education, jobs, and housing. In India, the "untouchables," or harijan, have only recently gained rights to enter the mainstream of society. Majority indigenous groups in Bolivia and several other Latin American countries have long been treated as "the minority" for most of their countries' constitutional histories. Indeed, the issues of minorities seeking greater freedom, equality, autonomy, and protection against discrimination and unequal treatment are current throughout the world. Usually they are being addressed through nonviolent protests, legislation, the courts, protection of native lands, education, and other efforts granting regional autonomy or specific rights and privileges.

The Ultimate Denial of Minority Rights

The most extreme treatment of minorities has been carried out by 20th- and 21st-century dictatorships. The worst examples are those of totalitarian regimes that carried out genocide to eradicate unwanted groups in society. The Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Germany murdered six million Jews, one-third of the total world Jewish population, as well as a significant portion of the Roma ("Gypsy") community. Homosexuals were also a targeted minority for extermination. The Soviet Union, under Stalin, carried out mass executions and deportations of dozens of Caucasian and Central Asian ethnic groups; some now face extinction.

More recently, the Russian Federation has waged a brutal war against its own republic of Chechnya, killing tens of thousands of civilians and displacing more than half the population. Other examples of mass killings of a minority by a dictatorship include the Nigerian campaign against Biafrans (see "Freedom of Religion"), the Hutu genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda, Saddam Hussein's mass killing of Kurds and Shiites in Iraq, and the Sudanese government's sponsorship of mass killing, raping, and deportation in Darfur (see Sudan Country Study. The project for an "ethnically pure" Greater Serbia undertaken by Slobodan Milosevic resulted in the murder of 200,000 Bosnian Muslims and 10,000 Albanian Muslims in Kosovo by a killing machine that was stopped only by military campaigns carried out by NATO.

International Protection of Minority Rights

This history has made the protection of minorities from abuse by majorities one of the highest obligations of international law. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted after World War II in 1948, is the most widely recognized international treaty governing the practice of nation-states. The UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted in 1966, defines not just individual rights but also minimum protections for minorities. Article 27 asserts:

[P]ersons belonging to [ethnic, religious, or linguistic] minorities shall not be denied the right in community with the other members of their group to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language.

The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, 1992, and the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989 further define protections for ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities to preserve their culture, languages, and beliefs and to protect themselves from discrimination. While these treaties establish clear international moral standards, their actual observance has often been found wanting, as the dramatic recent cases of Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, former Yugoslavia, and the Russian Federation show. These treaties have no binding legal effect, although the states that ratify them are legally answerable. Occasionally, however, that does not offer enough deterrent.

Nor do these conventions address a difficult political issue posed by democracy: assimilation versus separation. While assimilation of a minority into the broader society offers a minority greater opportunities and political influence, it does so often at the expense of minority cultures, beliefs, and practices. On the other hand, preserving cultures, beliefs, and practices by insulating the minority reduces its influence within the majority political culture. It is not an easy balance.

Conclusion

On a practical level, the application of majority rule and minority rights relies on a set of rules agreed to by everyone in a political community. How are majorities determined? What are the limits of debate and speech? How can members in a community propose a motion or law? Should a minority be allowed to prevent the majority's will by abusing its rights? There is no one answer to these questions, and many democracies have answered them differently. But for those countries that follow an Anglo-Saxon tradition, one of the basic guides for democracy is Robert's Rules of Order. Its beginning offers a concise statement of the democratic ideal:

American Parliamentary Law is built upon the principle that rights must be respected: the rights of the majority, of the minority, of individuals, of absentees, and rights of all of these together.

Source: http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php

Constitutional Limits on Government

2012-11-21T12:02:00.001-05:00

Constitutional Limits on Government

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

Pasted below is an article from Democracy Web that succinctly summarizes the essential points, history and principles of a constitutional government.

“Constitutional limits are based on the idea that the power of the law—the rules laid down by the people's representatives—is superior to the power of any individual or group.... In absolute monarchies, the king is the law, while in free self-governing communities, the law is king. The separation of powers by means of a constitution ensures that no individual is able to dominate the government and create his or her own law. The constitution and the laws that grow out of it are a framework that cannot be broken and applies to all citizens....The rule of law, not men ... is the basis for the preservation of self-governance against the arrogation of power by a dictatorial leader."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Constitutional Limits on Government

By Democracy Web

(I) Essential Principles

"In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

Massachusetts Constitution, Part the First, Article XXX, 1780

(I) A. Limiting the Power of the State

The original purpose of constitutional limits on government was to check the arbitrary actions of hereditary monarchs who abused their power, imposed unwanted taxes, or launched unpopular wars. Using agreements like the Magna Carta (see History), nobles with substantial property forced the principle of restraint on European monarchs, although mainly through consultative institutions. Over centuries, through popular revolutions or the evolution of representative institutions like parliaments, there developed greater checks on power and a greater separation of government into independent branches. Under unwritten and written constitutions, rulers could no longer act unilaterally against the will of the people and instead had to gain approval from parliaments and obey established law. This gradual development of constitutional limits on state power sometimes occurred in societies on other continents, but generally the major states of Asia, Africa, and the Americas did not impose such explicit, institutional curbs on their rulers.

(I) B. Self-Governance and Constitutional Limits

The modern experiment of popular self-governance, which began to expand rapidly in the late 18th century, aimed to limit state power through the people's will rather than the interests of the nobility and gentry. The people, formerly subjects of the crown with few rights, became citizens with full and equal rights, regardless of class. And the government became the instrument for carrying out the people's will as expressed through their elected representatives. Mindful of the experience of tyrannical monarchy, newly self-governing societies adopted constitutional limits that defined the specific authority of the state, forbade its agents from violating basic rights, and divided government into distinct branches that would check and balance one another, preventing any single branch from amassing too much power and abusing its authority. Although in the United States this idea of self-government originally applied only to white males with sufficient property, and coexisted with the heinous practice of slavery, over time the concept was expanded to the current universal understanding that government should be of, by, and for all the people.

(I) C. Direct and Representative Democracy

Some political philosophers have argued that direct democracy—in which all citizens vote directly on the laws and policies of a political community—is the ideal form of government. Direct democracy, however, has generally proven impractical, and there are few examples of it in history. Even ancient Athens, ruled by a democratic assembly of all its male citizens, relied on elected officials to some extent, and it ultimately failed to maintain its independence in a hostile region. Town hall meetings, where basic policies of small municipalities are set, also serve as mechanisms for the election of representative officials. Similarly, within local associations and trade unions, members elect officers and committees to carry out their decisions. Indeed, while some decisions may or even should be made by referendum (all citizens voting on a particular issue), few sizable groups of citizens have been able to conduct their affairs solely on the basis of direct democracy.

The American founders were deeply skeptical of direct popular rule. Representative democracy, they argued, was far superior because the buffer it created between the people and state policy allowed for reflection, reasoned debate among differing positions, and compromise between opposing interests. Direct democracy to them meant the potential of tyranny of the majority over the minority, or worse, mob rule, without any restraint on popular impulses or abuses of power. Today, democracy is generally understood as a system of freely elected representative institutions with constitutional limits. (See also "Consent of the Governed," and "Majority Rule, Minority Rights."

(I) D. Parliamentary Democracy

This understanding applies both to the parliamentary system, in which an executive prime minister and cabinet are chosen by the majority party or coalition in the legislature, and to presidential and mixed presidential-parliamentary systems of government, in which the separately elected president holds substantial executive powers. The parliamentary system is the most common form among the world's electoral democracies. While it has fewer constitutional checks and balances among the branches than presidential or mixed systems, the basic principle of limited government is upheld and abuse of power restrained with the help of tradition, evolving law, independent news media and judges, and in some cases a constitutional monarchy. Such monarchs are typically limited to symbolic functions, but they can play a stabilizing or mediating role in times of political crisis and protect against abuse of power.

(I) E. The Rule of Law, Not Men

Constitutional limits are based on the idea that the power of the law—the rules laid down by the people's representatives—is superior to the power of any individual or group. In his influential pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine noted that in absolute monarchies, the king is the law, while in free self-governing communities, the law is king. The separation of powers by means of a constitution ensures that no individual is able to dominate the government and create his or her own law. The constitution and the laws that grow out of it are a framework that cannot be broken and applies to all citizens.

Of course, in a number of instances in U.S. history, the supremacy of law has been invoked for wrongful or immoral purposes that contradict the meaning and intent of the Constitution or of freedom itself. The Dred Scott (1857) and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) decisions, in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld slavery and racial segregation, respectively, are notorious examples of the rule of law gone terribly wrong. Ultimately it is the people who must overcome such contradictions through legislative action, electoral changes, public protests, or, as a last resort, revolution. Still, while all democracies have examples of individuals who must challenge existing law to achieve a higher moral purpose, the basic precept that John Adams built into the Massachusetts constitution — "a government of laws and not of men" — holds an important place in the mechanism of democracy. It is the basis for the preservation of self-governance against the arrogation of power by a dictatorial leader.

(I) F. Dictatorship

The modern antithesis of popular self-governance and the rule of law is dictatorship, in which an authoritarian ruler, junta, or oligarchy rules by decree, exercising powers similar to those of the historical monarchs described above. A dictatorship may have a constitution, but in practice it serves to expand rather than limit the powers of the state and grants most if not all authority to the leader or dominant group. Under such regimes, the constitution can often be changed with little or no real input from the people. The result is extensive abuse of power (the terrible consequences of which can be found in the Country Studies in the Not Free category). Occasionally, dictatorships adopt liberal constitutional provisions for appearance's sake or to placate international opinion, offering citizens some possibilities for organizing change (see, for example, the South Africa Country Study, or the Chile Country Study). Some constitutions pledge full adherence to basic principles of human rights or self-governance, but also include language that allows some higher authority—a leader or ruling party—to override those principles in the name of national security or a major ideological priority.

(II) Constitutional Limits on Government: History

Modern constitutional limits on government are commonly traced back to the Magna Carta, signed in England in 1215. It is considered one of the most important foundation stones in the history of democracy. The agreement, which followed King John's failed attempts to take advantage of feudal landowners and to impose his authority by force, established that even monarchs claiming the divine right to rule had to uphold existing laws and customs and respect the privileges and property rights of their subjects. The most important restriction stemming from the Magna Carta was the king's obligation to seek the consent of the nobility, the clergy, the gentry, and townsmen before imposing taxes on the country. An early incarnation of the modern Parliament met for this purpose under Edward I in 1295; it included major noblemen, Church leaders, and representatives of the counties and towns. The assembly was later divided into an upper House of Lords (including high clergy) and a lower House of Commons. Notably, each district could set its own rules for election to the Commons, and some adopted general suffrage for adult males. Eventually, the country settled on freehold ownership of property worth 40 shillings as the basic requirement for the right to vote. This rule remained in place well into the modern era, and even some U.S. states maintained similar property requirements until the mid–19th century.

(II) A. The British Model

No formal constitution was ever adopted in England, and the United Kingdom is still governed according to an accumulation of parliamentary law, tradition, and practice. Over the centuries, the House of Commons came to dominate the "upper" House of Lords due to its more representative nature. Today, the House of Commons is the true focal point of political power, while the monarch remains the ceremonial head of state. The House of Lords now consists largely of members appointed for life by the monarch on the recommendation of the prime minister, although some high-ranking clergy and hereditary peers remain. The House of Lords can no longer block legislation, but it retains oversight and persuasive powers. A select group of members known as the Law Lords serve as the country's court of highest appeal, although efforts are currently under way to create a separate Supreme Court to take on this function.

(II) B. European Models

While many European countries passed through periods of absolute monarchy before building the institutions of democracy, some maintained considerable checks on their rulers. In the case of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795), a quasi-democratic system was instituted through a covenant called the Henrician Articles. These reserved great powers for the nobility, who made up the Sejm, or parliament. The monarchy became a nonhereditary position elected by the Sejm, and the king could not raise taxes or declare war without the nobles' consent. Weakened by internal division, foreign interference, and warfare, the Commonwealth in 1791 adopted a constitution aimed at extending political rights beyond the nobility and forming a stable parliamentary monarchy, but the reformed state was crushed by its autocratic neighbors. Today, most European countries have some type of parliamentary system, though unlike Great Britain they have written constitutions with clear limits on power and definitions of lawful authority. The other major European model is that of France, which since 1958 has been a mixed presidential-parliamentary system. The president acts as head of state and plays a leading role in setting national policies, particularly foreign policy. He appoints a prime minister and cabinet, who are responsible to the bicameral Parliament, to run the daily affairs of government. Parliament is able to bring down the prime minister and cabinet with a vote of no confidence, as well as block government budgets and legislation.

(II) C. The U.S. Model

As noted above, the framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned with the dangers of arbitrary government and an overbearing executive. Drawing their ideas in part from republican Rome, the writings of John Locke, and the Baron de Montesquieu's The Spirit of Laws, they crafted a model in which government is divided into executive, legislative, and judicial branches, with specific functions defined in such a way that no one branch, and especially not the executive, can dominate the others.

The executive branch is headed by a president who, aside from the vice president, holds the only nationally elected office and is thus the representative of all the people. However, the president's chief responsibility is carrying out the laws passed by the bicameral Congress. While the president has the power to veto legislation, this veto may be overridden by a two-thirds majority of each house of Congress, ensuring that the president's check on legislative power cannot itself be abused. The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, but only Congress may declare or authorize war. The president appoints executive officers and federal judges, but the Senate must approve them by a majority vote.

The legislature is purposely divided. The House of Representatives is elected by popular vote in districts allotted to the states according to population; the Senate is made up of two members from each state regardless of population. Wyoming, the smallest state by population, is thus equal in the Senate to California, the largest. The House, elected every two years, is the "people's voice," while the Senate—whose members are elected to six-year terms, with a third coming up for election every two years—is designed to temper the vicissitudes of popular will and act as a bulwark against dominance by larger states. All revenue legislation must originate in the House; the Senate holds the principal power of advice and consent with respect to federal appointments and international treaties. The federal judiciary is protected from both of the elected branches of government through lifetime appointment, so that judges can decide cases based on the law and not political considerations. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final court of appeal, and its interpretation of laws and the Constitution must be respected by the other branches.

Limited government has been reinforced over time through amendments to the Constitution, especially the first 10, known as the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. (The latter three additions abolished slavery, ensured that the states upheld federally protected rights, and conferred citizenship and voting rights on former slaves.) In addition, states are granted all governmental powers not enumerated for the federal government in the Constitution, meaning they have autonomy with respect to education, police, and other community services. States have their own constitutions that are generally organized under the same principles as the federal charter. The country's multilayered system of constitutional government is often blamed for a lack of decisive action on important matters. This was most notably the case on the issue of slavery, as Southern states, despite being a minority in population, long retained the power to block antislavery initiatives. Still, the system is generally considered to be the key reason for America's success as a democracy, and its relative complexity has generally been a source of resilience rather than a cause of paralysis.

(II) D. The Persistence of Dictatorship

The 19th-century historian Lord Acton once wrote, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Such was the case for much of the 20th century, when democracy's progress was challenged by the rise of new types of dictatorship. The abuse of power by Fascist and Communist regimes was so complete as to make most historical examples of autocracy appear liberal by comparison. The death toll was without precedent in history. Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime in Germany caused the deaths of tens of millions of people through war, deprivation, and mass execution, including the genocide of six million Jews, some two-thirds of Europe's prewar Jewish population. There is considerable debate about the number of people killed under Communist regimes, but the higher estimates approach 100 million. Most of these deaths occurred in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, and include fatalities from executions, forced labor, and massive famine stemming from state policies.1 In both Fascist and Communist regimes, even the smallest liberties were taken away, and any expression of dissent could result in arrest or worse. Both types of regimes claimed legitimacy in part through constitutions. Communist variants included lengthy assertions of "people's rights," but in practice there were no actual protections against state power. Absolute authority was granted to the ruling party.

The 20th century also saw the rise of other types of authoritarian regimes: apartheid in South Africa, theocracy, military juntas, and nationalist or populist dictatorships. However, by the end of the century, democracy had supplanted many of these governments. Even Germany and Japan, the militaristic instigators of World War II, became thriving democracies under the postwar guidance of the United States and its allies. Other new democracies flourished after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, with notable exceptions like Russia, Belarus, and Uzbekistan. But the enduring examples of such authoritarian systems, and the dictatorships that remain in the 21st century, make it clear that the preservation of human rights and individual liberty requires not just democratic elections but also effective constitutional limits on government authority.

(II) F. Conclusion

Restraints on those exercising power may be elaborated in a written constitution, as in the United States, or operate as an accumulated body of law, as in Great Britain. In either case, the enforcement of such limits depends heavily on the understanding and vigilance of the people themselves (see also "Consent of the Governed"). However, even a perfectly implemented charter will not ensure citizens' rights if its basic structure permits the accumulation of absolute power by any group or individual. A Polish democratic theorist, Jakub Karpinski, described the operating principle of Communist constitutions:

Ornamental institutions functioned as screens for other institutions in which real decisions were made. The parliament and the "collective head of state," under the name of the Council of State, were screens for the Political Bureau and other agencies of the Central Committee of the Communist Party or even other less formal groups of party functionaries who made real decisions. Decisions in the ruling communist parties were usually made without restraint.

Today, the most widely used constitutional models in the world are those of Great Britain and the United States. This is due in part to the legacy of Britain's extensive former empire and its loose association of democratic successor states, the Commonwealth. The United States similarly gained prominence as it took on a larger political and military role in the world, but its constitutional system inspired others much earlier, particularly the Latin American republics that emerged from Spanish rule in the early 19th century. Many countries also follow the example of France or other models.

While the Communist ideal of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" competed internationally with democracy during the 20th century, it remains the governing principle in only a handful of countries today, such as China, Cuba, and North Korea.

Source: http://www.democracyweb.org/limits/principles.php

Freedom of Expression

2012-10-17T14:33:00.001-04:00

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

The following post is taken from Democracy Web. "Freedom of expression is a core freedom, whithout which democracy could not exist. ... Freedom of expression gurantees everyone's right to speak openly without state interference, including the right to criticize injustices, illegal activities, and incompetencies."

Freedom of expression does not mean one has to express only "correct" views. It does not mean one has to express only views that the majority agrees with. And no one has a right to set a red line that the freedom of expression should not cross.

The autocrats want to set a red line and give tickets of traffic violations themselves of what they consider "blasphemy" and supress enquiry and critical thinking. They do not understand that a society cannot agree upon what a red line is supposed to be, unless one takes a dictatorial power. They do not realize that the only recourse is to let ideas compte in the marketplace of visions and thoughts, and that the "bad ideas" eventually fall by the wayside, and that there is no need of meddling into the inner thoughts of inviduals by an arrogant seemingly all knowing indidual since one does not exist unless one is to use brute force and not reasoning and debate.

Freedom of expression is summarized succinctly as follows: "I hate and reject what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(I) Freedom of Expression: Essential Principles

By Democracy Web

"This is true liberty, when free-born men, having to advise the public, may speak free."

Euripides (480–406 BC)

"Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties."

John Milton, Areopagitica, 1644

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write and print with freedom..."

French National Assembly, Declaration of the Rights of Man, August 26, 1789

Freedom of expression could be considered one of the most fundamental of all freedoms. While it is of dubious value to rate one freedom over another, freedom of expression is a basic foundation of democracy—it is a core freedom, without which democracy could not exist. The term encompasses not only freedom of speech and media, but also freedom of thought, culture, and intellectual inquiry. Freedom of expression guarantees everyone's right to speak and write openly without state interference, including the right to criticize injustices, illegal activities, and incompetencies. It guarantees the right to inform the public and to offer opinions of any kind, to advocate change, to give the minority the opportunity to be heard and become the majority, and to challenge the rise of state tyranny by force of words.

Until the 20th century, formal censorship— not freedom of expression— was the common practice of most states. Autocrats frequently imprisoned critics, shut down the presses, forced authors into exile, or censored written and artistic works. The struggle against licensing requirements in Great Britain in the 17th century, the American Bill of Rights, and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man expanded standards of freedom in a way that inspired new realms of independent expression and thought, especially in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but also in other parts of the world.Still, in places lacking independence or self-government, freedom of expression has generally been at risk.

But the full importance of freedom of expression could perhaps be appreciated only with the rise of totalitarian regimes, such as Adolf Hitler's Germany and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union, among others

In such regimes, the state not only exerted full control over expression, it also used the media to direct citizens' thoughts and opinions through propaganda, indoctrination, denunciation, and social conformity. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, freedom of expression joined the realm of core freedoms that are now protected as universal standards (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Within democracies, freedom of expression remains controversial: Should there be restrictions on hate speech or obscenities, or on publishing sensitive national security information? But, examining freedom of expression in light of the history of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, past and present, helps place many of these debates in greater perspective and provides greater understanding of the struggle for freedom of expression.

(II) Freedom of Expression: History

Over time, opposing forces arose: the need to express ideas and opinions in written form, and the desire by some to control free expression. Thus, the Greek epic poet Homer (ninth or eighth century BC) supported free expression, but Solon (630–560 BC), the first great lawmaker of Athens, banned "speaking evil against the living and the dead." Pericles, the leader of democratic Athens, extolled freedom of speech as the defining distinction between the rival city-states of Athens and Sparta. Nonetheless, after the Peloponnesian Wars, the Athenian Assembly ordered Socrates to drink poison as punishment for lecturing about unrecognized gods and corrupting youth by encouraging them to question authority.

Copernicus and Galileo vs. the Vatican

Until the Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries in Europe), censorship was the dominant practice of governments. Autocrats generally forbade any questioning of their right to rule, their policies, or their behavior. In mid-15th-century Europe, Johannes Gutenberg's introduction of the printing press with movable type allowed for the mass production of books and thus made greater the need for the imposition of control.

In turn, the Vatican became the main enforcer of censorship. The Catholic Church's 1559 Congregation of the Index was a long list of banned books that hinted of heresy. One of the censored books was Nicolaus Copernicus's De revolutionibis orbium coelestium (1543), which went beyond what was permitted in terms of hypothesizing and directly challenged the Church's belief in a stationary earth. The great scientist Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) was sentenced to life in prison because he confirmed Copernicus's theories of planetary motion around the sun. Galileo's sentence was commuted to house arrest without visitors only when he knelt before the pope to recant his belief in Copernican theory. Galileo's punishment, his forced recantation, and the banning of his books had an even greater impact than the censorship of De revolutionibis in dampening scientific inquiry and discovery for a century.

The Star Chamber

During the Reformation, monarchs who broke from the Vatican's control themselves found a need for censorship. In this regard, the struggles brought about by the Reformation in Great Britain had an enormous influence on the eventual development of freedom of expression. Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth I—both of whom were in conflict with the Vatican—banned books that were opposed to the new national Church of England and invoked the Court of Star Chamber (the court that supplemented the regular English Courts) to repress "slander." Elizabeth I also directed the "Master of the Revels," whose primary responsibility was to censor public presentations. Among the most famous acts of censorship under Elizabeth I was her order to eliminate the abdication and assassination scene in William Shakespeare's Richard II because it seemed to invite comparison between her and the weak Richard II (arguably, Elizabeth did not misinterpret—the play was used to try to mobilize support for the Earl of Essex's failed coup attempt). Under the Catholic Stuart dynasty, the Court of the Star Chamber was used to suppress political dissent and to control the licensing of printers. After Charles I raised an army against Parliament, it abolished the Star Chamber in 1637. But Parliament reinstituted press controls through the Licensing Act of 1643, which imposed strict restrictions on the content of published materials.

Milton's Areopagitica: Truth Emerges Through Free Expression

In this context of state intrigue and civil war, John Milton wrote perhaps the most famous defense of free expression ever written: the political essay Areopagitica(1644). His main argument against the adoption of the Licensing Act and for unfettered licensing was a new one at the time but today is basic to our understanding of freedom of expression: that "truth is most likely to emerge in a free and open encounter." The argument was rejected at the time, but the Licensing Act was eventually abolished in the wake of the 1688 Glorious Revolution, which brought Mary II and William III to power with the requirement that they adhere to the Bill of Rights. Censorship by royal fiat continued, but "unfettered licensing" initiated England's tradition of a free and freewheeling media. Milton's Areopagitica, despite its complexity, became the touchstone for a libertarian view on freedom of expression and greatly influenced the liberal tradition in the United Kingdom, the United States, and throughout the British Empire. It remains the core text for free speech advocates.

The Enlightenment: A Primary Objective

Freedom of expression became a primary objective for Enlightenment thinkers as a measure of liberal progress. In Europe, Sweden was the first country to abolish censorship in 1766, followed quickly by Denmark and Norway in 1770. Reflecting the egalitarian spirit of its revolution, the French National Assembly's Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789 included not only the right to free expression, but also the right to own a printing press. In the American colonies, one of the colonists' main complaints was press censorship by the English king. After the American Revolution, the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, adopted in 1791, established one of the strongest standards for the guarantee of free speech by any constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The U.S. Supreme Court: Expanding Standards of Free Expression

The evolution of standards for freedom of expression in democracies has tended toward the expansion of freedom and the reduction of restrictions on the media. In the United States, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have reflected this trend. Traditionally, slander and national security laws were common justifications for restricting speech. While each area had legitimate claims for limiting speech, they were also easily abused. In The York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court reversed an earlier ruling in favor of a Montgomery city commissioner who had sued the newspaper over an advertisement made by civil rights leaders that appeared in it. Southern public figures had sued northern newspapers in a generally successful strategy to deter coverage of the civil rights movement. In this case, the Supreme Court majority determined that slander, especially regarding a public figure, required proof of intent of "actual malice," prior knowledge of a claim's falsehood, or "reckless disregard" for the truth.

Until 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court also generally upheld public and national security laws restricting speech. In Schenck v. United States (1919), Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote his famous opinion, which argued, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic." His opinion established an open-ended "clear and present danger" standard for evaluating the legitimacy of national or public security claims. The question, of course, lay in the meaning of clear and present danger. In Schenck, the plaintiff, Charles Schenck, a leader of the U.S. Socialist Party, was convicted for distributing leaflets calling for World War I draftees to oppose the draft.

In Yates v. United States (1957), the Court reversed numerous convictions based on the Smith Act, a law outlawing revolutionary political movements, asserting that there must be a distinction between teaching orexpressing the idea of overthrowing the government and acting on the idea. The Smith Act was more specifically overturned in Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969), in response to a television news broadcast of a Ku Klux Klan rally that included explicit threats of violence against Jews and blacks. The Supreme Court decided that the notion of "clear and present danger" was insufficiently vague as a standard, and that speech could not be "prohibited, punished, or prevented" except where advocacy of specific lawlessness had the likelihood of producing "imminent lawless action."

In the famous Pentagon Papers case, ending in the decisionNew York Times Company v. United States (1971), the Court established an even higher standard—a "heavy burden of proof"—for any government restriction of the First Amendment. All of these rulings greatly expanded protections for the media, reinforced the importance of freedom of speech as an essential element in free societies, and made clear that restraints on freedom threatened the country's democratic foundations.

Totalitarianism: "Truth Is the Mortal Enemy"

The rise of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century had an opposite dynamic: eradicating all freedom. Totalitarian regimes took complete control of the media, making it into an instrument for conveying state ideology, and attempting to control thought and conscience through propaganda and the intimidation of deviant or dissenting views and opinions. Indeed, such regimes moved immediately to control expression upon seizing power.

In the earliest days of the Russian Revolution, for example, the Bolsheviks imposed censorship, using tactics such as destroying the presses of political rivals and destroying private ("bourgeois") libraries. The Bolsheviks' leader, Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924), set the early direction of state propaganda in his famous maxim "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." Stalin further institutionalized censorship by establishing a state body to oversee censorship (called Glavlit in Russian) and the Writers Union (1932), which became the only legal union for writers. These actions by Stalin were instruments for directing every aspect of public expression and for establishing socialism as the only allowable ideology. In the terror under Stalin's rule (the height of repression lasted from the late 1920s to the late 1930s), thousands of writers, journalists, and artists who refused this straitjacket found themselves in prison camps and even graves.

Upon taking power in Germany, Hitler appointed Joseph Goebbels (1897–1945) as director of propaganda. One of Goebbels's first acts was to incite anti-Semitism in the media. He also rallied support for a massive book burning on May 10, 1933, in Berlin to destroy "non-German" books. To note, the German poet Heinrich Heine argued in the 19th century, "Where books are burned, human beings are destined to be burned too." Goebbels's notion of the "big lie" defines the essence of totalitarian propaganda: If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Totalitarianism vs. Free Thought

Within totalitarian regimes, one finds not just unimaginable suffering, but also remarkable profiles in courage of individuals who struggled to write freely and reveal the truth for the world and for history. Such courageous individuals include the Cuban author Reinaldo Arenas (1943–90), the Czech dissident Vaclav Havel (1936–), the Russian author of the 1973 The Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn (1918–), and many, many others. For these individuals, intellectual freedom could not be compromised because it meant compromising truth itself. Those who were imprisoned found ways both to write and to smuggle their works out of their countries, creating a distinct new form of literature called prison writing. Their pursuit of truth and their efforts to overcome censorship define the meaning of free expression.

Essential Principles II
Freedom of Expression: A Universal Standard

The apocalyptic destruction and murder carried out by Nazi Germany and other Axis powers caused the international community to create new institutions and instruments after the war to protect human rights and prevent a repeat of the war's atrocities. The UN's first act was to create the Human Rights Council, chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. For democratic countries, free expression was among the primary goals of the new human rights regime. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) thus declares:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 19 vs. Public Order

Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the original founders of Freedom House, understood that not everyone in the council wanted clear declarations on human rights, most notably the Soviet Union. Its ambassador, Andrei Vyshinsky, had been Stalin's chief prosecutor during the Great Purges, which took place during the 1930s, and engaged in long-winded disputes with the council's chairwoman. While Roosevelt prevailed in establishing clearly defined and unqualified rights, subsequent documents, such as the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Social, Cultural, and Economic Rights, included qualifications for the temporary restriction of freedoms to preserve public order. While this qualification itself is highly circumscribed (and the council rejected it, for example, to justify the imposition of martial law in Poland), free speech organizations cite the Universal Declaration's Article 19 as the preeminent international claim for freedom of expression.

Freedom's Next Threat: "The New International Information Order"

Later, through the UN General Assembly and UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization), the Soviet Union and many developing countries sought to establish a "New International Information Order" (NEIO), which would impose restrictions on the media to avoid unfavorable coverage of their countries. This attempt, among others undertaken by developing countries, was weakened when Western countries responded with threats to leave the UN system. Also, by the late 1980s, the main sponsor, the Soviet Union, was near the point of collapse. Still, there remains no clear mechanism within the United Nations human rights system for protecting free expression.

The Negative Balance of Dictatorship

The fights in the UN between developed and developing countries show that the international struggle for free expression is ongoing, and one that generally sets democracies apart from dictatorships. Many countries continue to impose censorship and propaganda regimes, from Burma, to China, to Sudan. A total of 63 countries are categorized as "not free" in Freedom House's Freedom of the Press 2007 survey. Some, like Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, and Turkmenistan, go so far as to propagate "cults of personalities," as occurred in previous totalitarian regimes, where public displays of adoration of the "leader" were a constant practice. In nationalist conflicts that emerged after the collapse of communism, the world witnessed another type of crime against intellectual freedom—the destruction of libraries. Serbian forces destroyed the national library in Bosnia, and the Russian army did the same in Chechnya, each an apparent attempt to wipe out national memories.

In the Middle East, some governments seek to disseminate messages against Israel and Western countries through the state-controlled media, which help to deflect attention from their domestic problems. A culture of intimidation is prevalent. Religious opinions (fatwas) are issued by both state (such as theocratic leaders in Iran) and nonstate religious and political movements (such as al-Qaeda) that sometimes threaten writers or broadcasters with death or violence for materials deemed blasphemous or insulting to Muslims. In a world where terrorism has become widespread, these threats place a chill on all forms of expression, which is, arguably, their aim.

The Positive Increase in Freedom

Freedom House's press survey also shows the converse picture, namely the significant increase in the number of countries that largely respect principles of free expression. Freedom House's Freedom of the Press 2007 survey classified 74 countries (38 percent of the total) as "free," whereas the Freedom of the Press 1997 survey classified only 64 countries as "free." Similarly, the internet has opened up a new means of communication and form of free expression for hundreds of millions of people. At the same time, unfree countries often prohibit access to the internet or censor certain websites.

Freedom vs. Restriction: The Debates Continue

Even in democracies, controversies still remain on the issue of freedom of expression. Not everyone in the United States agrees fully with the blanket libertarian view of the First Amendment or Milton's Areopagitica, especially given the increased threat of terrorism. In the United States, there is, in fact, an ongoing debate between the executive and judicial branches over the balance between national security and free expression. Other important debates continue over issues of obscenity, hate speech, political speech, intellectual property rights, and accountability of the media, among others.

But the main threats to freedom of expression are the restrictions placed on it by repressive governments and the ongoing ideological and physical attacks made on it by extremists. Dozens of reporters are killed each year by repressive governments and extremists. Such attacks were given religious encouragement through a fatwa to kill the novelist Salman Rushdie, issued by the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 in response to Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses, which the clerics found insulting to Islam. The fatwah against Rushdie forced him into hiding abroad, although the Iranian government retracted its fatwah in 1998.
The 2002 assassination of Daniel Pearl, a reporter for the Wall Street Journal, by al-Qaeda operatives was further proof that freedom of expression has little protection in this area of the world. Overall, the climate of religious and political extremism in the Middle East has limited speech and ensured a limited debate about the region's future.

The Meaning of the Cartoon Wars

The most significant recent challenge to freedom of expression was the worldwide reaction to the initial September 2006 publication of a cartoon that mocked the Prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

Months later, violent demonstrations erupted across the Middle East. Public anger was aimed at Danish embassies, and Muslim leaders demanded that the prime minister of Denmark apologize for the publication of the cartoons and shut down the newspaper. Throughout the world, free speech organizations and some governments defended free expression, although a number of Western leaders criticized the Danish newspaper and called for an apology, believing that freedom of expression is a principle to be defended except when violent demonstrations are organized against it. In the end, the Danish paper issued an apology to defuse the international controversy, after an international boycott by Arab countries cost the Danish economy several billion dollars. The Danish prime minister decided not to take action against the paper, explaining that in free societies, free speech was too important to be interfered with by the state.
The essence of freedom of expression, of course, is not the right to insult the beliefs of others, but rather the freedom to report or convey facts, opinions, philosophies, and worldviews in an effective manner, using both objective and subjective means. Freedom of expression empowers citizens through knowledge, opinion, and the possibility to gain their own voice. Within democracies, free expression allows citizens to challenge political leaders, journalists to uncover information for the public, and the public to ensure the accountability of their government. Without the principles of a free media and free speech, there could be no self-government.

Source: http://www.democracyweb.org/expression/principles.php

THE RISE OF ILLIBERAL DEMOCRACY

2012-10-14T17:19:00.001-04:00

By Fareed Zakaria

November/December 1997

THE NEXT WAVE

The American diplomat Richard Holbrooke pondered a problem on the eve of the September 1996 elections in Bosnia, which were meant to restore civic life to that ravaged country. “Suppose the election was declared free and fair,” he said, and those elected are “racists, fascists, separatists, who are publicly opposed to [peace and reintegration]. That is the dilemma.” Indeed it is, not just in the former Yugoslavia, but increasingly around the world. Democratically elected regimes, often ones that have been reelected or reaffirmed through referenda, are routinely ignoring constitutional limits on their power and depriving their citizens of basic rights and freedoms. From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life — illiberal democracy.

It has been difficult to recognize this problem because for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy — a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms — what might be termed constitutional liberalism — is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy. As the political scientist Philippe Schmitter has pointed out, “Liberalism, either as a conception of political liberty, or as a doctrine about economic policy, may have coincided with the rise of democracy. But it has never been immutably or unambiguously linked to its practice.” Today the two strands of liberal democracy, interwoven in the Western political fabric, are coming apart in the rest of the world. Democracy is flourishing; constitutional liberalism is not.

Today, 118 of the world’s 193 countries are democratic, encompassing a majority of its people (54.8 percent, to be exact), a vast increase from even a decade ago. In this season of victory, one might have expected Western statesmen and intellectuals to go one further than E. M. Forster and give a rousing three cheers for democracy. Instead there is a growing unease at the rapid spread of multiparty elections across south-central Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, perhaps because of what happens after the elections. Popular leaders like Russia’s Boris Yeltsin and Argentina’s Carlos Menem bypass their parliaments and rule by presidential decree, eroding basic constitutional practices. The Iranian parliament — elected more freely than most in the Middle East — imposes harsh restrictions on speech, assembly, and even dress, diminishing that country’s already meager supply of liberty. Ethiopia’s elected government turns its security forces on journalists and political opponents, doing permanent damage to human rights (as well as human beings).

Naturally there is a spectrum of illiberal democracy, ranging from modest offenders like Argentina to near-tyrannies like Kazakstan and Belarus, with countries like Romania and Bangladesh in between. Along much of the spectrum, elections are rarely as free and fair as in the West today, but they do reflect the reality of popular participation in politics and support for those elected. And the examples are not isolated or atypical. Freedom House’s 1996-97 survey, Freedom in the World, has separate rankings for political liberties and civil liberties, which correspond roughly with democracy and constitutional liberalism, respectively. Of the countries that lie between confirmed dictatorship and consolidated democracy, 50 percent do better on political liberties than on civil ones. In other words, half of the “democratizing” countries in the world today are illiberal democracies.

Illiberal democracy is a growth industry. Seven years ago only 22 percent of democratizing countries could have been so categorized; five years ago that figure had risen to 35 percent. And to date few illiberal democracies have matured into liberal democracies; if anything, they are moving toward heightened illiberalism. Far from being a temporary or transitional stage, it appears that many countries are settling into a form of government that mixes a substantial degree of democracy with a substantial degree of illiberalism. Just as nations across the world have become comfortable with many variations of capitalism, they could well adopt and sustain varied forms of democracy. Western liberal democracy might prove to be not the final destination on the democratic road, but just one of many possible exits.

DEMOCRACY AND LIBERTY

From the time of Herodotus democracy has meant, first and foremost, the rule of the people. This view of democracy as a process of selecting governments, articulated by scholars ranging from Alexis de Tocqueville to Joseph Schumpeter to Robert Dahl, is now widely used by social scientists. In The Third Wave, Samuel P. Huntington explains why:

Elections, open, free and fair, are the essence of democracy, the inescapable sine qua non. Governments produced by elections may be inefficient, corrupt, shortsighted,

irresponsible, dominated by special interests, and incapable of adopting policies demanded by the public good. These qualities make such governments undesirable but they do not make them undemocratic. Democracy is one public virtue, not the only one, and the relation of democracy to other public virtues and vices can only be understood if democracy is clearly distinguished from the other characteristics of political systems.

This definition also accords with the commonsense view of the term. If a country holds competitive, multiparty elections, we call it democratic. When public participation in politics is increased, for example through the enfranchisement of women, it is seen as more democratic. Of course elections must be open and fair, and this requires some protections for freedom of speech and assembly. But to go beyond this minimalist definition and label a country democratic only if it guarantees a comprehensive catalog of social, political, economic, and religious rights turns the word democracy into a badge of honor rather than a descriptive category. After all, Sweden has an economic system that many argue curtails individual property rights, France until recently had a state monopoly on television, and England has an established religion. But they are all clearly and identifiably democracies. To have democracy mean, subjectively, “a good government” renders it analytically useless.

Constitutional liberalism, on the other hand, is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government’s goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual’s autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source — state, church, or society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty.< It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual’s right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. Its canonical figures include the poet John Milton, the jurist William Blackstone, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin. In almost all of its variants, constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or “inalienable”) rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them. Thus in 1215 at Runnymede, England’s barons forced the king to abide by the settled and customary law of the land. In the American colonies these laws were made explicit, and in 1638 the town of Hartford adopted the first written constitution in modern history. In the 1970s, Western nations codified standards of behavior for regimes across the globe. The Magna Carta, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the American Constitution, and the Helsinki Final Act are all expressions of constitutional liberalism.

THE ROAD TO LIBERAL DEMOCRACY

Since 1945 Western governments have, for the most part, embodied both democracy and constitutional liberalism. Thus it is difficult to imagine the two apart, in the form of either illiberal democracy or liberal autocracy. In fact both have existed in the past and persist in the present. Until the twentieth century, most countries in Western Europe were liberal autocracies or, at best, semi-democracies. The franchise was tightly restricted, and elected legislatures had little power. In 1830 Great Britain, in some ways the most democratic European nation, allowed barely 2 percent of its population to vote for one house of Parliament; that figure rose to 7 percent after 1867 and reached around 40 percent in the 1880s. Only in the late 1940s did most Western countries become full-fledged democracies, with universal adult suffrage. But one hundred years earlier, by the late 1840s, most of them had adopted important aspects of constitutional liberalism — the rule of law, private property rights, and increasingly, separated powers and free speech and assembly. For much of modern history, what characterized governments in Europe and North America, and differentiated them from those around the world, was not democracy but constitutional liberalism. The “Western model” is best symbolized not by the mass plebiscite but the impartial judge.

The recent history of East Asia follows the Western itinerary. After brief flirtations with democracy after World War II, most East Asian regimes turned authoritarian. Over time they moved from autocracy to liberalizing autocracy, and, in some cases, toward liberalizing semi-democracy. Most of the regimes in East Asia remain only semi-democratic, with patriarchs or one-party systems that make their elections ratifications of power rather than genuine contests. But these regimes have accorded their citizens a widening sphere of economic, civil, religious, and limited political rights. As in the West, liberalization in East Asia has included economic liberalization, which is crucial in promoting both growth and liberal democracy. Historically, the factors most closely associated with full-fledged liberal democracies are capitalism, a bourgeoisie, and a high per capita GNP. Today’s East Asian governments are a mix of democracy, liberalism, capitalism, oligarchy, and corruption — much like Western governments circa 1900.

Constitutional liberalism has led to democracy, but democracy does not seem to bring constitutional liberalism. In contrast to the Western and East Asian paths, during the last two decades in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia, dictatorships with little background in constitutional liberalism have given way to democracy. The results are not encouraging. In the western hemisphere, with elections having been held in every country except Cuba, a 1993 study by the scholar Larry Diamond determined that 10 of the 22 principal Latin American countries “have levels of human rights abuse that are incompatible with the consolidation of [liberal] democracy.” In Africa, democratization has been extraordinarily rapid. Within six months in 1990 much of Francophone Africa lifted its ban on multiparty politics. Yet although elections have been held in most of the 45 sub-Saharan states since 1991 (18 in 1996 alone), there have been setbacks for freedom in many countries. One of Africa’s most careful observers, Michael Chege, surveyed the wave of democratization and drew the lesson that the continent had “overemphasized multiparty elections . . . and correspondingly neglected the basic tenets of liberal governance.” In Central Asia, elections, even when reasonably free, as in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakstan, have resulted in strong executives, weak legislatures and judiciaries, and few civil and economic liberties. In the Islamic world, from the Palestinian Authority to Iran to Pakistan, democratization has led to an increasing role for theocratic politics, eroding long-standing traditions of secularism and tolerance. In many parts of that world, such as Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and some of the Gulf States, were elections to be held tomorrow, the resulting regimes would almost certainly be more illiberal than the ones now in place.

Many of the countries of Central Europe, on the other hand, have moved successfully from communism to liberal democracy, having gone through the same phase of liberalization without democracy as other European countries did during the nineteenth century. Indeed, the Austro-Hungarian empire, to which most belonged, was a classic liberal autocracy. Even outside Europe, the political scientist Myron Weiner detected a striking connection between a constitutional past and a liberal democratic present. He pointed out that, as of 1983, “every single country in the Third World that emerged from colonial rule since the Second World War with a population of at least one million (and almost all the smaller colonies as well) with a continuous democratic experience is a former British colony.” British rule meant not democracy — colonialism is by definition undemocratic — but constitutional liberalism. Britain’s legacy of law and administration has proved more beneficial than France’s policy of enfranchising some of its colonial populations.

While liberal autocracies may have existed in the past, can one imagine them today? Until recently, a small but powerful example flourished off the Asian mainland — Hong Kong. For 156 years, until July 1, 1997, Hong Kong was ruled by the British Crown through an appointed governor general. Until 1991 it had never held a meaningful election, but its government epitomized constitutional liberalism, protecting its citizens’ basic rights and administering a fair court system and bureaucracy. A September 8, 1997, editorial on the island’s future in The Washington Post was titled ominously, “Undoing Hong Kong’s Democracy.” Actually, Hong Kong has precious little democracy to undo; what it has is a framework of rights and laws. Small islands may not hold much practical significance in today’s world, but they do help one weigh the relative value of democracy and constitutional liberalism. Consider, for example, the question of where you would rather live, Haiti, an illiberal democracy, or Antigua, a liberal semi-democracy. Your choice would probably relate not to the weather, which is pleasant in both, but to the political climate, which is not.

ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY

John Stuart Mill opened his classic On Liberty by noting that as countries became democratic, people tended to believe that “too much importance had been attached to the limitation of power itself. That . . . was a response against rulers whose interests were opposed to those of the people.” Once the people were themselves in charge, caution was unnecessary. “The nation did not need to be protected against its own will.” As if confirming Mill’s fears, consider the words of Alexandr Lukashenko after being elected president of Belarus with an overwhelming majority in a free election in 1994, when asked about limiting his powers: “There will be no dictatorship. I am of the people, and I am going to be for the people.”

The tension between constitutional liberalism and democracy centers on the scope of governmental authority. Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, democracy about its accumulation and use. For this reason, many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals saw in democracy a force that could undermine liberty. James Madison explained in The Federalist that “the danger of oppression” in a democracy came from “the majority of the community.” Tocqueville warned of the “tyranny of the majority,” writing, “The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority.”

The tendency for a democratic government to believe it has absolute sovereignty (that is, power) can result in the centralization of authority, often by extraconstitutional means and with grim results. Over the last decade, elected governments claiming to represent the people have steadily encroached on the powers and rights of other elements in society, a usurpation that is both horizontal (from other branches of the national government) and vertical (from regional and local authorities as well as private businesses and other nongovernmental groups). Lukashenko and Peru’s Alberto Fujimori are only the worst examples of this practice. (While Fujimori’s actions — disbanding the legislature and suspending the constitution, among others — make it difficult to call his regime democratic, it is worth noting that he won two elections and was extremely popular until recently.) Even a bona fide reformer like Carlos Menem has passed close to 300 presidential decrees in his eight years in office, about three times as many as all previous Argentinean presidents put together, going back to 1853. Kyrgyzstan’s Askar Akayev, elected with 60 percent of the vote, proposed enhancing his powers in a referendum that passed easily in 1996. His new powers include appointing all top officials except the prime minister, although he can dissolve parliament if it turns down three of his nominees for the latter post.

Horizontal usurpation, usually by presidents, is more obvious, but vertical usurpation is more common. Over the last three decades, the Indian government has routinely disbanded state legislatures on flimsy grounds, placing regions under New Delhi’s direct rule. In a less dramatic but typical move, the elected government of the Central African Republic recently ended the long-standing independence of its university system, making it part of the central state apparatus.

Usurpation is particularly widespread in Latin America and the states of the former Soviet Union, perhaps because both regions mostly have presidencies. These systems tend to produce strong leaders who believe that they speak for the people — even when they have been elected by no more than a plurality. (As Juan Linz points out, Salvador Allende was elected to the Chilean presidency in 1970 with only 36 percent of the vote. In similar circumstances, a prime minister would have had to share power in a coalition government.) Presidents appoint cabinets of cronies, rather than senior party figures, maintaining few internal checks on their power. And when their views conflict with those of the legislature, or even the courts, presidents tend to “go to the nation,” bypassing the dreary tasks of bargaining and coalition-building. While scholars debate the merits of presidential versus parliamentary forms of government, usurpation can occur under either, absent well-developed alternate centers of power such as strong legislatures, courts, political parties, regional governments, and independent universities and media. Latin America actually combines presidential systems with proportional representation, producing populist leaders and multiple parties — an unstable combination.

Many Western governments and scholars have encouraged the creation of strong and centralized states in the Third World. Leaders in these countries have argued that they need the authority to break down feudalism, split entrenched coalitions, override vested interests, and bring order to chaotic societies. But this confuses the need for a legitimate government with that for a powerful one. Governments that are seen as legitimate can usually maintain order and pursue tough policies, albeit slowly, by building coalitions. After all, few claim that governments in developing countries should not have adequate police powers; the trouble comes from all the other political, social, and economic powers that they accumulate. In crises like civil wars, constitutional governments might not be able to rule effectively, but the alternative — states with vast security apparatuses that suspend constitutional rights — has usually produced neither order nor good government. More often, such states have become predatory, maintaining some order but also arresting opponents, muzzling dissent, nationalizing industries, and confiscating property. While anarchy has its dangers, the greatest threats to human liberty and happiness in this century have been caused not by disorder but by brutally strong, centralized states, like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Maoist China. The Third World is littered with the bloody handiwork of strong states.

Historically, unchecked centralization has been the enemy of liberal democracy. As political participation increased in Europe over the nineteenth century, it was accommodated smoothly in countries such as England and Sweden, where medieval assemblies, local governments, and regional councils had remained strong. Countries like France and Prussia, on the other hand, where the monarchy had effectively centralized power (both horizontally and vertically), often ended up illiberal and undemocratic. It is not a coincidence that in twentieth-century Spain, the beachhead of liberalism lay in Catalonia, for centuries a doggedly independent and autonomous region. In America, the presence of a rich variety of institutions — state, local, and private — made it much easier to accommodate the rapid and large extensions in suffrage that took place in the early nineteenth century. Arthur Schlesinger Sr. has documented how, during America’s first 50 years, virtually every state, interest group and faction tried to weaken and even break up the federal government. More recently, India’s semi-liberal democracy has survived because of, not despite, its strong regions and varied languages, cultures, and even castes. The point is logical, even tautological: pluralism in the past helps ensure political pluralism in the present.

Fifty years ago, politicians in the developing world wanted extraordinary powers to implement then-fashionable economic doctrines, like nationalization of industries. Today their successors want similar powers to privatize those very industries. Menem’s justification for his methods is that they are desperately needed to enact tough economic reforms. Similar arguments are made by Abdal Bucarem of Ecuador and by Fujimori. Lending institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have been sympathetic to these pleas, and the bond market has been positively exuberant. But except in emergencies like war, illiberal means are in the long run incompatible with liberal ends. Constitutional government is in fact the key to a successful economic reform policy. The experience of East Asia and Central Europe suggests that when regimes — whether authoritarian, as in East Asia, or liberal democratic, as in Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic — protect individual rights, including those of property and contract, and create a framework of law and administration, capitalism and growth will follow. In a recent speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, explaining what it takes for capitalism to flourish, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan concluded that, “The guiding mechanism of a free market economy. . . is a bill of rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary”

Finally, and perhaps more important, power accumulated to do good can be used subsequently to do ill. When Fujimori disbanded parliament, his approval ratings shot up to their highest ever. But recent opinion polls suggest that most of those who once approved of his actions now wish he were more constrained. In 1993 Boris Yeltsin famously (and literally) attacked the Russian parliament, prompted by parliament’s own unconstitutional acts. He then suspended the constitutional court, dismantled the system of local governments, and fired several provincial governors. From the war in Chechnya to his economic programs, Yeltsin has displayed a routine lack of concern for constitutional procedures and limits. He may well be a liberal democrat at heart, but Yeltsin’s actions have created a Russian super-presidency. We can only hope his successor will not abuse it.

For centuries Western intellectuals have had a tendency to view constitutional liberalism as a quaint exercise in rule-making, mere formalism that should take a back seat to battling larger evils in society. The most eloquent counterpoint to this view remains an exchange in Robert Bolt’s play A Man For All Seasons. The fiery young William Roper, who yearns to battle evil, is exasperated by Sir Thomas More’s devotion to the law. More gently defends himself.

More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I’d cut every law in England to do that!

More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you — where would you hide Roper, the laws all being flat?

ETHNIC CONFLICT AND WAR

On December 8, 1996, Jack Lang made a dramatic dash to Belgrade. The French celebrity politician, formerly minister of culture, had been inspired by the student demonstrations involving tens of thousands against Slobodan Milosevic, a man Lang and many Western intellectuals held responsible for the war in the Balkans. Lang wanted to lend his moral support to the Yugoslav opposition. The leaders of the movement received him in their offices — the philosophy department — only to boot him out, declare him “an enemy of the Serbs,” and order him to leave the country. It turned out that the students opposed Milosevic not for starting the war, but for failing to win it.

Lang’s embarrassment highlights two common, and often mistaken, assumptions — that the forces of democracy are the forces of ethnic harmony and of peace. Neither is necessarily true. Mature liberal democracies can usually accommodate ethnic divisions without violence or terror and live in peace with other liberal democracies. But without a background in constitutional liberalism, the introduction of democracy in divided societies has actually fomented nationalism, ethnic conflict, and even war. The spate of elections held immediately after the collapse of communism were won in the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia by nationalist separatists and resulted in the breakup of those countries. This was not in and of itself bad, since those countries had been bound together by force. But the rapid secessions, without guarantees, institutions, or political power for the many minorities living within the new countries, have caused spirals of rebellion, repression, and, in places like Bosnia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, war.

Elections require that politicians compete for peoples’ votes. In societies without strong traditions of multiethnic groups or assimilation, it is easiest to organize support along racial, ethnic, or religious lines. Once an ethnic group is in power, it tends to exclude other ethnic groups. Compromise seems impossible; one can bargain on material issues like housing, hospitals, and handouts, but how does one split the difference on a national religion? Political competition that is so divisive can rapidly degenerate into violence. Opposition movements, armed rebellions, and coups in Africa have often been directed against ethnically based regimes, many of which came to power through elections. Surveying the breakdown of African and Asian democracies in the 1960s, two scholars concluded that democracy “is simply not viable in an environment of intense ethnic preferences.” Recent studies, particularly of Africa and Central Asia, have confirmed this pessimism. A distinguished expert on ethnic conflict, Donald Horowitz, concluded, “In the face of this rather dismal account . . . of the concrete failures of democracy in divided societies . . . one is tempted to throw up one’s hands. What is the point of holding elections if all they do in the end is to substitute a Bemba-dominated regime for a Nyanja regime in Zambia, the two equally narrow, or a southern regime for a northern one in Benin, neither incorporating the other half of the state?”

Over the past decade, one of the most spirited debates among scholars of international relations concerns the “democratic peace” — the assertion that no two modern democracies have gone to war with each other. The debate raises interesting substantive questions (does the American Civil War count? do nuclear weapons better explain the peace?) and even the statistical findings have raised interesting dissents. (As the scholar David Spiro points out, given the small number of both democracies and wars over the last two hundred years, sheer chance might explain the absence of war between democracies. No member of his family has ever won the lottery, yet few offer explanations for this impressive correlation.) But even if the statistics are correct, what explains them? Kant, the original proponent of the democratic peace, contended that in democracies, those who pay for wars — that is, the public — make the decisions, so they are understandably cautious. But that claim suggests that democracies are more pacific than other states. Actually they are more warlike, going to war more often and with greater intensity than most states. It is only with other democracies that the peace holds.

When divining the cause behind this correlation, one thing becomes clear: the democratic peace is actually the liberal peace. Writing in the eighteenth century, Kant believed that democracies were tyrannical, and he specifically excluded them from his conception of “republican” governments, which lived in a zone of peace. Republicanism, for Kant, meant a separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law, protection of individual rights, and some level of representation in government (though nothing close to universal suffrage). Kant’s other explanations for the “perpetual peace” between republics are all closely linked to their constitutional and liberal character: a mutual respect for the rights of each other’s citizens, a system of checks and balances assuring that no single leader can drag his country into war, and classical liberal economic policies — most importantly, free trade — which create an interdependence that makes war costly and cooperation useful. Michael Doyle, the leading scholar on the subject, confirms in his 1997 book Ways of War and Peace that without constitutional liberalism, democracy itself has no peace-inducing qualities:

Kant distrusted unfettered, democratic majoritarianism, and his argument offers no support for a claim that all participatory polities — democracies — should be peaceful, either in general or between fellow democracies. Many participatory polities have been non-liberal. For two thousand years before the modern age, popular rule was widely associated with aggressiveness (by Thucydides) or imperial success (by Machiavelli) . . . The decisive preference of [the] median voter might well include “ethnic cleansing” against other democratic polities.

The distinction between liberal and illiberal democracies sheds light on another striking statistical correlation. Political scientists Jack Snyder and Edward Mansfield contend, using an impressive data set, that over the last 200 years democratizing states went to war significantly more often than either stable autocracies or liberal democracies. In countries not grounded in constitutional liberalism, the rise of democracy often brings with it hyper-nationalism and war-mongering. When the political system is opened up, diverse groups with incompatible interests gain access to power and press their demands. Political and military leaders, who are often embattled remnants of the old authoritarian order, realize that to succeed that they must rally the masses behind a national cause. The result is invariably aggressive rhetoric and policies, which often drag countries into confrontation and war. Noteworthy examples range from Napoleon III’s France, Wilhelmine Germany, and Taisho Japan to those in today’s newspapers, like Armenia and Azerbaijan and Milosevic’s Serbia. The democratic peace, it turns out, has little to do with democracy.

THE AMERICAN PATH

An American scholar recently traveled to Kazakstan on a U.S. government-sponsored mission to help the new parliament draft its electoral laws. His counterpart, a senior member of the Kazak parliament, brushed aside the many options the American expert was outlining, saying emphatically, “We want our parliament to be just like your Congress.” The American was horrified, recalling, “I tried to say something other than the three words that had immediately come screaming into my mind: ‘No you don’t!’” This view is not unusual. Americans in the democracy business tend to see their own system as an unwieldy contraption that no other country should put up with. In fact, the adoption of some aspects of the American constitutional framework could ameliorate many of the problems associated with illiberal democracy. The philosophy behind the U.S. Constitution, a fear of accumulated power, is as relevant today as it was in 1789. Kazakstan, as it happens, would be particularly well-served by a strong parliament — like the American Congress — to check the insatiable appetite of its president.

It is odd that the United States is so often the advocate of elections and plebiscitary democracy abroad. What is distinctive about the American system is not how democratic it is but rather how undemocratic it is, placing as it does multiple constraints on electoral majorities. Of its three branches of government, one — arguably paramount — is headed by nine unelected men and women with life tenure. Its Senate is the most unrepresentative upper house in the world, with the lone exception of the House of Lords, which is powerless. (Every state sends two senators to Washington regardless of its population — California’s 30 million people have as many votes in the Senate as Arizona’s 3.7 million — which means that senators representing about 16 percent of the country can block any proposed law.) Similarly, in legislatures all over the United States, what is striking is not the power of majorities but that of minorities. To further check national power, state and local governments are strong and fiercely battle every federal intrusion onto their turf. Private businesses and other nongovernmental groups, what Tocqueville called intermediate associations, make up another stratum within society.

The American system is based on an avowedly pessimistic conception of human nature, assuming that people cannot be trusted with power. “If men were angels,” Madison famously wrote, “no government would be necessary.” The other model for democratic governance in Western history is based on the French Revolution. The French model places its faith in the goodness of human beings. Once the people are the source of power, it should be unlimited so that they can create a just society. (The French revolution, as Lord Acton observed, is not about the limitation of sovereign power but the abrogation of all intermediate powers that get in its way.) Most non-Western countries have embraced the French model — not least because political elites like the prospect of empowering the state, since that means empowering themselves — and most have descended into bouts of chaos, tyranny, or both. This should have come as no surprise. After all, since its revolution France itself has run through two monarchies, two empires, one proto-fascist dictatorship, and five republics.

Of course cultures vary, and different societies will require different frameworks of government. This is not a plea for the wholesale adoption of the American way but rather for a more variegated conception of liberal democracy, one that emphasizes both parts of that phrase. Before new policies can be adopted, there lies an intellectual task of recovering the constitutional liberal tradition, central to the Western experience and to the development of good government throughout the world. Political progress in Western history has been the result of a growing recognition over the centuries that, as the Declaration of Independence puts it, human beings have “certain inalienable rights” and that “it is to secure these rights that governments are instituted.” If a democracy does not preserve liberty and law, that it is a democracy is a small consolation.

LIBERALIZING FOREIGN POLICY

A proper appreciation of constitutional liberalism has a variety of implications for American foreign policy. First, it suggests a certain humility. While it is easy to impose elections on a country, it is more difficult to push constitutional liberalism on a society. The process of genuine liberalization and democratization is gradual and long-term, in which an election is only one step. Without appropriate preparation, it might even be a false step. Recognizing this, governments and nongovernmental organizations are increasingly promoting a wide array of measures designed to bolster constitutional liberalism in developing countries. The National Endowment for Democracy promotes free markets, independent labor movements, and political parties. The U.S. Agency for International Development funds independent judiciaries. In the end, however, elections trump everything. If a country holds elections, Washington and the world will tolerate a great deal from the resulting government, as they have with Yeltsin, Akayev, and Menem. In an age of images and symbols, elections are easy to capture on film. (How do you televise the rule of law?) But there is life after elections, especially for the people who live there.

Conversely, the absence of free and fair elections should be viewed as one flaw, not the definition of tyranny. Elections are an important virtue of governance, but they are not the only virtue. Governments should be judged by yardsticks related to constitutional liberalism as well. Economic, civil, and religious liberties are at the core of human autonomy and dignity. If a government with limited democracy steadily expands these freedoms, it should not be branded a dictatorship. Despite the limited political choice they offer, countries like Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand provide a better environment for the life, liberty, and happiness of their citizens than do either dictatorships like Iraq and Libya or illiberal democracies like Slovakia or Ghana. And the pressures of global capitalism can push the process of liberalization forward. Markets and morals can work together. Even China, which remains a deeply repressive regime, has given its citizens more autonomy and economic liberty than they have had in generations. Much more needs to change before China can even be called a liberalizing autocracy, but that should not mask the fact that much has changed.

Finally, we need to revive constitutionalism. One effect of the overemphasis on pure democracy is that little effort is given to creating imaginative constitutions for transitional countries. Constitutionalism, as it was understood by its greatest eighteenth century exponents, such as Montesquieu and Madison, is a complicated system of checks and balances designed to prevent the accumulation of power and the abuse of office. This is done not by simply writing up a list of rights but by constructing a system in which government will not violate those rights. Various groups must be included and empowered because, as Madison explained, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Constitutions were also meant to tame the passions of the public, creating not simply democratic but also deliberative government. Unfortunately, the rich variety of unelected bodies, indirect voting, federal arrangements, and checks and balances that characterized so many of the formal and informal constitutions of Europe are now regarded with suspicion. What could be called the Weimar syndrome — named after interwar Germany’s beautifully constructed constitution, which failed to avert fascism — has made people regard constitutions as simply paperwork that cannot make much difference. (As if any political system in Germany would have easily weathered military defeat, social revolution, the Great Depression, and hyperinflation.) Procedures that inhibit direct democracy are seen as inauthentic, muzzling the voice of the people. Today around the world we see variations on the same majoritarian theme. But the trouble with these winner-take-all systems is that, in most democratizing countries, the winner really does take all.

DEMOCRACY’S DISCONTENTS

We live in a democratic age. Through much of human history the danger to an individual’s life, liberty and happiness came from the absolutism of monarchies, the dogma of churches, the terror of dictatorships, and the iron grip of totalitarianism. Dictators and a few straggling totalitarian regimes still persist, but increasingly they are anachronisms in a world of global markets, information, and media. There are no longer respectable alternatives to democracy; it is part of the fashionable attire of modernity. Thus the problems of governance in the 21st century will likely be problems within democracy. This makes them more difficult to handle, wrapped as they are in the mantle of legitimacy.

Illiberal democracies gain legitimacy, and thus strength, from the fact that they are reasonably democratic. Conversely, the greatest danger that illiberal democracy poses — other than to its own people — is that it will discredit liberal democracy itself, casting a shadow on democratic governance. This would not be unprecedented. Every wave of democracy has been followed by setbacks in which the system was seen as inadequate and new alternatives were sought by ambitious leaders and restless masses. The last such period of disenchantment, in Europe during the interwar years, was seized upon by demagogues, many of whom were initially popular and even elected. Today, in the face of a spreading virus of illiberalism, the most useful role that the international community, and most importantly the United States, can play is — instead of searching for new lands to democratize and new places to hold elections — to consolidate democracy where it has taken root and to encourage the gradual development of constitutional liberalism across the globe. Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war. Eighty years ago, Woodrow Wilson took America into the twentieth century with a challenge, to make the world safe for democracy. As we approach the next century, our task is to make democracy safe for the world.

Source: http://fareedzakaria.com/1997/11/01/the-rise-of-illiberal-democracy/

Eritrea: Freedom of Religion

2012-09-21T17:03:00.001-04:00

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

The article “Freedom of Religion” pasted below is a compilation of two pieces – essential principles of freedom of religion and history of freedom of religion – taken from the Democracy Web.

This may help Eritreans to understand from historical and conceptual viewpoints what the “freedom of religion" means, and its role in dismantling a dictatorship. On this very subject some writers at Awate.com are off track and are throwing ideas at us without diligently doing their homework. I hope this post may counterbalance their themes at least from a theoretical viewpoint.

Freedom of religion is one of the pillars of liberal democracy. The concepts of liberal democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties are fundamentally developed by western civilization. These public goods in highly refined forms are products of the "Enlightenment, a general term applied to scientific and philosophical developments in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries." Like all universal truths these principles of liberty benefit all human societies. And we, Eritreans, like all others in the developing world who want to establish liberal democracies should accept them and struggle hard to internalize them for the benefit of our own good. In this respect we need a deep understanding of the concepts. For this purpose, there is no better and tested mandatory book to read than “The Constitution of Liberty” by F. A. Hayek. This was a required book to read for the old nations of the Soviet Union in their transition to liberal democracy and the rule of law. This is ongoing. It never stops. It is almost a bible and a guide book for the Economist magazine.

As documented by many human rights organizations, the PFDJ regime in Eritrea violates the religious beliefs of all Eritreans. No one is spared -- the Tewahdos, the Muslims, the Catholics, all Protestant denominations and all others.

The Patriarch of the Tewahdo Church was illegally removed from his post and put under house arrest by the PFDJ regime. The primary reason is in order to emasculate the Tewahdo Church –- an African institution of a long standing which is a depository of the traditions and cultures of a big portion of the Eritrean people. And the Tewahdo Church can be a strong bulwark against the tyranny of the PFDJ regime. Only someone with a religious agenda in Eritrea will claim that the Christian Highlanders are benefiting from the current political order in Eritrea. By now we are accustomed with some of these writers at Awate.com.

Some of these folks now are creating out of thin air religious bickering among the Eritrean people. There is a lot of religious fight and fanaticism in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Mali, and Nigeria. At least on this devilish issue that is consuming a major part of the world, so far either out of pure luck or that the Eritrean people are a very tolerant people, we are left unaffected. Count our blessings. And thus, we should not allow anyone how erudite one maybe to lump the Eritrean people with the religious fanaticism that is going in the above listed nations. As it is we have enough problems of our own, but those have to do with the autocracy of the PFDJ regime and not with the imagined "religious intolerance" that some are ascribing to the Eritrean people.

As aside no one has a right to impose on the Eritrean people who they should consider as their heroes and fathers of the Eritrean nation. This has to do with the freedom of expression. It is a topic for another day. (Till then please see:http://www.democracyweb.org/expression/principles.php )

For now, to answer that question let us go to American history. Many in America consider Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Franklin as the fathers and heroes of the American nation.

Some and that include many African Americans do not consider Washington, Jefferson, and Madison as heroes and fathers of the USA. To speak for myself, I admire these people for their accomplishments but they are not my heroes either. Why? They were hypocrites. They fought for liberty and yet denied liberty for black Americans. While, Adams, Hamilton and Franklin were for liberty for all including freedom for black Americans; at least on this fundamental issue, which later caused a devastating civil war in America, their stand on liberty was consistent and they were not hypocrites. In my book, when it comes to politics, no one is equal to Alexander Hamilton -- a true hero and father of the American nation. (See (1) "Founding Brothers" by Joseph J. Ellis and (2) “Alexander Hamilton” by Ron Chernow.)

The beauty of the USA -- a liberal democratic nation -- is that no one will declare a fatwa on those of us who do not take Washington and his pals from Virginia – slaveholders – as heroes and fathers of the USA.

Yet, the Awate Team has arrogantly elevated itself to the position and power of an autocrat in the internet and is foolishly ostracizing Eritreans who do not consider certain personalities as their heroes and fathers of the Eritrean nation. For the record, I do not consider anyone who is or was in the leadership of the ELF and the EPLF as my hero or father of Eritrea. Why? There is nothing to show for it.

When it comes to Eritrea, my only heroes are the Eritrean people, Eritrean citizens who gave their blood and their lives for as of yet unrealized liberal democratic Eritrean state – these honorable personages include my own biological brothers and cousins and my lifelong friends.

I am more than glad to be ostracized by a poor man's autocrat.

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

(Revised for minor grammatical errors on September 24, 2012.)

Note: the blogspot noted below has a reading list of books on the subjects of property rights, rule of law, and constitutional government. Also included are previous articles published in Eritrean websites and other relevant articles on Eritrea and Ethiopia. The site is as follows: http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom of Religion

by the Democracy Web

(I) ESSENTIAL PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."

UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18, 1948

For most of world history, emperors and kings based their legitimacy on claims of divinity or divine approval. Differences in religious beliefs between rulers and within states were the cause of wars, revolts, and persecution. While few world leaders explicitly claim divine legitimacy today, religion remains a central factor in many of the world's conflicts, including the Balkan wars of the 1990s, Russia's war in Chechnya, and the Islamist terrorism of al-Qaeda. Countless innocent lives have been lost because of a fundamental lack of respect for freedom of religion and an intolerance of people with different beliefs.

The long history of brutal religious wars in Western Europe helped give rise to the modern notion of religion as a matter of individual conscience, rather than an official policy of the state. This concept of freedom of belief became one of the core ideas of American and European democracy, or what is sometimes called the "first freedom" because of its place in the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. Without the ability to think, believe, and worship freely, and without the principle of toleration of others' beliefs, there can be no democracy. Citizens are unable to exercise their free choice in either religion or politics, leading to the frustrations that help fuel violent conflict.

The transformation of religion from a justification for war or for a state's existence into an object of political liberty and individual conscience is one of the most important stories of modern history—and a story that is still unfolding. It has been at the heart of the development of liberal democracy, and where it remains incomplete, political life is often defined by dictatorship or terrorism.

(II) HISTORY OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION

A Brief Survey of Major Religions

Until recently, the state and religion were closely intertwined, with one buttressing the other in both internal governance and expansion abroad. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, and Romans, among others, invoked divine support for their wars and empires, and saw religious devotion as a key component of loyalty to the state. Rulers including the pharaohs of Egypt, the emperors of Rome, and Alexander the Great considered themselves divine. Even democratic Athens could not tolerate dissent from its official polytheistic beliefs, sentencing the philosopher Socrates to death on charges of impiety and corrupting the young with his unorthodox teachings.

The major religions that survive today have also been central elements of different empires and autocratic systems. Hinduism, a polytheistic religion that emerged in the second millennium BC, fostered dynasties and kingdoms throughout South and Southeast Asia. Buddhism, founded in northern India in the sixth century BC, was similarly adopted by various expansionist monarchies in the region. Chinese emperors oversaw a complex of religions and practices (Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and traditional beliefs). Although religion was suppressed at the outset of Communist rule in 1949, most people in China today maintain some elements of these former state religions. Hinduism, Chinese traditional religion, and Buddhism now constitute the world's third, fourth, and fifth largest faiths, with an estimated 900 million, 400 million, and 375 million followers, respectively.

Christianity and Islam, both monotheistic religions, are the two largest faiths, with two billion and 1.3 billion adherents, respectively. Each expanded significantly through conquest or adoption as an official state religion, and each experienced major schisms that resulted in bloody internecine wars. Christian and Muslim states also engaged each other in centuries of intermittent combat in Europe, the Mediterranean, and elsewhere.

Judaism, a small religion of 13 to 14 million adherents, is considered the world's oldest monotheistic faith, originating more than 3,000 years ago. It served as the foundation of both Christianity and Islam. Jews initially formed a state centered on Jerusalem, and the city remained at the center of their religious and political life until AD 70, when the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple in the wake of a rebellion. For the next two millennia, Jews scattered in a worldwide diaspora, periodically experiencing persecution by governments and populations of other faiths. Nazi Germany's monstrous Holocaust killed six million Jews, or two-thirds of European Jewry. In 1947, the international community approved a plan to create a Jewish state in Palestine, and the state of Israel was established the next year, mostly on lands settled by Jews from the diaspora during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Today, roughly six million Jews—and one million mostly Muslim Arabs—live in Israel (see Country Study of Israel).

In the cases above, the state never lacked an official religion, though religions frequently persisted without a state. The official religion served as a key element of the state's legitimacy and practices. The ruler was regarded as a spiritual leader, as the worldly representative of the divine, or at least as an administrator governing with the tacit approval of divine powers. Those who adhered to other faiths, especially faiths that could not accept or accommodate the legitimacy of the established system, were generally persecuted or restricted in their practices. It is only in recent centuries that states began to allow a freedom of religion in which no specific beliefs or observances were required of the population. Below is a discussion of how this understanding of state and religion developed.

The Reformation and Religious Wars
In Europe, the basic principle joining state to religion was expressed in the Latin phrase cuius regio, eius religio, literally "whose region, his religion." In other words, the religion of the ruler would be the faith of his subjects. This principle meant, for example, that the Roman emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity in the fourth century led to its eventual recognition as the official religion of the empire.

The emperor remained the head of Christianity in the Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) Empire, based in Constantinople; the Byzantine Church served as the forerunner of today's various Eastern Orthodox Churches, which, like the original, generally conform to political borders and are at least loosely tied to the state. Meanwhile, following the fall of Rome to barbarian invasions in the fifth century, the papacy emerged as a supranational entity that exercised authority over all of the defunct Western Roman Empire and the lands to the north. Kings and emperors repeatedly clashed with popes over the extent of this authority, but all rulers who accepted Christianity (Roman Catholicism) had to recognize the pope's religious supremacy. The Church reserved the power to excommunicate disobedient princes, sanction crusades, and combat heresy through institutions like the Inquisition.

On October 31, 1517, German theologian Martin Luther posted his famous Ninety-five Theses in the University of Wittenberg, attacking the Church's practice of selling indulgences, or the remission of punishment for sins, which he argued had led to the Church's corruption. The event has come to symbolize the beginning of the Reformation—the temporal and spiritual challenge to the Catholic Church's doctrines, practices, and authority. Earlier dissidents such as Jan Hus of Bohemia and John Wycliffe of England had advocated reform and criticized corruption within the Church, but Luther and other theologians, who came to be known as Protestants, were the first to attack basic Catholic dogma and undermine the institution of the papacy. Luther, John Calvin, and other Protestant thinkers hardly believed in freedom of religion. They advocated what they considered to be a purer form of Christianity, and their teachings became the official religions of city-states, principalities, and kingdoms in Central and Northern Europe. In 1534, King Henry VIII of England nullified the pope's authority and declared himself to be the head of a separate, national Church of England.

The proliferation of new sects, both official and dissident, led to further repression and conflict. Catholic minorities in Protestant states were seen as agents of foreign Catholic rulers, who in turn viewed their Protestant minorities as disloyal heretics. Protestant governments also faced challenges from more radical sects and movements. Catholic and Protestant states, vying for both temporal and spiritual supremacy in Europe, began a series of bloody religious wars that lasted about a century and caused millions of deaths. (In the German principalities, as much as a third of the population may have perished in the Thirty Years' War alone, from 1618 to 1648.)

The religious wars resulted in a number of important treaties—the Union of Utrecht (1579), which marked the emergence of a Protestant, united, and effectively independent Netherlands; the Edict of Nantes (1598), which granted civil and religious rights to Protestants in France; and, finally, the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years' War and included important provisions for religious toleration between and within states.

The Rise of Liberal Democracy and Freedom of Religion
The emergence of religious freedom as an individual right was clearly tied to exhaustion after the religious wars in Europe. But it was also a product of the Enlightenment, a general term applied to scientific and philosophical developments in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. Years of conflict had resulted in a partial acceptance of religious diversity, and with it diversity of thought, leading European scholars to place a new emphasis on human reason as the basis of knowledge. Just as theologians of the Reformation had challenged authority and tradition to seek out their true relationship with God, Enlightenment thinkers questioned the established wisdom of their time and attempted to uncover the fundamental laws of nature. The Enlightenment's scientific focus sparked the rise of Deism, a form of monotheistic belief that rejected supernatural revelation and divine intervention in the world, instead imagining God as the rational architect of the universe. Deism was espoused by many of the founders of the United States, including Thomas Jefferson, who viewed the varying forms of religion and worship as a matter of personal opinion and saw any state involvement as coercive or corrupting. When it came to religious belief, he argued, each man was accountable only to "his God."

This was more than a theoretical matter for Jefferson. Witnessing the repression of Quakers and other minorities in states that had adopted restrictive laws on religion, especially his own Virginia, he noted that the contradiction between the political liberties of the new country and its ongoing religious intolerance posed a threat to its survival. In 1786, the Virginia Legislature passed his Statute for Religious Freedom. It declared in part that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

The Constitution's First Amendment built these ideas into the nation's legal foundation: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For the first time in history, a formal separation of church and state guaranteed everyone the right to worship as his or her conscience dictated.

Today, many find it hard to believe that religion and religious institutions once played a dominant role in state affairs, and that entire societies could be forced to adopt a single faith to the exclusion of any other. Tolerance for a variety of religious beliefs, freedom of conscience, and separation of church and state, whether by constitutional provision or in practice, were revolutionary ideas that are now established in constitutional law in much of the world. The widespread acceptance of these ideas advanced not just religious liberty but also the broader values of democracy.

Freedom of Religion, Dictatorship, and Antidemocratic Ideology
As noted above, religious persecution has had a long history. And where freedom of religion has not been respected, government has typically been in the hands of some form of autocrat whose rule is bolstered by the obligatory state religion.

In the 20th century and especially during its decades of rising totalitarianism, the use of religion for political purposes took new forms. The Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy was antireligious, but in order to consolidate his power he obtained a formal agreement from the Roman Catholic Church in 1929, giving a sense of moral legitimacy to his government in return for concessions to the Vatican, including making Catholicism the state's official religion. The Nazis, on the other hand, emphasized what they considered a higher belief system—a strict racist ideology—and Christian denominations were forced to choose between subservience and persecution. Many churches, whether out of sympathy for or fear of this ideology, did little to resist Nazi tyranny and often assisted in implementing its worst policies. Nazi Germany and, under growing Nazi influence, Fascist Italy subjected their minority Jewish populations to persecution, imprisonment, deportation, and mass murder.

Communism initially made no attempt to co-opt religion, which Karl Marx had characterized as "the opium of the people." Instead, it attempted to abolish religious beliefs and replace them with its own materialist ideology. Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Bolsheviks destroyed churches, arrested and killed many priests, and banned observance of all faiths. Communist China similarly destroyed places of worship and religious relics and symbols. But when it suited their purposes, Communist regimes also reinstituted religion. After Nazi German forces invaded and threatened to overrun the Soviet Union, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin looked to the Russian Orthodox Church to rally support for what is known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War. He reopened churches and restored the Russian patriarchate, or church leadership, on the condition that it accept the Communist regime's authority. Thereafter, religious institutions were allowed to function in the Soviet bloc, but frequently as state instruments and always under strict supervision. Religious officials, including Islamic clerics, were handpicked by the state and often served as police agents or informers. Independent churches in Communist countries were outlawed and repressed. There were exceptions, however, including the Roman Catholic Church in Poland. It continued to answer to the pope in Rome and later became a driving force in the anti-Communist movement of the 1980s, although some clerics were subsequently found to have collaborated with the authorities.

There remain many current cases of religious repression around the world: China's brutal crackdown on the Falun Gong, a spiritual movement based on meditation; Vietnam's campaign against minority Protestants; and Islamist militant attacks on rival or non-Muslim sects in Iraq, among others (see Center for Religious Freedom at http://crf.hudson.org).

In recent years, extreme variants of Islamism— a political ideology that calls for government according to the principles of Islam—have arisen as a new antidemocratic phenomenon. Moderate Islamist groups have organized as political parties and worked within existing electoral systems, but the extremist factions have recruited and mobilized small cadres of terrorists to attack both governments and civilian populations in pursuit of their goals. This small minority has often provoked fresh political and religious repression by authoritarian regimes, and new security measures by democratic states attempting to cope with the threat. While terrorist acts are almost universally condemned, Islamist extremists have won varying degrees of sympathy among Muslim populations, potentially eroding Islam's centuries-old tradition of tolerance.

Extreme Islamist ideology emerged partly in response to the failures of the secular, pan-Arab nationalist movement, which had been unable to dislodge the new state of Israel, unite the Arab people, end dependence on foreign powers, or deliver basic public goods like the rule of law, civil liberties, and, in many cases, economic prosperity. Unlike nationalists, Islamist extremists see themselves as fighting for Muslims worldwide, giving them a similarly expansive list of perceived foes. They also bolster their violent tactics with religious claims, such as the notion that God will reward those who carry out suicide attacks, even on civilians who are deemed enemies.

Some observers have compared Islamist extremism with fascism (a term that includes the original Italian fascism and German Nazism, among other examples), in that it violently promotes the supremacy and purity of one group—a religious community in this case, rather than a race or a nation—and regards any other group, institution, or principle as utterly expendable in the quest to restore this group's past or rightful glory.

Conclusion
The examples of antidemocratic ideology and dictatorship discussed above illustrate the need for freedom of religion and the basic separation—either formally or in practice—of religion and state. Without such a separation, religious institutions have historically become either repressive political instruments or compromised entities that are unable to fulfill their proper functions. Dictators view freedom of belief as a threat because it can undermine individual obedience and mobilize community opposition. Independent religious institutions have been part of many recent movements for broader political freedom, including those in Chile, Poland, and South Africa.

Just as freedom of religion is a menace to dictatorship, it is a safeguard of democratic society. Democracy requires a diversity of views and choices, an environment in which differing opinions can be debated freely. This would be impossible if there were intolerance of "the first freedom"—freedom of conscience and of worship.

Source: http://www.democracyweb.org/religion/principles.php

Libya, Violence and Free Speech

2012-09-18T09:55:00.003-04:00

Stanley Fish

The New York Times, September 17, 2012

Back when Salmon Rushdie was made the object of a fatwa because his book “The Satanic Verses” was regarded by many Iranians as a blasphemy against the prophet, I went to a conference where a panel discussion was devoted to Rushdie’s situation. A member of the audience raised his hand and, without a trace of irony, asked, “What’s the matter with those Iranians? Haven’t they ever heard of the First Amendment?”

The implication was that if they had heard of it and read it and gotten its message, they would have understood that you don’t target or attack people because of what they have written; you don’t respond to words, however harsh and wounding you take them to be, as if they were physical blows. Now, in the wake of the events in Libya, the same kind of thing is being said by American politicians and commentators. If you’re listening to the radio and tuning in to the cable news shows, you’re hearing any number of people (including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton) declare, first, that of course the video vilifying Islam is reprehensible and, second, that nevertheless nothing can justify the eruption of “senseless violence.”

“Senseless” means without reasons, and the assumption is that it can’t be a reason to set a consulate on fire that someone in the consulate’s home country made a movie saying nasty things about your religion. After all, if your religion is worthy and strong it will survive a malicious representation of it. And besides, an assault on your religion is not an assault on you; it’s not personal. This is the point made by the Florida pastor Terry Jones, who insists that the video (with which he is associated in some way not yet specified) was “not designed to attack Muslims, but to show the destructive ideology of Islam.” In other words, we’re not attacking you, just some of the ideas you hold, an assertion that makes sense if you think that your religion is just an add-on to your essential personhood, like the political party you belong to or the football team you root for.

That is the view of religion we inherited from John Locke and other “accommodationist” Protestants, Protestants who entered into a bargain with the state: allow us freedom of worship, don’t meddle in our affairs and we won’t meddle in civic matters or attempt to make public institutions reflect theological doctrines. In his Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke is eloquent when he explains how this parceling out of the world into two distinct spheres — a private sphere and a public sphere — will put an end to the violence that is likely to occur when religious imperatives stray from their proper home in the heart and the chapel (or mosque or synagogue) and insist on ordering every aspect of life. If church and state will “each of them contain itself within its own bounds, the one attending to the worldly welfare of the commonwealth, the other to the salvation of souls, it is impossible that any discord should have happened between them.”

Those who buy into this division of labor and authority will themselves be bifurcated entities. In their private lives they will live out the commands of their religion to the fullest. In their public lives — their lives as citizens — they will relax their religious convictions and display a tolerance they may not feel in their heart of hearts. We give witness to this dual identity when we declare, in fidelity to the First Amendment, “I hate and reject what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

It hardly needs pointing out that the protesters in Libya and Egypt won’t say that — not, however, because they don’t understand the First Amendment or the firewall that should separate religion from civil life or the distinction between one’s identity as a citizen and one’s identity as a believer or the difference between words and blows, but because they reject all four and, indeed, regard them as evil. In their eyes, a religion that confines itself to the heart and chapel, and is thus exercised intermittently while the day’s business gets done, is no religion at all. True religion does not relax its hold when you leave the house of worship; it commands your allegiance at all times and in all places. And the “you” whose allegiance it commands is not divided into a public “you” and a private “you”; it is the same at home as it is when abroad in the world.

And since for them religion is not an internal, privatized matter safe from the world’s surfaces, but an overriding imperative that the world’s surfaces should reflect, a verbal or pictorial assault on their religion will not be received as an external and ephemeral annoyance, as a “mere” representation; it will be received as a wounding to the heart, as a blow, and as a blow that is properly met by blows in return. No “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me” for them.

So the entire package of American liberalism — the distinction between speech and action, the resolve to protect speech however distasteful it may be, the insistence that religious believers soften their piety when they enter the public sphere — is one the protesters necessarily reject. When they are told that the United States government had no part in the production of the video and deplores its content, educated Libyans and Egyptians reply (reporters tell us), “Well, if they think it’s bad and against their values, why didn’t they stop it or punish those who produced it?” The standard response is that we Americans don’t suppress or penalize ideas we regard as wrong and even dangerous; in accordance with the First Amendment, we tolerate them and allow them to present themselves for possible purchase in the marketplace of ideas.

But that means that protecting the marketplace by refusing to set limits on what can enter it is the highest value we affirm, and we affirm it no matter what truths might be vilified and what falsehoods might get themselves accepted. We have decided that the potential unhappy consequences of a strong free speech regime must be tolerated because the principle is more important than preventing any harm it might permit. We should not be surprised, however, if others in the world — most others, in fact — disagree, not because they are blind and ignorant but because they worship God and truth rather than the First Amendment, which not only keeps God and truth at arm’s length but regards them with a deep suspicion.

Source: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/libya-violence-and-free-speech/?hp#h[]

The Horn of Africa after Meles Zenawi

2012-08-25T11:21:00.000-04:00

The Economist

August 25, 2012

Bye-bye big man. The lessons for Africa’s most troubled region from the career of its most able leader.

SOME countries have a habit of suffering in unison. As in the Balkans and the Caucasus, the ethnically diverse countries of the Horn of Africa often infect one another. Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia have all spilled internal conflicts and misrule across borders. Two historic events this week may now open up a new chapter in the Horn’s history. Both could pave the way towards greater political openness and prosperity—but only if the West applies pressure in the right way.

The first event occurred in Somalia, which convened its first parliament in living memory (see article). Representatives from all regions and clans, often warring, met in the recently liberated capital, Mogadishu; they are now expected to choose a president in a competitive, if imperfect, vote. National elections are next on the agenda. There are plainly risks: many of Somalia’s politicians are crooks; and the Shabab, an extreme Islamist militia that controlled most of the country until recently, remains a threat. But Somalia probably has its best chance of finding an inclusive government since it descended into internecine fighting and frequent famine after the overthrow of Siad Barre in 1991.

All this was, however, overshadowed by the second event: the death of Ethiopia’s prime minister (see article). Meles Zenawi, who had been in power ever since his forces ousted the Marxist junta of Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991, was the Horn’s dominant figure and the West’s main ally in the region. How Africa interprets his legacy will matter enormously.

There is much to praise. Mr Meles lifted millions out of abject poverty and devoted himself to finding workable development policies. During his two-decade rule, Ethiopia went from being a byword for starvation to a substantial food exporter. But Mr Meles also became increasingly dictatorial. Elections were rigged and prisons filled with political activists. The bargain he foisted on his people—food for autocracy—ultimately curbed their potential. Technology, an engine of freedom as well as growth elsewhere, is reserved for the elite. Ethiopian Airlines has just become the first non-Japanese owner of Boeing’s Dreamliner aircraft, but the rate of mobile-phone use is among the lowest in the world.

Beware the myth

Many African dictators saw in Mr Meles another feature bolstering their own positions: a proof of the need for top-down government. Look, they said, 10% GDP growth and no real elections! Western leaders embraced him too—with one arm, holding their noses with the other hand. He received $4 billion in aid a year, and mostly put it to good use.

But Ethiopia is no model. Mr Meles’s death exposes the dangers of building a state around one man, no matter how competent. He leaves a powerful machine that none but he could steer. The hope is that with no leader of his stature in the wings, power will inevitably be shared. The yes-men with whom the brainy but paranoid Mr Meles surrounded himself cannot exert control alone. The fear is that members of Ethiopia’s elite may fight for control, ethnic movements on the periphery could be emboldened by a power vacuum and Eritrea might sense an opportunity to destabilise its arch-foe.

Leaders in Rwanda and Angola, two other booming strongman states, should take note. Institutions matter. Western donors have lessons to learn as well. Competence in African leaders is no substitute for fairness. Involved as it is in the fiendishly difficult process of ensuring a peaceful succession in Ethiopia and choosing a president in Somalia, the West should resist the temptation to look for another Meles. Democracy is the Horn’s best hope.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/21560880

Ethiopia's prime minister, man who tried to make dictatorship acceptable

2012-08-23T14:34:00.003-04:00

The Economist

August 25, 2012

What will follow one of Africa’s most successful strongmen?

THE death of Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia’s prime minister, on August 20th reveals much about the country he created. Details of his ill health remained a secret until the end. A short broadcast on state television, late by a day, informed Ethiopians that their “visionary leader” of the past 21 years was gone. He died of an unspecified “sudden infection” somewhere abroad. No further information was given. In the two months since the prime minister’s last public appearance the only Ethiopian newspaper that reported his illness was pulped, its office closed, and its editor arrested. Further details of Mr Meles’s death surfaced only when an EU official confirmed that he died in a Brussels hospital.

A towering figure on Africa’s political scene, he leaves much uncertainty in his wake. Ethiopia, where power has changed hands only three times since the second world war, always by force, now faces a tricky transition period. Mr Meles’s chosen successor is a placeholder at best. Most Ethiopians, whatever they thought of their prime minister, assumed he would be around to manage the succession. Instead he disappeared as unexpectedly as he had arrived. He was a young medical student in the 1970s when he joined the fight against the Derg, the Marxist junta that then ruled Ethiopia. He went into the bush as Legesse Zenawi and emerged as “Meles”—a nom de guerre he had taken in tribute to a murdered comrade.

Who exactly was he? As leader of the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, an ethnic militia from the country’s north, he presented himself to his countrymen as a severe, ruthless revolutionary; yet Westerners who spoke to him in his mountain hideouts found a clever, understated man who laid out, in precise English, plans to reform a feudal state. In 1991, after the fall of the last Derg leader, Mengistu Haile Mariam, the 36-year-old Mr Meles (pictured above) took power, becoming Africa’s youngest leader. He had moral authority as a survivor of various famines. Western governments and publics, who became aware of Ethiopian hunger through the Band Aid and Live Aid charity concerts, gave freely. Mr Meles was often able to dictate terms under which donors could operate in Ethiopia and turned his country into Africa’s biggest aid recipient.

Where others wasted development aid, Ethiopia put it to work. Over the past decade GDP has grown by 10.6% a year, according to the World Bank, double the average in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa. The share of Ethiopians living in extreme poverty—those on less than 60 cents a day—has fallen from 45% when Mr Meles took power to just under 30%. Lacking large-scale natural resources, the government has boosted manufacturing and agriculture. Exports have risen sharply. A string of hydroelectric dams now under construction is expected to give the economy a further boost in the coming years.

The flipside of the Meles record is authoritarianism. Before his departure he ensured that meaningful opposition was “already dead”, says Zerihun Tesfaye, a human-rights activist. The ruling party controls all but one of the seats in parliament, after claiming 99.6% of the vote in the 2010 elections. It abandoned a brief flirtation with more open politics after a vote five years previously, when the opposition did better than expected. The regime subsequently rewired the state from the village up, dismantling independent organisations from teachers’ unions to human-rights groups and binding foreign-financed programmes with tight new rules. Opposition parties were banned and their leaders jailed or driven into exile; the press was muzzled.

Internationally, Mr Meles made friends with America, allowing it to base unarmed drones at a remote airfield. He also liked to act as a regional policeman. His troops repeatedly entered neighbouring Somalia (they are slowly handing over conquered territory to an African Union peacekeeping force). Hostilities have at times flared along the border with Eritrea. Mr Meles cowed his smaller neighbour and persuaded the world to see it as a rogue state. This in turn helped him restrain nationalists at home. In his absence, hardliners on both sides may reach for arms once again.

The nature of power in Mr Meles’s Ethiopia has remained surprisingly opaque. On the surface, the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front is a broad grouping encompassing all of the country’s ethnic factions. Like the liberal constitution, it is largely a sham. Real power rests with an inner circle of Mr Meles’s comrades. They all come from his home area, Tigray, which accounts for only 7% of Ethiopia’s 82m people. His acting successor is an exception. Haile Mariam Desalegn, the foreign minister, is from the south. His prominence raises hopes that the long dominance of the Habesha, the Christian highlanders of the Amhara and Tigray regions, may be diluted. But few think he has enough standing to exert real control.

Power will be wielded by Tigrayans such as Getachew Assefa, the head of the intelligence service; Abay Tsehaye, the director-general of the Ethiopian sugar corporation; and Mr Meles’s widow, Azeb Mesfin. An MP, she heads a sprawling conglomerate known as EFFORT, which began as a reconstruction fund for Tigray but now has a host of investments. It is unclear whether any of the Tigrayans will seek the leadership of the ruling party or be content to wield control from the sidelines. A struggle among this elite would be a big threat to stability.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/21560904

Eritrea is Ruled without the Consent of the Governed

2012-07-06T16:08:00.000-04:00

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

July 4, 2012

The article the "Consent of the Governed" pasted below is compiled from "Democracy Web." It explains the concept and its historical roots in a simple way.

This first week of July is a joyous time in America where the people proudly celebrate their glorious independence from British colonialism. On July 4, 1776, the Americans in practical terms ushered in to the world the revolutionary concept of the "consent of the governed."

For us, Eritreans, what does the consent of the governed mean? The Eritreans took the road of the consent of the governed on three important occasions and milestones in their history. In a way, they took their destiny in their own hands. First, the Eritrean armed struggle for national independence led by both the ELF and the EPLF, which was consummated in a de facto independent Eritrea in 1991 had an overwhelming support of the Eritrean people. This accomplishment be it implicitly or explicitly had a consent of the Eritrean people. Indeed one of the significant reasons for its success.

Second, in 1993 the Eritrean people in an internationally supervised referendum legally voted for independence of Eritrea. Again, this is a consent of the Eritrean people.

Third, in 1997 the Eritrean people ratified a constitution.This also is a consent of the Eritrean people, at least it is a consent of the majority of the Eritrean people who live under the oppressive yolk of the PFDJ inside Eritrea.

In my book, the ratified constitution warts and all is a foundation for the establishment of liberal democratic institutions -- executive branch of the government, legislative branch of the government, judiciary branch of the government, independent media, independent civil associations, an army and a police force whose obligations are to the constitution and the rule of law, and etc. These institutions enshrine and protect civil liberties and create a civil society that is at peace with itself and its neighbors. This is a civil society where the rule of law reigns. (See: (1) The Constitution of Liberty, by F. A. Hayek; and (2) The Open Society and its Enemies, by Karl R. Popper)

When it came to put all of these in practice, it sadly was not to be, since the PFDJ leaders suddenly got cold feet. The PFDJ leaders betrayed their own people and violated the principle of the consent of the governed; they shelved the ratified constitution to collect dust and never to be seen again; they cruelly decided to rule Eritrea through arbitrary edicts and decrees.

Still, the ratified constitution is the only document that I see can effectively unite the Eritrean people. These include those who oppose and those who support the Eritrean government, since after all is said and done, all of us belong to the Eritrean nation. The thugs who are giving us all kind of pains and sufferings are no more than the total number of cards in a single deck, still no need to be vengeful and vindictive. There are a lot valuable lessons to be learnt from the magnanimous heart and generosity of such saint like leaders, Nelson Mandela and Vaclav Havel, who helped their respective countries to transition to liberal democratic societies taking a cue from Abraham Lincoln's wise words of "with malice toward none; with charity for all." It is my sincere belief that the ratified constitution can help us to smoothly transition Eritrea into a civil society without any hiccup, where civil liberties are respected.

Anything else is back to square one. This may even result in chaos and anarchy in Eritrea. We should never assume that we are different than Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria, just to mention a few tribal societies like us that are having tremendous problems transitioning towards liberal democracy and the rule of law. In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, the USA has been doing all kind of things to help in the transition for more than ten years, and yet all the blood and treasure went down the drain without any effective result. This by itself should be a great warning to those who mistakenly believe that the tanks of Ethiopia could bring a qualitative change for the better in Eritrea. (See: (1) The Future of Freedom, by Fared Zakaria ; and (2) The Origins of Political Order, by Francis Fukuyama)

More, the Eritrean leaders do not even abide by the rules and charter of their own organization -- the PFDJ. The last time the PFDJ had a meeting of a general congress was in 1994. Based on its rules, the PFDJ is supposed to meet every two years, to be extended by a half year if extraordinary circumstances warrant. The next time the general congress was supposed to meet was by the latest in 1997. Now it is 2012. The PFDJ has not met for its general congress for about eighteen years. This means the leaders do not have a legal standing to authenticate their leadership, since the legitimacy of the congress that elected them expired some time in 1997. In addition, the rules of the PFDJ limit the term of its chairman to two terms that amount to a maximum of five years; yet its only chairman has illegally usurped power for about fifteen years - that is since 1997. This is nothing but a coup d'état. By any measure, this means that the leaders of the PFDJ do not have a consent of the members of their own organization, let alone the consent of the Eritrean people, since these leaders have violated the rules and charter of the PFDJ itself. ( For a detailed explanation please see: http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/2009/11/pfdj-is-illegal-organization.html )

The Eritrean leaders do not have a consent of the governed -- whether the consent of the Eritrean people or the consent of the PFDJ. Our struggle now is to bring a system of government in Eritrea that rules according to the consent of the governed -- the consent of the Eritrean people and also yes of the consent of the members of the PFDJ.

Abraham G. Ghiorgis.
New York

Note: the blogspot noted below has a reading list of books on the subjects of property rights, rule of law, and constitutional government. Also included are previous articles published in Eritrean websites and other relevant articles on Eritrea and Ethiopia. The site is as follows: http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

(I) The Consent of the Governed :Essential Principles

by "Democracy Web"

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed..."

Declaration of Independence, United States of America, 1776

The most fundamental concept of democracy is the idea that government exists to secure the rights of the people and must be based on the consent of the governed. Today, the quote above from the U.S. Declaration of Independence is considered an indisputable maxim of the ideal form of government.

The essential meaning of consent of the governed can be better understood by examining countries where it is lacking. In 1989, Chinese students who had gathered in Beijing's Tiananmen Square adopted the Statue of Liberty—calling it the Goddess of Liberty—as the symbol of their demands for truth, freedom, and democracy from their government.

Millions of workers, professionals, and peasants joined the students in Beijing and in cities across China to take back a government that had long been used to deny people's freedom. Since the Communist Party seized power in 1949, anyone who opposed its dictates and ideological campaigns had been subject to arrest or worse. The party's policies caused millions of deaths through famine, execution, and violent political purges.

The Chinese people consented to none of this. Indeed, the regime's only authority to govern was the Communist principle of "democratic centralism," according to which the decisions of the party leadership could not be questioned. In 1989, Deng Xiao Ping, the top Communist leader, ordered the use of force to put down the demonstrations in Tiananmen Square and elsewhere in China. The world saw students stand before tanks, but ultimately they were helpless to prevent the mass killings and arrests that ensued. Nearly 20 years later, the Communist Party remains the supreme authority. The students who sought democracy were imprisoned, expelled from school, forced into exile, pressured to recant their views, or denied their livelihood or even housing. Workers were treated even more harshly, and today China's booming export-based economy is built on the severe exploitation of labor. For now, repression has effectively prevented any reemergence of the popular demand for democracy. This is the result of a system based on the opposite of the consent of the governed (see also Country Study of People's Republic of China under "Freedom of Expression".)

(A) Before Consent of the Governed

Until the original 13 American states asserted the principle of consent of the governed as self-evident, it had been applied only rarely around the world (see below). For much of recorded history, people lived under different types of autocracy, ruled by a single leader exercising unlimited power. Sometimes, the ruler was the best warrior, able to seize power over a group or nation (for example, Genghis Khan in 13th-century Asia). Such leaders often founded hereditary monarchies, the most common form of autocracy. In most cases, the monarch was all-powerful, claiming his or her position by "divine right" (as in Europe) or the "mandate of heaven" (as in China). The ruler was sovereign, the supreme authority of a state. The people were not citizens but subjects. They never consented to be governed, but owed their total obedience and loyalty to the ruler, often on pain of death. In some countries, kings or emperors agreed to limit their powers in response to the demands of landowners and noblemen, establishing a system of consent by the aristocracy. England's Magna Carta (Great Charter) of 1215 is among the most famous agreements limiting the powers of a king. It guaranteed that the king and his successors would not violate the acknowledged rights and privileges of the aristocracy, the clergy, and semiautonomous towns (see "Constitutional Government").

But even when its powers were limited, monarchy meant arbitrary and unrepresentative rule for most subjects, locking them into a life of servitude. The idea that the people were sovereign was—and in many places remains—revolutionary.

(B) Consent of the Governed: A Positive Definition

The United States of America was the first modern state formed around the principle of consent of the governed. The term implies that the people of a country or territory are sovereign and consent, in a direct referendum or through elected representatives, to the establishment of their own government. In most modern cases, the form of the state is a republic, or rule by voting citizens within an agreed-upon constitutional and legal framework. But some monarchies also operate with the consent of the governed, as in Great Britain, where over time the monarch has given up most political and administrative functions to elected officials.

The original consent of the governed—for a new constitution or the formation of a new state—is achieved either through direct democracy, such as a referendum or plebiscite, or through elected representative institutions, such as an existing legislature or a special constitutional assembly. In some cases, the establishment of a new governmental system requires a "supermajority," from three-fifths to three-quarters, to convey overwhelming popular assent, but often a simple majority suffices. (The U.S. Constitution required the approval of ratifying conventions in at least nine of the 13 states; an amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress as well as the elected legislatures of three-quarters of the states.) What remains fixed is the principle that the people are sovereign and must provide their fundamental consent to be governed.

The most common form of democracy is the parliamentary system, in which the executive branch is controlled by the party or coalition of parties that wins a majority of seats in parliament. Unlike in the American presidential system, there are few constitutional checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches, and the system relies heavily on the oversight of the opposition party or parties in parliament (see "Constitutional Limits," and "Multiparty System").

Once the form of democratic government is established, elections are the main vehicle for renewing the consent of the governed. Each election is an opportunity for the people to change their leaders. When a particular government loses the people's confidence, they have the right to replace it. If the system requires modification, the legislature may pass laws to reform it within the bounds of the constitution; if laws are insufficient, the people and their representatives can choose to modify or replace the constitution itself.

(C) Consent of the Governed: A Negative Definition

As noted above, in defining consent of the governed, it is helpful to examine cases where it is absent. Modern authoritarian regimes offer clear examples. These take various forms, including dictatorship (Zimbabwe), theocracy (Islamic Republic of Iran), military rule (Burma), and apartheid (as occurred in South Africa). But all forms of authoritarian government deny people freedom, take away property, exercise power arbitrarily, and act ruthlessly to maintain themselves. A distinct category of modern authoritarian rule is totalitarianism, which is based on violent revolution, a comprehensive ideology (such as fascism or communism), and a disciplined party apparatus. These regimes are distinguished by their system of social control over the whole population. Examples include Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong.

Modern authoritarians claim power by citing the need to safeguard the integrity of the state against supposed external threats, political stability against an unruly society, and economic equality against the upper classes. What they have actually achieved is oppression, famine, catastrophic war, genocide, and the general lowering of living standards for the population. As the American philosopher Sidney Hook once observed,
How can there be genuine security so long as arbitrary power, whether it be of an employer or a group, or especially of the state as employer, is not subject to the restraints of a freely operating democratic process?

Although most seize control through violent revolution or coup d'etat, modern authoritarian rulers claim to have the consent of the governed. But they rarely allow free and fair elections or referendums to test their claims, and when they do the people generally vote against them (as in Chile in 1988, Poland in 1989, and Serbia in 2000). There are some cases, such as Nazi Germany, in which a modern authoritarian regime can be said on some level to have come to power through elections. But in fact the Nazi Party was a parliamentary minority that seized total power through intimidation and thuggery in what amounted to a coup d'etat (see also Country Study of the Federal Republic of Germany).

(D) The Right to Rebellion

Implied in the principle of consent is the right to withdraw consent—to overthrow a regime that abuses the people through tyrannical, arbitrary, or unrepresentative rule. This was the right that the British philosopher John Locke claimed was intrinsic to a system of natural law (see below), and that the 13 American states invoked against King George III in 1776.

King George III of England, 1771, five years before the start of the American Revolution
Two centuries later, the people of Eastern Europe rose up to claim the same right against an oppressive Communist system. But Locke's principle is not a general right of rebellion or revolution; he did not advocate anarchy. The cause of rebellion—or the withdrawal of consent—must amount to tyranny, and the system that the people rebel against must first violate their natural rights. Violent rebellion has come to be seen only as a last resort. In most modern cases, from anticolonial movements to anti-Communist movements, peaceful protest has been a more successful form of "rebellion" for the purpose of establishing a democracy based on consent of the governed.

What happens when a minority asserts the right to withdraw its consent to be governed? This has occurred in a number of places where minorities desire independence from dominant or oppressive majorities. In general, the world has recognized the right of oppressed peoples to form their own self-governing regions or independent states, as in Kosovo and East Timor. In Sweden, Italy, and other countries, minorities have gained autonomy without violence. But for some regions seeking independence or autonomy, such as Chechnya in Russia and Darfur in Sudan, the world has been less supportive and has failed to prevent the majority government from committing mass killings or genocide. Despite numerous international treaties and documents defining nationality and minority rights, there is little consistency in this area.

(II) The Consent of the Governed: History

(A) Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic

The first significant historical examples of rule by consent of the governed were the city-state of Athens in the fifth century BC and the Roman Republic from the fifth to first centuries BC. Each was the most successful economic and military power of its time and region.

Athens is sometimes considered the first example of direct democracy. All citizens would assemble regularly or as needed to decide various questions facing the polis, or city-state. The Athenian Assembly elected certain categories of public servants, and many other temporary officeholders were chosen by lot from among those who volunteered, but all major decisions were made by the citizenry as a whole. The voting body of citizens, it must be noted, included only adult males of Athenian descent, leaving out resident aliens (metics), women, and slaves.

Unlike Athens, Rome was governed through layers of representative institutions and officials. There were a number of assemblies organized by class and wealth, the most important of which were the Senate and the Council of the Plebs. Senators belonged to the elite landowning class, known as patricians, while the plebeians made up the rest of the citizenry, including landowners, merchants, and farmers. At first, only patricians could hold public office, but the plebeians gradually sought more power within the state, choosing officials known as tribunes to protect their rights. In the first century BC, driven in part by its class struggles, the Roman Republic succumbed to rule by a series of generals, one of whom was Julius Caesar. His heir, Octavian, later known as Augustus, became the first of the Roman emperors, founding a dynasty and turning the state into an autocracy.

Athens and republican Rome, while not democratic in today's sense and largely dependent on slavery for labor, remain models for direct and representative democracy. Their influence on our political thinking is evident in our language. As Professor Bernard Crick of Oxford University notes, "Almost the whole vocabulary of politics, ancient and modern, is Greek and Roman: autocracy, tyranny, despotism, politics and polity, republic, senate, city, citizen, representative."

(B) The British Experience

Another important precedent for consensual government is found in the English civil wars (1642–60). Centuries earlier, the Magna Carta had forced the king of England to recognize the rights of noblemen, the clergy, and townsmen. This led to the eventual creation of Parliament, consisting of the House of Lords and House of Commons, and bound future monarchs to observe established laws and customs. By the 17th century, Parliament represented nearly all landowners, a large class of people. When Charles I defied Parliament by attempting to impose uniform (Anglican) religious practices and raise taxes without consent, it formed its own army, defeated his forces, and eventually executed him. In 1649, the House of Commons declared England "a Commonwealth and Free State" and sought to govern without a king. The monarchy was restored in 1660, but the Commonwealth was significant as a historical example of republican rule, as an influence on the subsequent adoption of the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and as part of the religious strife that drove many English dissenters to immigrate to America.

(C) John Locke and the Origins of the American Revolution

The consent of the governed was championed in modern political thought by the British philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), whose ideas heavily influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution. In his Two Treatises of Government and other works, Locke used the philosophy of empiricism—the view that knowledge is based on sensory experience—to thoroughly denounce the arbitrary and divinely justified rule of the monarch, and to establish a general theory of rights that exist in "a state of nature"—a hypothetical condition in which people live without government. Locke's arguments were in direct contradiction to those of another natural law philosopher,

Thomas Hobbes, who in his book Leviathan theorized that a state of nature meant a "nasty, brutish, and short" existence. Hobbes argued that in exchange for security, individuals give away their rights to an all-powerful ruler. Locke asserted that the state of nature was fundamentally different: "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone... No one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke explained the logic of a government based on the consent of the governed. While most recognize the moral obligation not to do harm, he said, government is needed to protect the people's peace and prosperity against the inevitable few who would violate the natural law. Since property is disputable, government is also necessary to resolve disagreements between owners. Government is legitimate only through the consent of the governed, and only as long as it satisfies these fundamental needs of the community. A government that violates the trust of the people loses its legitimacy and should be overthrown.

Locke was, in part, justifying England's Glorious Revolution of 1688, which replaced King James II and shifted greater power to Parliament. A century later, Locke's ideas played a central part in the American Revolution. (Thomas Jefferson called him one of history's greatest men.) The Declaration of Independence is itself a remarkably succinct restatement of the people's right to rebel against an unjust ruler and establish popular government. As such, it has become the world's touchstone of democracy.

(D) Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the French Revolution

The French Revolution in 1789 drew on philosophical influences similar to those behind the successful American Revolution. In many ways, though, France's Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, adopted by the National Assembly, was more sweeping and radical in its assertion of human rights, equality, and the definition of a just society. In this regard, it reflected the greater influence on the French Revolution of the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. In his view, a good government should serve not just the interests of a collection of individuals (Locke) or the state's interests (Hobbes), but the interests of the people as a whole. It should represent the common or "general will," which was based on reason. His views became the basis for many communitarian philosophies and also affected the development of social democracy in Europe.

The idea of the "general will," however, was often abused. Rousseau meant the idea to reflect a clear, higher community interest as opposed to an individual one (for a modern example, the protection of a forest against clear-cutting by a landowner). But his writings are open to interpretation. When the French Revolution descended into the so-called Reign of Terror under the radical Jacobin faction (1793–94), the leader Maximilien Robespierre used the "general will" to justify imposing a dictatorship that would create a "republic of virtue" and rid France of corruption and moral decay. Robespierre was overthrown and executed for his extremism, and republican rule eventually gave way to Napoleon Bonaparte, a general who declared himself emperor. But the Revolution's original ideal of "liberté, égalité, fraternité" has continued to inspire a tradition of republicanism and freedom, both in France and around the world.

(E) Consent of the Governed: The 20th Century and Today

Consent of the governed existed in a minority of states until the mid–20th century. At the end of World War II, democracy was restored or introduced in Western Europe and Japan, but the repressive Soviet system was installed in Eastern Europe. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, as countries in Asia and Africa were gaining independence from European empires, many colonial regimes were simply replaced with authoritarian rule. At the same time, military dictatorships seized control in a number of Latin American countries. Since 1975, however, there has been a steady progress toward democracy and rule by citizens. Authoritarian regimes and military dictatorships fell, and communism collapsed throughout the Soviet bloc. In most cases, these systems gave way to electoral democracy and constitutional government. Major exceptions remain, but today electoral democracy is practiced in 123 out of 193 countries, according to the Freedom in the World 2007 survey.

Source:

http://www.democracyweb.org/consent/principles.php
http://www.democracyweb.org/consent/history.php

History and Essential Principles of Rule of Law

2012-06-22T10:17:00.000-04:00

Abraham G.Ghiorgis

The "History and Essential Principles of Rule of Law" pasted below is a compilation of two pieces -- on the essential principles of rule of law and its history -- prepared by "Democracy Web: Comparative Studies in Freedom." For ease of reading, I numerated the subtitles. It helps all of us to consult the experts, and to absorb the theoretical principles free from our biases and prejudices of the Eritrean national liberation struggle.

Eritrea has been an independent nation now for over two decades. Yet, it is a nation that has not yet implemented its own ratified constitution. It is a nation that is ruled by an authoritarian regime through arbitrary edicts and rules. Human rights, birth rights and all civil liberties of Eritreans irrespective of where they live ( inside Eritrea or abroad) are violated left and right.

The Eritrean struggle like all others in the world has always been a struggle to establish liberty and enshrine guaranteed civil liberties for all Eritreans. And only the rule of law guarantees and protects civil liberties. Not elections and multi-party contests accomplish that, though these are desirable items. If these items as stand alone by themselves were so good without being coupled with the rule of law, then there would have been no human rights violations in many African nations such as for example: Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria and Ethiopia - despite the fact that these nations have working constitutions, parliaments, relatively free press, multiparty contests, relatively free judiciary and etc. (I do not believe Eritrea is even in the same league as these nations, since Eritrea is a lawless state.) As a rule of thumb, a nation that abides by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights respects the rule of law.

The Eritrean leaders do not want their power to be constrained by the ratified constitution - a document that has a superb stand on civil liberties and human rights. The Eritrean leaders betrayed the Eritrean people. The Eritrean people innocently bestowed a complete trust on mere mortals and sinners like all of us. They naively assumed the Eritrean leaders would institutionalize freedom and liberty. They assumed that Lord Acton's dictum "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" applies to other people and not to Eritrean leaders.

Now through experience of hardship and abuse, the Eritrean people realize that the Eritrean leaders have no concept of the rule of law. This is immaterial whether this is through malice or ignorance. The real impact is that the PFDJ has made Eritrea a failed nation in the making.The PFDJ substantiates its authoritarian rule in Eritrea using fancy and ear pleasing terms of "equality" and "justice." Equality and justice are meaningless terms and unachievable if there are no rule of law and democracy in a nation. In particular, "the rule of law is a bulwark against tyranny." The Eritrean people have already figured out the PFDJ -- it cannot fool any Eritrean even those who are associated with its organization. This is the easy part.

The hard part is that we have some in the opposition that are as clueless as the PFDJ when it comes to the concept of the rule of law. Just visit some of the famous Eritrean websites and you will start scratching your heads. To lack a knowledge on a certain subject is not a sin. However, not learning from others and not studying from books and not doing once homework diligently is a blunder, this applies in particular to those who present themselves to us as opinion makers and shakers in the Eritrea liberal democratic opposition. Their tremendous contributions towards the struggle for liberty in Eritrea is laudable, but that should not shelter them from constructive criticisms when they are obviously in the wrong. No one should arrogate to oneself to have the last word on every subject and I might add on subjects that sometimes appear to be completely foreign to one. At the minimum one should endow oneself with a small dose of humility. Eritrea is a small nation. We already have an autocrat in the name of Isaias. One Isaias is too many for Eritrea. The last thing we need in the internet is another Isaias who polices our thoughts.

In the final analysis, our fight against the authoritarian regime in Eritrea is a fight for constructive and positive ideas. It is a peaceful struggle to transform our society from a society of violence -- that at first was imposed on us in order to liberate Eritrea from colonizers but once Eritrea was liberated it should not continue as if we were still in the armed struggle -- into a society of peace and civil liberties protected by the rule of law.

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

Note: the blogspot noted below has a reading list of books on the subjects of property rights, rule of law, and constitutional government. Also included are previous articles published in Eritrean websites and other relevant articles on Eritrea and Ethiopia. The site is as follows:

http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History and Essential Principles of Rule of Law

By "Democracy Web"

(I) Rule of Law: Essential Principles $$$

"...the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America THE LAW IS KING. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other."

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

"Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."

Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, Article 1

"Government in Saudi Arabia derives power from the Holy Koran and the Prophet's tradition."

The Basic Law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Article 7

(I) A. The Ultimate Breakdown

The Crimean Tatars, a small Muslim group that had settled on the Crimean peninsula in the 14th century, had loyally joined in the Soviet Union's battle against Nazi Germany. Yet, during the course of World War II, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin questioned the Tatars' loyalty as a community because some Tatars had reportedly served in Nazi battalions. Stalin ordered the summary deportation of the entire Tatar population to Central Asia.

On May 18, 1944, agents of the Soviet secret police (the NKVD) began rounding up Tatars and deporting them by train to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Within two days, approximately 200,000 Tatars had been exiled, and approximately a third of those exiled later died from hunger, exposure, and disease. Stalin's regime undertook similar actions against other small ethnic groups in the Caucasus in the attempt to rid the region of all minority communities.

The ethnic cleansings that occurred under Stalin were illustrations of his arbitrary and unchecked rule, which cost tens of millions of people their lives. Such abuses serve as examples of the ultimate breakdown in the rule of law.

(I) B. A Necessary Accompaniment for Democracy

In democracies, the use of arbitrary power is considered anathema to the rule of law. Fundamentally, constitutional limits on power, a key feature of democracy, requires adherence to the rule of law. Indeed, the rule of law could be defined as the subjugation of state power to a country's constitution and laws, established or adopted through popular consent. This is the meaning of the commonly cited phrase "a government of laws, not men," made famous by John Adams, the second president of the United States. Under such a system, law should be supreme to the capricious authority of any individual. The rule of law is the supreme check on political power used against people's rights. Without the regulation of state power by a system of laws, procedures, and courts, democracy could not survive.

Although the rule of law protects the majority from arbitrary power and tyranny, it should also protect the minority both from arbitrary power and the "tyranny of the majority" (see also "Majority Rule/Minority Rights"). Without the rule of law, there is likely to be either a dictatorship or mob rule. Some revolutionary thinkers have extolled mob rule as the highest form of political and social justice. In reality, however, mob rule has meant violence and political chaos, which are the very same conditions that often give rise to dictatorship, the exercise of arbitrary power, and the denial of individual rights.

(I) C. The Rule of Law: Contrasting Principles

Much of what Americans consider to be the rule of law is derived from Anglo-Saxon legal traditions (see History section below). But there are many variations in how different countries organize legal and political institutions and apply the rule of law. These differences can often be confusing when talking about basic principles. For example, the American and British principles of "innocent until proven guilty," the right not to incriminate oneself, and the right to be tried by a jury of one's peers are so deeply ingrained in the fabric of the law and society that they might be considered absolute principles. Yet the rest of Europe, most of which follows a Roman law tradition, does not operate by any of these tenets. Principles of the French system, such as the assumption of guilt or the legality of indefinite periods of incarceration, violate the American and British standards of justice. Furthermore, the many violations by modern democracies of their own rule of law principles justify the questioning of its absolute validity.

(I) D. The Rule of Law: Common Definitions

Still, the adoption and practice of basic principles of the rule of law are clear barometers for any democracy. Apparent contradictions in principle or practice do not negate the rule of law's overall importance. The awful consequences of the breakdown of the rule of law in dictatorships, as recounted above, make its importance self-evident. In democratic societies, deviations from the principles of the rule of law, such as slavery and systematic discrimination in the United States, or the unequal treatment of women historically, serve as powerful arguments for the fulfillment of those principles.

Thus, while there is no set definition of the rule of law encompassing all its practices, there is a basic realm of common principles. The scholar Rachel Kleinfeld Belton identifies five:

a government bound by and ruled by law;

equality before the law;

the establishment of law and order;

the efficient and predictable application of justice; and

the protection of human rights.

One might add that the Western concept of the rule of law should also include the separation of religion and state as a basic constitutional principle, since the influence of both state and religious institutions in the application of the law could lead to arbitrary interpretations. Even in Western countries with a strong religious presence, the policies of organized religion are separate from those of the government.

(I) E. Institutions of the Rule of Law

Belton also identifies a second definition for the rule of law, namely one based on the institutions or instruments by which the ends of rule of law are achieved. These include:

the existence of comprehensive laws or a constitution based on popular consent;

a functioning judicial system;

established law enforcement agencies with well-trained officers.

Absent any of these features, the rule of law may arguably break down. A constitution without legitimacy will not be respected by the people, and thus its principles cannot be upheld. If there is no constitutional check on the misuse of power, a corrupt judiciary or police force can manipulate the laws to their advantage, incompetent lawyers cannot adequately represent their clients, and so on. The Watergate scandal of the early 1970s—when former president Richard Nixon tried to cover up his administration's involvement in illegal activities aimed to ensure his reelection—illustrates how the institutions of the rule of law act together to protect its principles. The media and public, exercising their right to free speech, uncovered and publicized the Republican administration's illegal activities. Through the U.S. Supreme Court's decision United States v. Nixon (1974), which stated that executive privilege was not absolute and that Nixon was required to release his tapes, the Supreme Court enforced Congress's authority to investigate "high crimes and misdemeanors." The House of Representatives, in turn, impeached the president for breaking the law and violating his oath of office. These actions forced Nixon to resign, which was the first time a president had done so in U.S. history. In this way, a president who sought to act outside of the law to aggrandize political power was prevented from doing so.

Belton notes another factor necessary to achieve the rule of law, namely the will of society to enforce basic principles of equality, fairness, and justice. During the height of the British Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rule of law principles did not apply in its colonies, where democratic rights were trampled. In the United States, the period of slavery (which was ended countrywide by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution in 1865) is perhaps the most flagrant example within a democratic society of the breakdown of the rule of law. Even after the emancipation of slaves, the adoption of Jim Crow laws throughout the South and U.S. Supreme Court rulings turned the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment under the law, on its head. An example of a Supreme Court ruling that upheld segregation is Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which supported the legality of segregation, provided that facilities were separate but equal. Today, it is almost incomprehensible that the American system of democracy supported such terrible contradictions, which condoned the majority's abuse of a minority. Yet it was through the rule of law that African Americans were able to slowly win back their rights. In 1946, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted that segregation during interstate travel was unconstitutional, giving rise to the Freedom Rides, where activists tested this assertion through bus rides throughout the South. The Supreme Court later overturned the legality of "separate but equal" conditions with the decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. These two decisions helped to convince American society to end racial segregation and the systematic mistreatment of African Americans through the enactment of sweeping civil rights legislation beginning in the 1960s. The will of society, in this instance, was essential in the establishment of basic rule of law standards.

(I) F. International Rule of Law

Following World War II, the Nuremberg and Tokyo war crimes trials and the adoption of the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide established international principles of the rule of law, most importantly that no government is above the universal laws of nations, and that the international community may act to prevent and respond to acts of genocide. But no international judicial institutions were established to ensure that states would adhere to these international principles. Consequently, ethnic cleansing and genocide have continued to take place, eliciting either no action or a delayed reaction from members of the international community to try to prevent further killing (most recently in the Balkans, Rwanda, and now the Darfur region of Sudan, among others). However, starting in the mid-1990s, the United Nations set up courts in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda to investigate and prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity with the aim of preventing similar atrocities from occurring elsewhere. In 1988, the International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and applies to abuses occurring after July 1, 2002, in situations where national judicial systems do not or cannot assume the case. The innovation of the ICC is that it has the power to prosecute individuals who commit abuses in a signatory state or who are citizens of a signatory state; the United States, however, has not participated in the ICC. More recently, mixed or hybrid tribunals, established through the joint efforts of the United Nations and national governments, have been established in East Timor, Kosovo, and Sierra Leone. Finally, in some countries, such as Iraq, the prosecution of crimes against humanity has been domestic. It is open for debate whether domestic or even mixed criminal tribunals are successful in establishing consistent principles of an international rule of law.

(II) Rule of Law: History $$$

(II) A. The Code of Hammurabi

The earliest written legal code for a government was the Code of Hammurabi for Babylon, dating from 1750 BC. Hammurabi, who needed to unite his disparate realm, decided to establish common rules of conduct, commerce, and devotion to the king under a system overseen by judges. In comparison with contemporary standards, much of the code is severe: many crimes were punishable with death or corporal punishment. Nevertheless, it was remarkable for introducing the ideas that government should be subject to the law; that laws should be based on public rules, not secret or divine ones; and that law should be efficiently and fairly applied by judges, principles that Belton mentions above.

(II) B. The Modern Understanding of Athens

In the area of the rule of law, ancient Athens is best known for its prosecution and execution of the great philosopher Socrates in 399 BC, on charges of treason and corrupting Athens' youth by encouraging philosophical discussion. But this case, usually presented as an example of unjust mob rule, masks the contributions of ancient Athens in the development of rule of law principles. In the Athenian system, magistrates and jurors were drawn by lottery from the Assembly, composed of citizens, since it was believed that judgment should be by one's peers. All citizens had the right to bring both private and public matters before the courts. In commercial law, the principle of binding and enforceable contracts among equal citizens was introduced. This meant that law, not brute force, determined commercial exchanges, helping to make Athens the region's center for trade. Despite its large juries (up to 5,000), a common subject of mockery by critics, the Athenian system appears to have worked efficiently, and citizens safeguarded it jealously. Juries composed of peers and equal access by citizen to courts are just some of the characteristics of Athenian law included in most contemporary justice systems.

(II) C. Roman Law

Most scholars, however, cite the Roman system as the most important tradition influencing Western law. Roman law was less egalitarian in origin, since its first purpose was to protect aristocratic landholders. Furthermore, the spread of Roman law occurred through empire and military dominance. Yet the Roman tradition implanted several basic principles of the rule of law, including the need for public knowledge of civil law and judicial procedures, the evolution of law according to precedent and circumstances, and the idea that natural law (universal rights of man) can provide the basis for positive (man-made) law. The Roman tradition was maintained under the Byzantine Empire and over time was incorporated into much of European law and practice throughout the Holy Roman Empire.

(II) D. The Magna Carta

For many theorists, the most important idea in the rule of law as a concept of governance was the signing of the Magna Carta in England in 1215. Signed by King John, this document limited—for the first time—the power of the king in relation to his subjects by forbidding the raising of taxes without the approval of a partially elected parliament (see also "Constitutional Limits"). It also established other equally important limits:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we (the King) proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land [emphasis added].

(II) E1. The Anglo-Saxon Tradition

Abuses of power by the Stuart monarchy in England during the early 17th century led to the adoption of the Petition of Grievances in 1610, which established the right of citizens to petition government to seek redress for abuses of power. Charles I's attempt to reassert the monarchy's absolute power by raising an army without parliamentary approval led to the adoption of the Petition of Right in 1628, which more firmly grounded in law the principle of no taxation without representation.

The most important aspect of the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition, though, was the adoption of the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679. Charles II, undeterred by the bloody struggle of the English Civil War (1642–51) between Parliamentarians and Loyalists and the brief period of the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell and his son (1653–59), quickly abused his powers upon being restored to the monarchy. He imprisoned his opponents without cause and attempted to reestablish Catholicism as the state religion against the clear will of Parliament and the people. Parliament reasserted its rights through the Habeas Corpus Act. The principle of habeas corpus, also known as "the Great Writ," holds that those who have been incarcerated must have their cases heard in court to determine the validity of the arrest or conviction (in Latin, habeas corpus literally means "to have the body"). While the principle had been in existence for over two centuries, the Habeas Corpus Act formalized its use and asserted that the government has neither the right to imprison without cause nor the right to act above the law in relation to its citizens. The law ordered "all sheriffs, gaolers and other officers" in custody of "the King's subjects" to "yield authority" to all writs of the court, meaning that no government official could ignore the law. Today, the principle of habeas corpus provides protection against the abuse of government power through arbitrary or politically motivated imprisonments.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 replaced the Catholic James II with his daughter, Mary, a Protestant, and her husband (and also her cousin), William of Orange, on the condition that they accepted the English Bill of Rights, adopted in 1689. This bill reinforced the Habeas Corpus Act, the Petition of Right, and the Petition of Grievances, and established other rule of law standards as constitutional foundations, such as the right to trial by jury, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and limitations on the powers of the monarchy. The Act of Settlement of 1701 later established Parliament's power to determine succession to the monarchy.

(II) E. The Rule of Law as Bulwark Against Government Tyranny

The English Bill of Rights recognized the importance of positive rights, which were being asserted by Enlightenment thinkers. Positive rights refer to a moral obligation that is owed to someone, as opposed to negative rights, which require only the absence of interference. According to many Enlightenment philosophers, these positive rights were natural rights, meaning that all humans were entitled to them and that the state could not violate them. Such rights were an indispensable accompaniment to representative government and were adopted by supporters of both the American and French Revolutions. The American version of the Bill of Rights expanded constitutional protections to include the right to a fair and speedy trial, the right not to incriminate oneself, the right to confront one's accuser in court, and the right to protection against unwarranted search and seizures. In the U.S. Constitution, these standards of rule of law — encompassed within the phrase "due process"— are considered the main bulwark against any threat of tyranny by the government.

(II) F. The Separation of Powers

The question arises, then, as to who will enforce the standards of the rule of law. In modern democracies, the rule of law relies on the presence of a judiciary or court system that can act independently of executive and legislative powers, ruling on the basis of established law and not on the basis of arbitrary or politically motivated considerations. Separation of powers is thus essential to the rule of law. Baron de Montesquieu, whose The Spirit of Laws (1748) was a guide for many of the framers of the U.S. Constitution, argued:

Again, there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.

The independence of the federal judiciary in the United States is established through the "advise and consent" powers of the Senate, such as the need for Senate approval of the president's nominees for federal judges, and the Senate's sole authority to impeach judges from their lifetime appointments, whether due to incompetence or malfeasance. The independence of the judiciary was further strengthened in Marbury v. Madison (1803), decided by Chief Justice John Marshall, which asserted the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, meaning that the Court became the final arbiter of whether laws and the government's actions are constitutional.

(II) G. The Expansion of Rule of Law

The incorporation of the rule of law and the separation of powers in British and U.S. law had a great influence over the next two centuries, first as a result of the expansion of the British Empire, and second as a result of the growing influence of the United States as a world power. Rule of law principles came to symbolize the expansion of rights and liberties around the globe. More significant, natural law arguments in favor of due process, human rights, and self-governance became the instruments for many independence and democracy movements worldwide. Mahatma Gandhi is one of the best-known and most successful of the advocates for combining claims of legal rights with civic resistance against unjust laws. Gandhi succeeded in forcing the British government to abide by its own principles. This strategy has attracted many followers. In the United States, followers of Gandhi, such as Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr., used the instruments of protest and civic resistance to empower African Americans to act against Jim Crow and legalized discrimination.

(II) H. The Contraction of Rule of Law

As noted above, tyranny stands opposite to the rule of law—it may even reflect its total breakdown. In dictatorships, the institutions of the rule of law frequently become instruments of oppression. Indeed, recognizing the power of law as a foundation for governance, dictatorships develop their own perverted claims to the rule of law. Nazi Germany and other Fascist states, for instance, imposed legal systems based on the supreme power of the leader and the superiority of one race over all others. Communist regimes superimposed the class struggle over "bourgeois" concepts of human rights in all laws, and then established the absolute authority of Communist parties to decide on all aspects of law and life. Many intellectuals were seduced by the idea of a higher form of egalitarianism based on "national" or "socialist" law. In fact, there was no law, only justification for the most brutal actions—mass murder, forced labor, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

(II) I. Universal Rule of Law

The defeat of fascism and Nazi Germany propelled the establishment of universal standards of human rights and the rule of law through agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Convention Against Genocide (1948), the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and the Convention Against Torture (1984). The collapse of communism and the Soviet Union in 1989–1991, the end of apartheid in South Africa in the early 1990s, and the collapse of Fascist regimes in Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s further reinforced the rule of law as a universal principle not only of justice but also of governance.

(II) J. Islamic Law

There is, however, an Islamic tradition of law that competes with the Western definition of the rule of law based on individual rights. The Islamic system of justice (or Sharia), involves the application of sacred principles as related to the Prophet Muhammad by Allah (the Arabic word for God). In many Muslim countries, Islamic or Sharia courts are complementary to state courts in civil and religious matters.

Such courts are presided over by clerics who interpret the Koran for its application in specific instances of claimed injustice or appeals for mediation. Sometimes, such religious courts follow established procedures and act as a positive mediating influence in society. Sometimes, however, Islamic or Sharia courts act according to procedures based on a particular interpretation of Islam or national custom. This could lead to abuses for political purposes or to the promotion of a sectarian understanding of the Koran (Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia, for example). In such cases, religious courts operate outside of the concepts of the rule of law discussed above that stress equal application of the law, due process, uniformity of expectations, and so on. Thus, in all Muslim countries where democracy has been established (as well as some other predominantly Muslim countries), state courts supersede religious courts.

In a few countries, such as Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia, Islamic justice is a tool for imposing a harsh dictatorship based on restrictive interpretations of Islamic law and texts. In recent decades, radical Islamism has also spread to other countries and is used as a tool for seeking power or imposing the will of the majority over the minority (see, for example, the Country Studies of Sudan or Nigeria). More significant, fanatical movements such as al-Qaeda have arisen seeking to achieve a radical vision of Islam in order to establish a universal theocracy. In this vision, the use of violence against innocent Muslims and non-Muslims alike is justified to fulfill radical Islamist goals. Such views are antithetical to any ideas of the rule of law and contrary to the understanding of Islam for most Muslims today.

Source:
http://www.democracyweb.org/rule/principles.php

Principles of Democracy

2012-06-12T10:44:00.002-04:00

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

The article “Principles of Democracy” pasted below is a compilation of twenty-one pillars of democracy written by experts in the subject.

I observe that at times the opposition acts at cross-purposes. The confusion I believe primarily emanates from not having a common understanding of the essential doctrine of democracy and the rule of law. Thus, now and then, it may be necessary to read and review the theoretical concepts of democracy and the rule of law free from our biases and prejudices of the Eritrean national liberation struggle.

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

______________________________________________________________

Principles of Democracy

by the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs

Introduction

This page contains 21 pieces in a new series of one-page primers on the fundamentals of democracy produced by the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs. Each of these short papers is available in English, Arabic, Chinese, Dari, French, Korean, Pashto, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish versions.

Although the term is ubiquitous in today's world, explaining "democracy" can be challenging. This series provides the reader with an overview paper and then breaks down the specific elements of democratic governance into individual topics. Each paper in the series reflects both the thinking of mainstream theorists and common practices of the many free societies now flourishing under systems of democratic governance.

(1) Overview: What is Democracy?

Democracy comes from the Greek word, “demos,” meaning people. In democracies, it is the people who hold sovereign power over legislator and government.

Although nuances apply to the world's various democracies, certain principles and practices distinguish democratic government from other forms of government.

• Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all citizens, directly or through their freely elected representatives.

• Democracy is a set of principles and practices that protect human freedom; it is the institutionalization of freedom.

• Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled with individual and minority rights. All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.

• Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that local government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible.

• Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.

• Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens. Elections in a democracy cannot be facades that dictators or a single party hide behind, but authentic competitions for the support of the people.

• Democracy subjects governments to the rule of law and ensures that all citizens receive equal protection under the law and that their rights are protected by the legal system.

• Democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation's unique political, social, and cultural life. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform practices.

• Citizens in a democracy not only have rights, they have the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.

• Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. Democracies recognize that reaching consensus requires compromise and that it may not always be attainable. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.”

(2) Majority Rule, Minority Rights

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

• Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

• Minorities – whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate – enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

• Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

• Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

• Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

• Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

• There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved – only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.

(3) Civil-Military Relations

Issues of war and peace are the most momentous any nation can face, and at times of crisis, many nations turn to their military for leadership.

Not in democracies.

In democracies, questions of peace and war or other threats to national security are the most important issues a society faces, and thus must be decided by the people, acting through their elected representatives. A democratic military serves its nation rather than leads it. Military leaders advise the elected leaders and carry out their decisions. Only those who are elected by the people have the authority and the responsibility to decide the fate of a nation.

This idea of civilian control and authority over the military is thus, fundamental to democracy.

• Civilians need to direct their nation's military and decide issues of national defense not because they are necessarily wiser than military professionals, but precisely because they are the people's representatives and as such are charged with the responsibility for making these decisions and remaining accountable for them.

• The military in a democracy exists to protect the nation and the freedoms of its people. It does not represent or support any political viewpoint or ethnic and social group. Its loyalty is to the larger ideals of the nation, to the rule of law, and to the principle of democracy itself.

• Civilian control assures that a country's values, institutions, and policies are the free choices of the people rather than the military. The purpose of a military is to defend society, not define it.

• Any democratic government values the expertise and advice of military professionals in reaching policy decisions about defense and national security. Civilian officials rely upon the military for expert advice on these matters and to carry out the decisions of the government. But only the elected civilian leadership should make ultimate policy decisions – which the military then implements in its sphere.

• Military figures may, of course, participate fully and equally in the political life of their country just like any other citizens - but only as individual voters. Military people must first retire from military service before becoming involved in politics; armed services must remain separate from politics. The military are the neutral servants of the state, and the guardians of society.

• Ultimately, civilian control of the military ensures that defense and national security issues do not compromise the basic democratic values of majority rule, minority rights, and freedom of speech, religion, and due process. It is the responsibility of all political leaders to enforce civilian control and the responsibility of the military to obey the lawful orders of civilian authorities.

(4) Political Parties

To preserve and protect individual rights and freedoms, a democratic people must work together to shape the government of their choosing. And the principal way of doing that is through political parties.

• Political parties are voluntary organizations that link the people and their government. Parties recruit candidates and campaign to elect them to public office, and they mobilize people to participate in selecting government leaders.

• The majority party (or the party elected to control the offices of government) seeks to enact into law a number of different policies and programs. Parties of the opposition are free to criticize the majority party's policy ideas and offer their own proposals.

• Political parties provide a way for citizens to hold elected party officials accountable for their actions in government.

• Democratic political parties have faith in the principles of democracy so that they recognize and respect the authority of the elected government even when their party leaders are not in power.

• Like any democracy, members of various political parties reflect the diversity of the cultures in which they arise. Some are small and built around a set of political beliefs. Others are organized around economic interests, or shared history. Still others are loose alliances of different citizens who may only come together at election time.

• All democratic political parties, whether they are small movements or large national coalitions, share the values of compromise and tolerance. They know that only through broad alliances and cooperation with other political parties and organizations can they provide the leadership and common vision that will win the support of the people of the nation.

• Democratic parties recognize that political views are fluid and changeable, and that consensus can often arise out of the clash of ideas and values in peaceful, free, and public debate.

• The concept of the loyal opposition is central to any democracy. It means that all sides in political debate – however deep their differences – share the fundamental democratic values of freedom of speech and faith, and equal protection under law. Parties that lose elections step into the role of opposition – confident that the political system will continue to protect their right to organize and speak out. In time, their party will have a chance to campaign again for its ideas, and the votes of the people.

• In a democracy, the struggle between political parties is not a fight for survival, but a competition to serve the people.

(5) Citizen Responsibilities

Unlike a dictatorship, a democratic government exists to serve the people, but citizens in democracies must also agree to abide by the rules and obligations by which they are governed. Democracies grant many freedoms to their citizens including the freedom to dissent and criticize the government.

Citizenship in a democracy requires participation, civility, and even patience.

• Democratic citizens recognize that they not only have rights, they have responsibilities. They recognize that democracy requires an investment of time and hard work – a government of the people demands constant vigilance and support by the people.

• Under some democratic governments, civic participation means that citizens are required to serve on juries, or give mandatory military or civilian national service for a period of time. Other obligations apply to all democracies and are the sole responsibility of the citizen – chief among these is respect for law. Paying one's fair share of taxes, accepting the authority of the elected government, and respecting the rights of those with differing points of view are also examples of citizen responsibility.

• Democratic citizens know that they must bear the burden of responsibility for their society if they are to benefit from its protection of their rights.

• There is a saying in free societies: you get the government you deserve. For democracy to succeed, citizens must be active, not passive, because they know that the success or failure of the government is their responsibility, and no one else's. In turn, government officials understand that all citizens should be treated equally and that bribery has no place in a democratic government.

• In a democratic system, people unhappy with their leaders are free to organize and peacefully make the case for change – or try to vote those leaders out of office at established times for elections.

• Democracies need more than an occasional vote from their citizens to remain healthy. They need the steady attention, time, and commitment of large numbers of their citizens who, in turn, look to the government to protect their rights and freedoms.

• Citizens in a democracy join political parties and campaign for the candidates of their choice. They accept the fact that their party may not always be in power.
-- They are free to run for office or serve as appointed public officials for a time.

-- They utilize a free press to speak out on local and national issues.

-- They join labor unions, community groups, and business associations.

-- They join private voluntary organizations that share their interests – whether devoted to religion, ethnic culture, academic study, sports, the arts, literature, neighborhood improvement, international student exchanges, or a hundred other different activities.

-- All these groups – no matter how close to, or remote from government – contribute to the richness and health of their democracy.

(6) A Free Press

In a democracy the press should operate free from governmental control. Democratic governments do not have ministries of information to regulate content of newspapers or the activities of journalists; requirements that journalists be vetted by the state; or force journalists to join government-controlled unions.

• A free press informs the public, holds leaders accountable, and provides a forum for debate of local and national issues.

• Democracies foster the existence of a free press. An independent judiciary, civil society with rule of law, and free speech all support a free press. A free press must have legal protections.

• In democracies the government is accountable for its actions. Citizens therefore expect to be informed about decisions their governments make on their behalf. The press facilitates this "right to know," by serving as a watchdog over the government, helping citizens to hold government accountable, and questioning its policies. Democratic governments grant journalists access to public meetings and public documents. They do not place prior restraints on what journalists may say or print.

• The press, itself, must act responsibly. Through professional associations, independent press councils, and "ombudsmen," in-house critics who hear public complaints, the press responds to complaints of its own excesses and remains internally accountable.

• Democracy requires the public to make choices and decisions. In order for the public to trust the press, journalists must provide factual reporting based on credible sources and information. Plagiarism and false reporting are counterproductive to a free press.

• Press outlets should establish their own editorial boards, independent of government control, in order to separate information gathering and dissemination from editorial processes.

• Journalists should not be swayed by public opinion, only by the pursuit of truth, as close as they can get to it. A democracy allows the press to go about its business of collecting and reporting the news without fear or favor from the government.

• Democracies foster a never-ending struggle between two rights: The government's obligation to protect national security; and the people's right to know, based on journalists' ability to access information. Governments sometimes need to limit access to information considered too sensitive for general distribution. But journalists in democracies are fully justified in pursuing such information.

(7) Federalism

When diverse groups of free people – with different languages, religious faiths, or cultural norms – choose to live under an agreed constitutional framework, they expect a degree of local autonomy and equal economic and social opportunities. A federal system of government – power shared at the local, regional, and national levels – empowers elected officials who design and administer policies tailored to local and regional needs. They work in partnership with a national government and with each other to solve the many problems the nation faces.

• Federalism is a system of shared power and decision-making between two or more freely elected governments with authority over the same people and geographical area. It grants and protects decision-making ability where results are most immediately felt – in local communities, as well as at higher levels of government.

• Federalism fosters government accountability to the people and encourages citizen participation and civic responsibility by allowing local governments to design and administer local laws.

• A federal system is strengthened by a written constitution granting authority and outlining the scope of shared responsibilities enjoyed by each level of government.

• While it is generally agreed that local governments should satisfy local needs, some issues are best left to the national government. Defense, international treaties, federal budgets, and postal services are often cited as examples.

• Local ordinances reflect the preferences by which local communities choose to live – police and fire patrols, school administration, and local health and building regulations are often designed and administered locally.

• Intergovernmental relations means that various governments in a federal state (national, regional, and local) work together when issues of statutory authority imply the need to address issues cooperatively. The national government often has authority to mediate disputes between regions.

• In a geographically large and economically diverse nation, disparities in income and social welfare among regions can be addressed by the national government through policies that redistribute tax revenues.

• A federal system is responsive and inclusive. Citizens are free to run for government positions at all levels – local and regional governments offer the most positions and, perhaps, the most opportunity to make a difference in their communities.

• Federalism provides multiple opportunities for political parties to serve their constituents. Even if a particular party does not hold a majority in the national legislature or the executive, it is permitted to participate at the regional and local levels.

(8) Rule of Law

For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous – law was simply the will of the ruler. A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means. Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives.

• Rule of law means that no individual, president or private citizen, stands above law. Democratic governments exercise authority by way of law and are themselves subject to law's constraints.

• Laws should express the will of the people, not the whims of kings, dictators, military officials, religious leaders, or self-appointed political parties.

• Citizens in democracies are willing to obey the laws of their society, then, because they are submitting to their own rules and regulations. Justice is best achieved when the laws are established by the very people who must obey them.

• Under the rule of law, a system of strong, independent courts should have the power and authority, resources, and the prestige to hold government officials, even top leaders, accountable to the nation's laws and regulations.

• For this reason, judges should be well trained, professional, independent, and impartial. To serve their necessary role in the legal and political system, judges must be committed to the principles of democracy.

• The laws of a democracy may have many sources: written constitutions; statutes and regulations; religious and ethical teachings; and cultural traditions and practices. Regardless of origin the law should enshrine certain provisions to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens:
• Under the requirement of equal protection under the law, the law may not be uniquely applicable to any single individual or group.

• Citizens must be secure from arbitrary arrest and unreasonable search of their homes or the seizure of their personal property.

• Citizens charged with crimes are entitled to a speedy and public trial, along with the opportunity to confront and question their accusers. If convicted, they may not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.

• Citizens cannot be forced to testify against themselves. This principle protects citizens from coercion, abuse, or torture and greatly reduces the temptation of police to employ such measures.

(9) Human Rights

All human beings are born with inalienable rights. These human rights empower people to pursue lives of dignity – thus, no government can bestow them but all governments should protect them. Freedom, built on a foundation of justice, tolerance, dignity, and respect – regardless of ethnicity, religion, political association, or social standing – allows people to pursue these fundamental rights. Whereas dictatorships deny human rights, free societies continually strive to attain them.
Human rights are interdependent and indivisible; they encompass myriad facets of human existence including social, political, and economic issues. Among the most commonly accepted are:

• All people should have the right to form their own opinions and express them individually or in peaceful assemblies. Free societies create a “marketplace of ideas” where people exchange their views on any number of issues.

• All people should have the right to participate in government. Governments should create laws that protect human rights while justice systems enforce those laws equally among the population.

• Freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, and torture – whether one is an opponent of the ruling political party, an ethnic minority, or even a common criminal – is a basic human right. A professional police force respects all citizens as it enforces the laws of the nation.

• In ethnically diverse nations, religious and ethnic minorities should be free to use their language and maintain their traditions without fear of recrimination from the majority population. Governments should recognize the rights of minorities while respecting the will of the majority.

• All people should have the opportunity to work, earn a living, and support their families.

• Children deserve special protection. They should receive at least an elementary education, proper nutrition, and healthcare.

• To maintain human rights, citizens in any free society need to be vigilant. Citizen responsibility – through a variety of participatory activities – ensures that government remains accountable to the people. The family of free nations is committed to work toward protection of human rights. They formalize their commitment through a number of international treaties and covenants on human rights.

(10) Executive Power
Leaders of democratic governments govern with the consent of their citizens. Such leaders are powerful not because they command armies or economic wealth, but because they respect the limits placed on them by the electorate in a free and fair election.

• Through free elections, citizens of a democracy confer powers upon their leaders that are defined by law. In a constitutional democracy, power is divided so that the legislature makes the laws, the executive authority enforces and carries them out, and the judiciary operates independently.

• Democratic leaders are neither elected dictators nor “presidents-for-life.” They serve fixed terms in office and accept the results of free elections, even if it means losing control of the government.

• In constitutional democracies, executive authority is generally limited in three ways: by a system of checks and balances separating the national government's executive, legislative, and judicial powers; by federalism, which divides power between the national government and the state/local governments; and by constitutional guarantees of fundamental rights.

• At the national level, the executive is limited by the constitutional authority vested in the legislative branch and by an independent judiciary

• Executive authority in modern democracies is generally organized in one of two ways: as a parliamentary or a presidential system.
-- In a parliamentary system, the majority party in the legislature forms the executive branch of the government, headed by a prime minister.
-- In a parliamentary system, the legislative and executive branches are not entirely distinct from one another, since the prime minister and members of the cabinet are drawn from the parliament. In such systems, the political opposition serves as a chief means of limiting, or checking the authority of the executive.
-- In a presidential system, the president is elected separately from the members of the legislature.
-- In a presidential system, both the president and the legislature have their own power bases and political constituencies, which serve to check and balance each other.

• Democracies do not require their governments to be weak, only limited. Consequently, democracies may be slow to reach agreement on national issues; yet when they do, their leaders can act with great authority and confidence.

• At all times, leaders in a constitutional democracy function within the rule of law that defines and restricts their authority.

(11) Legislative Power

Elected representatives in a democracy – whether members of a parliament, assembly, or Congress – are there to serve the people. They perform a number of roles essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy.
• Elected legislatures are the principal forum for deliberating, debating, and passing laws in a representative democracy. They are not so-called rubber stamp parliaments merely approving the decisions of an authoritarian leader.

• Oversight and investigation powers allow legislators to publicly question government officials about their actions and decisions, and otherwise serve as a check on the power of various government ministries – especially in the presidential system of governing where the legislature is separate from the executive.

• Legislators may approve national budgets, conduct hearings on pressing issues, and confirm executive appointees to courts and ministries. In some democracies, legislative committees provide lawmakers a forum for these public examinations of national issues.

• Legislators may support the government in power or they may serve as a loyal political opposition that offers alternative policies and programs.

• Legislators have a responsibility to articulate their views as effectively as possible. But they must work within the democratic ethic of tolerance, respect, and compromise to reach agreements that will benefit the general welfare of all the people – not just their political supporters. Each legislator must alone decide on how to balance the general welfare with the needs of a local constituency.

• Legislators often provide constituents with a sympathetic hearing for their individual complaints and problems – along with help in getting assistance from large government bureaucracies. To do this, they often maintain a staff of trained aides.

• National legislators are usually elected in one of two ways. In plurality elections, sometimes called “first past the post,” the candidate with the most votes wins. In the proportional system, often used in parliamentary elections, voters usually cast ballots for parties, not individuals, and representatives are chosen on the basis of their party's percentage of the vote.

• A proportional system tends to encourage multiple, tightly organized smaller parties. Plurality elections encourage a looser, two-party system. Under either system, representatives engage in the debate, negotiation, coalition building, and compromise that are the hallmarks of democratic legislatures.

• Legislatures are often bicameral, with two chambers, and new laws generally require passage by both the upper and lower chambers.

(12)An Independent Judiciary

Independent and professional judges are the foundation of a fair, impartial, and constitutionally guaranteed system of courts of law known as the judiciary. This independence does not imply judges can make decisions based on personal preferences but rather that they are free to make lawful decisions – even if those decisions contradict the government or powerful parties involved in a case.

• In democracies, independence from political pressures of elected officials and legislatures guarantees the impartiality of judges. Judicial rulings should be impartial, based on the facts of a case, individual merits and legal arguments, and relevant laws, without any restrictions or improper influence by interested parties. These principles ensure equal legal protection for all.

• The power of judges to review public laws and declare them in violation of the nation's constitution serves as a fundamental check on potential government abuse of power – even if the government is elected by a popular majority. This power, however, requires that the courts be seen as independent and able to rest their decisions upon the law, not political considerations.

• Whether elected or appointed, judges must have job security or tenure, guaranteed by law, in order that they can make decisions without concern for pressure or attack by those in positions of authority. A civil society recognizes the importance of professional judges by providing them with adequate training and remuneration.

• Trust in the court system's impartiality – in its being seen as the "non-political" branch of government – is a principal source of its strength and legitimacy.

• A nation's courts, however, are no more immune from public commentary, scrutiny, and criticism than other institutions. Freedom of speech belongs to all: judges and their critics alike.

• To ensure their impartiality, judicial ethics require judges to step aside (or “recuse” themselves) from deciding cases in which they have a conflict of interest.

• Judges in a democracy cannot be removed for minor complaints, or in response to political criticism. Instead, they can be removed only for serious crimes or infractions through the lengthy and difficult procedure of impeachment (bringing charges) and trial – either in the legislature or before a separate court panel.

• An independent judiciary assures people that court decisions will be based on the nation's laws and constitution, not on shifting political power or the pressures of a temporary majority. Endowed with this independence, the judicial system in a democracy serves as a safeguard of the people's rights and freedoms.

(13) Constitutionalism

A written constitution contains the most important laws by which a nation's citizens agree to live, and it outlines the basic structure of their government. Thus, democratic constitutionalism – based on ideals of individual freedom, community rights, and limited government power – creates the framework for governing a democracy.

• Constitutionalism recognizes that democratic and accountable government must be coupled with constitutional limits on the power of government.

• A constitution defines the basic purposes and aspirations of a society, including the common welfare of the people.

• All laws must be written in accordance with the constitution. In a democracy, an independent judiciary allows citizens to challenge laws they believe to be illegal or unconstitutional and to seek court-ordered remedies for illegal actions by the government or its officials.

• A constitution provides the framework for government power – its scope of authority, mechanisms for exercising that authority, and the procedures for passage of future laws.

• A constitution defines citizenship and establishes the basis for deciding who shall have the right to vote.

• A constitution establishes the political, administrative, and judicial foundations of the state including the structure of the legislature and courts, requirements for holding elected office, and terms of office for elected officials.

• A constitution lays out responsibilities of government ministries and grants authority to collect taxes and create a national defense force.

• In a federal system, the constitution divides power among the various levels of government.

• Since a constitution is written at a certain point in time, it must be amendable so that it may adapt to the changing needs of the people in the future. Since the flexibility to meet unpredictable and unforeseeable challenges in the future is important, constitutions are usually written to specify general principles of government.

• Constitutions generally contain two different types of rights – negative and affirmative rights.
-- Negative rights tell the government what it cannot do. These rights limit government and prevent it from affecting certain behaviors of its citizens. For example, the government must refrain from limiting free speech and the ability of citizens to peacefully assemble, and from illegal imprisonment.
-- Affirmative rights tell the government what it must do and citizens what they are entitled to. Such "entitlements" may include social, economic, and cultural rights in the form of government guarantees of various social indicators. There may be guarantees of primary and secondary education for all boys and girls, guaranteed “well being” after retirement, or jobs and health care for all citizens.

(14) Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech and expression, especially about political and other public issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy. Democratic governments do not control the content of most written and verbal speech. Thus democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions.

According to democratic theorists, a free and open debate will usually lead to the best option being considered and will be more likely to avoid serious mistakes.

• Democracy depends upon a literate, knowledgeable citizenry whose access to information enables it to participate as fully as possible in the public life of their society and to criticize unwise or tyrannical government officials or policies. Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions.

• For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves – openly, publicly, and repeatedly; in speech and in writing.

• The principle of free speech should be protected by a democracy's constitution, preventing the legislative or executive branches of government from imposing censorship.

• The protection of free speech is a so-called negative right, simply requiring that government refrain from limiting speech, unlike the direct action required of other so-called affirmative rights. For the most part, the authorities in a democracy are uninvolved in the content of written and verbal speech in the society.

• Protests serve as a testing ground for any democracy – thus the right to peaceful assembly is essential and plays an integral part in facilitating the use of free speech. A civil society allows for spirited debate among those in deep disagreement over the issues.

• Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, but it is not absolute, and cannot be used to justify violence, slander, libel, subversion, or obscenity. Consolidated democracies generally require a high degree of threat in order to justify banning speech which may incite violence, untruthfully harm the reputation of others, overthrow a constitutional government, or promote lewd behavior. Most democracies also forbid speech that incites racial or ethnic violence.

• The challenge for a democracy is one of balance: to defend freedom of speech and assembly while countering speech which truly encourages violence, intimidation, or subversion.

(15) Government Accountability

Government accountability means that public officials – elected and un-elected – have an obligation to explain their decisions and actions to the citizens. Government accountability is achieved through the use of a variety of mechanisms – political, legal, and administrative – designed to prevent corruption and ensure that public officials remain answerable and accessible to the people they serve. In the absence of such mechanisms, corruption may thrive.

• The primary political accountability mechanism is free and fair elections. Fixed-terms of office and elections force elected officials to account for their performance and provide opportunities for challengers to offer citizens alternative policy choices. If voters are not satisfied with the performance of an official, they may vote them out of office when their terms expire.

• The degree to which public officials are politically accountable is a function of whether they occupy an elected versus appointed position, how often they are up for reelection, and how many terms they can serve.

• Legal accountability mechanisms include constitutions, legislative acts, decrees, rules, codes, and other legal instruments that proscribe actions that public officials can and cannot take and how citizens may take action against those officials whose conduct is considered unsatisfactory.

• An independent judiciary is an essential requirement for the success of legal accountability, serving as a venue where citizens bring claims against the government.

• Legal accountability mechanisms include:
-- Ethics statutes and codes of conduct for public officials, outlining unacceptable practices;
-- Conflict of interest and financial disclosure laws, requiring public officials to divulge the source of their income and assets so that citizens may judge whether the actions of those officials are likely to be influenced improperly by financial interests;
-- "Sunshine" laws, providing the press and the public access to government records and meetings;
-- Citizen participation requirements, dictating that certain government decisions must include input from the public; and
-- Judicial review, providing courts the power to review the decisions and actions of public officials and agencies.

• Administrative accountability mechanisms include offices within agencies or ministries and practices within administrative processes designed to ensure that the decisions and actions of public officials account for the interest of the citizens.

• Administrative accountability mechanisms include:
-- Agency ombudsmen, responsible for hearing and addressing citizen complaints;
-- Independent auditors who scrutinize the use of public funds for signs of misuse;
-- Administrative courts, that hear citizens' complaints about agency decisions;
-- Ethics rules protecting so-called whistleblowers – those within government who speak out about corruption or abuse of official authority – from reprisals.

(16) Free and Fair Elections

Free and fair elections allow people living in a representative democracy to determine the political makeup and future policy direction of their nation's government.

• Free and fair elections increase the likelihood of a peaceful transfer of power. They help to ensure that losing candidates will accept the validity of the election's results and cede power to the new government.

• Elections alone do not assure democracy since dictators can use the resources of the state to tamper with the election process.

• Free and fair elections require:
-- Universal suffrage for all eligible men and women to vote – democracies do not restrict this right from minorities, the disabled, or give it only to those who are literate or who own property.
-- Freedom to register as a voter or run for public office.
-- Freedom of speech for candidates and political parties – democracies do not restrict candidates or political parties from criticizing the performance of the incumbent.
-- Numerous opportunities for the electorate to receive objective information from a free press.
-- Freedom to assemble for political rallies and campaigns.
-- Rules that require party representatives to maintain a distance from polling places on election day – election officials, volunteer poll workers, and international monitors may assist voters with the voting process but not the voting choice.
-- An impartial or balanced system of conducting elections and verifying election results – trained election officials must either be politically independent or those overseeing elections should be representative of the parties in the election.
-- Accessible polling places, private voting space, secure ballot boxes, and transparent ballot counting.
-- Secret ballots – voting by secret ballot ensures that an individual's choice of party or candidate cannot be used against him or her.
-- Legal prohibitions against election fraud – enforceable laws must exist to prevent vote tampering (e.g. double counting, ghost voting).
-- Recount and contestation procedures – legal mechanisms and processes to review election processes must be established to ensure that elections were conducted properly.

• Voting methods – varying by country and even within countries – include:
-- Paper ballots – votes are marked on or punched through paper.
-- Ballots with pictures of candidates or party symbols so that illiterate citizens may cast the correct vote.
-- Electronic systems – voters use touch-screen or push-button machines.
-- Absentee ballots – allowing those who will not be able to vote on election day to cast their ballots prior to the election.

(17) Freedom of Religion

All citizens should be free to follow their conscience in matters of religious faith. Freedom of religion includes the right to worship alone or with others, in public or private, and to participate in religious observance, practice, and teaching without fear of persecution from government or other groups in society.

• All people have the right to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and to establish and maintain places for these purposes.

• Like other fundamental human rights, religious freedom is not created or granted by the state, but all states should protect it. Democracies include language pertaining to protection of religious freedom in their constitutions.

• Although many democracies may choose to recognize an official separation of church and state, the values of government and religion are not in fundamental conflict.

• Democracies generally do not create governmental agencies or other official bodies to regulate religious affairs, although they may require houses of worship and religious groups to register for administrative or tax purposes.

• Governments that protect religious freedom for all their citizens are more likely to protect other rights necessary for religious freedom, such as free speech and assembly.

• Genuine democracies recognize that individual religious differences must be respected and that a key role of government is to protect religious choice, even in cases where the state sanctions a particular religious faith. Democracies also:
-- Do not determine the content of religious publications, education, or sermons.
-- Respect the right of parents to direct the religious education of their children.
-- Prohibit incitement of religious-based violence against others.
-- Protect members of ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities.
-- Allow people to observe days of rest associated with their faith and to celebrate holy days in accordance with their beliefs.
-- Allow interfaith movements to flourish, as members of different faiths seek common ground on various issues and cooperate to solve challenges facing the entire population.
-- Provide the freedom for government and religious officials, nongovernmental organizations, and journalists to investigate reports of religious persecution.
-- Respect the right of religious organizations to freely participate and contribute to civil society – to operate faith-based schools, run hospitals and care for the aged, and create other programs and activities that benefit the society.

(18) The Rights of Women and Girls

Discrimination against women means that specific laws or practices create a distinction, exclusion, or restriction on the basis of gender.

• Democracies should strive to protect women's rights, encourage women's participation in all aspects of society and government, and create places for women to associate freely and express their views openly.

• Legal rights for women include equal representation under the law and access to legal resources.
-- Women's rights must be clearly stated – ambiguity of women's legal status remains a leading cause of poverty worldwide.
-- Women should have rights to ownership and inheritance.
-- Women should have the opportunity to take part in the drafting and implementation of constitutions and legislation.

• Women's political rights include the right to vote in elections, to run for public office, to participate in government, and to organize politically.
-- Democracies should support civil society initiatives – public and nongovernmental – that teach women how to vote and train them in political campaign techniques and the legislative process.
-- Women's activism at all levels of civil society and government strengthens democracies.

• Women and girls should have access to primary education. They should not be barred from attending or teaching in secondary schools and universities.

• Economic rights give women control over their economic assets and help them avoid risky sexual and abusive relationships. These rights include:
-- The same employment opportunities and criteria as men.
-- Protection from job termination because of pregnancy or marriage.
-- Participation in programs, such as microenterprise lending and vocational training, that enable women to generate income.
-- The right to equal pay and to equal treatment and respect at work.

• Democracies should strive to ensure the health and well-being of women and girls and provide equal access to programs such as:
-- General health care, disease prevention, and prenatal care.
-- Preventing HIV/AIDS, improving health care delivery to those infected, and reducing mother-to-child transmission of the disease.
-- Combating traffickers who lure women and girls into forced prostitution or domestic servitude through deception, fraud, or coercion.
-- Fighting so-called sex tourism that often exploits women and children.
-- Educating families about the social and health consequences of early marriage.
-- Supporting victims' organizations, including domestic violence and rape crisis centers.
-- Training police, lawyers, judges, and medical personnel to reduce domestic violence.

(19) Governing by Coalitions and Compromise

Every society has (or includes) groups of people with differing views on subjects of importance to all citizens. A liberal democracy recognizes this as a benefit to the nation and thus supports tolerance for and expression of different points of view.

• Democratic governments succeed when politicians and officials understand that complex issues rarely present solutions that are clearly "right" or "wrong" and that differing interpretations of democratic principles and social priorities exist.

• Freedom of assembly and the press foster open debate and exchange of ideas. This openness allows a government to identify problems and permits groups to meet and resolve differences. (In the private sector, this same "marketplace of ideas" offers opportunities for innovation and investment that are the engines of economic growth.)

• Coalitions are formed when interest groups or political parties join together on issues of common interest, even if they strongly disagree on other issues. Compromise on important decisions allows the government to go about the business of governing.

• Legislative bodies in democracies rely on coalition-building to pass laws:
-- In a parliamentary system, political groups form partnerships with other groups to promote their own interests and form governments.
-- In a presidential system, lawmakers sometimes cross party boundaries to vote on issues they and their constituents care deeply about.
-- Coalitions often require that a political party be willing to put aside certain differences with other groups in order to achieve more important parts of their agendas.
-- Because coalition governments are made up from parties representing sometimes-opposing viewpoints, there does exist the potential for dissolution of the government. In some democracies, it is common for ruling coalitions to form and disband several times, even in a single year.

(20) Role of Nongovernmental Organizations

In democracies, ordinary citizens may organize independent groups that serve the needs of the community or nation they live in and complement, supplement, or even challenge the work of the government. Such organizations are often called nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, because they are not an extension of the government's offices.

• NGOs allow citizens to improve their society by advocating, educating, and mobilizing attention around major public issues and monitoring the conduct of government and private enterprise.

• NGOs enable citizens from different backgrounds to learn to work together and build the skills, relationships, and trust necessary for good government.

• NGOs serve a great variety of citizen interests. They may act as social service providers, advocates for the environment or for living standards, work standards, or as the catalysts for democratic change.

• NGOs often represent the interests of those citizens who might otherwise be left out of national policy debates. They open the public discourse to people of all economic and social classes and to women and minorities.

• Funding for NGOs may come from individual private donations, private trusts and philanthropies, corporations, religious institutions, international institutions, other NGOs, sales of goods and services, and even governments.

• Governments and NGOs frequently work as partners. NGOs may provide local and regional expertise and personnel on the ground for implementation of government-funded projects. NGOs may be politically unaffiliated, or they may be based on partisan ideals and seek to advance a particular cause or set of causes in the public interest. In either model the key point is that NGOs should operate under minimal political control of states.

• NGOs develop local and international programs in virtually all areas that contribute to the promotion of the principles of democracy, including:
-- Human rights – by promoting international standards and monitoring for violations and abuses.
-- Rule of law – through low-cost or free legal aid, educating all citizens regarding their rights, and advocating for legal reforms.
-- Women's participation – by preparing them for political participation and protecting them from socioeconomic discrimination.
-- Civic education – through education programs focusing on the role of the citizen in a democratic and diverse society.
-- A free press – by promoting independent media, training journalists, and setting standards for ethical journalism.
-- Political party development – through election monitoring by trained domestic observers and nonpartisan voter registration drives.
-- Government accountability – by conducting policy analysis and serving as watchdogs over governmental actions.

(21) Education and Democracy

Education is a universal human right. It also is a means of achieving other human rights and it is an empowering social and economic tool. Through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world's nations have agreed that everyone has the right to education.

• Every society transmits its habits of mind, social norms, culture, and ideals from one generation to the next. There is a direct connection between education and democratic values: in democratic societies, educational content and practice support habits of democratic governance.

• This educational transmission process is vital in a democracy because effective democracies are dynamic, evolving forms of government that demand independent thinking by the citizenry. The opportunity for positive social and political change rests in citizens' hands. Governments should not view the education system as a means to control information and to indoctrinate students.

• Governments should value and devote resources to education just as they strive to defend their citizens.

• Literacy enables people to stay informed through newspapers and books. Informed citizens are in a better position to improve their democracy.

• Education systems in democracies do not preclude study of other political doctrines or systems of government. Democracies encourage students to develop reasonable arguments based on careful research and a clear understanding of history.

• Private and religious groups should be free to create schools or parents may choose to teach their children at home.

• Government-run schooling must be equally accessible to all citizens regardless of their ethnic or religious backgrounds, gender, or physical disabilities.

• Democratic norms and practices should be taught in order for people to understand and appreciate their opportunities and responsibilities as free citizens.

• Education for democratic citizenship includes knowledge of national and world history and of basic democratic principles.

• School curricula in democracies include history, geography, economics, literature, philosophy, law, the arts, social studies, mathematics, and science courses available to all students – girls and boys.

• Students should also be free to organize clubs and activities where democratic norms can be put into practice. For example,
-- Student government gives pupils experience in the democratic process.
-- Mock elections teach students about citizen participation and encourage in them lifelong voting habits.
-- School newspapers educate students about the role of a free media and responsible journalism.

Source: http://www.america.gov/publications/books/principles-of-democracy.html

Footwear may be Ethiopia’s commercial future

2012-06-07T13:26:00.001-04:00

The Economist

June 9, 2012

GOING barefoot in Africa often means injuries, worms puncturing the skin and putrefaction of the foot from disease. But in the past few years shoes have been getting a foothold in even the poorest and most remote communities of Ethiopia. Many children living high in the wild Adwa mountains in northern Ethiopia now have shoes. With no cushion or support, they are little more than plastic slippers. But in cold rain they provide a surer footing and protect the soles of the feet from being sliced on sharp rocks and toes from being cracked in a fall.

Those who live higher up in the mountains have to climb rock faces every day to reach schools and clinics far below in the valley. Doctors in the distant town of Hawzen say climbing accidents are the biggest cause of death among mountain children. So even the plastic slippers can save lives. They cost about $2 a pair—which most families say they can afford.

In Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa, a shoe revolution is under way. The prime minister, Meles Zenawi, wants Ethiopia to produce shoes for the world. A cheap workforce is drawing Chinese and Turkish investors. One attraction is leather. Ethiopia has one of the largest livestock industries in Africa. Investors say they wish the tanneries were better. Ethiopia, with its present population of 82m people possibly doubling before 2040, may also become an attractive market.

Life for most Ethiopians is improving. Fewer people are hungry. The number of those deemed by the UN to depend on food handouts fell from 4.5m to 3.2m in 2011. The prime minister, in power since 1991, says that China has “rescued” Ethiopia with billion-dollar loans for roads, dams and other public infrastructure projects. He points to a Chinese railway being built from Djibouti, on the Red Sea, to Addis Ababa. It will replace an ancient Italian line. He delights in a new Chinese-built, skyscraping headquarters for the African Union, letting him dub the city the continent’s diplomatic capital. By the by, though conscious that Western aid has kept millions of his people from starving, he complains about the relative failure of Western investors to put their faith in Ethiopia’s economy.

A Chinese firm from Dongguan, Huajian Shoes, is set to invest $2 billion. It has started to build a vast industrial estate at the edge of Addis Ababa where it intends to make shoes for Western brands. Sceptics say Ethiopia’s shoddy infrastructure may make it hard to produce the volumes of shoes required. If Huajian Shoes succeeds, other shoemakers may follow. Wages will be lower than in China and Ethiopians have a tradition of handicraft.

A small Ethiopian shoe company, soleRebels, is selling its wares globally through the internet. Some of the shoes are made from leather, but most use “vegan-friendly” local cotton, jute and hemp. The shoes are made-to-order. The firm says it can courier them off within a week. Its founder, Bethlehem Alemu, wants to turn her company into a global brand. “I chose to make shoes because it showcases Ethiopia—our natural materials, our weaving and our sewing,” she says. The only non-Ethiopian bits of her shoes are the glue and the rubber soles cut from old lorry tyres.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/21556627

Principles of Democracy: The Rule of Law

2012-05-25T15:07:00.002-04:00

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

The USA State Department has compiled a one page primer on the different principles of democracy. These are: What is Democracy; Majority Rule, Minority Rights; Political Parties; A Free Press; Rule of Law; Human Rights ; and etc. Rule of Law is pasted below.

There seems to be no common understanding within the liberal democratic Eritrean opposition of the concept of the Rule Of Law.

I strongly believe that this confusion has been one of the most stumbling blocks in advancing the cause of liberty in Eritrea. A case in point is the outright rejection of the Eritrean ratified constitution by some in the Diaspora without considering its superb stand on civil liberties, and others are not embarrassed to state publicly that there is the rule of law in Eritrea under the PFDJ rule. What a confusion!

One wonders how these people imagine to create a coalition of liberal democratic opposition with the Eritrean people inside Eritrea -- the decisive force in any dismantling of the authoritarian system back home. Their writings and mastery of the English language, though very admirable, should not fool us.

It is necessary to note that: "Democratic governments exercise authority by way of law and are themselves subject to law's constraints." And thus, it is crucial to have an adequate understanding of the rule of law, this applies in particular to those who present themselves to us as opinion makers and shakers in the Eritrean liberal democratic opposition arena.

For those who have the time and patience, and who are interested in mastering this concept -- of the rule of law and its historical development and its impact on the prosperity or poverty of a nation -- I recommend the following must read books: (1) Why Nations Fail; by Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson ; (2) The Origins of Political Order; by Francis Fukuyama.

It is my sincere belief that this one page note written by experts on the subject may help us have a better grasp of the concept of the rule of law.

Abraham G. Ghiorgis
New York

http://www.america.gov/st/democracy-english/2008/May/20080609204640eaifas0.7177698.html

Rule of Law

06 May 2008

(The following one-pager is taken from the U.S. Department of State publication, Principles of Democracy.)

Rule of Law

For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous – law was simply the will of the ruler.

A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means.

Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives.

• Rule of law means that no individual, president or private citizen, stands above law. Democratic governments exercise authority by way of law and are themselves subject to law's constraints.

• Laws should express the will of the people, not the whims of kings, dictators, military officials, religious leaders, or self-appointed political parties.

• Citizens in democracies are willing to obey the laws of their society, then, because they are submitting to their own rules and regulations. Justice is best achieved when the laws are established by the very people who must obey them.

• Under the rule of law, a system of strong, independent courts should have the power and authority, resources, and the prestige to hold government officials, even top leaders, accountable to the nation's laws and regulations.

• For this reason, judges should be well trained, professional, independent, and impartial. To serve their necessary role in the legal and political system, judges must be committed to the principles of democracy.

• The laws of a democracy may have many sources: written constitutions; statutes and regulations; religious and ethical teachings; and cultural traditions and practices. Regardless of origin the law should enshrine certain provisions to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens:

• Under the requirement of equal protection under the law, the law may not be uniquely applicable to any single individual or group.

• Citizens must be secure from arbitrary arrest and unreasonable search of their homes or the seizure of their personal property.

• Citizens charged with crimes are entitled to a speedy and public trial, along with the opportunity to confront and question their accusers. If convicted, they may not be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment.

• Citizens cannot be forced to testify against themselves. This principle protects citizens from coercion, abuse, or torture and greatly reduces the temptation of police to employ such measures.

Free Markets, the Rule of Law, and Classical Liberalism

2012-04-27T13:00:00.001-04:00

Richard M. Ebeling • May 2004 • Vol. 54/Issue 4

The history of liberty and prosperity is inseparable from the practice of free enterprise and respect for the rule of law. Both are products of the spirit of classical liberalism. But a correct understanding of free enterprise, the rule of law, and liberalism (rightly understood) is greatly lacking in the world today.

Historically, liberalism is the political philosophy of individual liberty. It proclaims and insists that the individual is to be free to think, speak, and write as he wishes; to believe and worship as he wishes; and to peacefully live his life as he wishes. Another way of saying this is to quote from Lord Acton’s definition: “By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and custom, and opinion.”1 ^[1] For this reason, he declared that the securing of liberty “is the highest political end.”2 ^[2]

Lord Acton did not say, you will notice, that liberty is the highest end, but rather the highest political end. In the wider context of a man’s life, political and economic liberty are means to other ends. What ends? Those that give meaning and purpose to his sojourn on earth. Liberalism does not deny that there may be or is one ultimate Truth, or one moral “right,” or one correct conception of “the good” and “the beautiful.” What liberalism has argued is that even the wisest and best men are mere mortals. They lack God’s omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. Mortal men look at and understand the world within the confines of their own imperfect knowledge, from the perspective of their own narrow corner of existence, and with extremely limited mental and physical powers compared to those possessed by the Almighty.

As a result, since no man may claim access to an understanding of man and his world equal to God’s, no man can claim a right to deny any other person the freedom to follow his conscience in finding answers to these profound and ultimate questions. They are so crucial to man’s very being as a spiritual and moral person that they must be removed from the arena of politics and political control. They must be left to the private and personal confines of each man and his conscience.

The reason for this should be evident. Political control is fundamentally the power of physical force. It is the right to demand obedience from the citizenry either to do or not do something under the threat of the use of coercion. Political power can be used to command people regarding how they may live, how they may think, and how they may act. It is one man bending the will of another to his wishes under the threat of physical harm.3 ^[3]

Some men have faced such threats or uses of force and not given up their faith or beliefs or ideas. But liberalism argues that no man should be confronted with torture or death because of where his conscience leads him. Furthermore, once political power is used to dictate what men may believe and how they may peacefully act, society is faced with an endless struggle as those with conflicting faiths, beliefs, and ideas battle for control of the reins of political authority. It becomes a life-and-death confrontation to determine whose conception of the good, the beautiful, the right, and the just shall be imposed on all. In such a battle over truth and virtue man’s world becomes an earthly hell of human and material destruction.

There thus arose the idea of tolerance, that each man should respect the right of every other man to be guided by the dictates of his conscience.4 ^[4]But even tolerance was soon seen to be authoritarian; it implied that the one tolerating the free thoughts and actions of another was doing so as if he were giving a privilege to someone else, a privilege that if given could at any time be taken away. Hence, it was insisted that freedom of conscience was a fundamental right possessed by all men, and not something permitted or allowed, say, by a majority for the benefit of a minority.5 ^[5]

But how was the political authority—the government—to be prevented from overstepping its boundaries and encroaching on such individual rights as freedom of conscience and other elements of personal liberty? How were men with political power to be restrained from abridging other men’s rights? All law is man-made, regardless of the source of the inspiration for the law. It is men who articulate and agree on the law, who codify it, and who establish and enforce the procedures and mechanisms for its respect and enforcement. Man, therefore, can never be separated from law and the legal process.

Public Accountability

A way to assure that society lives under a rule of law and not a rule of men is to insist that even those who implement and enforce the law be held accountable under certain clearly defined procedures in their dealings with the citizenry. Or as the English legal philosopher Albert Venn Dicey expressed it in the late nineteenth century: “With us every official, from the Prime Minister down to a constable or a collector of taxes, is under the same responsibility for every act done without legal justification as any other citizen.”6 ^[6]

An essential element of the rule of law is that it specifies what government may not do to the citizenry. For example, neither the government nor its various legal agents may hold an individual without bringing charges against him before a judge within a specified period of time. The writ of habeas corpus assures that no man is physically seized and held for an indefinite duration without charges being brought against him in a court of law. If it is not demonstrated to the court that a breach of the law has occurred and that there is sufficient evidence for holding the accused, he must be let go.7^[7] Or as Dicey explained it, “Liberty is not secure unless the law, in addition to punishing every kind of interference with a man’s lawful freedom, provides adequate security that everyone who, without legal justification, is placed in confinement shall be able to get free.”8 ^[8]

A distinctive quality and merit of the rule of law is that it attempts to, if not completely eliminate, then reduce as much as possible all arbitrary power in the hands of those who administer the political regime and the legal order. Friedrich Hayek, for example, has emphasized that the rule of law refers to laws of an abstract and general nature equally applied to all men independently of any particular circumstance.9 ^[9]

Since this may seem rather nebulous, it can be better understood through the expression end-independent rules.10 ^[10] We can think of this, for example, in terms of the rules of road. These rules specify whether cars are to be driven on the right or left side of the road; that all cars must stop and wait while the traffic light is red, and may go when the light turns green; that posted speed limits must be followed; and that if a police car or an ambulance is coming down the road, all other drivers are to pull over and stop until it has passed.

These rules of the road are general and uniform, in that they apply equally to all drivers and do not privilege or burden anyone. Furthermore, as long as every driver follows these rules, he is free to travel on the roads whenever he desires, for whatever purpose he may have in mind. Nor can any driver be pulled over by police patrolling the roads and highways for a traffic violation unless there is an infraction of these general and uniform rules of the road.

The general and abstract rules are “end-independent” because they do not imply or require any particular outcome or result from the actions and interactions of the citizenry, as long as they follow the rules. Thus, whether people follow the rules of the road to get to work, or to visit the family dentist, or simply to get out of the house for a while and just drive around is immaterial. The very nature of a free society under the rule of law is that the society, itself, has no purpose, or “manifest destiny” or “historical role” that it is called upon to play. A free society has no plans or purposes separate from the individual plans and purposes of its individual citizens.

Selfishness versus Great Causes

That a free society has no plan or purpose or higher calling independent of those of its citizens has bothered many who think that nations should have “callings” to “greatness.” They see in the individual plans and purposes of the citizenry a narrowness and selfishness not worthy of great causes and great men. One leading voice in the first half of the twentieth century who wanted nations to pursue great causes under great men was Werner Sombart, a German Marxist who later in the 1930s became an outspoken apologist for Hitler’s National Socialism.11 ^[11]

During World War I, Sombart published a small volume of what he called “patriotic reflections” titled Traders and Heroes.12 ^[12] He contrasted the trader or man of commerce, who, Sombart insisted, sees no farther than his own profits to be made through market transactions, with the spirit of the hero that brings forth the virtues of courage, obedience, and self-sacrifice. “The trader,” Sombart said, “speaks only of ‘rights,’ the hero only of his duties.”13^[13]

Now, of course, the question that Sombart’s depiction of the characteristics of the “hero” leaves unanswered is: obedience to whom, and sacrifice for what? In Sombart’s view it was the state, through its political leaders, that dictated the goals for which the citizenry was to make those sacrifices and that demanded obedience to achieve the national tasks. The individuals of the society were to sacrifice their own goals, purposes, plans, and dreams. These were narrow, mundane, and petty. The great political leaders make the other members of society conform to a higher plan and purpose, one which they claim to discern through intuitive insights and understandings that ordinary men cannot comprehend or grasp. Hence, they are expected to obey the commands of those leaders in the service of an imposed hierarchy of ends to which they must sacrifice their individual plans and purposes.

In a society of Sombart’s heroes, the rules under which the citizenry now act are end-dependent. That is, the legal rules and regulations under which men are made to live direct them to act and interact in ways that are meant to assure particular outcomes. The citizenry’s actions are made to follow paths leading to the outcomes that the political leaders consider the desirable configuration for the society. How else can it be assured that the actions of all the people move in the direction that the nation’s call to greatness demands? It should be clear that this requires the abrogation of the individual’s own freedom of action, choice, and decision-making. He is made into the tool of another man’s ends. He serves ends that others have assigned to him, and not his own.14 ^[14]

It should also be clear this is why those who desire to assign higher purposes and callings for society tend to be suspicious of and often actively hostile toward free enterprise and the market economy. The essence of every type of collectivism, whether it be called socialism, communism, fascism, Nazism, or the interventionist-welfare state, is the desire and intention of imposing on society a politically engineered design to which all men are expected and, if required, forced to conform.

Adam Smith, in his first book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, referred to the social engineer as “the man of system,” who looks at society as if it were a giant chessboard upon which he moves the human chess pieces until the overall pattern created is one to his own liking. What the man of system totally disregards is that each of these human pieces on the chessboard of society has his own will, wishes, desires, dreams, goals, values, and beliefs, which motivate his own movements independent of any attempt by that social engineer to direct and dictate his place and position in society.15 ^[15]

Property Provides Autonomy

Classical liberalism has always emphasized the inseparable connection between individual liberty and the right to private property. Partly it has been based on the idea of justice: that which a man produces honestly and peacefully through his own efforts, or which he acquires through voluntary acts of exchange with others, should be considered rightfully his. The case for private property has also been made on the basis of utilitarian efficiency: when men know that the rewards from their work belong to them, they have the motives and the incentives to apply their industry in productive and creative ways.16 ^[16]

But in addition, the classical liberal has defended the institution of private property because it provides the individual with a degree of autonomy from potentially abusive political power. Private property gives the individual an arena, or domain, in which he has the ability to shape and design his own life, free from the control of political force. As a private owner of some of the means of production—even if it be only his own labor—he can search out the employment for himself that he considers most attractive and profitable, given his own personal purposes and plans. A community of individuals, each of whom owns varieties of property that he is at liberty to apply and utilize in various ways, provides a network of potential relationships of production, trade, and association among men outside and independent of the orbit and control of government. Private property gives reality to the ideal of individual freedom.17 ^[17]

The networks of voluntary, peaceful, and private association form the elements of what has been called “civil society.” They are the “intermediary institutions” that stand between the power of the state and the single, isolated individual; they supply support and give assistance to the individual in the economic, social, cultural, and spiritual needs of life. But they also offer protection and strength to the lone individual who otherwise would face the power of government on his own. It is not surprising, therefore, that historically the more the power and intrusive reach of the government extends into the affairs of the citizenry, the more the state attempts in various ways to undermine and replace these voluntary associative institutions of civil society with its own bureaucratic structures. The weakening or elimination of the intermediary institutions of civil society leaves the individual increasingly dependent on the political caprice and largess of those who manage the agencies of government. He becomes a pawn in the hands of those men of system whom Adam Smith warned us against.18 ^[18]

Where the rule of law is practiced and respected, the creative energies of man are set free. Each man is at liberty to utilize his own knowledge for his own purposes, but the very nature of the free-market economy is that he must apply that knowledge and his abilities in ways that serve the ends of others in society as well. Since no man can attain all his goals, beyond some of the more primitive ones, through his own labor and the particular resources that may be in his ownership and control, he enters into exchange relationships with others in society. Men begin to specialize in producing things for which they have a comparative advantage over their neighbors to extend their trading opportunities with others in the growing community of men. The interdependency that a division of labor creates makes each member of society increasingly conscious that he must serve his fellow men in order to accomplish his own ends.19 ^[19]

The individuals on that great chessboard of society move themselves about, forming connections, relationships, and associations with those around them as they discover opportunities for mutual improvement. Patterns do take form; configurations of human interconnection do take shape. But these patterns are not planned or designed; they emerge from the relationships that men choose to establish among themselves, with no conscious intention of generating much of the institutional order and structure that result from their market and social interactions.

As Hayek pointed out, drawing on the insights of some of the political economists of the eighteenth century, the social order that develops is to a great extent “the results of human action, but not of human design.”20 ^[20] And, as Hayek emphasized, it is all to the better that this is the case. Why? Because the emergent social patterns, order, and institutional arrangements incorporate the knowledge, ability, and creativity of the multitudes of human participants. No single mind or group of minds—no matter how wise and well-intentioned—could ever know, understand, and appreciate all the fragmented knowledge, insight, and ability that exist as divided knowledge and creative potential in the minds of all the members of humanity as a whole. If all that man knows, that he can do or might imagine, is to be taken advantage of and brought into play for the general good of all mankind, then every individual must be left free to use what he knows, and do what he wants to do, according to his own design.21 ^[20]

What irks the social engineer when he looks around at the free society is that it appears to be a world without a “plan,” a jumble of social chaos. What the classical liberal sees is a world of multitudes of plans, each one being the plan given by an individual to his own life. There is order, pattern, and structure to this world, but an order, pattern, and structure generated out of the interconnections that individuals have formed among themselves through their voluntary market and social relationships.

The rule of law provides the societal rules of the road within which those individuals may freely move about as they see fit. The rules for the free society are fairly simple and straightforward: thou shall not kill; thou shall not steal; thou shall not bear false witness—no fraud or deception in relationships with others. Beyond these types of simple rules, each individual is free to follow his own conscience and interests in all other matters.

A Lawless World

The world in which we live today is to a growing extent a lawless world, if by lawless we mean circumstances in which the rule of law is increasingly not respected or even understood. The law, in practice, is more and more end-dependent in its purpose and application. Some in society do not like the pattern of relative income shares that results from the interactions between employers and employees, so they use the power of the state to redistribute income and wealth according to their conception of material justice and fairness.

Others do not approve that some in society like—indeed enjoy—smoking, especially while they are having a drink and after a meal, so they restrict or increasingly ban private establishments from setting their own rules on the basis of what they consider the preferences and desires of their customers by totally prohibiting smoking in what they declare to be “public” places. Still others believe that the citizenry cannot be trusted to make sufficiently wise choices concerning their own retirement planning or their medical-insurance coverage, so they enact laws and regulations that impose rules that will guarantee the creation of the social engineer’s preferred patterns for such social behavior on the part of those whose choices and decisions he considers less enlightened than his own.

To assure, as the phrase goes, that there will be “no child left behind,” the social engineers are imposing more national regulations on standards for education in schools around the country, to create more of a single pattern of learning and its measured success to which all educational institutions and children will be required to conform. One of the contributions for which Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics was his insightful reminder that competition can and should be seen as a discovery process, through which each of us discovers our potential and ability in the rivalry of the marketplace. Indeed, Hayek said, it is in the competitive process that men are stimulated to see how far they can push themselves and their abilities, what new ideas and important innovations they can come up with, and what their most productive and valuable role and place may be in the social system of the division of labor for the mutual benefit of all.22 ^[21] How can this play out in the crucial arena of devising new and better ways of educating the young, when the men of system, the social engineers, in Washington, D.C., increasingly nationalize the content and form of learning in all the schools across the nation?

The latest trend in this direction is the growing fear that the new global economy threatens the livelihood and material standards of living of the American people. A chorus of special-interest groups and intellectual elites are warning that investment opportunities and many relatively well-paying jobs are being lost to other countries around the world. They conjure up nightmare visions in which America buys everything from the rest of the world, where labor is cheaper and production costs are much lower, and that America is left with nothing to manufacture at home. International trade and investment will leave the United States an economic wasteland of poverty and dependency on cheap products made in China and outsourced labor services supplied by India.

What we are hearing is the 21st century’s version of the early nineteenth-century Luddites, who at that time raised the alarm that the Industrial Revolution would soon result in unemployment for the vast majority as the emerging machine age made human labor redundant. The industrial machine age did indeed result in the replacement of a wide variety of human labor. But this freed tens of millions of hands to then do new and different work with the assistance of more and better tools, so that the quality, variety, and quantities of goods and services available to all were expanded beyond anything that could be imagined at the time. Our modern standard of living began with the Industrial Revolution and the machine age that it introduced.

After thousands of years of appalling poverty, more and more parts of the world are beginning to join and catch up to the West in terms of standards and quality of living. We should be hailing this as one of man’s greatest hours in his long existence on this earth. This great transformation will, of course, bring changes, even dramatic changes, in the structure and patterns of the global system of division of labor, as billions of people on other continents find new and more productive and profitable niches in the world’s network of trade, commerce, and industry.23 ^[22]

America’s Role in the World

Inevitably, this will change, as well, America’s role and place in the global community of nations. Some industries and service sectors will diminish or be entirely replaced by producers and suppliers in other parts of the world. But trade is a two-way street. Imports are paid for with exports. In fact, the only reason a nation exports anything is to use those foreign sales as the means of paying for goods and services that can be purchased from abroad less expensively than if they were to be made at home.

Other industries and service sectors will emerge or expand in America, instead, as the citizens of the United States discover in the arena of international commerce and competition their better and more efficient niches to serve their neighbors at home and their fellow human beings around the world. When the next generation looks back at our present time, say, 25 years from now, they will be able to see the market processes by which these new patterns and trading relationships emerged and took shape. And they will see the improvements and gains that resulted from these processes in a way that we cannot yet imagine, any more than those who feared the machine age in the early decades of the nineteenth century could imagine the wondrous improvements in the human condition that were visible when one looked back at the beginning of the twentieth century.

We can never possess tomorrow’s knowledge today. We can never know what innovations, creative ideas, and useful improvements will be generated in the minds of free men in the years to come. That is why we must leave men and their minds free. The man of system, the social engineer, who sees only the apparent problems from these global changes, wants to plan America’s place in the new, emerging global economy. But to do so, he must confine and straitjacket all of us to what his mind sees as the possible, profitable, and desirable from his own narrow perspective with the knowledge he possesses in the present.

Soviet-style central planning may seem to have been cast into the dustbin of history (to use a Marxian phrase), but in fact the underlying idea is alive and well around the world, including the United States. Ideological elites and voting majorities not only do not recognize the individual rights of others to live their lives in ways of their own choosing, but they increasingly do not even show tolerance for any range of difference of opinion and action. They are determined to plan our lives and our futures—and indeed even our thoughts in this increasingly anti-liberal age.24 ^[23]

Leonard Read, the founder and first president of FEE, once penned a book with the title Anything That’s Peaceful.25 In it he said that if we are to regain the liberty that we have lost, and the fully and consistently applied rule of law that once was the guardian of our liberty and freedom of enterprise, we must reawaken in our fellow citizens an understanding of what liberty, the rule of law, and individual self-responsibility mean. But this cannot come about unless each of us is willing to participate in a process of self-education in which we become knowledgeable about liberty and its opposite. And we must be willing and courageous enough to consistently defend freedom, self-responsibility, and all of their implications.

Each of us, Leonard Read said, must become candles of liberty in the darkness of collectivist ideas. The brighter we each shine through our understanding and ability to articulate the meaning of freedom, the more we will be beacons that can attract others. Quoting an old English saying, Read reminded us that it is the light that brings forth the eye and the ability to see.

None of us who care about liberty can avoid in good conscience our responsibility in this matter. I will close with the words of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, who was one of the greatest and brightest lights for liberty in the twentieth century: “Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. . . . What is needed to stop the trend towards socialism and despotism is common sense and moral courage.”26 ^[24]

Richard Ebeling ^[25] is president of FEE. His latest book is Austrian Economics and the Political Economy of Freedom (Elgar). This paper was delivered at Hillsdale College on February 8, 2004.

Notes

1. Lord Acton, “The History of Freedom in Antiquity” [1877], reprinted in Selected Writings of Lord Action: Essays in the History of Liberty (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1985), p. 7.

2. Ibid. p. 22.

3. Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996 [1927]), pp. 4, 52–55; Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996), pp. 145–57; Ludwig von Mises, Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1985 [1957]), pp. 49–50.

4. J. B. Bury, A History of Freedom of Thought (New York: Oxford University Press, 1913). Oliver Brett, A Defense of Liberty (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1921), pp. 151–70; Everett Dean Martin, Liberty (New York: W. W. Norton, 1930), pp. 193–238; see, also, John Morley, On Compromise(Edinburgh: Keele University Press, 1997 [1877]).

5. Guido de Ruggiero, The History of European Liberalism (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1981 [1927]), pp. 18–19.

6. Albert Venn Dicey, The Law of the Constitution (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1982 [1885; revised ed., 1914]), p. 114.

7. Lord Hewart, The New Despotism (London: Ernest Benn, Ltd., 1929), pp. 28–29; Francis W. Hirst, Liberty and Tyranny (London: Duckworth, 1935), pp. 67–74; Richard M. Ebeling, “Civil Liberty and the State: The Writ of Habeas Corpus,” Freedom Daily (April 2002), pp. 9–15.

8. Dicey, p. 132.

9. F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), pp. 148–61.

10. Geoffrey Brennan and James M. Buchanan, The Reason of Rules: Constitutional Political Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 1–18.

11. Werner Sombart, A New Social Philosophy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1937).

12. Werner Sombart, Handler und Helden: Patriotische Besinnungen (Munich: 1915).

13. Fritz K. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969), pp. 183–84; Jerry Z. Muller, The Mind and the Market: Capitalism and Modern European Thought (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002), pp. 256–57.

14. However, on the meaning of “leadership” in a free society, see Leonard E. Read, Elements of Libertarian Leadership (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1962); and The Coming Aristocracy (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1969).

15. Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1969 [1759]), pp. 242–43.

16. Jean-Baptiste Say, A Treatise on Political Economy, or the Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Wealth (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1971 [1821]), pp. 127–32; William Huskisson, Essays on Political Economy (Canberra: Australian National University, 1976 [1830]), pp. 45–64; Frédéric Bastiat, Economic Harmonies (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1964 [1850]), pp. 199–235; John R. McCulloch, The Principles of Political Economy, with Some Inquiries Respecting their Application (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1965 [1864]), pp. 25–36.

17. For recent statements of this idea, see, James M. Buchanan, Property as a Guarantor of Liberty (Brookfield, Vt..: Edward Elgar, 1993); Tom Bethell,The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998); and Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999).

18. Edward Shils, “The Virtue of Civil Society,” Government and Opposition, Winter 1991, pp. 3–20, and Robert Nisbet, Twilight of Authority (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975); also, Richard M. Ebeling, Austrian Economics and the Political Economy of Freedom (Northhampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar, 2003), Chapter 6: “Classical Liberalism and Collectivism in the 20th Century,” pp. 159–78, especially, pp. 168–72.

19. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (New York: The Modern Library, 1937 [1776]), Book I, Chapters 1–3, pp. 3–21; Mises, Human Action, pp. 143–76.

20. Friedrich A. Hayek, “The Results of Human Action, but not of Human Design” [1967] in Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967), pp. 96–105; reprinted in Richard M. Ebeling, ed., Austrian Economics: A Reader (Hillsdale, Mich.: Hillsdale College Press, 1991), pp. 134–49.

21. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, pp. 22–38.

22. Friedrich A. Hayek, “Competition as a Discovery Procedure” [1969] in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), pp. 179–90; and Thomas Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions (New York: Basic Books, 1980).

23. Richard M. Ebeling, “Globalization and Free Trade,” The Freeman, April 2004, pp. 2–3; on this general theme of the benefits from freedom of trade and its continuing importance today, see Richard M. Ebeling, Austrian Economics and the Political Economy of Freedom, Chapter 10, “The Global Economy and Classical Liberalism: Past, Present and Future,” pp. 247–81; and on related aspects of the same issue, Richard M. Ebeling and Jacob G. Hornberger, eds., The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration (Fairfax, Va.: Future of Freedom Foundation, 1995).

24. David Henderson, Anti-Liberalism, 2000 (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 2001), and David E. Bernstein, You Can’t Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2003).

25. Leonard E. Read, Anything That’s Peaceful (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Foundation for Economic Education, 1964).

26. >Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1981 [1951]), pp. 468–69, 540.

Source: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/free-markets-the-rule-of-law-and-classical-liberalism/

Avoid Chaos and Anarchy in Eritrea

2012-04-25T12:01:00.001-04:00

Mogos Tekeste

The Awate Team wrote Eritrea's Wasted Decade. I posted my misgivings on the way the article related the history of the Eritrean-Ethiopian border legal ruling.

The Awate Team in its reply to my comments challenged me that I use the term the rule of law non-stop and without fully explaining what it means. It is true that I am infatuated with the subject of the Rule of Law. I strongly believe that more than anything else this is the most crucial ingredient missing in Eritrea. This missing element is the main stumbling block from creating a stable, prosperous and liberal democratic society.

I wrote about this very subject on December 2009. I believe this article is relevant to the current debate.

It appears to me that the Awate Team is confused between three terms and how they relate to a particular political system – (1) The Law of the Land, (2) The Rule By Law, and (3) The Rule Of Law. (These are defined in the body of the text below.)

As aside, slavery, disenfranchisement of women, and the apartheid system were the laws of the land (the fist two in the USA and the last one in South Africa.) This enforcement of oppression of the worst kind using laws is generally categorized as the rule by law. These bad laws are antagonistic to the rule of law. The reason apartheid is abolished is that it violated the rule of law. Through the amendment process the USA abolished slavery and granted women equality. The reason again is to make the USA constitution conform to the rule of law.

The Awate Team also accuses me that I never use the word justice. As far as the word is concerned, I have no defense, I am guilty as charged. I also confess on my own that I rarely use the words – democracy and multiparty elections too. This is a deliberate plan on my part, since these three terms expressed as a stand alone are not coherent and if not handled properly give rise to divisiveness in a society.

Democracy and justice, whatever they mean since they are some of the most abused terms, along with elections bring about chaos, anarchy and despotism in a nation if the necessary prerequisite -- the rule of law -- is not fulfilled. Just examine very closely on what is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Egypt. The ethnic and religious groups are at each others throats', as all typical tribal societies that have not yet transitioned to a liberal democratic society behave. If things in the Eritrean opposition do not improve drastically it is within the realm of possibility that the above mentioned nations in a weird way display what is awaiting for us in future Eritrea. (For more insights see: (1) Francis Fukuyama, the Origins of Political Order; Chapter 17; The origins of the rule of law; and (2) Why Nations Fail, by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson.)

If one takes justice, we have the justice of the socialists and collectivists. Under a term called “social justice,” collectivists of all stripes expropriate private property; abolish middlemen and traders that are essential to a good functioning market economy, and they monopolize all economic activities. Collectivists disallow private ownership of private land, and decree that land belongs to the state; they go against the principle that "private property is the foundation of liberty." In nations such as Eritrea, where the capital market is undeveloped, the primary wealth of the people is land. And yet land is taken away from the people by the state. This draconian measure leaves the people very poor and worse makes the people a slave of the state. The excuse of the state is in order to have “an equitable distribution of wealth.” This does not conform to the rule of law. The “social justice” term and ideology is a favorite one of the PFDJ.

Under a term called Islamic justice, the Taliban and other look alike in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan chop off the hands of thieves, stone to death female ( not male) adulteress, decree fatwas on the head of individuals who speak their minds and voice their opinions. All these actions are antithetical to the rule of law. In short, these are "cruel and unusual" punishment.

And what is the name of the party in power in Eritrea? You guessed it – People’s Front for Justice and Democracy -- again the abused terms justice and democracy

Unlike the terms justice and democracy, the definition of the rule of law is somewhat precise, and this is unless one wants to play dumb on purpose. Here is a definition from the United Nations.

“The Secretary-General defines the rule of law as: a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.’’

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

The rule of law as defined above already incorporates whatever good one wants to associate with “justice.” When I advocate for a rule of law, in a way I am advocating for something good that one associates with justice. At a conceptual level, this is my defense as far as justice is concerned.

The article pasted below was published at Asmarino on December 2009. It is my full response to the Awate Team. Thanks.

____________________________________________________________________________

The Rule of Law in Eritrea

Mogos Tekeste

December 2009

There seems to be a lot of confusion on the status of the rule of law in Eritrea.

This confusion contributes towards the opposition being at odds with each other, extends a life support system to the oppressive political order of the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) and finally, it baffles the international democratic forces and discourages it from lending an effective and valuable targeted support to the Eritrean people.

Some use “the rule of law” clumsily and without having a deep understanding behind the meaning of that terminology. The current intensive debate about the current land ownership and use is a case in point; some want to solve the problems using group rights based on a very nebulous power sharing arrangement. An arrangement that is not in synch with the rule of law. If one scrutinizes their stands on other important issues such as -- working languages, the Eritrean-Ethiopian border demarcation -- one also finds their proposals have no basis on law.

Others naively claim that there is the rule of law in Eritrea. To sustain their claim, they maintain that Eritrea is ruled by the charter that was adopted by the PFDJ in its congress of 1994. They assert that this is a temporary and transient mechanism. (Heaven only knows how a system that has lasted for about fifteen years can be characterized as an ephemeral and a momentary one.) According to them, the charter is the law of the land. There is no contest on that point. However, from this, they erroneously equate this law of the land with the rule of law.

History of Legal Liberty:

From the legal perspective the history of liberty has progressed through three distinctive and qualitative stages. This progression may not be a one way linear progression in all societies. (At times there are regressions too. That had been the history of the East Europeans during the heydays of socialism.) Still, the general trend over a long period of time is progressive.

· “For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous -- law was simply the will of the ruler.

· A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means.

· Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives.” See The Rule of Law

The First Stage, Where the Law of the Land is Arbitrary Edicts and Decrees:

In this stage, there are no rules to speak of. The leader essentially rules through arbitrary edicts and rules. There are no known and predictable rules that bind the leader. The leader and the state are synonymous. In such a system liberty is trashed. The words of the leader are the laws of the land. The living conditions of the people are no better than that of slaves or serfs. For the most part, Eritrea under the PFDJ is currently in such a very primitive stage of liberty.

The Second Stage, Where the Law of the Land is the Rule By Law:

In the second stage, the state is governed and bound by strict laws. The leader has to follow the rules. And mostly these rules are written. That is there are constitutions. These rules become the law of the land. Such a state is characterized as having a system that is governed by the rule by law.

In a system that is governed by the rule by law, though there are constitutions and rules, in real practice there is the absence of some civil liberties. Hence, even barbaric violation of human rights take the cover of legalities and court approvals. The second stage, though much more advanced than the first stage -- where the leader, or Capo, or King is the law --, the state sometimes has little respect for what are generally referred to as negative liberties. The most significant are: respect of freedom of religion, of association, of expression and of movement; respect of property rights; guarantee of the due process of law, such as “the existence of due process of law, for example, the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty; the concept of writ habeas corpus – ‘the right to be brought before a court to determine whether one has been lawfully detained.’” and; the enforcement of contracts and etc. These are rights that are reserved for individuals, and the state is legally prohibited from interfering with.

One can mention Ethiopia and China as two typical examples that have states that are governed by the rule by law. Both nations have constitutions and their leaders can substantiate to all they do to some articles and rules in their constitutions, despite the fact that some of their rules may violate various civil liberties. In short, they have legal covers to what they do. Still, a state that is governed by the rule by law is much better than a state that is not governed by any laws. At least, there are functioning courts. This second stage may enable a nation to move forward to a stage where civil liberties are respected – a period where the rule of law is supreme.

On the other hand, Eritrea is not even in the second stage, for now we might as well forget the rule of law. Worse, the leaders of the PFDJ are not even bound by the charters and rule of their very own organization, hence no known and predictable law of any kind. The leaders of the PFDJ cannot legally substantiate to some of their actions. See the Coup d’état in Eritrea

The Third Stage, Where the Law of the Land is the Rule Of Law:

In the third stage civil liberties are respected and a state that respects civil liberties follows the rule of law. Two typical examples of states that follow the rule of law are the USA and South Africa; in these nations the law of the land is the rule of law.

These civil liberties are also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights are also embedded in the ratified Eritrean constitution; something that the opposition rarely highlights and does all it can to bury it under the rug. I judge the merit of the ratified constitution by its superb stand on civil liberties. If Eritrea were to implement its constitution and strictly abide by its letter and content, for the most part one may rightly conclude that the law of the land in Eritrea is in tune with the rule of law. As a rule of thump, a nation that does not respect the universal declaration of human rights violates the rule of law. This is where Eritrea is now.

Like all theoretical explanations of stages, no phase is pure. Take the USA, for example, for the most part the constitution of the USA was in harmony with the rule of law. Still, there were some major blunders. The very constitution that protected liberties for the majority denied the same rights to the black minority and espoused slavery. This is a violation of the rule of law. It took almost hundred years and the presidency of Lincoln to restore the rule of law regarding the status of African-Americans. “More than 600,000 men died [in a bitter civil war] before the sin of slavery was purged.” Lincoln had to resort back to the declaration of independence where it claimed all men are created equal and not the constitution to have a legal footing in his fight to eradicate slavery. The very constitution of the USA also disenfranchised women for many years until the constitution was to be amended. They used the amendment process to refine their constitution and to be in concord with the rule of law.

This history is also lost among the Eritrean opposition; a group that is not saintly itself and yet has the audacity to demand an impossible perfection from others -- a perfect constitution is a pipedream. The ratified Eritrean constitution has an amendment provision too; another item that the opposition remains to be silent about, since it is easier to reject an entity than improve and develop it which requires a difficult, contemplative and arduous work. (For more insights on the rule of law, please see the books noted below. **)

The Need for a Single Coherent Message:

Some in the opposition emphasize on elections and not the rule of law as highlighted above. Recently, others claim that the problem in Eritrea, irrespective of the current coercive political order, is the dichotomy between the highlanders and the lowlanders, which they believe has disadvantaged the lowlanders. Or to put it differently and bluntly they claim that the highlanders are reaping benefits under the rule of the PFDJ. Nothing is far from the truth. Then they advocate for the Eritrean people to organize along sectarian and religious lines in order to fight for group rights. They categorize the highlanders (read Christians) in one group and the lowlanders (read Muslims) in another group. This so called dichotomy of the highlanders versus the lowlanders is blown up beyond proportions; in this the perpetuators of such half truths are no different than the PFDJ. Needles to say, the PFDJ is as repressive to the highlanders as it is to the lowlanders.

The solution to the problems of Eritrea is the establishment of the rule of law. We have to advocate for constitutional liberalism and the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism is defined as follows:

· “Constitutional liberalism … is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source -- state, church, or society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. Its canonical figures include the poet John Milton, the jurist William Blackstone, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin. In almost all of its variants, constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them. Thus in 1215 at Runnymede, England's barons forced the king to abide by the settled and customary law of the land. In the American colonies these laws were made explicit, and in 1638 the town of Hartford adopted the first written constitution in modern history. In the 1970s, Western nations codified standards of behavior for regimes across the globe. The Magna Carta, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the American Constitution, and the Helsinki Final Act are all expressions of constitutional liberalism.” See The Rise of Illiberal Democracy

I often stress that the only document that can effectively unify the Eritrean people is the ratified constitution. This is assuming that it be amended to exclude the state from being the sole owner of all Eritrean land, and to include the official languages of Eritrea. Regarding the other items of the rule of law, the ratified constitution is as good as many constitutions in the world including that of the USA.

The sad part is that we have an opposition that is unable to see something good, if not prefect, albeit not of its own creation in the ratified constitution. It is oblivious to the fact that it is much easier to rally the people inside Eritrea behind the ratified constitution. It is unaware to the fact that the international democratic force can be an effective advocate for the implementation of the constitution. All our grievances be it freedom of the press, religion, association and movement; respect of property rights and due process of law can be handled by a simple message that all Eritreans to the last person can propagate – implement the constitution.

It appears that the outright rejection of the constitution has become a shackle on the neck of the opposition. The rejection of the ratified constitution by many has completely left the opposition paralyzed. It simply does not have a coherent message. Hence the constant and petty squabbling and the non stop reorganizing and splitting. The PFDJ is equipped with a mindset that is engrossed in envy and hatred of educated Eritreans. The opposition should do its best to avoid an affliction of such grave malady. We should celebrate success and great works of Eritreans; and the constitution authored by Dr. Bereket and his colleagues is a work of great acclaim.

Dictatorial regimes eventually crumble down. History teaches us that the fate of the PFDJ will not be any different; if nothing else, the force of its deadweight inertia will be its undoing. When that time comes, the only weapon that the Eritrean people possess to create a secure, united, stable and viable liberal democratic state is the speedy implementation of the ratified constitution. This will be accomplished by the people inside Eritrea. The Diaspora opposition has a choice to speed up or delay this process.

Mogos Tekeste

Notes:

*My earlier posts are compiled in my BlogSpot. The site also provides links to articles that succinctly elucidate the concept of the rule of law and constitutional liberalism. The address is as follows:

http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

** Important books on the rule of law in a descending chronological importance:

1. The Constitution of Liberty, by F. A. Hayek

2. The Open Society and its Enemies, by Karl Popper

3. The Future of Freedom, by Fareed Zakaria

War Over a One-Horse Town

2012-03-28T12:09:00.001-04:00

War Over a One-Horse Town

FRANK JACOBS

About 125 millennia ago, the southern end of the strait between Africa and Arabia was much narrower, and may have been the springboard for one of early humanity’s great migratory leaps. [1] A big deal for everyone who has come along since, but the question of where, exactly, those first people out of Africa came from matters immensely to two very antagonistic neighbors. At this moment, in some Internet chat room, the locals are fighting over the nationality of those Red Sea pedestrians: did they originate in Eritrea, or in Ethiopia?

Hyperbole perhaps, but not by much. Few countries harbor as much mutual enmity as Ethiopia and Eritrea (which won its independence over the former in 1993, after a 40-year struggle, by helping to topple Ethiopia’s military junta), and they haggle over the seemingly smallest distinction. Pedigree, both personal and national [2], is a prominent subject in the war of words between these East African nations, across a border that, several years after they stopped fighting, is still “hot,” relatively new and fiercely contested.

The region’s recorded history goes back to 2500 B.C., when it was known to the Egyptians as Punt [3]. In the intervening centuries, countless empires rose and fell, their legacies providing ample ammunition for today’s competing national narratives. Even Balkan grudges, most of them merely centuries old, pale in comparison.

In a region steeped in history, Eritrea’s “newness” is used as an inculpatory argument — proof of its artificiality. Eritrea was a European imperialist creation, the Ethiopian line of reasoning goes, snatched from a united Ethiopian Empire by Italy’s imposition of the Treaty of Wuchale in 1889. The deceptive Article 17 of that treaty[4] led to the First Italo-Ethiopian War, from 1895 to 1896 — and a win for Ethiopia, the only victory of a native African state over a modern European one in modern history.

The resulting Treaty of Addis Ababa, signed in 1896, secured Ethiopia’s independence, but confirmed the loss of Eritrea. How great a loss, though, was never precisely defined. The border between Eritrea and Ethiopia may have been delimitated (i.e., defined by treaty), and subsequently delineated (on maps, at several occasions into the early 20th century), but never even tentatively demarcated (indicated on the ground with markers, signs or fences)[5]. Since Ethiopia effectively absorbed Eritrea after a defeated Italy ceded control of it after World War II, the border wasn’t really an issue. With an armed, independent and unfriendly Eritrea next door, suddenly the border, and Ethiopia’s claim over as much territory as possible, mattered a lot.

Joe Burgess/The New York Times

The Eritreans neatly reverse the argument. Ethiopia never really “owned” Eritrea; it simply replicated the Italian colonial model. Post-1945, the United Nations mandated federation between Ethiopia and Eritrea, but in 1962, the former proceeded with outright annexation, making the latter its 14th province. The imposition of Amharic, Ethiopia’s lingua franca, in Eritrean schools was not only a blatant example of Ethiopian colonialism, it also helped spark the war that would lead to independence [6], through a referendum supervised by the United Nations.

Despite a brief thawing of relations after Eritrea won its independence, the countries have been at each other’s throats for nearly two decades. You don’t need to take a stand on whether or how much Eritreans and Ethiopians resemble each other to notice a grim symmetry in their relationship. Both countries – democracies in name only [7] – support each other’s opposition movements, and fight a proxy war in Somalia: Eritrea supports the Islamist Shabab militias, while Ethiopia backs the fledgling Transitional Federal Government in Mogadishu.

Most recently, on March 15, 2012, Ethiopia sent troops across the Eritrean border to attack three bases of the Afar Revolutionary Democratic Unity Front [8], allegedly in retaliation for the group’s attacks on a tourist party inside Ethiopia [9]. This fueled fears of a sequel to the bloody Eritrean-Ethiopian war of 1998 to 2000, which cost between 70,000 and 100,000 lives.

That war was not only underreported, but also highly surreal: The linchpin of the conflict was Badme — a town that either doesn’t exist, or is located somewhere else, under another name.

The eponymous plain around the town is “relatively useless borderland” [10] between boundary rivers, the Mareb in the north and the Setit in the south. But it has become symbolic to both sides — a sort of East African Kosovo Polje [11] — because it is where the war started, in May 1998: Ethiopian troops killed some Eritrean soldiers near the border, and Eritrea retaliated by occupying the previously Ethiopian-held town of Badme. If the Eritrean regime had counted on exploiting the vaguely worded Italian-era border delimitations to their advantage, they had forgotten that most of the Ethiopian leadership, including the prime minister, Meles Zenawi, originated in Tigray, the province affected by the occupation.

Ethiopia responded with “total war,” simultaneously attacking on several fronts, and bombarding the airport of Eritrea’s capital Asmara, which invited retaliatory air raids by Eritrea. In a regression from tactics of World War II to those from World War I, the air phase was followed by an intense phase of trench warfare. Thousands died in dusty ditches at Badme and other, smaller disputed areas further east: Tsorone-Zalambessa and Bure. By May 2000, Ethiopia occupied all disputed areas, and about 20 percent of Eritrea’s (uncontested) territory.

Eritrea admitted defeat. But Ethiopia clumsily managed to not capitalize on its victory. The loss of Eritrea in 1993 left Ethiopia bereft of direct access to the sea, and yet the regime in Addis Ababa did not even request access to an Eritrean port as part of an eventual settlement. All it wanted was Badme back.

Incredibly, in its final report in 2002 the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (E.E.B.C.) mentioned Badme just once by name, never even showing it on the map. This is because of confusion over what and where Badme is, exactly. Well south of the disputed border, clearly on the Ethiopian side, is a town called Yirga [12], founded in the 1950s by Ethiopians. The locals call it Badme, and that word is used also to refer to the wider plain on which the town is set. And that plain is divided by the disputed border [13]. In the old Italo-Ethiopian documents, the area remains totally unnamed simply because it was then uninhabited.

The E.E.B.C. reprised a straight line, unilaterally proposed by the Italians, as the international border, slicing off most of the disputed Badme Triangle for Eritrea. Ethiopia’s objections came too late, creating a fait demi-accompli: an international border that is the result of arbitration, but remains disputed by one of the parties involved. Ethiopia still occupies these and other areas that it claims are disputed rather than accorded to Eritrea.

This sounds like a fuse waiting for a fire. So why didn’t Ethiopia’s recent incursion kick off a Second Ethiopian-Eritrean War? Perhaps Eritrea didn’t hit back because the balance of force has tipped further in Ethiopia’s advantage. Ethiopia, with over 80 million inhabitants and a relatively robust economy, is an undisputed regional power. Eritrea, numbering barely 6 million, is suffering under crippling international sanctions imposed for its support of Shabab [14]. Maybe Eritrea is finally too poor, and Ethiopia too rich, to fight over a one-horse town. Or, maybe, the next round of fighting between these two Horn of Africa antagonists is still awaiting the proper spark.

Frank Jacobs is a London-based author and blogger. He writes about cartography, but only the interesting bits.

[1] The standard “Out of Africa” hypothesis has a small group of Homo sapiens crossing the Red Sea into the Sinai and thence the rest of Eurasia – a curious prefiguration of the Mosaic trek into the Promised Land, by the way. A second theory explains the peculiarities of mitochondrial DNA distribution throughout the world with a separate, coastal migration from East Africa via Arabia to India. That route remains relevant for today’s migratory flows — increasingly so, in fact: in 2011, more than 100,000 refugeescrossed over to Yemen from Africa, double the figure for 2010.

[2] In 2010, Ethiopia’s prime minister, Meles Zenawi, denied rumorsthat he was a cousin of Isayas Afewerki, the Eritrean president. Zenawi’s Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and Afewerki’s Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) together defeated the Soviet-supported Derg (“committee”) that controlled Addis Ababa in 1991, but fell out soon after Eritrea declared independence in 1993.

[3] The scope of Punt, a source of precious materials and slaves to Pharaonic Egypt, is uncertain, but most definitions include Eritrea. The country’s present name derives from the Greek word for “red,” as in the name of the adjacent sea (Erythra Thalassa: Red Sea). That name may refer to the ancient custom of associating directions with colors. See also footnote [9] of Where Is Europe?

[4] A funny thing happened on the way to the translator. In the Amharic version of Article 17, the treaty merely suggests that Italy can act as an intermediary to the outside world. The Italian version obliges Ethiopia to use Italian mediation, effectively ceding control over its foreign relations to Rome.

[5] Delimitation would become unnecessary, as Italy eventually had its way with Ethiopia. Mussolini defeated Emperor Haile Selassie in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War (1935-1936) and annexing it intoAfrica Orientale Italiano, comprising present-day Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia, minus its northwestern angle (then British Somaliland).

[6] Language education policy may not seem like the stuff revolutions are made of. And yet… In 1976, the introduction of Afrikaans, seen as the language of the white minority, as a compulsory medium of instruction for black students in South Africa led to large-scale riots, which fanned the flames of a protest movement that chipped away at white minority rule, finally ending apartheid in the early 1990s.

[7] Eritrea’s national elections, slated for 2001, were shelved because of the conflict with Ethiopia. No new date has been set. In Ethiopia’s most recent parliamentary elections in 2010, only two out of the total 547 seats were won by candidates not members of or affiliated with the ruling EPRDF party.

[8] If you want to be taken seriously in the world of East African rebel groups, a Group, Organization or even an Army won’t do. You have to be a Front. See also: Eritrean Liberation Front, Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, Front for the Restoration of Unity and Democracy, Islamic Front for the Liberation of Oromia, Ogaden National Liberation Front, Oromo Liberation Front, People’s Front for Democracy and Justice, Somali National Front, Somali Salvation Democratic Front, Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, Western Somali Liberation Front.

[9] The Afar are a distinct ethnicity, distributed across Djibouti, Eritrea and Ethiopia, where there is an Afar Regional State. The ARDUF rejects attempts at border demarcation between Ethiopia and Eritrea, as this divides the Afar homeland.

[10] Says Jon Abbink in “Badme and the Ethio-Eritrean Border: The Challenge of Demarcation in the Post-War Period,” a fascinating resume of the war and its consequences (or lack thereof).

[11] On this “Blackbird Field” (in Serbo-Croatian) outside Pristina, the Ottomans gained a pyrrhic victory over the Serbs in 1389 — an experience imprinted on the Serbian psyche, informing the aggrieved strand of Serbian nationalism that was instrumental in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

[12] Apparently after Aba Yirga, the favorite horse of Seyoum Mengesha, who founded the village. Perhaps the original one-horse town?

[13] Mr Abbink repeats the suggestion to resolve the by now highly prestigious matter of ownership of Badme by having two towns called Badme. But confuse matters, some maps show a settlement just north of the border (and about 10 miles northwest of Yirga) that is called Badme. Could this whole matter be resolved by officially renaming Yirga into another Badme?

[14] Not that Eritrea treats its own citizens so great. It has the distinction of being the only country in the world to score worse than North Korea on the Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders: in 2010, it came dead last, 178th out of 178 countries.

Source: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/war-over-a-one-horse-town/?emc=eta1

Ethiopia’s Military Incursions on Eritrea are Illegal

2012-03-19T14:23:00.002-04:00

Ethiopia took some punitive military actions on Eritrea on March 15 and 17, 2012.

Yes, in Eritrea there is no respect of the rule of law. The regime in Eritrea internally oppresses its own people and externally violates international law. This is obvious to all and thus there is no need to debate this point.

Despite the fact that Ethiopia has elections, a working parliament, a somewhat relaxed freedom of press and etc. it is still a nation that violates the rule of law. By any measure, Ethiopia is not a paragon of democracy.

Ethiopia also violates international law. A case in point, Ethiopia still occupies Badme, a village legally assigned to Eritrea by a court of law at The Hague. Both Eritrea and Ethiopia willingly and without duress went to this international court. Eritrea and Ethiopia accepted before hand to be bound by the legal decisions of the court. The verdicts are final and binding. Yet, Ethiopia reneged on its willingly entered upon international contract. This is a violation of international law and treaty. There is also no need to debate this point too.

What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. The standards have to be applied consistently and equally to both Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Sometimes wars start as small skirmishes and military incursions here and there. These seemingly small events may take their own lives towards uncontrollable ends. The results are bad with all unintended consequences. It is very easy to start a war but difficult to stop. The USA is still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is more than ten years. And the USA is a giant and a democratic nation and a sole super-power. Ethiopia and Eritrea are hardly at the political, economic and military developmental stage of that of the USA. Eritreans and Ethiopians have to learn some valuable lessons from this painful experience of the Americans, Iraqis, and Afghans. This is lest we forget our own hellish and brutal experience. Any war is damaging to Eritrea and Ethiopia.

The military incursions by Ethiopia into Eritrea have to be condemned without any condition.

Ethiopia can provide Eritreans with all kind of assistance to unseat the PFDJ regime from state power if it so desires, but it has no legal right to invade Eritrea and kill our innocent youth.

Birthright of Eritreans

2012-03-12T21:00:00.000-04:00

On the late Naizghi Kiflu, in accordance with my Tewahdo religion and my cultural and traditional upbringing, I give my condolences to his family and his close friends.

History will judge the role that Naizghi played in the Eritrean national liberation struggle, both good and bad, along with that of the top echelons of the despotic PFDJ. There is plenty of time for that summation and reflection. This is not the time though.

The burial of the corpse of Naizghi in Eritrea is a different matter; it is no longer an issue that concerns only his family. The PFDJ itself decided to politicize this issue. This is an extremely abnormal situation. Though in Eritrea under the PFDJ regime, the abnormal has become the "normal."

The PFDJ can deny Naizghi's corpse from being laid to rest in the Patriotic Cemetery in Asmara for whatever ill conceived reason it may have. There is no need to contest that point. However, it cannot legally deny his corpse from being put to rest in its ancestral and home village, around Mendefera in Eritrea. The PFDJ has no respect of the law, be it our traditional laws the "Highi E'Nda Aba" or the rule of law as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The denial of the corpse from resting in its home village in Eritrea is a violation of its God given birthright. It is a violation of the rule of law. No state has a right to illegally take away the birthright of any Eritrean.

The violation of the legal birthright of one Eritrean, irrespective of who that Eritrean may be, is a violation of the legal birthrights of five million Eritreans. This is immaterial whether that Eritrean is good or bad, is a criminal or an innocent person, is a naive or a wise and accomplished person, is a supporter of the government or is an enemy of the government. We have to be firm and consistent on our principles. The rule of law has to protect all of us, that includes groups whom we may consider are our "enemies."

Vaclav Havel, Dissident Playwright Who Led Czechoslovakia, Dead at 75

2011-12-18T14:45:00.006-05:00

In the last thirty years, I have been tremendously influenced by three great individuals. My heroes are: Hayek, Mandela and Havel.

Hayek taught me through his books the philosophy, politics and economics underpinnings of the crystallization of civilization and the rule of law through two thousand years of world history.

Mandela and Havel taught me through their leaderships in South Africa and the Czech Republic the meanings of magnanimity and generosity of heart; almost Christ like creatures who enabled their respective nations to transition from dictatorship to liberal democracy without any hiccup.

Havel was free from vendetta and enmity that “… he refused to outlaw the Communist Party or to put on trial the system that had allowed neighbors to send one another to labor camps.” I am still optimistic that the Eritrean opposition learns from such gentle and thoughtful leadership qualities that unify and not unnecessarily split the people. The quality of leadership is tested by how it treats its “enemies.”

A notable quote of Havel follows: "A state that denies its citizens their basic rights becomes a danger to its neighbors as well: internal arbitrary rule will be reflected in arbitrary external relations. The suppression of public opinion, the abolition of public competition for power and its public exercise opens the way for the state power to arm itself in any way it sees fit. ... A state that does not hesitate to lie to its own people will not hesitate to lie to other states."

Havel rest in peace.

The Ratified Eritrean Constitution and the Rule of Law in Eritrea

2011-08-29T10:26:00.004-04:00

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

The main stumbling block towards prosperity, peace and stability in Eritrea is the absence of the rule of law. The ratified Eritrean Constitution has not been implemented; if this constitution were to be implemented for the most part Eritrea will be in harmony with the rule of law, since within the constitution principles of the universal declaration of human rights are embedded. The clarion call for the respect of the rule of law in Eritrea is the implementation of the ratified Eritrea constitution. Keeping this worthwhile goal alive, the Eritrean Mereb has decided to compile the following important articles that deal with the rule of law in Eritrea.

Editor, the Eritrean Mereb; August 29, 2011.

=============================================================

The Irony of Ironies: In Support of the Ratified Eritrean Constitution

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

February 28, 2003

Lately there is a debate to steer the course of the democratic struggle towards the ratified Eritrean Constitution, as exemplified in the Awate.com's The Pencil, titled "Picking Up Where DIA Left Off, February 24, 2003, “and the "Pull-Push Strategy - The Ratified Eritrean Constitution as a Guide, by K. G. Kahsai, February 19, 2003," at Asmarino.com and other Eritrean internet sites.

It is about time that we urge all Eritreans to rally behind the ratified Eritrean Constitution. Some may want a "perfect" constitution not realizing or ignoring that many Eritreans may disagree on what constitutes the "perfect." We should not allow "the perfect to be the enemy of the good." Apparently, we have complex problems. The solution to our problems will be simpler if we merely break them into manageable small pieces. With the right tact and a demand of tremendous humility of leadership, the Eritrean Constitution can unify the majority of Eritreans who crave for prosperity, democracy, liberty and peace. This includes the overwhelming majority of the PFDJ members.

Give the devil his due, the PFDJ as an institution has done a heavy lifting to the fundamental solutions to our long-term problems. As constitutions go, it has ratified a good one; nevertheless, some in the opposition want to rewrite a new constitution from scratch because they have qualms with some of its articles. Some state that they were not represented. But that is a procedural and not a significant material. Their reservations and oppositions filtered down to their essentials boil down to the fact that they object to certain rules. It seems to me this is unwise. Why should we reinvent the wheel of drafting a constitution when we already have a readymade workable one, and I might add, written by some of our best scholars, legal experts and other knowledgeable people? In addition, it has been heavily debated and enriched by the wisdom of the Eritrean people. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water. We should be gracious enough to acknowledge success and achievements of our compatriots. We should use the constitution as a springboard to reach another plateau.

I, like many others, have reservations of certain rules that I believe constrain liberty. A case in point is the monopolization of the land by the state. I believe that a constitution that includes rules, which violate the respect of property rights, and in particular that deny a people the right to own land, is tantamount to condemning them to slavery. Granted, there is a possibility that some part of the Eritrean people may disagree with my view. Thus, I have no right to reject the constitution just because I disagree with certain articles. Like-minded people and I have obligations to challenge and influence our future constitutional representatives, for example to amend the article on the right to own land. In such a predicament the right course to take is to convince enough people to see things our way, hence for dialogue, and be open to amendment. I understand this is an uphill battle, but the alternative choice may be much worse - chaos and anarchy.

Even the most rabid and fanatic supporters of the PFDJ do not oppose the implementation of the constitution. Now and then they may bring issue of timing. Government affairs are not always smooth. Government is established among others to secure stability, ensure peace, protect rights, defend liberties, mediate and manage crisis. A constitutional government established by fair and free elections will do much better in managing any crisis because of transparency and accountability. If such a constitutional government fails the people in major policies, then the people cannot blame anyone except themselves for putting the wrong personnel at the helm of the state power; and through their votes in a peaceful manner, they will boot out the incompetent and undesirable ones. What people with common sense want is the setting of a reasonable timetable for the implementation of the ratified Eritrean Constitution. The schedule once set should not be unnecessarily postponed, and violated. Until then, the PFDJ should abide itself by the spirit of the ratified Eritrean Constitution and rule with restraint, kindness and compassion.

Just because the PFDJ, so far, has not kept up its promises should not discourage us from appealing to reason and wisdom. We cannot expect a collectivist thinking that took root in Eritrea with the advent of the armed struggle to be changed at a spark of a light. Those who want an overnight and radical change, and sadly so through violence, may wrongly conclude that this is a sign of apprehension and fear. Nothing is far from the truth. Those who implicitly advocate for violence, one way or another, have to persuade us that they have exhausted all the peaceful venues. They should convince us and show us with practical deeds of where and when they have displayed utmost humility, give-and-take and compromise. Actually, one of our biggest fears is that some zealots may want to abolish everything good that happened in Eritrea under the watch of the PFDJ. And among the good things include the ratified Eritrean Constitution.

The problem is not with deficiencies, real or imagined, that are contained in the ratified Eritrean Constitution. Our serious and paramount problem is that the document has been shelved indefinitely by the PFDJ to collect dust and it has not been implemented. Lately, even in passing, the PFDJ leadership does not mention the document at all. It has decided to avoid it like the plague. When it has been repeatedly asked, for example, how it plans to solve the problem of the G-15, it rarely mentions the ratified constitution. Rather, it replies that it will solve all outstanding problems in accordance with its organizational tradition and culture. This means nothing but the collectivist culture of the armed struggle, and not the rule of law. Reasonable people might disagree on the value of that culture, and admittedly, that culture might have been in tune with its time and the demands of the armed struggle; and it might have served its purpose properly.

But we have to admit that, that culture was imposed on us by necessity, in order to liberate Eritrea from colonialism, and is a culture of militancy and violence - and not a culture of a civil society. Let us leave for historians to sort out the positive and negative aspects of it. But in today's Eritrea, an independent and sovereign nation, to resort back to the culture and tradition of the armed struggle is out of place, and out of date, to say the least. Thus, anything that comes out of that so-called organizational tradition and culture may be characterized as "capricious and arbitrary." This violates due process of law, the fundamental premise of innocent until proven guilty, and the laws and genuine traditions of our "H'Ghi E'nDaba."

The top echelon of the PFDJ is dragging its feet from implementing the constitution; in this, it appears that it has gained in some an inadvertent company. These happen to be some zealots who want to completely abandon the ratified Eritrean Constitution and who want to start afresh and anew. This is the irony of ironies. The top echelon of the PDFJ may feel, and rightly so, that with the implementation of the constitution it may be "cornered" and that it may be asked to account for all the ills of Eritrea. Slowly and unconsciously it appears that we are marching on a road of creating a society that is vindictive and full of envy. We have a moral obligation to break this mould before it consumes and devours us. I leave this for bigger minds than mine to come up with a merciful solution that does not leave a single Eritrean out in the cold by himself. For now, it may suffice to state that, we should demonstrate leniency and clemency for past ills. As a compromise and a win-win situation, we may have to agree that the ratified Eritrean Constitution once implemented is applicable only on a prospective and not a retroactive basis. This may give some sort of face saving and an exit strategy to those who may feel that they are "cornered." We have to sincerely believe in forgiveness and avoid finger pointing and accept whatever failures we have as our collective failures. In this respect, experiences of South Africa, Chile and the old Soviet Union could be relevant to our situation.

The bottom line is that this may enable us to create a very broad coalition that also includes the majority members of the PFDJ as its army in our fight to create a constitutional government. Our clarion call should be the implementation of the ratified Eritrean Constitution. In anybody's book, it is very hard to recognize any organization or group that does not accept the ratified Eritrean Constitution, irrespective of its opposition and reservations to certain articles, and engage as a loyal opposition to form a coalition. We have to have certain minimum common factors that unite us, and this, at least for now, should not exclude the PFDJ. This will assist us to arrive at a compromise on agreed-upon-principles and start the process of election. Election is a peaceful contest that results in a victory for some and a defeat for others, and it is not a compromise. We are doomed to a losing and disintegrated strategy, should we stray away from this course.

In conclusion, I would like to change gear to the issue of the looming famine in Eritrea. We should all actively participate in the alleviation of the famine in Eritrea, through organizations that we feel comfortable with - either non-governmental or governmental organizations, Eritrean or non-Eritrean - on top of the direct remittances we usually send to our immediate and extended family members. Sure, there are natural and political factors that caused the famine. But right now lamenting about their causes cannot be food or solace to our suffering people. We should avoid politicizing the famine. Peace and happiness to all!

===============================================================

A Call for Unity

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

July 9, 2004

Introduction

It is almost five years since some Eritreans sympathetic to the PFDJ openly started to question its wisdom about its management of the war with Ethiopia and its administration of Eritrea. Prior to it, there were Eritreans with rich experience in ELF who questioned the authority and legitimacy of the PFDJ rule, but they were given deaf ears. Since 2000, many incisive and groundbreaking articles have been written. At times, such upright Eritreans were given all kind of unsavory names in order to discourage others from stepping up to the plate and doing the same. It did not work, the avalanche of ideas has not stopped and the momentum continued at a tremendous speed.

Then came the G-13 and the G-15. They gave tremendous weight to the ideas that were propagated by simple citizens. The G-13 and the G-15 are courageous Eritreans. It is very rare in history where groups or individuals challenge a despotic regime from within its own den, since one’s fate is assuredly the dungeon or death.

The G-15 was in a position of power and prestige. It could have ignored the plight of Eritreans, and continued to live in a relative comfort within a sea of misery. It decided otherwise. This is extremely noble. Some may quarrel with the tactics and methods of struggle that the G-15 employed but strategically its contribution towards the struggle for the establishment of the rule of law in Eritrea is immense, and I believe history will record it as such.

I have my qualms with some of the leaders of the traditional opposition. For the life of me, I cannot understand the wisdom of boycotting the referendum, though they have a fundamental right and liberty not to partake in the process, and not participating in the drafting of the constitution. Still I give them tremendous credit for consistently seeing the top leadership of the PFDJ for what they are – despotic leaders of a cruel regime. It is a very humbling experience.

The Eritrean people and the opposition should be very proud of their achievements. It took them a mere five years to expose the real nature of the PFDJ - an unreconstructed communist and collectivist entity that abrogates individual Eritrean liberties and that has no respect for the rule of law. It took almost seventy years for the people of the old Soviet Union to come to grips with such devilish monstrosity. The opposition should not sit idle on its laurels, but on the other hand it has to be proud of its great achievements so far.

All the articles penned in the last five years, despite the fact coming from different viewpoints and experiences, have two salient features.

First, it is the management of the recent war with Ethiopia. Views differ on many aspects of the war. Still, the majority agrees on one major point: the peaceful and legal channels should have been exhausted. Finally, the Delimitation Decision is a victory for both the Eritrean and Ethiopian peoples. The issue is not which side was awarded more territory. Rather, the issue is the boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia is finally sealed through an international legal ruling. The rule of law will eventually prevail.

Second, it is the emphasis that there has never been the rule of law in Eritrea under the PFDJ. The PFDJ has been ruling Eritrea through decrees, and there are no liberal institutions that check its power. The PFDJ takes the Eritrean people for granted and ultimately it abuses its unfettered power. Hence, first and foremost, Eritrea needs the rule of law. There is almost absolute unanimity on this issue among all Eritreans: Yes, by many supporters of the PFDJ and those who are opposed to it. The only difference is the mechanism that one employs to start the process of the reign of the rule of law in Eritrea. This paper will deal with this issue, but before we go there I need to point out phases of struggle, as I understand them.

I categorize the last five years of the struggle as a phase of exposing and describing the real nature of the PFDJ regime. Hence, it was the stage of awareness and exposition. For all intents and purpose, this struggle was spontaneous; no sneer intended on the opposition, since the opposition itself was part of the spontaneous movement. This has been accomplished with so much ease. Imagine ardent supporters of the PFDJ like Dan Connel and Thomas Keneally, and international entities like the USA, EU and human rights organizations are now dancing to the tunes of the opposition and the Eritrean people: the need for the rule of law in Eritrea. These are telling signs of the victory of the first phase.

I believe we are entering the second phase where maintaining unity of ideas and consolidation and institutionalization of what has been achieved so far become important. By unity or unifying factor, I do not mean organizational unity. The opposition seems to confuse the unity of ideas within the Eritrean people with organizational unity among the opposition. I have no intention to discount the importance of organizational unity. Though beneficial, I do not believe organizational unity is as crucial. Unity of ideas is crucial. In this respect kudos to all Eritreans who are in the forefront of the struggle since there is unity among all Eritreans of all political persuasion of the need to establish the rule of law in Eritrea. How we reach there is not clear, though. In fact, there is a lot of confusion on how to go about it.

I believe the ratified constitution can help us bring the rule of law in Eritrea. It will help us to unite all Eritreans. It will give us a great leverage internationally and with foreign friends of Eritrea. The only requirement is only a little compromise and humility. If we concentrate on the positive aspects of the ratified constitution, and there are plenty for those who read it with open minds, then we can salvage it in order to enable us to have a common platform.

The notes below, slightly revised, were originally presented to colleagues and compatriots in a bullet format around September 2003, in a brainstorming session to come up with a common factor that may unify the Eritrean people in their quest for the establishment of the rule of law in Eritrea. I have benefited greatly from their inputs, criticisms and advice. Also, lest I be accused of plagiarism, I confess that I have liberally incorporated ideas and concepts advanced by other Eritreans that are to my liking.

Currently, we observe that the opposition is going in all kind of directions squabbling among itself and not debating the core unifying issue, and each creating its own programs and charters. These programs and charters though necessary for the organizations may become big hindrances towards the creation of a united loyal opposition, if they are not rooted in a one unifying factor. I believe the organizations will need one theme that is unifying. For example, during the colonial period the Eritrean people irrespective of their political affiliations had a single unifying factor: independence. Similarly, I believe we need one unifying factor, and that could be the implementation of the ratified constitution with all its imperfections. For the sake of discussion I characterize this as the common political platform.

Who is the political platform for?

Political power is either delegated or usurped. A representative authority is a delegated power through the consent of the people. Different groups at times pervert the term democracy. Yet the aim of the majority of Eritreans is to establish a representative government that could enforce constitutional rules on behalf of the people. Thus, the Eritrean people are the sovereign and must own the political platform. The platform should reinforce basic human dignity and guide to bring about two contending forces – a Government-in-office and a Government-in-waiting, and a peaceful transfer of power. It is also for the majority of the Eritrean people; it should try to satisfy their wishes while respecting the rights of minorities. It must be the least common denominator that unites the people and it should not deviate from this fundamental principle.

There is a possibility that the majority of the Eritrean people may have only formal and not effective association with the major political organizations. Simple membership in the PFDJ, for example, cannot be equated with endorsements of all the PFDJ policies. One can assume that the majority members of the PFDJ may not earnestly believe in all its politics and principles. Some are members because they believe that membership may endow them with a privilege to earn a living inside Eritrea, or visit Eritrea from the Diaspora, or have the use of the monopolized state land. In short to engage in productive economic and social endeavors without raising any eyebrows from the state and the ruling party. This is normal in nations whose economies, politics, and social life are monopolized by the state and by a single party.

Likewise, the fact that many Eritreans reject the PFDJ's polices and principles does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that such Eritreans have endorsed the oppositions’ polices. In other words, rejection of the PFDJ does not necessarily automatically translate into support for the oppositions. To think otherwise is delusional; the opposition has to realize its capability and limitation.

Until there is free and secret ballot election, we cannot conclusively affirm which organization has the majority (or pluralistic) backing of the Eritrean people. Even in highly developed societies, support for any organization cannot be conclusively determined and decided through opinion polls. Only free elections decide that. There has not been a real test in a competitive political arena in Eritrea to date. Thus, it is very presumptuous for any organization to assume that it represents the Eritrean people, just because it has appropriated the state apparatus for the sole use of its organization, or that some have come together as political organizations. Only the Eritrean people through the exercise of their democratic right can decide who represents them.

The Eritrean Political Fronts

Both the EPLF and the ELF conducted the national armed struggle for independence; the EPLF consumed the independence struggle to its fruition, while the ELF started it. We have to acknowledge the fact that the independence victory is a collective achievement of the Eritrean people and of the two fronts. The independence struggle was a process that had the participation of the overwhelming majority of the Eritrean people at one time or another. It is a cumulative victory. But, like everything in life some may have contributed more than others may.

Individuals are endowed with different skills and attributes. Organizations being the works of human beings also display and reflect positive and negative human characteristics and sentiments. We have to accept the fact that individuals associated with the two fronts have varied experiences and different interpretations of these histories. Even within the same organization it is impossible to have the same understanding and interpretation of past history. Otherwise it is to deny individualism and freedom and it is to impose collectivist mentality.

Since the strategic goal of the historical political organizations had already been achieved through the independence of Eritrea from colonial rule, we should curtail the various interpretations of the liberation war from being brought to the forefront, as they might become divisive. We should leave historical interpretations to historians and other social scientists. These varied interpretations of history should not be issues for contest, nor should they be issues of a common political platform. These lingering varied views should be individualized with the assumption that they will be varied, rich and multi spectrum, rather than collectivized by any organization and thus forced to conform to a single interpretation. We should disallow these histories from becoming issues on a forward-looking common political platform.

The ratified constitution can be the common political platform

The ratified constitution can be the common political platform. The ratified constitution has many similarities with other written democratic constitutions. The constitution enshrined some of the fundamental principles of individual liberties. It incorporated the separations of powers. The fundamental liberties and the separation of powers if implemented properly, guarantee limitation of power. These checks and balances ensure limited government, thereby curtailing the potential abuse of power. It is readymade and workable. It can be used to unify the Eritrean people and be used as a springboard to bring qualitative changes within the Eritrean political arena.

Eritreans are entitled to criticize the procedural mechanism of the drafting of the constitution as well as its contents. But these by themselves should not be causes to reject it outright.

As the work of human beings, the constitution is not perfect. There is no perfect constitution that satisfies all sectors of a society all the time. A constitution is a living document and it is only through implementation that comes to life and addresses societal concerns. The worst that can happen to a constitution is to ignore or suspend it and rule by decrees in an arbitrary manner. No matter what, we will never achieve perfection; to expect otherwise is to go against the grains of the nature of human beings. The constitution has provisions for amendments and improvements. It is neither static nor inflexible and within its rules it has dynamics to update and improve certain rules that do not conform to contemporary situation. It only requires persuasion of the overwhelming majority of the Eritrean people. This can be accomplished legally, democratically and peacefully.

Is it wise to reject the ratified constitution?

The PFDJ has neither implemented the constitution nor rejected it officially. Some organizations within the opposition have preliminarily accepted the constitution as a stepping-stone for a democratic Eritrea.

The majority of the organizations in the opposition have rejected the constitution. They feel they were not represented. They have a valid point. I have no intention to belittle the concept of representation. Procedural representation is needed in order to solicit the widest possible input and interest of the Eritrean people. Not being procedurally represented amounts to the fact that certain inputs and interests of the Eritrean people may not have been incorporated. It is understandable that some organizations may have reservations and oppositions to some provisions and rules in the constitution. But this is true also with individuals associated with the PFDJ or independent individuals who have no formal organizational association. If one ignores organizational affiliations, it may very well be true that many followers of the ELF, EPLF and independents may have similar views regarding the pros and cons of the ratified constitution. It is wrong to assume or expect that all members of the PFDJ have identical views on all the provisions of the constitution. Otherwise it is to deny individuality, originality and liberty, which all human beings are naturally endowed with, and it is to impose collectivism. The same is true with the opposition.

Constitution writing is not an easy task. Some wrongly assume that a group of people with no real professional knowledge or experience of various fields of social sciences can come up with a prefect constitution by simply copying and pasting from various written constitutions of the developing and advanced nations. They wrongly believe it is a cakewalk. And then bingo, they assume that they will have a “perfect” constitution for Eritrea. Thus, they insinuate why even bother at all with the already ratified constitution of Eritrea.

Others assume that elections are the most significant part of the constitution. They emphasize elections and not the rule of law; so much so, the very PFDJ is imitating their infatuations with elections and is doing exactly what they incessantly lecture on. It is conducting all kind of elections without implementing the ratified constitution.

In my opinion, elections, though important, in the scheme of bigger things, are secondary. I believe the most significant part of any constitution is the existence of the rule of law. Among the most significant ones are:

The respect of property rights, for example a strict reading of a just rule of law would not allow a state to sell land without the consent and market price compensation of the real owners of the land, the “Dekebat” villagers in the Eritrean “Adi.”
The enforcement of contractual obligations ensures trust in the open economy and a smooth and honest operation of the market. For example, the Government of Eritrea not honoring the redeeming of its bond obligations as stipulated when it sold the bonds discourages investment in Eritrea. Not enforcing and honoring all kind of business licenses, contracts and transactions among different entities is counter to the creation of a prosperous society.
Respect of property rights and enforcement of contractual obligations are the linchpin of a market economy; without them one cannot create a significant middle class in a nation and; without a middle class one cannot have a prosperous and a viable liberal democratic society. For example, the monopolization of significant economic activities in Eritrea by the PFDJ under the guise of equality and other nice sounding socialist slogans effectively will hamper the creation of a middle class.
The existence of due process of law, for example, the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty; the concept of writ habeas corpus – “the right to be brought before a court to determine whether one has been lawfully detained.”
The respect of the freedom of press, religion, organization and movement.
In short, civil liberties that guarantee the individual to enjoy constitutional liberty and constrain the government from abuse and arbitrary power.

Constitution writing requires the guidance of people endowed with wisdom, experience and some schooling (formal or self-taught) in law, sociology, economics, anthropology, history and other fields of study. No wonder it took a considerable time for the Eritreans who were tasked to come up with a draft of the Eritrean constitution. Recognizing this seemingly simple fact will help the opposition in winning half the battle of the establishment of the rule of law in Eritrea.

The opposition has to recognize that its mission is to help the Eritrean people to transition towards a constitutional government. What I know for sure is that the majority of the Eritrean people have not rejected the ratified Eritrean constitution. I also know that in practice the top echelon of the PFDJ and formally some in the opposition have rejected the constitution. It appears that both are in a match to prove to the Eritrean people how far removed they are from the ratified constitution, and thus in essence one is not off the mark if one concludes that both have little respect for the rule of law.

The most difficult thing to overcome is inertia, and it appears that some are still living in the inertia and era of the armed struggle. At least the opposition should try to fight the top leadership of the PFDJ with a powerful weapon that the Eritrean people and the international community can easily intimate, understand and rally under: the ratified constitution.

The most crucial question is how can we bridge the gap between the varied views of the Eritrean people: those who are associated with the PFDJ, those who are with the opposition and those who are with neither? I believe the ratified constitution can play that role if handled with a lot of tact.

Incidentally, it is necessary to highlight and not to forget those Eritreans who for one reason or another are still associated with the PFDJ. Disregarding the top echelon of the PFDJ, in reality the rest of the PFDJ are in support for the rule of law. Effective change will only come from inside Eritrea. And thus we should not underestimate the latent and manifest forces of change that are within the PFDJ. Some of us may hate anyone associated with the PFDJ because of the insults that have been coming to our side from some irresponsible uncouth loudmouths. This is shortsighted. The actions of some rogues should not cloud our thinking.

The ratified constitution as the supreme law of the land belongs to the Eritrean people. The PFDJ as the ruling party may have influenced its outcome to a major degree. This is normal and is unrealistic to expect otherwise. Still, no organization can claim sole possession of it. Some may mistakenly believe that the ratified constitution belongs to the top echelon of the PFDJ or the president of Eritrea.

The opposition has to show compromise, some mutual respect and basic understanding of rights. No one is expected to claim fundamental rights and deny the rights of others. Leadership requires courage, and it is a sign of wise leadership to go against the incorrectly held taboo in the Eritrean political arena - that something that does not originate from within one’s own group or organization should be automatically rejected irrespective of its merit. We will never be able to build a liberal democratic and prosperous society with that kind of mind set. We should avoid reinventing something that already exists and that has something good in it. I believe the constitution fits this depiction. Accepting the ratified constitution as a common platform will be a milestone in the creation of a united opposition. I believe this will enable us to be in synch with the views of the majority of the Eritrean people and the international community.

The problem is not that the ratified constitution is worthless. The problem is that the PFDJ ignores this important document and still wants to rule Eritrea without a constitution and rule of law, as if Eritrea is still conducting the armed struggle for independence. The opposition has to take the PFDJ to task, and should be wise enough to use the very weapon, the constitution, that was ratified under the guidance of the very same PFDJ, to bring good governance in Eritrea. Both domestically and internationally, it is foolhardy for the opposition and for that matter the government of Eritrea to run away from the constitution. At least, the opposition should be wise enough to realize this, and steal the thunder from the PFDJ and challenge it to implement the very constitution that it ratified.

This does not mean organizations have to abandon their charters, programs and visions for Eritrea, far from it. Rather, they can use the ratified constitution as a common platform of the majority of the Eritrean people, until we establish a constitutional government. Organizations have political rights to have charters and programs that will enable them to implement their visions within the boundaries of the ratified constitution or to request for amending the constitution in order to expand or contract its boundaries legally and peacefully.

What if the PFDJ promises to implement the constitution?

The PFDJ is under pressure to have good governance in Eritrea. The forces include the Eritrean people – inside and outside Eritrea, the EU, the USA, human rights organizations, international newspapers, and goodwill friends of Eritrea, international institutions and many others. In other words, it is called upon to implement the constitution. Under such circumstances, it is not farfetched to imagine that the PFDJ may implement a truncated application of the constitution.

If the PFDJ announces that it will implement the constitution, what will be the likely response of the opposition? Observing the behavior and actions of the opposition from the sidelines, one may logical assume and predict that the opposition will be caught flatfooted, with no coherent and responsible response that the Eritrean people and the international community can easily intimate, comprehend and sympathize with. The international community will react negatively against the opposition if they are not willing to participate.

Under such a scenario, I believe the following are the minimum requirements that the PFDJ has to accomplish to prove to the Eritrean people and the international community that it is sincere:

Release all prisoners of conscience;
Restore the private (free) press;
Announce and allow opposition organizations to operate inside Eritrea without any hindrance and retribution;
Set up an independent electoral commission; and
Set up a body that will oversee the proper implementation of the constitution (constitutional court etc.).

Can any organization disallow any other Eritrean organization from participating in free and fair elections?

The PFDJ bluntly charges that some of the opposition organizations have some sort of relation with the present Ethiopian leaders, hence are not loyal opposition. In other words, it implies that at a minimum they cannot participate in Eritrean politics.

We should wish good relations with all our neighbors. I believe it is wrong to assume that our neighbors are inherently bad natured and only wish us ill will and thus are our permanent enemies. True, too much blood has been shed, and enormous enmity has been created between the two brotherly sovereign nations, Eritrea and Ethiopia. Still we have to do our utmost to avoid war, enmity, vendetta and hatred.

I am optimistic that it is just a matter of time that if not out of pure good natured heart but at least out of pure selfish national interest, all our neighbors would opt, at the minimum, for a normal peaceful relationship with Eritrea. In this enterprise, it is in our advantage and national interest that we, Eritreans, be in the forefront to lead and show our neighbors the ways and methods of a peaceful relationship through displays of simple examples of decent behavior and good gestures.

We should not meddle in the internal affairs of our neighbors, nor should we allow our neighbors to interfere in ours. At all times, our relationship has to be rooted in the rule of law, and this includes that Ethiopia accepts the Delimitation Decision concerning the geographical boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia as final and binding. In this respect, we have a problem with Ethiopia, and we hope Ethiopia will reconsider its position and accept the rule of law. That said, as a small nation, it is also imperative that we should always be on our toes to manage the relationship with our neighbors properly and not be caught off guard. We also have to be cognizant of the fact that at times, big nations have a bad habit of flexing their muscles including violation of international law to guarantee their narrow “national” interests. In the final analysis though, we need to have a policy with no regional ambitions and based on core maxim to maximize the interests of our people considering our size.

Then the issue becomes who determines whether one is a loyal or disloyal opposition? The president of Eritrea said, words to the effect, that that there is no legitimate opposition in Eritrea. When a government is not creating an atmosphere for loyal opposition to operate within the nation, then the legality issue speaks about the government and not about the loyal opposition. Just because the president said so, the opposition cannot be defined as a disloyal or illegitimate opposition. Loyal opposition cannot be gauged by a government and its party that are in power but by constitutional laws.

If there are violations of the spirit of the constitution and there are any treasonous acts committed by individuals, then only an independent court, established under the guidelines of the constitution, can determine that. Otherwise, organizations are deemed to be loyal opposition. Only the Eritrean people decide whether such organizations are fit to serve their interest or not, through their direct secret ballot voting. In my humble opinion, the requirement of a loyal opposition may include the following:

Acceptance of the constitution of Eritrea (some may think this is too restrictive, but I believe it is important that we start from some fundamental base);
Willingness to come to power through fair election and not through usurpation, and accept to remain a loyal opposition if defeated in a fair and free election; and
Believes in the sovereignty of Eritrea and accepts the territorial integrity of Eritrea as stipulated by the Delimitation Decision of the Eritrean-Ethiopian Boundary Commission (EEBC) in The Hague, since one cannot be for the rule of law internally and opposes the rule of law externally.

The PFDJ does not have any legal right to disallow Eritreans from establishing organizations, political parties and civil societies in accordance with their wishes and desires. Likewise, no one can disallow the PFDJ from participating in Eritrean politics provided it abides by the Eritrean constitution and accepts to be a loyal opposition if displaced from power through fair and square election.

Our desire and struggle is to level the political playing field and to disallow monopolization of politics and economics of Eritrea by a single entity, and allow the Eritrean people be the ultimate judge. The people decide the growth and decline of political organizations. Political organizations will have lives in a free and democratic Eritrea only if they meet the aspirations of the people and the Eritrean people is willing to vote for them and also support them. Otherwise their memberships dwindle and eventually they die a natural death, not because some omnipotent force decided so, but because the people through their free will said so. By the same token, it is similar for those who become vibrant and strong.

What to do for past errors or crimes? Clemency and reconciliation

It needs to be emphasized that opinions should not be put on a par with crimes. Diversity of opinions has to be accepted and tolerated, and it is a mandatory requirement of a liberal democratic society. Opinions become a crime only in despotic regimes. In nations with just rule of law, exchange of opinions and debates are encouraged. The law protects people from any retribution for voicing their opinions and speaking their minds.

Do we allow the constitution to be applied prospectively from the time it is implemented, or retroactively from the time of ratification? There could be tremendous ramifications to the point of contribution towards disorder in Eritrea, if the constitution were to apply retroactively. We have to admit some of the activities of the top leadership of the PFDJ are nothing but illegal. Examples include imprisoning Eritreans without due process of law, confiscation of Eritrean properties without due compensation etc. Applying the constitution prospectively may save us from a vicious circle of blaming and counter blaming and it may give us an opportunity to avoid “cornering” the top echelon of the PFDJ for misadministration. This could be one of the exit strategies for a peaceful transition to a constitutional government in Eritrea. Along with this, other strategies have to be developed to avoid “cornering.” The disorder that is going in Iraq and the blunders the USA initially made by blanket accusation of the whole Baath party as no good should be an object lesson to all us.

I believe some type of rehabilitation and reconciliation forum should handle crimes and past errors. Otherwise, it may become a hindrance to crafting a common political platform. Our immediate task should not deviate from establishing a constitutional government based on the ratified constitution. Later, the constitutional government may establish a commission of reconciliation that may bring a peaceful closure for past ills of Eritrea. If South Africa with its ugly history of the apartheid system is able to overcome vendettas, there is no valid reason why we, Eritreans, cannot do it either. Some may retort back that Eritrea does not have a saint-like and a very conciliatory figure like Mandela. I beg to differ. I honestly believe we have little Mandelas all over our nation: the Eritrean people are a very generous and forgiving people. We only have to look within ourselves and find the little angels.

==============================================================

The Rule of Law in Eritrea

Mogos Tekeste

December 3, 2009

There seems to be a lot of confusion on the status of the rule of law in Eritrea.

History of Legal Liberty:

· “For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous -- law was simply the will of the ruler.

· A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means.

The First Stage, Where the Law of the Land is Arbitrary Edicts and Decrees:

The Second Stage, Where the Law of the Land is the Rule By Law:

The Third Stage, Where the Law of the Land is the Rule Of Law:

The Need for a Single Coherent Message:

Mogos Tekeste

Notes:

http://eritreamereb.blogspot.com/

** Important books on the rule of law in a descending chronological importance:

1. The Constitution of Liberty, by F. A. Hayek

2. The Open Society and its Enemies, by Karl Popper

3. The Future of Freedom, by Fareed Zakaria

===========================================================

The Ratified Eritrean Constitution is the Best Unifying Common Factor

2011-08-15T14:09:00.015-04:00

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

The article “A Call for Unity” pasted below was first published in July, 2004. The main message is that the ratified constitution can be used as a unifying common factor for all liberal democratic Eritreans to effectively change the despotic political order in Eritrea. The important concepts of the article are still relevant, hence for reposting.

These days some in the opposition have become so arrogant that they are writing a new constitution for Eritrea from scratch. To such people the ratified constitution does not exist. If things proceed as they seem to be then definitely such people are on a course to irrevocably burn the only bridge, the ratified constitution, which realistically connects them with the majority of the Eritrean people inside Eritrea. This is if not foolishness a display of a sort of dictatorship at its height.

The major stumbling block in Eritrea is the absence of the rule of law. (See The Rule of Law in Eritrea.) If the ratified Eritrean constitution were to be implemented, Eritrea for the most part will be in harmony with the rule of law. Our significant problem is not that the ratified constitution is weak on concepts of the rule of law; rather it is that it is not implemented.

There is a dictatorship of the PFDJ variety that we are all aware of. However oblivious to many there is another type of despotism that is lurking in the shadow. This is a kind of tyranny that eventually will come to fruition if not appropriately and timely checked. The group that ostensibly has arrogated to itself the power to write a new constitution for Eritrea is nothing but a dictatorship in the making in front of our own very eyes. The sad part is that these would be tyrants are wearing a mantle of the opposition.

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

A Call for Unity

Abraham G. Ghiorgis

New York

July 9, 2004

Introduction

All the articles penned in the last five years, despite the fact coming from different viewpoints and experiences, have two salient features.

Who is the political platform for?

The Eritrean Political Fronts

The ratified constitution can be the common political platform

Eritreans are entitled to criticize the procedural mechanism of the drafting of the constitution as well as its contents. But these by themselves should not be causes to reject it outright.

Is it wise to reject the ratified constitution?

The respect of property rights, for example a strict reading of a just rule of law would not allow a state to sell land without the consent and market price compensation of the real owners of the land, the “Dekebat” villagers in the Eritrean “Adi.”
The enforcement of contractual obligations ensures trust in the open economy and a smooth and honest operation of the market. For example, the Government of Eritrea not honoring the redeeming of its bond obligations as stipulated when it sold the bonds discourages investment in Eritrea. Not enforcing and honoring all kind of business licenses, contracts and transactions among different entities is counter to the creation of a prosperous society.
Respect of property rights and enforcement of contractual obligations are the linchpin of a market economy; without them one cannot create a significant middle class in a nation and; without a middle class one cannot have a prosperous and a viable liberal democratic society. For example, the monopolization of significant economic activities in Eritrea by the PFDJ under the guise of equality and other nice sounding socialist slogans effectively will hamper the creation of a middle class.
The existence of due process of law, for example, the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty; the concept of writ habeas corpus – “the right to be brought before a court to determine whether one has been lawfully detained.”
The respect of the freedom of press, religion, organization and movement.
In short, civil liberties that guarantee the individual to enjoy constitutional liberty and constrain the government from abuse and arbitrary power.

What if the PFDJ promises to implement the constitution?

Under such a scenario, I believe the following are the minimum requirements that the PFDJ has to accomplish to prove to the Eritrean people and the international community that it is sincere:

Release all prisoners of conscience;
Restore the private (free) press;
Announce and allow opposition organizations to operate inside Eritrea without any hindrance and retribution;
Set up an independent electoral commission; and
Set up a body that will oversee the proper implementation of the constitution (constitutional court etc.).

Can any organization disallow any other Eritrean organization from participating in free and fair elections?

Acceptance of the constitution of Eritrea (some may think this is too restrictive, but I believe it is important that we start from some fundamental base);
Willingness to come to power through fair election and not through usurpation, and accept to remain a loyal opposition if defeated in a fair and free election; and
Believes in the sovereignty of Eritrea and accepts the territorial integrity of Eritrea as stipulated by the Delimitation Decision of the Eritrean-Ethiopian Boundary Commission (EEBC) in The Hague, since one cannot be for the rule of law internally and opposes the rule of law externally.

What to do for past errors or crimes? Clemency and reconciliation

abrahamgg@gmail.com