Organizations and Dissent

 “Perception is as important as reality!”

 [Note: most of the discussions on organizations and its memberships can be extrapolated to nations and its citizens.  Similar dynamics are at work.]

Real organizations will periodically encounter internal and external challenges that will define their true nature and character.  Only opaque organizations pursue restrictive practices that will eventually ensure the very outcome that they attempt to avoid in the first place.  In our campaigns to evolve towards a democratic nation, effective organizations evolve into effective institutions, which in turn create strong and viable democratic nation.

As passionate as we are about political issues, in reality, what will assure our success is by building learning organizations that can overcome our human shortcomings, including the need to escape accountability, the need to avoid confrontations and the urge to shield members and citizens from controversies.

Like all things in nature, organizations undergo through various phases – inception, growth, maturity and decline.  In general, young organizations reflect the views of the current times, whereas older organizations reflect the views of the bygone days.  Whereas flesh must die leaving behind its off-springs to continue with life, organizations can reinvigorate themselves, i.e. older organizations acting young, by avoiding from falling into old ideological and “old-ways” traps.  Old habits indeed die hard!  If organizations can avoid the traps of natural progressions (i.e. anti-age formula), they can remain within the growth-to-maturity phase for many years, even for generations.

Organization, as the name suggests, is simply a mechanism or a tool to organize, i.e. to pull together and manage, people and resources for common purpose.    Organization is a double-edged sword; use it properly and members can realize many achievements as a group that they can’t do as individuals.  If used improperly, it can grow into an instrument of repression or destructive machinery.

An expanding organization attracts many individuals with different beliefs, views and inclinations.  As nature is dynamic, situations and events change that require organizations to continually adjust to these changing natural realities.  Unfortunately, keeping members on the same wavelength in ever-changing realities is never easy.   What methods leaders of these organizations choose to pursue to keep membership aligned within changing realities will determine the fate of the organization. 

Managing change becomes the single biggest challenging activity that requires the utmost skill and tact to navigate through the changing realities of organizational life.   Every viable organization is always torn at the seams among those who want quick change, those who don’t want to change at all and those who want varying degrees of gradual change.  Organizational equilibrium, where every member is on the same wavelength, probably occurs at one point in time only – probably when an organization is formed.  After that, organizational equilibrium is a moving target. Inability to effect managed change leads ineffective and ineffectual organizational leaders to pursue imprudent policies that will eventually sink any organization.

Challenges and missteps are facts of life.  It is my fundamental belief that obstacles create the greatest opportunity to learn from them and, if handled properly, they can propel an organization, and beyond that a nation, into greater heights.  For instance, examining past human behavior and history, who knows in some twisted way, PIA’s repression may have weakened Eritrea today, but on the other hand, it may have quickly matured the nation to embark on a prudent path.  It is a fallacy to ever think that organizations or nations facing challenges are weak or to believe that all members are at the same wavelength at all times unless it is a cult organization.  In reality, all organizations must accept challenges as facts of life and design mechanisms that resolve challenges in a prudent manner that will instill confidence in the organization’s competency, capability and fairness.  If organizations fail to formulate prudent strategies to ‘manage organizational challenges and policy change’ in ever-changing realities and world, it will surely decline through natural progressions – first, it may face difficulty attracting new members, and second, it will lose members at every corner - and there will be many corners in a very dynamic world. 

All dynamic organizations facing internal challenges must address three issues.  One may refer to these issues as the flesh (body), mind and soul of an organization.  Effective organizations don’t try to balance between the three; rather they develop and excel in each one.  One can’t say I will develop my mind more at the expense of my body.  Each one must be developed and handled independently, yet reinforcing each other.  These are,

}         Issue 1 -- Rule-of-law (body):  relates to adhering to organizational laws, rules and regulations regardless of circumstances.  Failure in adhering to rule-of-law leads to chaos, mistrust and ill-will.  Adherence to rule-of-law is an absolute must.  Basic laws don’t change much.

}         Issue 2 – Policies (mind):  whereas organizational missions and objectives may remain static for long-period of time, policies relate to organizations’ views towards certain issues and methods in carrying out its objectives.   Views may change with changing situations, or views may not change but methods may change to achieve the same objectives due to changing situations.  Who is responsible or authorized to formulate policies is never a straightforward issue.  Organizational constitutions, charters and bylaws must clearly delineate responsibilities and authorities in order to avoid future disputes.  

}         Issue 3 – Rapport (soul):  With changing realities, good rapport among organizational members is needed to ensure that views and interests remain aligned.  In democratic societies, communication is the single most important instrument that assures alignment of public interests, as opposed to dictatorship which attempts to align interests through force.  An organization can only become truly successful by invigorating its grassroots.  Leadership at the top can only have finite energy to undertake organizational missions.  The ultimate objectives of an organization can only be achieved by igniting and nurturing its soul.  Moreover, rapport is critical in steering an organization through change.  Democratic and free organizations can’t expect every member to simply accept every order transmitted from top to bottom.  This doesn’t mean that leadership must explain its every act to grassroots, but it should maintain strong rapport and exert reasonable efforts that will keep grassroots satisfied and feels included in decision-making and other organizational activities.   Ask members periodic questions or conduct surveys and encourage even anonymous suggestions:  “Are you happy to be a member, why and why not”, “If you were a leader, what would you change?” etc…   Rapport also means striving to maintain positive perception towards the organization and leadership.

These are the three issues that must be addressed every time any organization, supra-organization or institution faces any form of challenges.  Although the nature of any internal inquiry might be determined by the scope of the inquiry, if the purpose is to re-examine the overall performance of an organization, these three issues need be addressed.

The manner with which we handle dissent will define our evolution towards democracy.  It is fallacious to believe that we can zigzag towards stable democracy.  Instead, it is more productive to believe that we need to build our democracy brick-by-brick beginning from the foundations of today.

In addition, it is worth remembering that there are two types of dissents.  One type of dissent is the minority few who are vocal and active.  The second type of dissent is where non-vocal members and the general public subconsciously become more apathetic in opposition movement.   The least concern is probably for the few and active dissenters because these are people who are driven and who will find another outlet for continuing with their ultimate objective.  The majority members who become disenchanted and disengage from political activities are the biggest loss to the opposition movement and for the democratic cause.  We must believe that for every 5 or 10 who vocally dissent, it may mean a loss of 100 or 200 people who just quietly withdraw from the political scene. 

We must remain sympathetic towards legitimate dissent. Dissenters are always in a dilemma.  They are forced to weigh between their concerns of the effect their dissent would have on the organization and the movement in general on one hand versus the short- and long-term implications of allowing objectionable acts to continue to occur without restraint.  It is for this reason that we have to strive to delineate the line which dissenters are morally, if not legally, obligated to express their dissent.  As democrats we should practice this mentally.  With experience and time, dissenters would know their obligations of when and how they can dissent for greater overall benefit without ever feeling that one is ‘destructive’ or ‘troublemaker’.     

2001 Dissent

The 2001 dissent evolved around two issues:

1.      Rule-of-law:  PIA and PFDJ (Head Office) failed to,

a.      Hold Central Committee meetings every six months

b.      Hold regular monthly ministerial meetings,

c.      Implement many Central Committee resolutions

2.      Policies:  Central Committee and/or National Assembly took the following positions as manifested through resolutions and public declarations,

a.      PFDJ must re-examine its performance since independence,

b.      Required Head of State to consult military experts (through Joint Chief of Staff, etc…) before and during conflicts.

c.      Etc…

Instead, PIA and PFDJ (HO) pursued smear campaign against the dissenters, firing them from their positions and excluding them from organizational meetings.

Dissent within EDP

The temptation is always to sweep challenges and controversies under the rug quickly in the hope of ‘minimizing’ damage.  But are challenges ever swept under the rug, or just left for another day when it can cause even greater damage?    Moreover, EDP must be careful to not be perceived as a victim of “Kab Kifu’e Zigeberukha, Kifu’e Zemharukha/Zelmedukha!” EDP should not be perceived as repeating what PFDJ did to it.  Perception is as important as reality.

No organization would ever want to become a subject of discussion unless in positive manner.  The general perception is that any negative discussion would weaken members’ confidence in the organization, while emboldening the organization’s rivals, antagonists, oppositions and detractors.

At the risk of prejudicing EDP’s reasons for pursuing its course of action towards the dissenters, for discussion sake, there are few reasons why leaders of an organization may choose to pursue imprudent course-of-actions in dealing with dissent and challenges,

1.      “The Time isn’t Right” argument – the general concern is that dissent would cause doubt and uncertainties within an organization (same issue with nation) leading to fragmentation, thus weakening the organization at the very moment leadership believes is crucial time for pursuing its overall organizational objectives.  The problem is that the most difficult challenges appear at the “wrong time”, and if not dealt in a timely and prudent manner, they become the very cause for further weakness, extending the period of difficulties.  The 2001 dissent came to the forefront soon after the end of the third round of conflict.  PFDJ’s propaganda was to say that no dissention should occur until the border is finalized.  The G-15 thought otherwise, and many of us have supported them because difficult issues are addressed and resolved in times of difficulty and tackled in timely manner – not postponed until when our GDP is $5,000 US per capital.  Postponing from dealing with challenges is just another way of asking to forget about it, because if past challenges are brought up years later, one will be criticized for digging up old bones.

2.      “Incorrect generalization about the public” – Politicians fall into the same trap sooner or later.  They eventually come to believe that the general public is gullible and that their fellow politicians are a bunch of power hungry snakes.  With this mentality, suddenly a politician’s role changes from being a just another public servant to crusader for public good.   Suddenly, politics becomes about smart maneuverings rather than pursuing long-term strategies that attempts to build credibility and integrity.  Moreover, when too many “smart” politicians are too busy mingling with each other, the glass prism from which they examine the rest of the population and politics changes.  Instead, political leaders of organizations must first and foremost strive to maintain the credibility and integrity of their organizations.  Political leaders have limited capacity to reach out and energize the general public.  Instead they must use the wave theory – the power of propagation.  This means, political leaders inspire the people around them, who in turn inspire other people, who in turn inspire others, etc… moving towards the outer rings.  The prudent observer would search for the point at which the (self) propagation stops, stifling the growth of an organization or an entire movement.     

3.      “Weakens membership” argument - possibly the single biggest concern for organizations (as well as nations) is that internal challenges weaken memberships.  I believe that it isn’t challenges, dissents or disagreements themselves that weaken organizations but the manner in which these challenges are handled.   What weakens membership is controversies left lingering.  The immediate natural reaction of any leadership is always to bury controversies.  This is not unlike major business organizations and famous individuals who are accused of inappropriate acts.  Although the accusations might be false, these businesses and individuals would rather settle out-of-court quickly rather than tarnish their images in public’s perceptions.  On the other hand, if such accusations are going to open floodgates of further legal actions against these businesses or individuals, then they are forced to defend their cases.  Similarly, political organizations should operate under the assumption that challenges are recurring and then defend their credibility and integrity at every point, rather than assume that challenge is infrequent or one isolated case and choose to quickly sweep it under the rug.  When organizations pursue policies that tackle challenges in transparent manner, controversies become a source of learning and hence strengthening membership rather than weakening it. 

4.      “Emboldens Detractors” argument:  has been rejected as a valid argument to hush up dissent.  This is similar to PFDJ argument that internal dissent emboldens Woyane.  We rejected it them, and we can’t accept that argument today.  In fact, today’s struggle is primarily a political campaign, which requires us to engage in acts that instills confidence in our adherence to commonly shared beliefs and values.

5.      “Nice in theory, but not practical” argument:     I don’t believe that anyone would argue that maintaining organizational integrity and credibility which feeds into public perception is important in theory but impractical in reality.  It is suffice to say that overcoming organizational challenges is the single most important task that we must master if Eritrea is to embark on a stable road towards democracy and to create a prosperous and dynamic Eritrea.   Issues change, but it will be effective organizations that can meet those challenges without resorting to counter-productive methods.        

The dissenters raised a number of policies which EDP has shifted from its inception to current period.  The dissenters may have presented their lamentation on some of EDP’s core policies in a manner that may give incorrect perception that EDP capitulated to other opposition political organizations.  EDP has had as much influence on other opposition parties as it was influenced, and that is probably the price of compromise.  The fact that EDP has shown flexibility, as have the other political parties, is by itself encouraging signs for the future.  It is a totally different issue if the dissenters are disputing that EDP leadership breached resolutions. But if the issue is that EDP is capitulating when in fact it is finding a middle ground to work with others, which can only be positive.      

EDP’s influence on EDA and beyond has been commendable,

1.      “Peaceful Resistance” – all the major and prudent political organizations have openly stated they support this method as a primary avenue to wage the current struggle.  That is a big leap forward from three years ago and earlier.  The rest of the statement contained within EDA pertaining to this issue is simply political.

2.      “Dialogue” – all the major and prudent political organizations have accepted dialogue with the regime as an option to resolve the current crisis. 

The dissent also evolves on the issues of,

3.      “Travel to Ethiopia” – this is the one issue that is creating the rumble within the dissenters,

a.      If this is a question of breaching EDP’s resolutions, then this is a matter of rule-of-law,

b.      If this is a question of dissenters’ beliefs that the border must be demarcated before traveling to Ethiopia, their position has a long-term implication which may not jive with the experiences of many other countries which have the same border disputes.

c.      However, if this is simply a policy issue, then we should ask why one supported refraining from traveling to Ethiopia in the first place.  In my case, the primary reason for advocating to ‘not travel to Ethiopia’ was that we should not give any reason to the regime to put a wedge between the public and the opposition.   In order to expose the regime’s atrocities, the opposition camp must be able to deflect any possible smear campaign against it.  It was a tactical reason.  From 2004 to today, Eritrean political situation has taken a dramatic turn for the worse, which allows the opposition camp to utilize wider options.  The unequivocal view remains that violence shouldn’t be used to resolve issues, and as long as discussions are conducted to synchronize views with Ethiopia for peaceful purposes, it should be encouraged.  Ultimately, EDP stands for an inclusive dialogue which can be extended to even external forces under the same principles.  The fact that there are no public reactions to EDP’s recent presence in Ethiopia by itself is a manifestation of the seismic shift in Eritrean public’s view towards this issue.  Naturally, this is not an endorsement of Ethiopia’s direct involvement in Eritrea, nor softening our apprehensions towards Ethiopia’s hidden agenda towards Eritrea.  This is a case of being stuck between a rock-and-hard place.

4.      “Constitution”

Again we are getting too specific on issues at a time when our main concern should be in building effective organizations and in determining how we can become catalysts for change that can only take place within Eritrea.

We would be deceiving ourselves if we ever believe that change agents within Eritrea would roll out red carpets and receive Diaspora politicians to govern Eritrea.  In reality, and most likely, the change agents in Eritrea will invite Diaspora opposition to join them in some form of unity government.  As a betting man, the internal change agents will retain the majority, and the Diaspora opposition’s functions will be to “add value” to the transitional government.  No small contribution is too small for a nation in distress.

 To reiterate, it won’t be EDA alone that will decide the fate of the 1997 Constitution.  Many of us believe that the Constitution needs amendments which can be undertaken over a period of time.  It is difficult to imagine that a political coalition that took two years (or ten years) to amend two sections in a skimpy charter can introduce a new Constitution with significantly more sections before the end of this young century.

Our contribution in the current situation is to engage in discussions over the constitutional issues for better understanding and refining our views rather than for the 1997 Constitution to become a source of schism. 

Going forward, it is critical that EDP is seen as entertaining dissent in legal and fair manner – if nothing else, for the sake of maintaining positive perception.  Even if leadership may have exercised proper procedures in dealing with dissent, it shouldn’t operate under the political philosophy of just bunkering down and allowing storms to pass by. 

Judicial inquiries and parliamentary inquiries are mainly created not to redress past issues but to allow political storms to blow by allowing all sides to cool off.  These inquiries usually don’t lay blames to one side only unless the violations are absolutely flagrant, but instead point out certain shortcomings apportioning blame to all sides and thus giving everyone a face-saving out of controversies.  This is strength, never a weakness!  Politics isn’t just about who is right and who is wrong [not to be confused with rule-of-law which clear cut], but to arrive at face-saving conclusions and recommendations in order to maintain working relationships among disputing parties.  To reiterate, the ultimate purpose of these inquiries is to avoid such controversies from occurring again, and is NOT primarily designed to pass judgments for past actions.

EDP can do the opposition camp a greater service by dealing directly with dissent in a manner that instills confidence.  At the very least, it should issue public statements.  It would be even better if leadership concedes and proceeds with an internal inquiry to address the controversies.  These types of actions can only strengthen EDP, while setting the bar higher for other Eritrean political organizations.  When other political organizations face dissent, they will be forced to act like EDP.  This would be EDP’s greatest contributions to the opposition camp, to the younger generation and the future institutionalization of Eritrea.

The dissenters may still dispute the outcome of the inquiry and leave the organization.  But that isn’t as critical as ensuring the process itself was fair and prudent.  EDP will only be judged by its professionalism.         

Pertaining to whether EDP should issue public statement, the question is whether EDP, or any other political organization, is responsible and accountable to its own members only or, beyond that, to the general public.  The answer, muted or otherwise, determines what each political organization believes to be its role within the public struggle.  

In one of this writer’s articles, it was argued that the merging of ‘similar’ organizations would usurp power from grassroots to leadership.  The question one should ask to oneself is, how would EDP have reacted to dissent if it felt that it could lose members directly to another rival political organization with similar political platforms?   If dissenters were to become inactive after their dissent, i.e. leaving the organizations only, political organizations would probably not be too concerned.  But jumping ship to another rival organization is very uncomfortable at the very least.  This is why I argued against “merging” similar political organizations as it will have adverse consequences on grassroots movement.  That would be creating monopoly power, and power will be usurped from grassroots to leadership with detrimental effects.   

One last comment I want to make pertains to party politics.  For any casual observer of party politics in the West, backstabbing, exclusionary tactics within party politics and groupings/alliances within parties are very common.   Assuming there are no breaches of party constitution or rules, a leadership (executive) committee composed of, for instance, 7 members may exclude two committee members and thus the five members may deal with each other to take common position on certain policies.   Of course, the five committee members can’t exclude the other two in the voting process.   We have to accept exclusions and backroom dealings as part of the practical democratic system.  Sadly enough, no decision would ever be made if such backroom maneuvering didn’t take place.  We are not trying to create a holy organization but to create an effective organization able to achieve its objectives; to achieve the very purpose the organization is created for through adherence to rule-of-law and effective mechanisms to address various issues.

In conclusion, EDP may feel that such public discussions will weaken its political party.  In fact, such open discussions may pre-empt possible worse criticisms.  But before taking a defensive position, it should revaluate the ideological and practical reasons for taking an act (or acts) that may bring its organization’s credibility into question or that may reinforce other people’s suspicions of EDP’s and other political parties’ tolerance towards dissent.  Such challenges should be viewed as a golden opportunity to make public statements and to reinforce one’s principles that will define the organization and which can propel it to greater heights.  Personally, I guess that EDP is composed of many professionals and thus can become a model organization by engaging in professional and effective campaign to tackle such issues.  It should be clear to my readers that nobody is asking EDP leadership to divulge confidential information.  As long as controversy doesn’t breach the organization’s rules and resolutions, leadership can explain to its constituents that they can’t divulge certain confidential information.

To embark on the road towards Eritrean democracy, it won’t be prudent policies, political platform or political intrigues alone that will assure our success.  It is far more critical that organizations behave in a manner that enhances their credibility and integrity.  It is about perception, perception and perception!  Without effective and transparent organizations, we will surely make the same mistakes of the past and condemning ourselves to the same fate as other third world countries.   As political activists, our primary function is to hold political parties to organizational integrity and credibility, while propagating our own individual or group views on different issues as a secondary function.

I don’t believe that many of us are engaged in Eritrean politics because we have nothing better to do, but is to bring about fundamental change in our political culture – and that change can only begin today.  As for effecting regime change within Eritrea, it can only come about through internal struggle.  Our role in Diaspora is to be change catalysts by instilling confidence in Eritrean living within and outside Eritrea in the manner we handle our activities, and to provide professional assistance to Eritrea to evolve towards democracy by establishing effective institutions in post-PFDJ.  All the rest is idle chatter unless discussions and debates are designed to exchange and develop our views.  I have always argued that the opposition camp’s role is to develop effective and professional organizations that will eventually play their small but critical roles in post-PFDJ Eritrea.  As for tackling national issues, some couple of hundred active Diaspora opposition leaders can’t dictate the people of Eritrea.  Let us keep our focus!      

Berhan Hagos

May 17, 2007