Nobel

THANK YOU & CHEERS TO MR. ELIAS & MR. SLESSHI of the Ethiopian Review.

Please, Keep building the bridge of communication, mutual understanding, peace & trust, for our children to inherit & we all desperately need to make to another day.

Regards,

Gerrie

Your comments are too boring and lack any meaningful content!

Observer: YAY is not Ahmed.I wrote about this issue because Ahmed and others have tried to use it as a wedge between Eritrea and Eritreans as well as between Eritreans and Ethiopians. There are many reports and comments that mis-characterize Eritrea as a dictatorship, and that needs to be addressed and the facts presented. Ethiopians also need to know what to expect in or from Eritrea. In contrast,TPLF-Ethiopia has been presented as an "emerging democracy" by its backers, who also like to denigrate Eritrea, and present it as an "isolated" and uncooperative nation governed by a "dictator". Ethiopians have seen what kind of democracy TPLF-Ethiopian democracy is. I don't have to say a word. They know it first hand. And there are others who just want to believe whatever negative things they read about Eritrea. What I wrote is not just useful only to Ahmed but to all readers, especially Eritreans and Ethiopians.

Ahmed repeatedly describes Issaias as a dictator and the Government of Eritrea(GOE) as a dictatorship, in more than one word. This is one of Ahmed's weaknesses–i.e. he does not differentiate between the nature of a State, or government, in peace times and in war times. Ahmed also fails to see the nature of a transitional State and a State that completed its establishment. These two hugely important factors influence the behaviors of GOE and lead Ahmed into erroneous conclusions. First, I will present five general facts describing the circumstances GOE is operating under; and let readers compare them to experiences (in war times) of the U.S.A., Canada, Britain, Germany, France, and Russia, as assessed by Charles G. Fenwick.(1920).POLITICAL SYSTEMS IN TRANSITION: War-Time and After,NY,The Century Co. as well as Ronald C. White.(2009). A. LINCOLN: A Biography.NY. Random House.

1. The State of Eritrea(the whole people of Eritrea organized in various communities and associations and led by a centralizing authority or government–now the GOE–to form one nation on a territory with defined international borders) is new.Its institutions are incomplete or fragile and have yet to be established or strengthened. The border war and its effects have hindered this endeavor.

2. The Government of Eritrea(GOE) is still a transitional government. This is a government that has not crystalized into its intended final form as expressed in the 1997 ratified Constitution. But it is a government established after the people, in an internationally observed referendum, expressed their desire freely in 1993 that an independent nation of Eritrea be established. It was universally understood that the Eritrean People's Liberation Front(EPLF),an armed political organization that mobilized the Eritrean people to liberate their country of Derg-Ethiopian forces, would temporarily form that independent State/government. It is a government, which through constant consultations with the general public and foreign experts, was authorized to facilitate the Eritrean society to transform itself into a self-governing, self-preserving, and self-sustaining community with diversity-respecting but integrating Constitution based on which political power would be seized/transferred through periodic elections, and a number of cross-cultural political parties would compete for power peacefully.[refer the 1997 Constitution of Eritrea and EPLF/PFDJ's 1994 National Charter].

3. Eritrea was involved in a border war with TPLF-Ethiopia from May 1998 to December 2000.(I believe TPLF-Ethiopia planned and started this war, but I want Ethiopians to do their own research on this matter independently). The war has stopped but it has not ended yet. The border is legally delineated and demarcated, but TPLF-Ethiopia would not remove its troops, as required by treaty and international law, from territories legally determined to be Eritrean.

4. TPLF-Ethiopia is a real threat to the nation of Eritrea. Prime Minister Melless Zenawi has openly declared that he would go to an all-out war, and he wouldn't know "where that war will end", if Eritrea tries to step foot on some legally determined Eritrean territories. TPLF-Ethiopia wrongly believed that Eritrea has designs to dominate Ethiopia's economy, that GOE is hegemonic, sponsor of terrorists, a destabilizing force, militarized Eritrea, and must be resisted, its economy strangulated, diplomatically isolated, its conscripts encouraged to secape, etc. in cooperation with Bush-U.S.A. and its allies. For this reason, Eritrea stands alert and ready to defend itself and to do so also uses its conscripts (with all the problems related to conscripts throughout history that may appear in Eritrea too) to revive the economy and defend the nation.

5. The 1997 Conistitution of Eritrea defines the future government's structure and lists individual liberties that must be respected and its intention to uphold the universal human rights. The GOE has openly declared its desires and intentions to build a republic based on "participatory democracy" in place of the transitional government if and when circumstances allow. In the meantime, it has encouraged that local governments under each Zoba (or Awraja) be formed based on elections. The GOE admits that it has detained some individuals that it suspected have become obstructions to defending the existence of the State, GOE, and independence of the nation. It also has limited certain individual liberties when it believes doing so was necessary for security reasons. Some Eritreans and foreigners have accused GOE of torture, detention without charge, and denial of basic individual liberties, such as freedoms of expression, movement, association, religion, and basic human rights.

The GOE was very liberal in everything it is accused of between 1991 and 2001, so it is not a regime that is tyrannical, despotic, or dictatorial by nature or design.
'How does what GOE is accused of doing to individuals in Eritrea and what Issaias is preaching about democracy and elections square off?' asks Ahmed. Now, let us consult history and try to find answers to Ahmed's question.

1. War and crisis changes the nature of a state:

'The state is a machine that works for the common good; and some of its actions may restrain individual liberties sometimes. Some citizens may not like government's restrictions on idividual liberties when the existence of the State is in danger, but they understand and tolerate the subordination of domestic liberties to the safety of the nation could become necessary. What is more serious was that even the "rule of law" was obliged to yield in part to the emergency of war or crisis, and one could witness manifestations of isolated "lawlessness" in government actions.

In peace times a government becomes ocuupied primarily with the task of maintaining law and order in the nation, leaving to the free play of individual activity the satisfaction of the economic needs of the people.

In war times the government must assume control of practically the entire life of the society. Production must be regulated to meet the demands of war, industries must stop producing non-essential articles or raw materials must be denied to one and given to another factory based on the basis of their contribution to the war. Distribution of goods must no longer be a matter of satisfying individual wants but of meeting national demands. Prices are no longer to be regulated by the law of supply and demand but by arbitrary standard of cost of production. There are thus cast upon the government a wide variety of tasks to which its organization in times of peace is inadequate.

At the same time complete unity of command becomes as essential to the nation as to its fighting army, and the protection of individual rights ceases for the time to be the object of government in favor of the protection of the community as well as a whole nation against external aggression.' [Fenwick,p.46].

2. 'The prime object of government is the preservation of national existence with all that it connotes indirectly for the good of the individual citizen. For the sake of this higher purpose it may be necessary to subordinate democracy to efficiency and to suspend temporarily those very principles of liberty in the individual which the war is fought to maintain for the nation as a whole.' [Fenwick, p.8].

3. 'Freedom is a relative term, and must be judged in the light of aspirations of a particular people. Law is an artificial restraint which has developed into a highly complex system adjusted to the needs of each country by the traditions of centuries. Individual rights and general justice must be viewed in light of changing circumstances (economic conditions and political status), but it is also true that the experience of other country in meeting its own peculiar problems may be of great service to another.' [Fenwick,pp. 12-13].

4. Individual rights are not absolute or guaranteed:

As Fenwick teaches, the protection of individual rights is normally fulfilled through what is called the "due process of law". But that does not prevent "the passage of laws by which both liberty and property are subjected to restrictions for the common good. The guarantees are, therefore, not absolute but qualified, and the extent of their enjoyment must be determined in the individual case by balancing the presumptive right of the individual against possible injury to others. In times of peace this issue is frequently raised in connection with the exercise by the State of its "police power" to protect the public welfare. In times of war the issue becomes one of denying individual rights where the exercise might endanger the safety of the State." [Fenwick, p.23].

5. Abraham Lincoln, President of the U.S. in the 1860s, was also accused of "unlawfull arrests" of individuals and that his government was an "arbitrary government". His wisdom of defending the united nation was as of no value to the people, but "Defeat, debt, taxation, spulchers". Lincoln, faced by a strong rebellion in the South, had to recruit an army to defend the nation: he emancipated African-American slaves and initiated the conscription of White males between the ages of 20 and 45, who were obligated to serve for 3 years or "until the end of the war."

Protesters denounced the draft as unconstitutional, murdered some of the recruiting officers, incited violence when government soldiers rounded up deserters, and encouraged conscripted recruits to desert. Lincoln took action against such protesters, individually or in mass, who always claimed they were in defense of the Constitution, state rights and individual liberties. His logic was:

a) 'The courts worked well in peace times for cases involving individuals, but in a clear case of rebellion or mass movement, the ordinary courts were often incompetent to deal with whole classes of groups of individuals.'

b) "Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wiley agitator who induces him to desert? I think that in such a case, to silence the agitator, and save the boy, is not only constutitional, but withal, a great mercy".

c) When one Commander issued a military edict aimed at persons who "uttered one word against the United States" or anyone guilty of "acts for the benefit of the enemies of our country" could be liable to execution, Lincoln could not disagree with him. That Commander sent troops to a protester Ohio Congressman's house, broke the door, arrested him, and a military court sentenced him into prison until the war ends. Lincoln modified the punishment into banishing the Congressman from his Midwest of the country until the end of the war. Lincoln's reasoning was that expressing your views as an individual was protected by the Constitution, but he found it unreasonable for letting individuals or groups use their rights provided by the Constitution unrestricted and work towards the non-existence of the nation.
He considered the protesters were 'damaging the army, upon the existence and vigor of which, the life of the nation depends.' And since the conditions of war was going on,'there must be detentions to thwart the actions of "a most efficient corps of spies, informers, suppliers and aiders and abettors." Lincoln said that everyone understands that in times of war the writ of habeas corpus [the right of not being detained without charges] would be suspended. [White, pp. 554-567].

The word dictator is believed to have originated from the Latin word dictum, which means word uttered, a saying, an authoritative pronouncement, or command. In ancient Rome, they found out from experience that, in times of war or crisis, it was best and most efficient to conduct themselves under one commander who can lead them to the best of his judgement. At such times regular consultations in meetings in the senate would be suspended, and the whole empire obeyed the command of the dictator. Later on the Constitution of the U.S. adopted this idea and made the President be, in times of war or emergency, be the dictator, but called it in another name–i.e. Commander in Chief. After that it became common in the world to make the head of state or head of government the Commander in Chief. So is Eritrea's president. Hence, President Issaias is now running the nation, which is alert for any consequences of the re-ignition of war and to defend the nation.

To accuse the GOE of dictatorship is to forget that it is a government that operates in war times and the circumstances and acute pressures it is working under. In other words, it is working under a crisis or emergency mode, and is investing all it has got towards normalizing the situation without compromizing its political independent existence. In such situations, based on the historical experiences of even the most established democratic nations cited above no nation did not and would not behave differently. Therefore, it seems to me, that Ahmed's conclusions are unreasonable.

Ahmed also seems much more naive than I expected him to be. He reasons out: If the law of mathematics are the same wherever you go, then the laws of democracy must be the same in every nation. I was surprized by that. He is trying to equate social/political organizational "laws" with natural laws. I guess he forgot, for instance, that if you give a group of well educated and experienced judges the same set of evidence and the codes of law, that they could reach at different conclusions, let alone different communities and nations. Doesn't Ahmed know that a court could be split in its determinations, but the final verdict goes by what the majority says? Thanks everyone for your patience and respect. A GOOD RELATIONSHIP HAS TO BE BASED ON HONESTY FROM ALL SIDES. Good luck.

Subject: The tyranny of the majority and the rule of law

I still insist that the rule of law is more linked with individual civil liberties, and that there is no rule of law in Eritrea, nor is there a rule of law in Ethiopia. Without the rule of law there can never be economic prosperity, peace and stability.

I will clarify two important points that YAY is confused about, before I say goodbye to this site. I thank ER for allowing me to post my views.

YAY belives that the majority can lord over the minority, and that such a tyranny is okay with democracy . This is not true. The tyranny of the majority is not allowed in a society that abides by the rule of law. There is majority rule but there is also minority rights. These two go together. How?

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

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

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

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

Source: http://www.4uth.gov.ua/usa/english/politics/principl/majority.htm

The core confusion of all this is that YAY accepts a society that may have some rules or a constitution like Ethiopia but violates human rights left and right as having a rule of law, or a nation that has no rules of any kind or may have a “transitional constitution” as YAY calls it like Eritrea to abide by the rule of law despite the fact that it also violates human rights.

YAY is preaching a patently false concept. YAY wrongly takes the qualitative difference between the rule by law (like the tyranny that exist in Ethiopia despite the fact that it has a constitution, as for Eritrea I believe it has no rules of any kind.) and the rule of law that exist in most liberal democratic nations, as simply academic. It is not so. Again let me quote from the experts:

“For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous — law was simply the will of the ruler. [The case in Eritrea.]

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

Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives.” [The case in USA, South Africa and all western nations.]

Source: http://www.4uth.gov.ua/usa/english/politics/principl/law.htm

Ahmed please do not be a child, we know and we heard about Democracy and rule of low for many years, and we are witnessed what is going on in this crazy world.
Please open your own class to preach your democracy as own rule of law.
We are trying to create a good solidarity b/n two sisterly country to destroy the evil who preach in Democracy and rule of low , but it killed our people and waste our time.
Please go some where else post ur comment, unless u are Weyane operatives, trying to divert the good attention of both Ethiopian and Eritrean people.
.

Please stop responding to Ahmed. Ahmed is looking for attention, and you are making him feel important by answering to his simple and naive understanding of Democracy. Obviousoly, he is not going to change his mind and you are wasting your time unless you are Ahmed yourself pretending to be someone else.

Ahmed,
Please don't waste your time replying to me. I will not respond to it.

Thanks

TMK

What is "rule by law"?
What can we make of the phrase "rule by law" if we see it separately or in comparison to the "rule of law"? The rule of law implies that the law is supreme, the law rules equally over every citizen, and that restrains rulers and the ruled.But can any law have life without the involvement of human beings? No. No national law would exist without persons or groups of persons. Any law is made by some people (e.g. legislators), interpreted by other group of people(e.g. judges), and enforced by still another group of people(e.g. police).All these people use their minds, judgements, discretions, contexts, cultural biases,etc. to deal with the law "independently" and "honestly". The main point is that, unless you want to put emphasis on superemacy of the law to guide persons rather than the persons apply their judgements without standard guidance, ultimately the law is applied by humans. There is no escape from it. That is point number one.

The word rule in both phrases has many meanings, but the closest definition I found closer to State power is " the exercise of authority, or to govern, or to command." If we substitute the word, rule, by a phrase equivalent to its meaning, then we form another phrase: "the exercise of authority by law," or "to govern by law", or "to command by law" instead of "rule by law". These three phrases do not suggest their exercise is of liberal, illiberal, democratic or authoritarian order. There is nothing in their meanings that implies that the judges and police would act machanically to do their duties, or would not follow "adherence to the due process of law" in their nations. As is the case with the "rule of law", those who make, interpret, and enforce the law are also human beings. The crucial difference to me is how those in authority seized power–i.e. public support, formal elections, coups, etc. Those in Eritrea had great public support and Issaias was elected by the transitional Baiyto. And in 2002 the same body suspended national elections and approved the continued leadership of Issaias.

In my tentative assessment, "rule by law" seems to be the dissident's view of the law that exists in a nation, particularly those ruled by "authoritarians".As is explained in Brian Z. Tamanha.(2004).ON THE RULE OF LAW: History, Politics,Theory. Cambridge Univ. Press, p.3:
Dissidents point out that authoritarian governments
that claim to abide by the rule of law routinely
understand this phrase in oppressive terms. As
Chinese law professor Li Shuguang put it: "Chinese
leaders want rule by law, not rule of law…The
difference…is that under the rule of law, the law is
preeminent and can serve as a mere tool for a
government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion."
First of all, dissidents are the exception and not the rule, so they can be judged only when they seize power. And second, which ruling group does not use the law to its own advantage and the disadvantage of its enemies and adversaries? None. That is the norm. How severe may vary, but the use of the law to suppress adversaries is done by all ruling elites. Even God is jealous.[see Exodus 20:5].
A ruling group could be lax in its actions with its adversaries NOLY IF it believes its fundamental interests would not be affected that much. That is all. So it seems to me that the two phrases do not have qualitative difference but are names used for academic discussions.So, Ahmed, your claim that there is no constitution is not true. Ahmed and I may not have preferred the current one, but the nation is ruled by the Eritrean Transitional Constitution and there is law of the land and there are courts. Ahmed inadvertently admitted that that is the case in his June 15 discourse, unless he wants to change it:

"Persons shall not be subject to double jeopardy; that is, they cannot be charged with the same crime twice. Any person tried by a court and found not guilty can never be charged with that same crime again… [ This has happened to many Eritreans including a famous member of the central committee of the PFDJ]"

Ahmed thinks the difference between the two is respect for human rights is embodied in the rule of law, and believes the best example for that is the U.S.A. The U.N. Human Rights declaration was declared IN 1948, while the U.S. Constitution dates way back to the 1780s. Does that mean the U.S. law was not the rule of law? America as a nation that has slavery, decimation of native Americans, disregard for equal rights of women, torturing prisoners as recently as 2000s, killing thousands of fleeing Somalis in an effort to target suspected "terrorists", sending prisoners to other countries to torture them while being interrogated, assisting rulers in other countries suppress their own people, assisting Ethiopia to kill and torture Eritreans, Oromos,Somalis,etc., to mention a few, are in the background of its national consciousness and behavior. With this understanding, would you say These actions were in line with respecting human rights or the U.S. Constitution was not based on the rule of law, and, hence, not liberal democratic, or "illiberal order"? Therefore, I can safely say that Ahmed's theory has a hole in it.

Ahmed also asked me to prove to him if there is a "rule of law" in Eritrea. Ahmed has been belaboring this question. The answer is so obvious: There is a transitional constitution, which serves only when the nation is changing from one stage of general development to another. One cannot talk about a crystalized national law, or whether it is a "rule by law" or "rule of law". But Ahmed, Issaias, and I, among others, are in agreement that the ratified 1997 Constitution eventually needs to be implemented, and enhanced. ….to be continued….

YAY responds to my criticisms of his understanding of the rule of law. This is well and good. Yet, he has not proved it that there is a rule of law in Eritrea, for that matter not in Ethiopia too. I will respond with a detailed response, once he is finished with his postings. I hope he includes the following observations which are in brackets. The following post is a portion of a copy I got from the Internet. It defines the rule of law as it relates to: (1) equality and the law and (2) due process. My concentration is on the absence of the due process of law in Eritrea, and thus the absence of the rule of law. For example, the laws of mathematics are the same for Americans and Eritreans. Likewise the principles of the rule of law are the same for Eritreans and Americans, though there may be variations in their applications. One cannot with a straight face assume that we can have two different laws one for America and one for Eritrea. YAY, I thank you very much for responding and also for sticking to the issues.

“THE RULE OF LAW
Equality and the Law
The right to equality before the law, or equal protection of the law as it is often phrased, is fundamental to any just and democratic society. Whether rich or poor, ethnic majority or religious minority, political ally of the state or opponent–all are entitled to equal protection before the law. …[ There is no law of any kind for loyal oppositions only the dungeon. For that matter for all Eritreans.

Due Process
In every society throughout history,…those who administer the criminal justice system hold power with the potential for abuse and tyranny. In the name of the state, individuals have been imprisoned, had their property seized, and been tortured, exiled and executed without legal justification--and often without any formal charges ever being brought. No democratic society can tolerate such abuses. [This is the fate of all Eritreans be inside or outside Eritrea.]

Every state must have the power to maintain order and punish criminal acts, but the rules and procedures by which the state enforces its laws must be public and explicit, not secret, arbitrary, or subject to political manipulation by the state.

What are the essential requirements of due process of law in a democracy?
No one's home can be broken into and searched by the police without a court order showing that there is good cause for such a search. The midnight knock of the secret police has no place in a democracy. [There is a blanket non stop search in Eritrea looking for the young. It is immaterial whether one is innocent or guilty.]
No person shall be held under arrest without explicit, written charges that specify the alleged violation. Not only are persons entitled to know the exact nature of the charge against them, they also must be released immediately, under the doctrine known as habeas corpus, if the court finds that the charge is without justification or the arrest is invalid. [The G-15 are rotting in prison.]
Persons charged with crimes should not be held for protracted periods in prison. They are entitled to a speedy and public trial, and to confront and question their accusers. [The G-15 have been in prison since 2001 without any trial in a court]
The authorities are required to grant bail, or conditional release, to the accused pending trial if there is little likelihood that the suspect will flee or commit other crimes. "Cruel and unusual" punishment, as determined by the traditions and laws of the society, is prohibited. [No such thing exists in Eritrea]
Persons cannot be compelled to be witnesses against themselves. This prohibition against involuntary self- incrimination must be absolute. As a corollary, the police may not use torture or physical or psychological abuse against suspects under any circumstances. A legal system that bans forced confessions immediately reduces the incentives of the police to use torture, threats, or other forms of abuse to obtain information, since the court will not allow such information to be placed into evidence at the time of trial. [ See Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch about tortures in Eritrean prisons ]
Persons shall not be subject to double jeopardy; that is, they cannot be charged with the same crime twice. Any person tried by a court and found not guilty can never be charged with that same crime again… [ This has happened to many Eritreans including a famous member of the central committee of the PFDJ]

A common tactic of tyranny is to charge opponents of the government with treason. For this reason, the crime of treason must be carefully limited in definition so that it cannot be used as a weapon to stifle criticism of the government. [This is a common ploy of the PFDJ. Even the G-15 have been tried in the public arena and through the Eritrean government publications as traitors for speaking their minds.]

… Judges may be either appointed or elected to office, and hold office for specified terms or for life. However they are chosen, it is vital that they be independent of the nation's political authority to ensure their impartiality. Judges cannot be removed for trivial or merely political reasons, but only for serious crimes or misdeeds–and then only through a formal procedure, such as impeachment (the bringing of charges) and trial in the legislature.” [The chairman of the superior court of Eritrea was removed from office in 2001, because he was critical of the presidency.]

Source: http://www.4uth.gov.ua/usa/english/politics/whatsdem/whatdm4.htm

Let the good times roll! It's about time. We the people deserve it. Indeed, as has been said multiple times before, "only the sky is the limit".

When the cloud of mistrust starts to evaporate we can show the world that we can use our effort and brain to build and nurture the bridge that could lead us to the promised land.

Let's turn the page of more than 50years of agony and make it history that we can finally tell our children about full of shame.

The olive branch has been offered to the other side. Let's seize it and let us embark on a new trail. On a chapter that will resemble the deeds of our great and wise ancestors. Let's make them proud for once!

We can get there. Were there is a will there is way.
And so many people seem to be willing.

Your brother Hannibal, the Eritrean, the African!

Ahmed said that the views of Issaias on democracy are opposed to democracy; thus, implying that Ethiopians or Eritreans should not trust Issaias of what he says in these interviews. This is a response to Ahmed.

Ahmed stated, among other things, the following:
1. "Once you have dictatorship you cannot have the rule
of law. They do not go together."
2. "YAY confuses the rule by law with the rule of law,
and thus misreads the illiberal order that exists in
Eritrea. These are two qualitatively different
concepts."
Are these statements true? I will discuss them.

I blieve that most people think that there are the laws of God, natural laws, and national laws. I will limit my discussion on national laws.National laws,or constitutions, could be drafted by anyone, but are issued by the sovereign power, or others authorized by the sovereign to do so. The primary purpose of national laws is to control or rstrain the behaviors or actions of citizens and maintain order, stability, and peace.For that reason such laws are published so that all citizens know what to expect from the State and what is expected of them. In cases of conflict, courts of law determine who was right or wrong according to the law. Generally speaking, any national law is applicable equally to all citizens, except those that, due to their positions in government, may have more power and authority. If such government officials are stripped of their duties in government, their rights would be reduced to that of a regular citizen. With that brief introduction, let us see the statements Ahmed made.

I will try to show that Ahmed displays three weaknesses: 1. his view of dictatorship is narrow; 2. he fails to distinguish between the nature of a State in times of peace and one in times of war; and 3. he thinks that there is only one acceptable model of democratic order(liberal democracy) in the world. These three weeknesses lead Ahmed draw wrong conclusions.

Ahmed seems to think that dictatorship is nothing else but authoritarianism(i.e. somebody who emphasizes on authority and rule a nation). He forgets that democracy is also one form of dictatorship–i.e. the dictatorship of the many over the fewer. The majority rules. The majority dictates what the laws of the nation should be.Once the majority (of the people or their representative, or party members, etc.) gives its dictates, the chief executive(president, king, queen, emperor, prime minister, etc.)rules, commands, guides, manages, directs, etc. State affairs in the name of the majority.

In other words, in any society the most powerful(i.e. in number of votes, public support or acquiescence, military might, economic power, power of influence, etc.) or a delegated authority makes laws, applies laws, and enforces national laws. If we recognize that democracy is also one type of dictatorship, then, we can conclude that dictatorship and the rule of law could go together. Hence, Ahmed's narrow view on dictaorship makes his conclusion wrong.

Ahmed suggests that I am confused between the concepts of the rule by law and the rule of law. I admit that I am not a student at law, and I would welcome Ahmed to educate me and help me clear my confusion, if there are any. I am familiar with the phrases: rule of law, rule strictly by the law, rule according to the law, rule based on the law, etc. I see them being used inter-changeablly. But the "rule by law" as described by Ahmed (that a national law that disregards to uphold universal human rights is rule by law and not rule of law) is new to me. So I did a quick search on the subject to learn more.

I found out that there is no clear definition for any of these phrases. The "rule of law" has both legal and political meanings. Its legal definition is "a determination of the applicable rule as distinguished from a finding of fact." One of its political definitions is that it is "the principle of the equal application of the law to all [citizens] without discrimination." according to [Charles G. Fenwick.(1920).Political Systems in Transition: War-time and After, NY,The Century Co., p.26]. Fenwick also believes that this principle originated from the Massachussetts Constitution of 1780 which states "that the object to be attained was *a government of laws not men*." [Fenwick,p.20]. Here, great emphasis is put on the supremacy and neutrality of law and not on the whims and personal biases of powerful men.

Human history indicates to us that respecting the supremacy of the law is related to the integrity and justness of the sovereign power and does not necessarily depend on the political regime of a country. There are corrupt officials in any political system. Nevertheless, I failed to find a legal meaning for the "rule by law." I am aware that there arose a movement of trying to inject the universal human rights into international law after what occured in WWII. Powerful nations in Europe and America have since tried to breach the sovereignty of a nation and allow themselves to interfere in any country "to defend" universal human rights. But I was not aware of any material teaching the "rule by law."

I discovered that a book: [Tom Ginsberg and Tamir Moustafa. ed.(2008).RULE BY LAW: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes, Cambridge University Press} that addresses the subject matter. The best that this book could give us is the political aspect of "rule by law." This phrase seems to be a clever twist of the terms rule and law used to classify laws and courts in countries where the so-called "authoritarians" are in power.

The editors admit that many people assumed that "courts in authoritarian States are pawns of their regimes, upholding the interests of the governing elites and frustrating the efforts of their opponents." Ahmed seems to believe in that assumption. But what they found was not necessarily so. They found that RULES MATTER, even if they are under authoritarian regimes. Courts could "serve as critical sites of contention both among the ruling elites and between regimes and their citizens." That is an additional clue that there could be "rule of law" in any political system. …to be continued….

first of all no eritrean, meaning real eritreans with the reality on the ground, would never try to big up "EPRDF" sorry i mean "weyane", bcs there is no united ethiopia bcs of them.
and second wat about all the colleges that r in eritrea, i dont think there is any other government in africa that cares for the education for its people, bcs with out education there is no future, especially for the poor countries, and theres equal opportunitys to all eritrean citizens, and no1 is treated differently bcs of ethnicity
but wat about weyane, its mainly the tigray people which really get the better educations or the better jobs, this
is wat every1 nows and is a known fact, which has been clearly wittnessd saw please stop talking nonsense with ur propoganda.
if students do not pass there exams the go national servise
in different part of the nation.
there are eritreans that r on the front line bcs of the no
peace no war situation, and this was part of the weyanes agenda, to try and fustrate the eritrean soldiers into leaving there country or to try cause hatred b/wen them and there government, but infact its quite the opossite,
yes they r times of depressesion bcs of the situation and the fact they dont even get paid or now wen they will b
going home now that is normal as a human being to think about ur situation and if this was happening to any other peoples/country they would hav crumbled long time ago , but they now exactly why this is happening and why is there government chosen this way, and they r just waitng for one mistake by the scared,desprate weyane to try
and start a war and that would be the end of there days, and
it would also make it easier for the ethiopian oppositions
to come together and unite ethiopia and build there country
but i doubt that they would start a war bcs of the growing
stregth of the oppositions of the weyane, bcs one wrong move
they would b crumbeling down.
the reson why i say that they might start a war is bcs of
wat that drunken guy said"WE NEED ASEB" meaning"WE WANT WAR"

I advice you to stick with your conclusion, which is positive and constructive and stay away of explaining Eritrean reality. I don't know how much of your time you spend to know about what goes on in Eritrea and what Eritreans in general and the Eritrean government in particular plans and does for Eritreans and people of the horn in general and I don't mean to be negative but it seems like you are taking your ideas from the oppositions who are bent to deceive people siding with the minority junta in Addis. I don't want to go into details and I don't expect you to give me answers you if I ask you about the reality in Eritrea but clearly you are far from Eritria and its reality physically and realistically. "They closed the only University" was and still is one of the famous songs of the oppositions. You clearly don't know anything about the university itself, the new technical and academic colleges, educational institutions around the country in general, the level of consciense and unity of the Eritrean peopole which is the main engine for development. Remember Struggle and war for victory are not sweet. It is a process for people in a rigion to have a good life. You always have hurdles to corss to preserve peace and harmony of people whether they are big or small. There is always differences of opinions. You can not make everybody happy. It is understandable for some to be unhappy given the circumstances of not being where we expected to be. It takes patience and commitment which Eritreans are known for and there is no question that we will get there. My ponit is the thirty year long war waged by the Eritrean people has a longterm plan of peace and prosperity for the people of the horn and Africa in general and the people of the horn are starting to know it and join the purpose. Contributing positively would be better and being proud to be Eritrean is also good just from where you are the way you are because you have people to be poud of. It is better if we leave preaching and explaining to those who know the reality and know how to explain it. When I say this I am trying to avoid the spoiling of the good intentions of Ethiopian and Eritrean brotherly people who have been hungry for each other for the last 10 years who have every thing in common except for the animosity created by the corrupt and ethnic junta in Addis for their own ethnic purpose.
I am Eritrean by the way.

You sound more woyane than Eritrean. Please do not disseminate lies. What it is happening in Eritrea today should be done in all Africa to free the people from hunger, misery, corruption and dipendency. Democracy can be sold and bought every where in the world but not in Eritrea. We are devoloping a democracy that can suite our people not the one thought and fed by the west for their interest.
Go and read how Eritrea is rated in the millenium goals projects and have an idea what you are talking about, instead telling nonsense comments.

The problem with the answers from DIA/PIA, they are always good when it comes to the politics of the neighbouring countries or the world at large but he doesn't implement those ideas when it comes to Eritrea and Eritreans. While he is causing exactly the same problems that he mentions toward Eritreans. Democracy is not like Chicken hatching that can be done hidden from reality when being exersised but it is a process that would show people how to do the voting and in the long run it will transform into a geniune voting. At this verytime, while EPRDF is increasing the number of Ethiopian Educated population by huge numbers EPLF is doing the opposite to Eritrean Smart Students. Any country will always needs intelectuals who can go to the Academic Stream of life. You increase this environment byt adding more Universities not by closing the one and only one University Eritreans had for long time. What he calls colleges at this time are technical schools, which are very good for most students but not for those exceptional students. In the first place I don't have a problem with National Service but to make them take Matirc exams in the bushes away from family I don't think it will do any good for the students trying to pass a general exam. So, in humble opinnion, for the good of Eritreans and Ethiopians we need a combination of the two ideolgies until we develop the non-ethnic political excersises. Moreover, we need two independent strong neighbours those can cooperate on all terms of life make our people successful and would contribute for the stability of the ever volatile Horn of Africa. I hope we will have more of these kind of dialogues among Eritreans and Ethiopians to remove the barriers we have. Remember we as a group are one of the most ancient civilized people in the world so we need to bring those idologies of our fore fathers and start to live up to their expectations. We really are failing them!!

Jonathan thank you for the videos you posted, fills me with pride to see the jeganu eritreans!
one thing that really struck with the first video is what Isais said about one of the reasons for self-reliance "to stop us being POLITICALLY reliant on someone else", this is very important i think especially in Africa where aid now is being used as a political tool by the donor countries to keep a hold on Africa and its resources.

How many africa countries have actually really benefited from aid in the long run? i actually can't think of any, matter of fact it has made them corrupt.

Isaias is different in that he has stood by his values right from the start and hasn't allowed anyone to change it. The sad thing is westerners don't understand or want a country that refuses aid, so they label eritrea a terrorist/oppressive state!

Anyways I hope that we will finally see some positive changes in the Ethio/Eri saga. Woyane your end is nigh, you can't hide behind the 'its Eritrea's fault' card anymore

Violent means will give violent freedom.

To my surprise, my instinct says President Issayas. I am pretty sure that Meles hates Ethiopia more than any one else on this planet!

Thanks Elias and Sileshi.

One piece of advice for Selishi is try to ask short and precise questions for the future as Elias did. Also avoid long introductory statements and do not sadle your gust with so many questions at once.

Overall, it is an excellent interview!

A genuine Thank you and job well done from me.

yonathan
What a fantastic piece of information you posted (isaias' interview in the 1970s on youtube ) Everything he said then is what exactly what he is saying now. 30 years and same position. No wonder he is being vilified.

all the people who posted their reaction here has been very educational. It was a joy reading it all.

There is one thing that really don't add up….how come an malelit brand of albanian communist turn 80 degrees into a fully blooded far right racist imperialist's slave. i doubt if that stirs their bamboozled maggot heads.

ER, it's been fantastic marathon interview.
keep up the hard work.

Warsai

God Bless Ethiopia not Wayne!
God Bless Eritrea with peace loving people!

Michael