OCTOBER 29, 2020  NEWS

Source: Human Rights Concern Eritrea

Hunger Strike by Two Eritrean Refugees in Long-Term Detention in Al-Qanater Prison in Cairo, Egypt

Two Eritrean refugees (aged 36 and 41), enduring long-term detention without charge in a prison for criminals in Egypt, have been on hunger strike since yesterday, 27th October 2020, in protest at the prolonged injustice of their treatment. Both men have been detained for 8 years without charge or trial, and without being allowed to apply for asylum or register a claim as refugees with the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Egypt.

Because of enforced conscription of all Eritreans of 18 years and upwards into often lifelong military service, hundreds of thousands of Eritreans attempt to escape from their country. In desperation, they leave by any means possible, travelling through neighbouring countries by very dangerous routes, such as via the Sinai desert, where they are frequently kidnapped by criminals, maltreated, tortured and held to ransom. Some of these desperate refugees reach Egypt, where they can be detained in prisons and denied refugee status, as has happened to these two Eritreans.

Only as recently as 23rd July 2020, officials of the UN Human Rights Council sent a memorandum to the Government of Egypt questioning the detention in a criminal prison of these same Eritrean refugees. The UNHCR memo highlighted their plight, questioning the legality and justice of their treatment. Both refugees have been in the hands of the Egyptian police, rather than being dealt with as refugees by immigration officials, and both were detained in Al-Qanater prison for criminals, rather than in an immigration centre.

The latest hunger strike by these two refugees in a criminal prison further highlights the very questionable justice of their treatment by the Egyptian authorities and draws attention to the so far unexplained length of their imprisonment without charge or trial in a prison for criminals.

Human Rights Concern-Eritrea (HRCE) has previously drawn attention to the illegal detention of Eritrean refugees in Egypt and the continued long-term illegal treatment of vulnerable Eritreans justifiably seeking sanctuary.

Elizabeth Chyrum, Director of HRCE, commented, “This hunger strike by the two Eritrean refugees is a desperate cry for help! —an action of last resort to call the world’s attention to their plight.

Their situation must not be ignored by any country which believes in the protection of human rights for all and supports the UN humanitarian treaties and principles for the treatment of refugees. It is now most vital that the Egyptian authorities release these two men without delay and enable them to make an application for asylum, as required by international law. They must on no account be returned to Eritrea, because of the danger they would face, since they would almost certainly be imprisoned and could face torture, disappearance, or death.”

28 October 2020

Human Rights Concern – Eritrea (HRCE)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

+44 7958 005 637


OCTOBER 28, 2020  NEWS

Sources indicate that the Eritrean who has been told to cease his diplomatic duties is Solomon Mehari. The Eritrean Minister of Information, Yemane Gebremeskel, reacted with fury on Twitter


Minister Blok takes steps against Eritrean consul for coercive fundraising

Source: Trou.nl

Stef Blok, Minister of Foreign Affairs, is leaving the Ministry of General Affairs. Image ANP

Minister Stef Blok of Foreign Affairs is taking steps against the diplomatic representation of Eritrea because it continues to collect money forcibly from fellow countrymen. An employee must stop working for the embassy office in The Hague.

The radio program Argos reported on Saturday that the embassy office has collected money from fellow countrymen to help the East African country through the corona crisis. Coercion would have been used in the collection. Eritreans living here were asked to donate at least 100 euros.

The ambassador of Eritrea was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday to clarify the matter. There, the envoy was informed that the local employee has been declared “unacceptable”, said a spokesman for the ministry.

It means that the man has to quit his job for Eritrea’s diplomatic representation. The man sometimes poses as consul of Eritrea, but he is not a diplomat. According to the ministry, he has often been involved in forcibly raising money.

Eritrea asks for money from fellow countrymen all over the world. This so-called diaspora tax is not prohibited, provided it is done without coercion. The cabinet would like to get rid of this diaspora tax, but sees no possibilities to do so. Two years ago, a diplomat from Eritrea had to leave the Netherlands because the embassy office continued to collect money.

Source: de Telegraaf

An employee of the embassy of Eritrea has been ordered to stop his activities by Minister Blok of Foreign Affairs. The man, posing as consul, put Eritreans in the Netherlands under pressure to give money.

Radio program Argos reported on Saturday that the Eritrean representation raised money from fellow countrymen to help the East African country through the corona crisis. People stated that they were being intimidated, including with the threat that family in Eritrea would not receive food coupons if they did not pay.

155,000 euros

The ambassador of Eritrea has today been summoned to the Foreign Office to clarify things. There he was informed that the local employee has been declared “unacceptable”, which means that he is no longer allowed to work for the embassy. According to the ministry, the employee has often been involved in forcibly raising money.

A list that Argos has in its hands shows that at least 155,000 euros has been raised this time. Some come from supporters of the military regime or organizations affiliated with the regime. But the list also includes people who have fled precisely from that regime.

Diaspora tax

Two years ago, the highest Eritrean diplomat, the Netherlands, was expelled because the regime forced Eritreans in the Netherlands to hand over taxes to Eritrea. Intimidation was not shunned, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Zijlstra wrote to the Lower House.

Eritrea asks for money from fellow countrymen all over the world. This diaspora tax is not prohibited, provided it is collected without compulsion.

The background to this story can be found below.



Source: Africa Express

By Cornelia Toelgyes on October 27, 2020

Special for Africa ExPress
Cornelia I. Toelgyes
27 October 2020

A new fundraiser in the Netherlands puts the Asmara regime in trouble . For months, the embassy of the former Italian colony accredited in The Hague has been knocking on the doors of Eritrean residents in the Netherlands, forcing them to “voluntary” donations of at least one hundred euros to fight the coronavirus.

Now Stef Blok, Dutch foreign minister, has asked the dictatorship for an explanation. The minister stressed that it is really worrying that Eritrean diplomats are again asking for money from their fellow citizens living in the Netherlands. And finally he added: “I do not rule out possible measures against these actions.

Stef Blok. Dutch foreign minister

Already in 2018, Halbe Zijlstra, the then foreign minister, declared the diplomatic representative in The Hague, the chargé d’affaire of Asmara, Tekeste Ghebremedhin Zemuy, as persona non grata, as the regime insisted on demanding money from members of the Eritrean diaspora in the Netherlands. Blok invited the recipients of the unfortunate requests to send a report to the Public Prosecutor, so that he can open a file.

According to a list that was sent to ARGOS , the Dutch radio station, the regime has already collected more or less 155 thousand euros, partly from supporters and organizations sympathetic to the Eritrean dictatorship, but there are also the names of people who fled from the oppression of the government of Isaias Afeworki. In fact, among the recipients there are many refugees already in possession of regular documents and others still waiting in refugee centers. Some confirmed that they had even received threats: if they did not pay, the families who remained in Eritrea would no longer be able to enjoy food stamps.

Isaias Afeworki, president of Eritrea

Isaias’s troubles don’t end in Holland . Reporter sans Frontières Organization (RSF) filed a complaint for crimes against humanity with the Swedish Prosecutor’s Office for International Crimes against the President of Eritrea and 7 other people, for the extra-judicial arrest of the Swedish-Eritrean journalist Dawit Isaak.

Dawit, imprisoned and in total isolation since 2001 in one of the hundreds of prisons throughout the country, is the longest-detained journalist in the world.

Dawit Isaak, Eritrean-Swedish journalist in jail since 2001

RSF denounced not only Isaias, president of Eritrea since 1993, but also three ministers – the head of the department of Justice, Information and Foreign Affairs, as well as four other people (administrative and security officers).

Journalist and poet of Eritrean origins, with a Swedish passport in his pocket, Dawitt had returned to Asmara to found a newspaper aimed at launching new reforms, strongly supported by the then Minister of Fisheries, Petros Solomon (former Minister of the Interior, then of Foreign Affairs) and by the other 14 “dissidents” also sunk in the regime’s prisons in September 2001. The arrest of the journalist coincides with the request of the “fifteen” to publish the application of the Constitution in the local media, ready but closed in a drawer since 1996.

In these 19 years Dawit has never been allowed to meet his lawyers, much less his family members, representatives of the UN or the Swedish government. The last evidence of existence in life dates back to 2005. He is probably held captive in the Eiraeiro Detention Center, in the middle of the desert of the Northern Red Sea region, where sun-heated containers are used as cells.

Cornelia I. Toelgyes
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Source: BBC Tigrinya

[Note: Partial computer translation. Original below plus further information]

Debretsion Gebremichael, President of the Tigray Regional State, has sent a letter to the 70 leading countries of the world.

The Federal Government of Tigray State has sent a budget to the Federal Government of Tigray State.

Let us test the infrastructure and social services of the Federal Government of Tigray.

If I lose my temper, I will lose my temper.

ዶ/ር ደብረጽዮን ንልዕሊ 70 መራሕቲ ሃገራት፡ ዞባውን ዓለምለኻዊ ውድባትን ደብዳበ ሰዲዶም

ቅድሚ ሓደ ሰዓት

ርእሰ ምምሕዳር ክልል ትግራይ ዶክተር ደብረጽዮን ገብረሚካኤል: ንልዕሊ 70 መራሕቲ ሃገራት፡ ዞባውን ዓለምለኻዊ ውድባትን፡ ማሕበረሰብ ዓለም ነዚ [ኣብ ኢትዮጵያ] ዝካየድ ዘሎ ፖለቲካዊ ኩነታት ክከታተሎን ዝምሕጸን ደብዳቤ ሰዲዶም።

መንግስቲ ክልል ትግራይን ፌዴራልን ነንሕድሕዶም ኣፍልጦ ስለዝተኸላልኡ፡ መንግስቲ ፌዴራል ንመንግስቲ ክልል ትግራይ ባጀት ብምኽልካሉ ነቲ ወጥሪ አዕሪጉዎ ኣሎ።

እቲ ንማሕበረሰብ ዓለም ዝተዘርገሐ ደብዳበ፡ መንግስቲ ፌደራል፡ ንትግራይ ኣብ ዝምደብ በጀት ብምኽልካል መሰረተ ልምዓትን ማሕበራዊ ኣገልግሎት ክቖርጽ እንተፈቲኑ: ኣብ ሰላምን ሓድነትን እታ ሃገር ሓደገኛ ኣሉታዊ ፅልዋ ከምዝህልዎ ኣፍሊጡ።

ብሰንኩ ንዝመጽእ ሳዕቤን ድማ፡ እቲ ኣብ ስልጣን ዘሎ ሓይሊ ከምዝሕተቱሉ እቲ ደብዳበ የፍልጥ።

መንግስቲ ፈደራል፡ ብመሰረት ውሳኔ ቤት ምኽሪ ፌዴሬሽን ንመንግስቲ እቲ ክልል ዝወሃብ ባጀት ከምዘየሎ ንታሕተዎት ምምሕዳራት፡ ንወረዳታት፡ ከተማታትን ቑሸታትን ሓገዝ ዝወሃበሉ ኣገባብ ኣሰራርሓ ከምዘመቻቹ ምግላጹ ይዝከር።

እቲ ናብ መራሕቲ ሃገራት ዓለም ዝተጻሕፈ ደብዳበ እቲ ብሕታዊ መፍትሒ ናይዚ ሽግር፡ እቲ ብፈደራሊስት ሓይልታት ዝቐረበ ሰላማዊ እማመ ምዃኑን ንህወሓትን ህዝቢ ትግራይን ብተናፀል ዝካየድ እማመ ፍታሕ ከምዘየምጽእ ይሕብር።

ዛጊድ እቲ ብኣውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዝተጀመረ ስጉምቲ ዝንኣድ ይኹን እምበር ምስቲ እታ ሃገር ኣትያቶ ዘላ ቅልውላውን ከጋጥም ዝኽእል ሓደጋ ምብታታንን ግን ዝመጣጠን ኣይኮነን ይብል እቲ ደብዳበ።

ሕዚ እውን እታ ሃገር ኣጓኒፍዋ ዘሎ ፀገም ኣብ ምፍታሕ: ንኹሎም ሓይልታት ዘካተት ልዝብ ከምዘድልን ማሕበረሰብ ዓለም ግደኡ ክፍጽምን መንግስቲ ትግራይ በቲ ዝጸሓፎ መልእኽቲ ደጊሙ ጸዊዑ።

እቲ ደብዳቤ፡ ማሕበረሰብ ዓለም ስለዘጽቀጠ፡ ዶ/ር ኣብዪ ኣሕመድ ነቲ ዘይሕገ መንግስታዊ ተግባራቱ ክደፍአሉ ኣኽኢልዎ እዩ ክብል ይነቅፍ። ኣብዚ እዋን፡ መንግስቲ ፈደራል ምስ ህዝቢ ናብ ኵናት ክኣቱን ኣብ ልዕሊ ደሞክራስያዊ ስርዓት ጥራይ ዘይኮነስ ኣብ ልዕሊ ሓድነት ሃገር እውን ሓደጋ የውርድን ኣሎ ኢሉ።

ድሕሪ እቲ ኣብ ሚያዝያ 2018 ዝተኸስተ ለውጢ ክልቲኦም ወገናት ነዊሕ ከይጸንሑ ብጥሕሰት ሕገ መንግስቲ ክካሰሱ ምጽንሖም ይፍለጥ። ብሰንኩ ከኣ እቲ ኣብ መንጎኦም ዝነበረ ዝምድና ኣዝዩ ላሕሊሑ ሓደገኛ ክስተት ከይፍጠር ስግኣት ምህለው ፖለቲከኛታት እታ ሃገር ይገልጹ።

Source: Ezega News

Isaias Afwerki, Abiy Ahmed Plotting War Against Tigray Region: TPLF

By Staff Reporter

TPLF-mobilizesOctober 25, 2020 (Ezega.com) — The Tigray People Liberation Front (TPLF) said Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed are plotting war against it and the people of Tigray.

In a statement issued over the weekend, TPLF called on the people of Eritrea and Ethiopian defence forces to stand by its side to avert the bloodshed and end autocratic rules of the leaders.

“The leaders are cementing personal relations by ignoring brotherly ties between the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia and the dictator leaders would be held accountable for all chaos that may happen,” the statement said.

TPLF blamed Prime Minister Abiy for seizing power illegally and practicing a unitary administration and bargaining to sell the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) in exchange of  big ransom.

It also accused Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of committing treason through establishing alliance with foreign forces in a bid to surrender the people and governing party of the Tigray region.

“Abiy’s led government does not have legal ground to conduct restructuring of the regiments in the army as its term had already ended on October 5, 2020. Accordingly, the decisions with regard to the army’s restructure are not acceptable,” the statement reads

The governing party of Tigray also urged members of the federal army to refuse commands from Abiy who is commander in chief of the Ethiopian defence forces.

The statement further said the planned regiments that will be deployed in Addis Ababa and Bahir Dar city are intended to surrender the Tigray government.

The regional government has demanded the federal government to release the annual budget to the Tigray region without any preconditions. “TPLF said the budget is reimbursement the region had paid in the form taxes to the federal government and the ‘illegal force’ does not have legal ground to freeze the budget.” it said.

“If the” illegal force” cuts the budget to the Tigray region against the constitutional right of the people in Tigray, it will be tantamount to declaring war and the authorities in Addis Ababa will be held accountable for all chaos that will happen thereof.”

Relations between Ethiopia’s federal government and Tigray region have been deteriorating after the latter unilaterally held elections last September in defiance of the upper house’s decision to postpone national polls due to Covid-19.

The Upper House of the Federal Parliament later voted to exclude the region from official matters and imposed a range of harsh measures, including budget cuts, against the region.

Critics say although Abiy had ruled out military action against the region, war  could break out soon if disputes continue this way.


View all posts by Martin Plaut

The Hotline for Refugees and Migrants said it was too early to predict the implications of normalization. “Israel has diplomatic relations with Eritrea and with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and at the same time it maintains a policy of non-refoulement in regard to their citizens who seek asylum in Israel. Even if Israel were to end its non-refoulement policy in regard to Sudan, the state will still be obligated to examine all the asylum requests from Sudanese citizens – an obligation Israel has evaded for over a decade, with various excuses,” the group said.

Source: Ha’aretz

Establishment of ties is expected to change policy, despite international refugee convention mandating that asylum applications be examined on case-by-case basis

Noa Landau, Lee Yaron | Oct. 25, 2020

The planned normalization of relations with Sudan will facilitate the repatriation of asylum seekers back to that northeast African country, sources in Israel say.

While Israel has in the past cited the principle of non-refoulement for its agreement not to forcibly repatriate asylum seekers from Eritrea, with Sudan the official position is that the absence of diplomatic relations between Jerusalem and Khartoum prevents Israel from deporting Sudanese nationals.

The establishment of ties is expected to change that stance, despite international conventions mandating that asylum applications be examined on a case-by-case basis.

According to the UN Refugee Convention and statements by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in recent months, even if a peace agreement is reached, removing one of the obstacles to repatriation, Israel is still obligated to examine all applications for refugee status. The convention prohibits deporting anyone to a country where their life or liberty are in danger, and in recent days a number of massacres have been reported in Sudan.

In a statement Saturday, the Hotline for Refugees and Migrants said it was too early to predict the implications of normalization. “Israel has diplomatic relations with Eritrea and with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and at the same time it maintains a policy of non-refoulement in regard to their citizens who seek asylum in Israel. Even if Israel were to end its non-refoulement policy in regard to Sudan, the state will still be obligated to examine all the asylum requests from Sudanese citizens – an obligation Israel has evaded for over a decade, with various excuses,” the group said.

“It’s important to note that Sudan’s leaders today are the same generals that perpetrated the genocide in Darfur and the ethnic cleansings in the Nuba Hills and in the Blue Nile. Unfortunately, also in recent months a numbers of horrific massacres have been reported against, among others, internally displaced people who sought to return to their lands. We share the hope of the Sudanese asylum seekers to return to their country in peace and in security, without any fear for their lives or their liberty.”

On the eve of his February visit to Uganda, where he met with Sudanese officials, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a promise to the Likud Central Committee: “We stopped a million infiltrators from entering the country from Sinai. A huge difference. We have already removed one-third of those who still got in, and we’re going to remove the remaining two-thirds. We’re working on it; you’ll hear news soon.”

In late September, the High Court of Justice extended by three months the state’s deadline for deciding the status of asylum seekers from Darfur, after the state informed the court of secret developments in relations with Sudan “that could affect the result of the petition” to the court, according to the ruling. Supreme Court President Esther Hayut and justices Yael Willner and George Karra ruled that in light of the classified materials submitted to them, they would allow the state to submit an additional update in January before ruling on the case.

In March 2019, the court ordered the state to explain why it refused to give temporary resident status to Darfuris. Since then, the state has repeatedly postponed replying to the court with various excuses; then in September came the three-month extension.

There are currently 6,285 Sudanese citizens in Israel, one-fifth of all asylum seekers. They have fled the genocide in Darfur, the Nuba Mountains and the Blue Nile region since 2003.

In other places around the world, Darfuris are usually granted refugee status. In Israel, 4,500 of them have filed for refugee status but have been waiting for an answer for years, some for over a decade. Israel has not replied to their requests either way. Only in one case was refugee status granted to a Sudanese national. Without an answer to their applications, most asylum seekers from Sudan live in Israel without legal status or rights.

UNHCR officials have said that in light of the relations between Israel and Sudan and Israel’s protection of Sudanese asylum seekers over the past 15 years, the situation must be examined cautiously, “even in light of the political changes in Sudan, the continuing crises in conflict regions and the quality of the diplomatic relations between the states.”

Sharon Harel, a senior official with the UN refugee agency in Tel Aviv, told Haaretz in the past that if conditions changed so as to enable the safe return of refugees to Sudan, the agency could assist with “voluntary” repatriation.

“There are thousands of pending asylum applications from Sudanese citizens,” she said. “Those of asylum seekers who still claim their lives would be in danger if they were returned must be examined in accordance with international standards as part of the convention on refugees.”

OCTOBER 25, 2020  NEWS

Source: The Conversation

October 25, 2020 

Group of men outdoors, backdrop of Chinese style buildings, black and white vintage photoEritrean president Isaias Afwerki in China in the 1960s. He is fifth from the left, rear row.

There are few leaders as enigmatic as Eritrea’s president, Isaias Afwerki.

In my bookUnderstanding Eritrea: Inside Africa’s Most Repressive State, I profile the president who led the country as it fought for its freedom from Ethiopia for 30 years, only to then turn on his own people.

Eritrea has been independent since 1993 but has no constitution and no parliament. No budget has ever been published. Elections have never been held and Isaias’s opponents languish in jail.

The president is a brooding, taciturn figure, who has dominated Eritrean politics since the 1970s.

Isaias was born in the Aba Shi’aul district of the Eritrean capital, Asmara, in February 1942. The son of an employee of the state tobacco company, he attended the Prince Makonnen Secondary School. At the time Eritrea was an integral part of Ethiopia.

In 1965 he left to study engineering in Addis Ababa. In October the following year he abandoned his studies and joined the Eritrean Liberation Front in the Sudan, which was fighting for Eritrea’s independence. No sooner was he a member of the front than he began plotting against its leaders.

He declared that the organisation was dominated by Muslims and participated in a series of splits that created the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front in 1974-75.

Isaias has effectively led the party since its inception.

In May 1991 his fighters marched into Asmara, finally ending the 30-year war of independence. Isaias continues to lead both the country and his party, which changed its name to the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice in February 1994.

Living without freedom

Eritrea is a nation living without freedom. It is “the country that’s never had an election” and is today among the most repressive states in Africa. The regime’s human rights abuses are well documented.

Since Isaias rules without reference to a constitution or parliament, and without an independent judiciary, one can only conclude that these abuses are instituted at his insistence. The president surrounds himself with a small coterie of military and party officials who do his bidding.

As the US State Department’s 2019 annual report stated:

Eritrea is a highly centralised, authoritarian regime under the control of President Isaias Afwerki.

Isaias expects the same unquestioning discipline and obedience from the general population that he expected of his troops during the war of independence. Control is enforced through a system of indefinite national conscription, which all healthy citizens are required to undertake. This is meant to last 18 months, but can continue for 20 years and more. The UN has declared it a form of slavery.

Quite how this came about is something of a puzzle, even for some of Isaias’s once close associates. Bereket Habteselassie, drafter of Eritrea’s unimplemented constitution, says this in his book, Desecrators of the Sacred Trust:

A question that everybody asks – one for which there has been no clear and unequivocal answer thus far – is: How did Isaias succeed in convincing everybody to let him do as he pleased, whatever he wanted for all those years?

Part of the answer lies in Isaias’s personality: an intelligent, secretive man, he has a highly developed sense of insecurity. In a leaked assessment from Ronald McMullen, the American ambassador to Asmara in 2008, the president was described as “paranoid”. At the time, Isaias believed that both Ethiopia and the US were attempting to kill him.

As a result he was reported to switch plates with subordinates, apparently to avoid being poisoned, and to sleep in different locations to foil a coup or assassination attempt.

The ambassador’s report points to another key to Isaias’s policies: the fact that he was trained in China at the time of Chairman Mao’s notorious cultural revolution, during which millions were killed. The American ambassador quotes the Chinese ambassador to Eritrea as saying “he learned all the wrong things”.

Ruthless authoritarian

When Isaias founded the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front he also established a secret, controlling “party within a party” – the Eritrean People’s Revolutionary Party.

He used this organisation, sometimes referred to as the People’s Party, to ruthlessly crush his rivals, both on the left and on the right. Eliminating challenges to his rule has been a constant ever since. Whether they were wounded liberation fighters who complained about their treatment soon after independence, or soldiers asking for pay, he has not hesitated to use force to end any signs of opposition.

This culminated in 2001 in the arrest and incarceration without trial of senior liberation front leaders and journalists, some of whom had been with the front for decades. Their “crime” was to question his handling of the disastrous border war with Ethiopia (1998–2000) and his failure to fulfil his promise to implement a democracy. Those who were rounded up have not been seen since.

Yet Isaias has not survived by brute force alone. Sections of the community still revere him as the leader who brought about independence. He is also a skilled regional tactician. Although he does not tolerate Islamist movements in his own country, Isaias did not hesitate to link up with Islamist groups in Somalia (including al-Shabaab) when it suited his aim to undermine neighbouring Ethiopia, which was deeply involved in Somali affairs. This resulted in limited UN sanctions against Eritrean leaders in 2009, which were lifted nine years later.

Because of complex feuds going back to the 1970s, Isaias is bitterly opposed to the leadership of the neighbouring Ethiopian province of Tigray. He welcomed the election of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed in April 2018, which saw the end of Tigrayan dominance of Ethiopia.

This, in turn, allowed a settlement of the border dispute between the two countries. It also opened the way to a peace agreement between Isaias and Ahmed, signed in Saudi Arabia.

The peace agreement cemented relations between Eritrea, the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates, both of which have bases in Eritrea from where they conduct their wars in Yemen and Libya. Ordinary Eritreans have seen few benefits from the agreement. Food and even water are scarce, electricity is intermittent and the land border with Ethiopia remains closed.

Isaias Afwerki has been at the helm of Eritrean politics since the 1970s. Despite growing opposition among Eritrea’s large and influential diaspora, there are few signs of an effective challenge to his rule.


Tensions ratcheting up

One does not have to look hard to see the warnings. The media are full of images of Tigray preparing for a conflict.

Rocket launchers Tigray

Long standing observers of Ethiopia (and Tigray in particular) like Professor Tronvoll, has sounded a warning.

Professor Tronvoll provided further details in a Facebook post. He warned of the dangers ahead and berated the international community for their lack of attention to this situation. Why, he asked, is there so little apparent action to prevent a conflict?His warning is timely.

Here are recent developments:

  • The Ethiopian parliament cut its ties with Tigray after the Tigrayans held a regional election on 9 September that the Addis government deemed “illegal”.
  • Tigray accused the federal government of freezing the quarterly budget of 285 million birr, that the World Bank provided for the implementation of safety net programs in the region.
  • The ruling Tigray People Liberation Front (TPLF) issued a statement accusing Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of plotting war against Tigray. Over the weekend the TPLF called on the people of Eritrea and the Ethiopian defence forces to stand by its side to avert the bloodshed and end autocratic rules of the leaders. “The leaders are cementing personal relations by ignoring brotherly ties between the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia and the dictator leaders would be held accountable for all chaos that may happen,” the statement said.
  • Daniel Berhane – founder of Horn Affairs wrote in a Tweet: “#Ethiopia‘s army Northern Command in limbo. Former command head resigned and #Tigray wouldn’t accept Abiy Ahmed’s new appointee. Further, Tigray declared Abiy can not make any decision regarding the army. In effect, Tigray took over the most heavily armed wing of the military.”
  • In his first foreign interview with the Financial Times in February 2019 Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed underlined  tensions with Tigray. In the interview the prime minister professed to be unfazed by the forces he had unleashed. ‘”Yesterday they were on the streets of Mekelle insulting me,” he said, referring to the Tigrayan capital. “But I love that. That is democracy.” Mr Abiy said he wanted to secure peace by persuasion, not through military pacification. “Negative peace is possible as long as you have a strong army. We are heading to positive peace,” he said.’ That was then. Now the situation looks rather different.

Tigray acted earlier this year to prevent heavy weaponry with Ethiopia’s army’s Northern Command from being withdrawn from the region. Below is what was reported on this blog in January.

The situation is tense and it would take very little for a war involving Ethiopian federal forces and Eritrean troops against Tigray to erupt.

Below are two articles which provide the context for this situation.

Tigray protest halts army’s attempt to move heavy weapons to Oromia

Popular protests on Monday prevented the Ethiopian army from transferring its heavy weapons from north-eastern Tigray.

The events took place in Gulo Mekeda, close to the town of Zalambessa, which borders on Eritrea.

After a daylong standoff, the military held discussions with local people and agreed to remain there until replacements arrived.

The people of Tigray are sceptical about the policies of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, whom they accuse of working with Eritrean President, Isaias Afwerki. They believe this has made Tigray vulnerable to potential attacks from Eritrea.

Since reconciliation between Eritrea and Ethiopia and Prime Minister Abiy’s trip to Asmara in July, Tigrayans have been warily watching developments on both sides of the border. They have insisted that the army’s artillery stays in their area to protect them.

Why the military wants to move its artillery

Ethiopia’s federal army believes it requires its armaments to prepare for a possible conflict in Oromia.

Since the return of rebels of the Oromo Liberation Front from exile in Eritrea there have been clashes between OLF forces and government soldiers throughout the state of Oromia.

The Tigrayans mounting the roadblocks in Gulo Mekeda were not convinced, arguing that the OLF doesn’t have heavy weapons, while the Eritreans do.

The recent closure of the Eritrea – Ethiopian border has only fuelled Tigrayan distrust of President Isaias and Prime Miniser Abiy.

Ethiopia has experienced ethnic conflicts in many parts of the country after Prime Minister Abiy ended the dominance of the centre over regional parties.

Currently there are close to 3 million people displaced within Ethiopia.

Old enemies, old friends: the Eritrea – Tigray relationship

The complex and sometimes hostile relationship of the Eritrean and Tigrayan authorities appears to have hit another low.

An official statement from the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) [below] contained strong warnings for President Isaias. He was told not to interfere in Ethiopian affairs.

Esteemed People of Eritrea

The people of Tigrai and TPLF have never wavered or compromised on the quest of the Eritrean people for freedom. As a result of the sacrifices we jointly made, we won over the brutal Dergi regime and achieved victory. You have determined your destiny and the people of Tigrai and the TPLF are, as always, proud of this achievement. Nonetheless, in the last 20 years we had been locked in an unnecessary conflict and we both paid dearly as a result. We all realize the scar this has left.

It should not be forgotten that the relationship between the TPLF and the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) have been littered with periods of cooperation and conflict.

The EPLF helped the TPLF when the Tigrayan movement was first formed, with training and equipment. They then fell out over strategy and tactics, before cementing an alliance that resulted in their forces co-ordinating the capture of Asmara and Addis Ababa in 1991. Eritrean troops even provided Prime Minister Meles with security in the first months of his rule.

But bitter disputes have also characterised their relationship. The Eritrean closed the route into Tigray at the height of the 1984-85 famine, leading to thousands of deaths. PM Meles warned his Eritrean hosts not to ‘scratch old wounds’ when he came to celebrate the formal independence of Eritrea in 1993. And – of course – there was the tragic border war of 1998, sparked by a conflict over the village of Badme.

Now there is increasing tension along the Eritrea-Ethiopia border once more. The TPLF blocked the removal of heavy weapons and equipment by the authorities in Addis Ababa in January 2019. The Tigrayans feared renewed fighting along the border.

Tigrayans blocked military trucks from leaving Shire and Zalambessa, January 2019

There is now a war of words once more, while the land border between Eritrea and Eritrea is closed.

The bitter words from the TPLF were matched by President Isaias, during his recent interview on Eritrean television.

An extract of what President Isaias had to say is below.


OCTOBER 24, 2020  NEWS

3 refugees from Eritrea alleged forced work at a gold, copper and zinc mine controlled by Nevsun

Source: CBC

Landmark settlement is a message to Canadian companies extracting resources overseas: Amnesty International

A general view shows the sag mill and ball mill within the processing plant at the Bisha Mining Share Company (BMSC) in Eritrea, operated by Canadian company Nevsun Resources, on Feb. 18, 2016. (Thomas Mukoya/Reuters)
A human rights lawsuit alleging slavery and torture has been settled outside of court with a Canadian mining company for an undisclosed but “significant” amount, according to Amnesty International.

In February 2020 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the case could be heard in B.C. despite the fact it involved events in Africa.

The terms of the settlement remain confidential but human rights advocates say the outcome of this legal proceeding will resonate.

Tara Scurr is the business and human rights campaigner for Amnesty International Canada.

She says this case — brought forward by three refugees from Eritrea — involved allegations of torture, slavery and other human rights abuses.

Precedent-setting case

The fact that the Canadian mining company opted to settle the dispute will send a message.

“It’s a precedent-setting case. It’s the first time that level of human rights abuse has been brought before a Canadian court for the activities of a Canadian extractives company overseas,” said Scurr.

She said this serves as an example that such cases can be heard in Canada and result in significant settlements with corporations.

Nevsun Resources’ gold and copper mine in the Bisha mining district in northern Eritrea, adjacent to Sudan. (CBC)

The case was first filed in 2014 by former mine workers Gize Yebeyo Araya, Kesete Tekle Fshazion and Mihretab Yemane Tekle.

The trio of Eritrean refugees alleged that Nevsun was responsible for benefiting from human rights abuses including slavery, forced labour, torture and crimes against humanity during construction of its copper and gold mine in Eritrea.

Amnesty International said in a news release that the terms of the settlement between the company and the three refugees are confidential.

The secretary general of Amnesty International Canada lauded the courage of the mine workers who came forward with their “horrific” experiences in a “groundbreaking” lawsuit.

“These individuals helped pave the way for corporate accountability overseas. Canadian companies must take responsibility for alleged human rights abuses associated with their operations, not just on Canadian soil, but anywhere in the world,” said Ketty Nivyabandi.

Supreme Court allowed case to proceed in British Columbia

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed Nevsun’s appeal of the case and allowed it to proceed in B.C., affirming that international law applied to both states and corporations and making it clear that companies can be tried in Canada over serious allegations in other countries.

During the proceedings Nevsun denied that the company or any subsidiaries enlisted the Eritrean military to build the mine or supply labour, and said the refugees behind the court action were not mistreated.

B.C. courts dismissed Nevsun’s attempts to make Eritrea the forum for the lawsuit.

In its March decision, the Supreme Court rejected the company’s argument that Canadian courts are precluded from assessing the sovereign acts of a foreign government, including Eritrea’s national military service program.

The court also noted that customary international law — the common law of the international legal system — embraces fundamental norms, including prohibitions against slavery, forced labour and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Scurr said the trio who first brought the case continue to suffer trauma because of their experiences.

She said workers described being bound and beaten, tied up in the hot sun and left for hours, while earning about $30 US per month. There was no sick leave and they faced retribution that affected their families if they took any leave.

She said the settlement is a relief for the families, despite the fact details about who was involved won’t be publicized.

“It saves them giving testimony, giving evidence, having every single issue scrutinized and debated while they are still recovering from the terrific abuses they suffered. In fact, fantastic for them that the case has been settled. I know that they are very happy.”

CBC reached out to former Nevsun executives who declined comment.

Requests to Zijin Mining Group Company, a Chinese company that acquired Nevsun in 2018 for $1.9 billion, have gone unanswered.

In previous statements, Nevsun denied all allegations and said it planned to “vigorously defend itself in court.”

OCTOBER 24, 2020  NEWS

The Eritrean embassy office in The Hague uses coercion to raise money among Eritreans in the Netherlands. They were asked to donate at least 100 euros in connection with the Corona crisis.

Source: NU [Articles computer translated from Dutch]

Minister Blok requests clarification from Eritrea about controversial fundraising

Minister Blok requests clarification from Eritrea about controversial fundraising

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Stef Blok, demanded clarification from Eritrea on Saturday about fundraising by the embassy office of the country, a minister told the ANP news agency after reports on the Argos radio program.

According to Argos , the Eritrean embassy office in The Hague uses coercion to raise money among Eritreans in the Netherlands. They were asked to donate at least 100 euros in connection with the Corona crisis.

Eritrea has been asking for money from fellow countrymen living abroad for years. It concerns the so-called diaspora tax. This tax cannot be banned, but according to the United Nations (UN), the tax is often done with intimidation and coercion. Action can be taken if Eritreans report that they have been pressured to pay.

Blok calls it “very worrying” that there are again reports of the forced collection of money by Eritrean diplomats. The minister requires an explanation from the embassy office. He also says he cannot rule out further actions.

Highest diplomatic representative was previously expelled

In 2018, former Foreign Minister Halbe Zijlstra demanded that Eritrea’s senior diplomatic representative, Tekeste Ghebremedhin Zemuy, leave the Netherlands, as the embassy continued to forcibly collect money from the diaspora. He was declared persona non grata. The House of Representatives also demanded that the embassy office be closed, but the cabinet did not agree to this at the time.

Minister Blok calls on victims of the fundraising to file a report, so that the Public Prosecution Service (OM) can investigate the case.

Source: NOS

Eritrea diplomats have again collected money from fellow countrymen in the Netherlands. This was preceded by a call from the Eritrean embassy, ​​which asked in the spring to contribute a minimum of 100 euros to the fight against the corona virus in Eritrea, VPRO radio program Argos reports .

Members of the Eritrean community in the Netherlands said that representatives of the country also went through the doors to collect money. Those who paid stated that they had been pressured, including with the threat that the family in Eritrea would not receive food coupons if they did not pay.

From a list of payments which Argos got hold , it was apparent collected at least 155,000 euros. Some come from supporters of the military regime, or organizations affiliated with the regime, but the list also includes people who have fled that regime. It concerns hundreds of status holders, but also people who still live in an asylum seekers’ center.


The action is remarkable: two years ago, the highest Eritrean diplomat, the Netherlands, was expelled because the regime forced former countrymen in the Netherlands to hand over taxes to Eritrea. Intimidation was not shunned, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs Zijlstra wrote to the Lower House.

MPs want the cabinet to take measures. Minister Blok informed Argos that he will ask the Eritrean embassy for clarification. He also calls on people who are victims to report the crime. “If there are well-founded suspicions of criminal offenses, the Public Prosecution Service will investigate.”

The Argos episode can be heard this afternoon on NPO Radio 1 from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m

Source: NRC NL

‘Embassy office Eritrea forces donations from asylum seekers’

Fundraising campaign In April, the embassy started a fundraising campaign with “a minimum contribution of 100 euros” for the “fight against corona”. People who paid would have been put under pressure.
Money would have been collected from Eritreans who just fled the regime and still live in an asylum seekers’ center.Photo Olaf Kraak / ANP 

Diplomats from the Eritrean embassy office in the Netherlands are involved in raising money from members of the Eritrean community in the Netherlands, including asylum seekers. This is shown by research by the radio program Argos . People who paid would have been pressured to do so.

In April, the office – Eritrea does not have a full-fledged embassy in the Netherlands – started a fundraising campaign with “a minimum contribution of 100 euros” for the “fight against corona”. During the lockdown, embassy personnel passed the houses of Eritreans in the Netherlands. Consul Solomon Mehari was also involved in the action.

It was implicitly stated that failure to pay would have major consequences. According to Argos, there are known cases in which Eritreans are refused consular services or family members in Eritrea have more difficult access to scarce goods such as sugar and oil when their relatives in the Netherlands do not pay. According to a list of payments that Argos saw, at least 155,000 euros was collected from the collections. The list also includes persons who have just fled the Eritrean regime and are still living in an asylum seekers’ center.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is going to ask the embassy office for clarification. In 2018, the highest diplomat of Eritrea Netherlands was expelled for levying a so-called diaspora tax, whereby Eritreans in the Netherlands had to pay 2 percent of their income to the repressive regime in Africa. That too would have happened then under pressure.

A paper presented at a zoom conference among scholars and researchers on federal state structure and unitary state structure


The aim of this paper is to clarify the essence of federalism to resolve conflicts of power- sharing in political, economic, social and cultural livelihood of the Eritrean diversity. The Eritrean National Alliance has put two on its charter, “ the principles of federalism or democratic decentralization and the fundamental rights “ of the various communities of Eritrea. But, how are these principles be put in practice are still to be studied. The Eritrean scholars and intellectuals should focus their studies on the realities of Eritrea. In Eritrea, there is an oppressed and oppressor- this has evidenced after Eritrea’s independence.

Who is the oppressor, its structure and its functions, and its supporters will be exposed to the Eritrean people.

One cannot bury the facts and build a false history in Eritrea.( See The Agaziaan Movement) The state building in Eritrea must be based on the diversity of the Eritrean people wishes and aspirations not by imposing assimilative policies of a one- man dictatorship.

The analysis of issues of conflict in Eritrea has been discussed many times. The long traditions of political, economic and social differences inside the Eritrean socio-economic and socio-politic structures had been neglected and passed by saying , “ We Eritreans are one people and one heart,  “ or say don’t speak about our difference, because we can be divided. In the first place, the socio- economic and socio-political structure and its divisive forces – ethnic ( race , language and culture ) religion and political ideology must be addressed properly without fear. Generally speaking , Eritreans have been escaping from the realities, that Eritreans are different in their socio –economic and political structures. Eritrea can be divided into three categories based on its socio- economic and political structures. 1. The west and east lowlanders. 2. The kebesa people- comprising tigrinya speaking christians and jeberti moslems and the Saho People on the eastern escarpment of the province of Akele- guzai. 3. The Afars of the  Red Sea.

The knowledge of these communities’ socio –economic and political structures help us understand the contradictions that disunited Eritreans to build a nation. Neither, the colonialists, nor the liberation movements have brought integrative changes , except divisive and polarising politics in Eritrea. The politics of division and polarisation have been inherited by the ruling party of PFDJ, direct after post liberation. The building of a nation in Eritrea by PFDJ/ EPLF.

Nation –building can not be achieved by enforcing/ coercing the various communities in Eritrea , without taking their views and respect their  fundamental rights of citizenship. The PFDJ and its proponents , policy of “  tight centralism “ for building a strong  government in Eritrea is, indeed a colonial heritage, disregarding the Eritrean diversity. The dream of building a strong nation dominated by one ethnic group- kebesa christians and its aggrandizing politics plunged Eritrea into wars inside and outside. The dream of Issyas still is not materialized. The consequences of tight centralism adopted by

PFDJ are clear. The argument for tight centralism, especially advocated by the Kebesa christian intellectuals and intelligentia had never led to solutions of the Eritrean internal conflicts. The process of unity still is not completed in Eritrea. The government in Eritrea supported by the kebesa christians created a bitter hate against the other ethnic groups. The kebesa christians consciously or unconsciously are still supporting this government, despite its brutality even against them.

The Eritreans still lack an experience and knowledge to find ways and be able to live together under one nation, in equal terms. When a solution to the internal problems be available, then the internal disruptions will be avoided and all Eritreans, regardless of their ethnic, religious and cultural origin will be proud of their Eritreanes.  As I understand the feeling of hegemony of the christian kebesits in general and their elite power greediness that make the Eritrean people live in misunderstandings and fears of each other.

The Eritrean people need a political innovation- rearranging them to come close together and grasp modern conceptions of organizing political, economic and social activities that promote mutual understanding and satisfaction. For this reason, I have selected today, in this paper to discuss about,

 “Democratic Decentralization “and federalism as the only methods of uniting the diversity of Eritreans in Eritrea “

In the first part of this paper I will try to define the terms federalism and democratic decentralization, the territorial characteristics, and the essentials of federalism.

  1. What is federalism?

The Eritrean state formation re-examined

The experience of state formation in Eritrea by the EPLF/ PFDJ was an old method of the Western colonial states by concentration of power to individuals and  capital accumulation in the name of the people mainly to control the people and deprive their territories. This is not the traditional African experience at the village level. The league or the idea federalism is not western idea but is African.

Federalism is a political concept in which a diverse of people are united together by covenant/ constitution with a governing representative. It is when the sovereignty is constitutionally divided between the federal authority and constituent political units.( state, provinces, cantons) It is a system based upon a democratic rules and institutions in which the power is shared between national and the units. It is not the size of the country or the number of the population that decides that one will adopt the federal system of governance but its being the best tool for solving internal problems of power sharing. It is the right formula uniting the diversity under one nation. Most Eritrean intellectuals and political elites relate federalism with separation or secession. Some argue that Eritrea is a little nation and cannot afford economically. Such arguments are the same like those who say that economic development must come before democracy. The idea of federalism came for example in Switzerland when it was poor. It was motivated that the need to accommodate the diverse communities inhabiting the land.

Why federalism in Eritrea

Eritrea is a nation with peoples of diverse languages, culture and religion. Power over resources and identity often shaped by the powerful is the root conflict in Eritrea. Historically, from the early birth of Eritrean nationalism the politics that dominated and still existing is the zero-sum game where the winner takes all. The nation that will be built after post dictatorial Eritrea must first adjust the state structure where the politics of zero-sum games abhor and the politics where all the Eritreans win. In the next following section I will discuss decentralization which was adopted previously by the EDA and later by the ENCDC in its charter, comparing it with unitary system of governance.

What is democratic decentralization?

Decentralization refers to any arrangement by which the responsibilities of the central government for the direct provision and administration of services are reduced by allocating to co-ordinate authorities enjoying some measure of discretion. There are two kinds of federalism, administrative and democratic federalism. Administrative federalism is accountable to the central government but democratic is accountable to the people. The term, federation is a type of polity/ government operating constitutionally and works on two levels of government: as a nation and as a collection of related but self-standing units.

The objective of federation is a form of government for the people by the people. That is to say it is inherently democratic. It seeks on the one hand to create and maintain a nation, on the other hand to preserve the integrity of the units, their identity, culture and tradition. The objective of building and maintaining of  Eritrea as a nation need a unity of all the communities living in different regions in  Eritrea based on equality and justice and no dominance of one ethnic group on the others. In federation, no level of government is dominant over the other. The rights of all units should be guaranteed in the constitution.

Some Eritreans argue for decentralised unitary democracy in Eritrea. But there is fundamental difference between decentralised unitary democracy and federation. In a federation the rights of the people living in the regions are guaranteed by the constitution, while in the decentralised unitary democracy, lower level governments are merely statutory, they could be swept away by the central government at any time. In a federation. The central government has no constitutional relation, any influence is regarded as an illegitimate encroachment on the units rights. But additional contributions or funds for development of the unit are welcome.

The term centralism refers to a polity operating a constitution which works on one level government as one unit. It is inherently undemocratic and leads directly to dictatorship. The objective of building and maintaining of a nation is exclusive and is realised by dominance and force. This system of centralism is not accepted by the modern world, because it is a failed system. Nowadays, it is practised by some undeveloped countries, like that of Eritrea.

Arguments in favor of centralism is that Eritrea is inhabited by diversities of people, the only method to hold these diversities by is tight centralism. The second argument is that Eritrea is so poor that it cannot maintain or finance its units as federal states. The third argument is that it can lead to internecine wars , because of territorial boundaries.

We have defined the concepts of decentralization and federalism in contrast to centralism and unitary democracy, we will now proceed to its natural governmental organs:

  1. Elected Assembly representative of all units / states with fixed terms of years, related with the number of population decided by rules of election. It can be adjustable with the changing of population movements.
  2. An elected Senate of a fixed and limited number with equal representation of all states. Through this mechanism a weaker state feel that it can make a positive contribution to national policies.
  3. A Federal government capable of taking decisions quickly, preparing the draft of national budget, introducing new legislation, and suggesting constitutional amendments.
  4. Supreme Court or the Judicial administration is the watchdog of the constitution

The Federal government in Eritrea, should be better in a form of committees instead of president like that of the USA, because a president in a society like that of Eritrea can neglect the interests of the many units. A federal government led by committee ( Parliamentarism) elect a chairman from itself for a limited time. The president is not executive and has no outstanding importance.

  1. What are the geographical characteristics in Eritrea ?

Essentially, Eritrea have had 8 territorially and culturally administratively functioning provinces, during the Italian colonial period ,  federal period with Ethiopia and under Ethiopian occupation. These territorially divided provinces have their historical characteristics- the Lowlands of West and East Eritrea comprising the provinces of Senhit, Semhar, Sahel, Barka  , and the Highland Region- comprising Hamasien,  Seraye and Akele-Guzay and the Denkel- Assab region.

After independence, the regime in Eritrea has changed the structure of the past political organization and constituted Eritrea with 6 administrative regions without no studies and consultation of the people. The existing association of the people and territories is not consistent. The territorial adjustments, bringing or merging the people from different regions has only fomented conflicts of land appropriation between the various people in Eritrea.

The present division of Eritrea into 6 provinces is artificial to strengthen the power of the authoritarian ruling party of PFDJ. The ruling party has neglected the historical, cultural and geographical identities of the various Eritrean people.

In the federal form of government in Eritrea , the division of units/ states will be based on the historical, cultural and geographical identities. The states can show some variations, but all will abide under the constitutional law adhering to the parliamentary form of government. The differences in culture and religion should be respected.

  1. What are the essentials of federalism?

I attempted to define the essentials of federalism, now I will be dealing with the functions and structure of the federal government. Any attempt to analyse or create , a decentralized system of government , whether federal or not, one must pay attention to the political and legal aspects. If the future governing structure is federal or unitary. The institutions of government and the party system should be devised clearly without causing obstacles to the functioning of the government. Procedures and institutional forms based on the constitutional rules must be established and maintain the federal ruling system viable. Political parties can compete through the machinery of federalism for their interests without state restrictions. The role of the party system within the federal system should be clear. The function of the political parties in a federation should bridge the gap between the Federal and State governments and bring the two levels of government into harmonious relationship. If political parties do not cut across boundaries, but perpetuate local level and sectional loyalties, then the danger of civil war is enhanced, and the functioning of federation disrupts. Political parties must provide the mechanism   of co-operation - by bringing the different opinions closer together until political compromise is reached. Political parties that have the ability of drawing support based on linguistic, racial, and religious factors can challenge the work of the government and make it unable to conduct its policies.

In the first part of this article, I shortly defined the meanings and the essences of decentralisation. In this part, I will deal with the issues ( geographical, cultural and religious ) that must be considered , when building and maintaining a state.

  1. What type of state can mitigate or help solve the internal conflict in Eritrea ?
  2. Have the various Eritrean Political Opposition a common map of building a state?
    1. Unitary state with tight centralism ? Why ?
    2. Unitary democratic state with decentralisation ? Why ?
    3. United federal democratic state ? Why ?

Each and every political or civic organisation should have a vision for future Eritrea. The most difficult issue is not the removal of the dictatordictators decay themselves and die by their actions. But , what is your proposal  on building state ? Saying , democratic Eritrea itself is not enough. Say something tangible. Choose one of the above and argue , which is the best device to settle conflicts of power and build peaceful and stable Eritra.

The centralised and one man rule is the source of all evils with rigid attitude of arrogance neglecting dialogue of resolving the endemic conflicts in Eritrea. Neither , the ruling dictator,  nor  those who are crying for salvation are no reliable in solving internal conflicts in Eritrea. Because they own no culture of dialogue.

Nation –building and state, where people’s rights are violated or neglected never achieve sustainable development. Why do conflicts flare up always between Eritreans ? . Does the origin of the conflicts depend on the socio-economic and political organisation ? In this part of this article, I would like to explore the dynamics and inclinations of the Eritrean political activities and organisation

This attitude of arrogance and dominance welcomes always dictatorship and totalitarian politics with a maxim,  “rulers never make mistake, “  and its attempt of establishing a strong and militaristic government in Eritrea couldn’t solve the substantial differences between the various of the Eritrean people. A way in which the fundamental issues are presented and resolved- thus creating national unity, where the rights of the people respected and political participation guaranteed were neglected by the party that has taken power after independence. The experience of the ten years’ of independence  marked by its atrocities and its failed policies, and the distortions that occurred should be examined and be acknowledged by the regime and its accomplices not to be repeated by next generation. The tension is between those who admired and supported the brutal regime and those who were victims of this regime since independence.

4. State Structure  and power- sharing

Given the Eritrean communities diversity in culture , religion and region , restructuring the state power reflecting this diversity is of great importance.  A state structure which accommodates the heterogeneous people of Eritrea  , where power should be decentralised equally to all regions and each region should have its identical relationship with federal government. Models of unitary government more or less lead to centralism and never help solve internal conflicts. A federal device in terms of the division of powers and the structure of institutions enables various kinds of accommodation to be made. It is more hospitable to compromise, based on discussions , mutual respect  and thereby reinforce these qualities. The advantages of federalism exceeds its disadvantages.

The counter arguments of federalism are those presented by the leaders of majority because they lose power. They fear that it can trigger to secession. These fears can solved by arranging the system of governing so that maintaining the unity of the nation, on the one hand, and preserving the integrity of the units / states / regions, their identity, culture and tradition, on the other hand. The objective of state building and maintaining a nation implies that the free movement of  labour , capital and the unity of commercial and financial policy from one region to another must be ensured. The units never be allowed to secession or violate the rights of the other region. This should be guaranteed in the Constitution.

Territorial nationhood/ regionalism is one of the elements which constructs the country. It is one of the markers of nationalism.  Regionalism as a policy is the device of decentralisation for effective and accessible administration. The people living in that region take the responsibility for good governance and maintain their own culture and identity. Therefore, regionalism has nothing to do with segregation , or divisions , it contributes more to Eritrean nationalism and unity. Eritrea is a composition of the various geographical and cultural identities.

This distinct geographical and cultural identities must be viewed from the

Eritrean historical importance. The attempt of nation –building by the regime in Eritrea  has not taken , in consideration  , the cultural and territorial distinction  of the people in one region. For example, the redrawing of the provincial boundaries , the land belongs the state, proclaimed by the PFDJ is a direct deprivation of the rights of the people of their land and identity. This policy was to settle the highly populated tigrinya –speaking christians to the less populated lowlands. This has only brought conflict between the new settlers and owners. The existing pattern, internal relationships, history, degree of autonomy and organisational structure of the region is dependent on the decision of the people.

The self –appointed regime of PFDJ has changed the existing pattern in the name of unity.

The re-mapping  of  the provinces and the proclamation of the land as of state is one of the root causes of the conflicts in Eritrea. This is one of the area of conflicts concerning disputes over territory. For example, the government in Eritrea has been selling land to those who have money by taking the land from landowners. Territorial disputes have taken place between the state and the people. A viable nation- building in Eritrea requires the use of innovative institutional arrangements that deliver equitable economic resource allocation for all the citizens without segregation. Such arrangements can dampen calls for secession. Eritrea , with its diverse people needs institutions that promote conflict management. This arrangement can be federalism or other decentralisation of power.

State–building in Eritrea has run into aground and provoked an opposite reaction among many influential linguistic and religious and cultural groups : the emergence of rival ethnic and religious movements at this time are apparent evidences of the failure of state-bulding in Eritrea.

Language and religion, however , are  identity markers that are shared by all Eritreans, irrespective their origin, basing national identity on a particular language is an essential political concept which is invoked frequently in Eritrea. The language policy adopted by the current regime in Eritrea is one of the main issues of conflict in the building of the state. This policy has secondary effects on the ability of the people to seek employment: those whose language is chosen for official use have an obvious advantage over others. For example, in Eritrea , those who speak arabic language has no opportunity to get employment, because arabic language has no official use in Eritrea at this time. Language policy is one of the factors used in building a state.

The role of religion in Eritrea :religion in Eritrea tends to be part of our human experience and is by any means indispensable for the Eritrean society. Eritrean identity is sometimes described by moslem/ christian national identity since the inception of Eritrean nationalism. During the Federal period ( 1952 -1962 ), both arabic / tigrinya and moslem /christian were declared to define Eritrean national identity. The post-liberation period of nation –building in Eritrea has not given respect to these identities  , when adopting a particular language policy in Eritrea.

A viable nation –building in Eritrea need a language policy that accommodate the diverse ethnic groups integrated, but not assimilated. Language pluralism is not disadvantage but is advantage. Language conflict can be managed by providing the minority languages freely used and giving incentives to learn the official languages, ( Arabic and Tigrinya ) because people have the advantage to learn many languages. To day it is a common to speak more than one language in many countries. Switzerland is a classic example of how culturally diverse groups can coexist  peacefully, rather than melting ethnic groups into a new culture. A nation is not necessarily have one language to be or to share a sense of belonging.  “Can’t you speak tigrinya? Aren’t you Eritrean ? “ are the modern  times , explicit or implicit ideas of assimilation.

To-day , it is only the tigrinya language, used in schools, administration, the army,and public life in general. Even the names of the places and villages settled by the newcomers are given the names of tigrinya. This is a deliberate action of tigrinyatisation. Despite, many protests, the policy assimilation of the ruling party has gone beyond correction.

The mother tongue education policy is only sham and pretentious. Those who attended or mastered the mother tongue are considered as illiterates. They have no opportunity of employment and other professional rewards and promotion. Even , they are not allowed to sign or write their names in their languages. Then

, what is the use of learning mother tongue for five years ? Isn’t that  squandering with national resources ?

5. The Current Situation in Eritrea

The ruling party in Eritrea  with its ten years’ experience of hostility, bloodshed and civil war under unworkable constitution and a tight centralism has never provided an appropriate solution to the internal conflicts in Eritrea. The ruling party in Eritrea has the same policies as that of the former  imperial powers. Many proponents of the tight union, either members of the ruling party , or in the opposition believe that the diversity in Eritrea must be brought by force to build a nation in Eritrea. The Eritrean diversities of  race, culture and religion are so strong that a strong government with no autonomy of these peoples’ rights is not viable.

Today, the devout supporters of the ruling party even pronounce that

Constitution is not necessary in Eritrea.  They repeatedly argue that ,what the Eritrean people need is food, but deserve no rights.  The need for food and its acquisition is one’s civil right. Food , housing and other necessities of life are the natural fundamental rights of the human being. They are not granted by the rulers of the country. A government that deprives these rights is not the people’s government. A country that neglects these rights is doomed to fail.

The post –independence period and its devastating wars with neighbouring countries would have been avoided if  Eritrea has adopted a democratic device to build a democratic state. The main cause of all these horrors is the wrong path of building a nation adopted by the ruling party in Eritrea.

The ruling party ( PFDJ ) vested all power to one man in order to build a strong government without no institutions and constitution. This was the main factor leading the country in spiral of conflicts and wars with all internal an external forces. To prevent recurrent dictators and the tight  centralism that breeds disunity among Eritreans, it is time to  search a  device that unites all Eritreans to build a viable nation.

In part one of this article, I have discussed the organs of federal government, and part two has discussed the Eritrean distinct geographical, cultural and religious identity that must be respected and maintained to build a viable nation. In this part of my article, I will be concentrating on , why the major characteristics of  the Eritrean territorial components and integrity are important in building a state in Eritrea.

6. Historical Overview

The present Eritrea is born from the distinct territorial components determined by the time of colonial and internal actions in the period of  1890 – 1991. The zones of occupation were first known as , Highland Eritrea ( Kebesa ), East and West lowland Eritrea ( Oriental  and Occidental Eritrea ) and the Land of the Danakil ( Afarlands ). This division was  the first path of shaping Eritrea as a colonial nation. It was of practical, cultural, economic and geographically satisfying the colonisers and the local people. These regional administration has historical bases. Out of these three regions, the occupiers constructed  the later administrative provinces. It was an effective reorganisation of the Eritrean territorial and political life that took around 1908. The country was divided into provinces and districts.

The provinces of  Hamasien, Seraye and Akele Guzzai  are located in the

Eritrean Highlands. The provinces of  both East and West Lowlands are Semhar, Sahel, Senhit and Barka. Assab is the province of the Afarland. The various communities living in these regions and provinces had their own way of  associations. They formed their own village and territorial rules and laws under the colonial rule. These three territories were separately administered.

The three regions / territories or the provinces vary widely in population , area and resources. The largest in area is the Western Lowland and the smallest is the Highland.  ( Kebesa ) Population -wise, the Eritrean highland is more densely populated , while the Eritrean Lowlands are scarcely populated.  The people living in the former territories  were dependent on agriculture and herdsmen. The various communities living in the three regions had their own basic laws as a form of governing at the chief level. Some have written constitutions that were formidable and detail. They have a system of judicial administration through their own constitutional courts. These land laws still works in the villages. The Eritrean post –liberation nation-building has never taken these historic characteristics that were established many years ago. The differences in culture and religion which distinguishes the Eritrean communities from one another should not be neglected.  A nation –building that does not  include these regional identities is doomed to fail.

The current  unimplemented constitution of the  current regime in Eritrea did not provide any vertical and horizontal division of  power and function. Even the organs of the government and  their authority is not clearly defined. All power lies on the president. There are no defined basic laws , except decrees. The 6 administrative zones have no autonomous administrative authority provided by the constitution. This is one of the main problems in the state structure in

Eritrea. The unimplemented constitution in Eritrea is not because many Eritreans had not participated in it ,  but because it produces a situation of tight power concentration within the system of governing. This model is obviously dysfunctional in Eritrea. The view of those who support this Constitution is only the view of those who want to build the Empire of  Eritrea under one king

The people living in the Highlands of Eritrea, except the Saho and the Jeberti , had strict and more centralised way of ruling at home. The Saho people had more liberal and decentralised way of life. The people living in the West and East Lowlands , and the Afar people were  following more decentralised way of life. These two aspects of  civilisation ( culture )  the tight centralism under one feud , practised in the Eritrean Christian Highlanders , and the decentralised one practised by the other Eritrean people should be  noted. The later politics pursued by  the Eritrean political elites emanated from the attitude of  centralism with desire of power or prestige , and decentralisation with power -sharing. The military and dictatorial regime in Asmara has abolished the former regional and provincial boundaries and replaced them with its own scheme under a  “ Unification Decree” favouring one segment of the Eritrean people  at the expense of others. This new boundaries never forged harmony and unity between the Eritreans but greatly served to intensify the inequalities between the new settler and  the former natives. Given the paralysis of centralism,  it is essential to discuss the issue, what type of government is appropriate in Eritrea after the removal of the dictatorial regime in Eritrea ?

It should be clear by now that the method of  organising a government with equal distributing of power and wealth in Eritrea in the future must rest on the claims of the Eritrean people maintaining the distinct regional differences and diversities. A governmental organisation operating as a safeguard against the concentration of too much authority at the centre and its calamities is important in Eritrea to hold the diversity in unity.

  1. The root cause of the conflict

The internal conflict in Eritrea is rooted in the ideas of identity based on race, religion, culture, language and so on, plus the distribution , or sharing of the economic, political and social resources. The combination of this identity- based factors with its wider perception of unjust distribution of resources fuels the deep rooted conflict. The opportunistic leaders  of Eritrea manipulated this identity and distributive  policies and make the conflict insoluble. The internal conflict in Eritrea involves claims of  rights: ethnic rights , religious rights and cultural rights. The conflict in Eritrea is where one community dominates , and others are deprived their fundamental rights. It is a conflict threatening the existence of others. An enduring settlement to the internal conflict in Eritrea depends on building an appropriate democratic political structure.

This appropriate democratic political structure can keep the country from splitting. This political structure can be instituted as a federal governing system that can keep the Eritreans united , where power is devolved equally to all regions and each region has an identical relationship to the central government. For example, the adoption of federalism in Switzerland and Canada were motivated by the need to accommodate the diverse communities. Many Eritreans have negative perception of federalism. They relate this idea as divisive and disuniting. But, in contrary federalism is a device to unite and get together for mutual defence and advancement.

In this part 4 of the article, I will deal  on the origin of the theory of federalism and its practices in the world.

8. Theory and origin of federalism

The ancient Greeks were the first who theorised and practised federalism. Their experiment can be traced from the fifth century B. C. At an early stage the Greeks  have two types of alliances thus called symmachia and sympoliteia meaning , “ leagues “ in english language. Symmachia is a military alliance while Sympoliteia is sharing of political life or political power at that time. This political life implies that there was a central government and local governments. At that time control of the army, foreign affairs and jurisdiction in case of treason belonged to the central government , while other matters belong to the federating communities. Such federal states were mostly developed during the

Hellenistic period. There were other classical leagues such as the

Peloponenesian, Aetolian, Achaean and Boeotian. This earliest and long-lived leagues / federations had been flourishing until 336 B.C.

The Greek leagues have similar patterns to the modern federation: there were two government organs- the Council and the Assembly , and two level governments: the central and local governments. There  are no tangible evidences, if there were federated city-states during the Dark Ages ( the early Middle Ages ) The famous Lombard League  was only a temporary alliance of the cities around Milan against the attacks of empires of France.

In the thirteenth century, the Swiss have attained a form of confederation before they formed a nation. The interest and relevance of leagues has been considered by the Hanseatic League of north German towns. Lubeck and Hamburg joined together to protect the gulfs of the North and Baltic Seas.  All the leagues / federations at that time were engaged in sea trades. As we see, the idea of federation is an ancient , but later on developed as a means of drawing the diverse citizens for the common benefit for building a nation. Federation is the propensity to live together for mutual defence and development. It is a method of governing. Successful federations are those that satisfy all citizens and build up a nation without disruption , where citizens are proud of their nation and feel more to protect it. For example, these are true today in Switzerland, Germany, USA, Canada , Australia and India except some troubles.

Federalism like democracy has its origin from the ancient Greeks but has changed gradually. The federal system of the  modern times is different from that of the ancient Greeks. The features that make a particular political system federal is:

  1. A constitution which guarantees to each of the two levels of government an independence of each other sufficient to enable them to engage the continuing support of significant elements of the political system,
  2. A constitutional and political system which links the two levels with a significant degree of interdependence, such that neither level can subordinate the other to it, nor act wholly independently of the other across the whole range of government functions.

It is this combination of genuine independence with genuine interdependence which distinguishes the federal State from decentralised State. In decentralised State, the central authority may delegate power and authority and draw it at will. The lower government seems have a degree of independence , but if the forces that support it are unable to influence the decisions of the upper level, then  it is not genuine. Genuine constitutional safeguards not only in paper but enforced  by courts,   where the two levels of government work together financially, administratively and organisationally giving them a continuous significance.

The nature of the theory of federalism of the ancient and the nineteenth century  are different as clarified above. The nineteenth century federalism is more concerned with the values of representation , democracy and national feeling. The twentieth century federalism adds  to these values – social justice and legislative policies and finances.

What is the relationship between federalism, democracy and nationalism ? A representative democracy based upon the nation building with a strong sense of national unity depending on mutual trust elects  its representatives. If the representatives use their authority against the interests of  some citizens , then the problems of unity be complicated and as a result nation building is not safe. If the representatives use their authority in a way which broadly recognises  the common interests and aspirations of all , then sense of unity exists and nation building be strong. The emergence of sense of community is eased when people share common traditions, common language, religion and economic interests. When they do not , the problems of unity are difficult to achieve.  The acceptance of nation building requires years of struggle, development of symbols like the flag, or anthem. Many aspects of nationalism are historically related in the process of nation formation and national identity based on participatory democracy. A community excluded from this participatory democracy loses the sense of citizenship.

Federalism was adopted by some countries during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. For example, the Balkan system of small states. These federalism contained two principles: first, the modern federal State responding nationalistic aspirations-widening the sense of community in each of the units which was being federated; second, the federal State involved at one and the same time attempts to strengthen national unity and democracy in nation building including all communities. Thus federalism asserts the rights of the minority and limits the dominance of the majority.

A working constitution of a federal system must met three major conditions to be successful: first, it must provide division of power in a federal sense. Second, it must establish  institutions and constitutions of certain political, economic and social actions. Third , there must be a set of mechanism for the dynamics of the rules concerning the division of powers so that changes in technology, social values and government functions in a federal system  are accommodated and respected in the country.

With these points in mind , the idea of federalism is not the twentieth century phenomenon but ancient, later developed as a system of  government. Today, Switzerland , Germany, USA, Canada and Australia are the  highly developed federal democracies in the world. India and Nigeria are also  ruled by federal system of governing. There are many quasi –federal states in Africa , Asia and Latin American countries. The Arab Emirates in the Gulf are federal kingdoms.

9. The Role of the parties in federalism

Having discussed the idea  and nature of federalism , we must now proceed, how the institutions in the government and the party system interact. In the past, during the communist era, the federal idea was weakened by former socialist countries. To understand the collapse of the socialist federations one can not judge it from the historical speculations about the supposed incompatibilities but rather see the structural , behavioural and the normative weakness of the socialist model applied to the federal idea.

These countries have adopted an asymmetric federal structures, where the dominant chose to battle the non-dominant, for example , the Serbs in

Yugoslavia. More complications  for continuance of the federal idea can be also, when federations are based on ethnic and religious national principles, endangering the very survival of the nation. Another factor that can hinder federalism is the one party authoritarian rule.

The seventy- five year period of communist rule destructed the idea and role of federalism. Socialism has weakened the processes, institutional , and public and elite linkages with the federal idea so that no one came to defend it when communist regimes collapsed. Institutionally, the structures were not designed for conflict resolutions but for to express support for party program.

Economically, it was closely linked with plan economy, increasingly ineffective and wrong allocation of resources. Politically, under socialism, federalism was a bureaucratic-administrative tool and has not served the rights of the people ; but used  as a  means of control and oppression.

In federalism , Constitutional rules are not enough to give life and vigour to the political system. The two principles of federalism- interdependence and independence of the two level governments must be devised and remain distinct and perform the necessary functions without collapsing the whole system of  federal governance. The constitutional and institutional structure of federalism is important to keep power balance between the Federal  and State. Power separation between the Federal and State facilitates the operation of compromise and co-operation , balancing the various interests at regional, provincial and local level in all the Eritrean Communities.

We will now argue , how political parties function in federal system of governing.

The role of the parties in a federal governing system is to bridge the gap between the Federal and State governments , to cut across sectional and regional loyalties, and to bring the two level governments into a relatively harmonious relationship. When disputes evolve between the Federal and the State governments, the parties must provide the mechanism through which the points of view of  both levels are brought closer together until a political  compromise is reached. If political parties do not cut across boundaries, do not  create national system, but perpetuate local and territorial loyalties, then the danger of disintegration or the disruption of the federation is increased. This has been experienced in the past socialist federations. The American and Australian parties have performed this function well.

Federal institutions with highly decentralised political institutions can provide a power base for the State or local politicians to build upon. Such institutions are a desirable for a successful federalism. Local political parties are able to call upon a very high degree of support and loyalty from the people in their particular State or locality and they can draw upon linguistic, racial, religious or other kinds of emotions disabling the central government to conduct effectively the required national policies.

Federal institutions in socialist federations were highly centralised and did not behave as federal consultative bodies. They were rather mechanisms for party control. There were no political parties that can communicate, bargain and compromise upon the problems evolved in the political affairs at the different levels of governments. In the socialist federations, political power flowed from party institutions to federal structures , which meant that the communication – authority flow among federal institutional levels had little significance for policy makers. Communism was intolerant towards free expression, unanimity but not diversity was the celebrated value. In all the socialist federations, party organisations and leaders were not federalist but anti- capitalist movements. There were no mutual trust and confidence and the party did not provide mechanisms of negotiations and compromise. The party platform , and the role of the ethnic or republic delegates at the national level was only to endorse and support the party program. Those who did not support , or criticise were severely repressed or labelled simultaneously anti- communist or antinationalists.

In the Western Federal systems of governing, political parties fight their battles through the machinery of federalism without being committed to States’ Rights or the Federal Government. They are only concerned to promote their political interests and ideologies.

Federal Governments in the Western Countries maintain a two-party system or multi-party system. The federal politics provide the parties free and competitive rights.

Federalism has been misconceived by many Eritreans as divisive and disassociative , but in contrary it is unitary and creative if it develops gradually and entail the necessary conditions related with its development.

The character of the regional units- the way in which the boundaries of the federating states are drawn is the most complicated issue. The financial and administrative issues, the separation of powers and the judiciary will be the next issues to be discussed.

10. Drawing boundaries of the federating states

In the previous series of articles I tried to illustrate the main ideas and elements of federalism. I will now try to shed light on the importance of drawing boundaries between the states. Adopting federal form of government needs an appropriate planning of mapping so that unnecessary incompatibilities be avoided.

The organisation of the State and Local Governments is the most interesting aspect of  federal politics. The objective of this organising is to see that no State should be in a position of dominating others. The State should be compact in its administrative, territorial, cultural historical association and respect the wishes of the citizens. Each State should carefully select its capital supposed to be convenient and accessible for all residents in that area.

The path of federalism is never smooth regarding drawing boundaries between States. Drawing boundaries based on regions or based on administrative provinces have their advantages and disadvantages. For example ; the first experience of Nigeria is interesting in this respect. The Nigerian federation was first based on regions- three state regions from the British period. The desire for a greater number of states was refused because on non-viability. But the decision was disastrous. Friction between the regions has arisen; and further complicated by the larger regions. The incompatibility is that putting people to live together in a large area which is not possible to work smoothly.

The first experience of drawing boundaries regionally in Nigeria has resulted in regionalism and infighting ( Ex ; the case of Biafra ) In January 1966, immediately after the civil war a new boundary was redrawn, avoiding the incompatibles yoking people together. Regions have been replaced by a number of states. Today, there are 19 states in Nigeria , entirely secular with freedom of movement. Complete equality before the law, free press and all occupations open to all religious and tribes. This new reorganisation of boundaries strengthened the federal politics in Nigeria.

The Swiss experience, from the thirteenth century consists a number of separate sovereign states called cantons , which joined together to secure certain common objectives, especially defence, foreign policy and large public works. The first three original Forest Cantons made their first treaty of alliance in 1291. The alliance of these three cantons was the cradle of the Swiss Confederation. This alliance has endured through all the changes and troubles and is one of the successful federations in the world. The arrangement of  the boundaries of the cantons differed from time to time , however over the past years a steady expansion of cantons had appeared. The number of cantons has now grown to twenty- five.

The Confederation was not safe, to some extent some infighting were taking place. There were quarrels  and even infighting between the rural populations. Inspired by the French revolution, individual cantons began gradually to get rid of their oligarchies and move towards democracy. The young began to orient themselves with the ideas of democracy. People began to come together closer into the government. Continual contacts between people and governments have been promoted. The devices of initiative and referendum has become popular. The cantons were successful helped by their decentralised way of governing.

The German federalism boundary drawing was based on territorial components determined by the actions of the Western occupying powers in the period of 1945 -49. The zones of occupation were divided into provinces, partly because of practical and convenience matters. Some of them had a historical basis such as Hamburg and Bavaria. The Federal Republic of Germany was constituted in 1949 original containing 11 states excluding West Berlin.

The provinces vary widely in population , area and resources. The present shape of the German federation stems from the decisions taken when the country was divided and was in difficulties. After so many years in federation , with differences in culture and religion , the states today are more homogenous and united.

When the monopolistic dictatorial regime in Eritrea collapses , what is the kind of government the Eritrean Opposition in mind is not clear. Politically centralised framework providing monopolistic rule is not acceptable. The main point in this article is that the Eritrean political Opposition should have schemes for configuring Eritrean state-building along a political structure that accommodate Eritrea’s various communities.

The idea of federalism provokes serious discussion, its utility as a viable tool or process of peacemaking need thorough study.

The recently formed movement , called Eritrean Federal Democratic Movement has declared that a federal arrangement  is an appropriate to Eritrea’s configuration of ethnically and religiously interwoven or mixed communities and its traditional politics of polarisation.

The present discussion, what is the appropriate state structure following the fall of the dictatorial regime is  the main issue of the Eritrean Federal Democratic Movement. The transition to democracy in Eritrea after the fall of the dictatorship should facilitate conflict resolution and conflict prevention. The Eritrean internal conflict stems from the strong competition for control over the state power. This conflict can be managed by restructuring the state and powersharing. Federalism as a model of conflict settlement provides the instruments of distribution, division and separation of authority and power based on the people’s will and desires.

10. The Principles of Federalism

The Eritrean  people cannot rest content until they have a genuine structure of government expressing their will and wishes in all vital matters. The Eritrea people is in a situation that is intolerable charged with hatred, filled with misfortune and pain- wars , hunger and aids. Reverting this situation need hope and positive reaction. Hope followed by action would bring the reasonable settlement in Eritrea. Out of this suffering , we must fashion  a new Eritrea free from prejudices and barriers. How can we create a true unity in Eritrea ? By devising the principles and foundations of unity leading to peace and stability in the country.

In this part of the  article, I will deal with the principles of the method of unifying( federalism ) Eritreans, ie the principles of federalism.

The principles of federalism evolve from the historical and different experiences in the past. Out of these experiences, there are three main principles that distinguish the federal system of government than the national government system. Thus, they are : the constitutional  distribution of power, the separation of the legislative and executive power and the division of legislative power into two powerful chambers.

11. The constitutional distribution of power between the federal and state governments

The relationship of the Federal , State and Local governments depends on the competence  within their own domain and subject to the constitution. The federal constitution provides each government with significant decision making power, administrative responsibility and operational influence. The federal Constitution provides a vertical distribution of authority and functions between the federal government and the federating states, according to which each is state is a co-ordinate but not subordinate with the others. Some powers lie with the federal authority and some with member states, and each domain has scope for independent action within its power. The principle of co- ordinate and independent powers plays a big role in strengthening the relationship between the federal government and the states as provided in the basic law.

The basic principles should be expressed in the articles of the basic law. The exercise of state powers and the distribution of  state functions and competence rests with the states. The states are responsible for establishing their own administrative services and procedures. The federal government cannot promulgate decrees without the consent of the state representatives. The principle of administration by the states should be qualified within the area of its competence.

So far we have been dealing with principles of autonomous states’ administration and their legal qualifications, the subsiding will be on the legislative and executive powers.

11. The principles of federal legislatures

In a federal form of governing, there are two-chambers ; the national assembly consisting of the popularly elected national assembly and the second chamber representing the states , known as the senate or state council. The members of the senate are all members of their respective state governments.

The functions of the government are divided between the legislature which has power authority over the whole nation and those legislatures which have authority over their own territories. The relationship between these two legislatures is not like the relationship between superior and subordinate as in a unitary government of the current and dreamers of the future in Eritrea , but is a division of governmental functions between one authority, usually called federal government and the state government. In federalism , there is no such relationship. The division of functions of government are embodied in the written federal constitution which is the supreme law of the land. In unitary constitution, all power is concentrated in the centre- in the executive organ.

The motive of the principle of separation of power is to restrain the tyranny in governments and work transparently under the law of the constitution.


The Eritrean political conflict is based on the role of the state structure and organization. The state is the most powerful organization. Control of the state usually provides access to economic power. What the Eritrean people experience and see is that the regime in power is today dominated by one sector of the Eritrean people. There is a strong competition for control over the state apparatus and this will be the main cause of post dictatorial Eritrea. The Eritrean

Oppositions thorny issues are the issues of state structure and the kind of covenant/ constitution building process. If the Eritrean opposition for democratic change wants to prevent this conflict it must restructure the state and have a new constitution that can solve the internal conflicts of power sharing and redistribution of economic resources. A more productive strategy is to look at tools devolving power via federalism.


  1. Ghai, Yash.Ed 1998. “ Decentralization and the Accommodation of Ethnicity”
  2. Lapidoth,Ruth. 1996. autonomy:Flexible Solutions to ethnic conflicts.
  3. Dahl RobertA. 1983. “ Federalism and the Democratic Process.
  4. Elazar, Daniel.J. 1968. Federalism.
  5. Kymlicka,Will 2001. “ Minority Nationalism and Multination Federalism.”
  6. Lijphart, Arend 1977, Democracy in plural society.
  7. Azar, Edward E.1991, “ The analysis and management of protracted conflict.