Support for Nonviolent Struggle for Change Gaining Ground in Eritrean Political

, 14 April 2013 21:48
Even though there are a variety of choices to change a system, different people give different answers on the reliability and effectiveness of each method. Recent developments in our world helped us to evaluate the different methods of changing a system in theory and in practice. We see the following methods of change: through peaceful popular uprising, armed struggle, by coup d’état or through an invasion by another country. Keep in mind that each of the above avenues has its own weaknesses and strengths. Therefore, after examining and evaluating every stated way of struggle, EPDP convincingly chose the nonviolent avenue and early on included it in its political documents.
EPDP advocacy for basically nonviolent democratic struggle did not start because of the popular eruption in the Middle East and North Africa. Rather, those uprisings underscored the power of that method. Thus we observe today that this method is making inroads within the Eritrean opposition. This positive development encourages us to highlight and speak up for the peaceful road we chose.

Experience teaches that the outcome of a government through a coup d’état is an unknown quantity. If there are any changes introduced they can be cosmetic ones or it can simply disguise the rule of the old dictatorship. Most importantly at this point in time, any force that overthrows a government, particularly an elected one, is condemned by the U.N., by the European Union and the African Union.
On another angle we notice changes that come as a result of foreign interventions. Such changes always come with the interventionists’ interest at the forefront. In the end, this cannot bring lasting solutions for the people concerned. The countries of Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia are good recent examples of what foreign intervention can do.
Each of these methods has its own strong and weak aspects. And it was after thorough scrutiny and study of these methods and their short- and long-term impacts on people’s lives that the EPDP has adopted a method that it believed will work.
Only to reiterate, this Party has advocated and enshrined in its political program the peaceful means of change long before the 2011 events in Tunisia and Egypt. What took place in our region only underlined the appropriateness of that choice. The recent diplomatic gains are also part and outcome of this sure path for a positive change.
The steadily growing interest of our people in backing such a mass-based nonviolent means of struggle justifies the choice and it is hoped that the rest of the Eritrean opposition camp resorts to this people-centered strategy for a lasting victory for the wishes and aspirations of our people.
It has been proven time and again that change effected through the use of force cannot reassure success of the lofty wishes of the people for better governance. Similarly, change of regime reached through foreign intervention ends up serving primarily the interest of those making it happen. For all these reasons, there cannot be any better method for change other than through a people-centered nonviolent struggle. At the end, the essential factors that guarantee the success of any type of struggle mainly include the following:

1. Escalation of internal conflicts within the regime in power
2. Sending popular goals and messages that can rally the people on the side of those bent to change the regime
3. Possessing qualified leadership
4. International recognition, support and solidarity of the force struggle for change.

Needless to say, the internal unity of the clique in power is deteriorating fast. Economically, the regime is in a state of paralysis and as a result complaints are growing within ordinary citizens and the military. The dictator’s ministers and generals live in perpetual conflict and competition. Isayas Afeworki continues to be the absolute ruler by bribing and doling out positions and sharpening up its divide and rule policy. One reason of in the recent arming of civilians demonstrates that the dictator has lost confidence and loyalty of his ministers, the generals and the entire military.
The Eritrean opposition camp should utilize such cracks between the people, the military on one side and the regime on the other and use the opportunity to realize change through a reassuring path. At the same time prospects are opening up, and should widen so that we can challenge the regime diplomatically at the regional and international spheres.
On the account of the destructive policies of the one man dictatorship, Eritrea is isolated from our region and the world. The targeted sanctions imposed on the regime by the UN is sufficient evidence to show how isolated the regime is. Recently, it has started making efforts to get regain its membership in IGAD and hints of its wish to reconcile with both Ethiopia and Somalia is an indication that it is recognizing the abject failure of its policies and diplomacy.