Comments from an anonymous reader from inside Eritrea

The methodology used classifies the book in an academic or professional research category rather than a mere memoir of a former freedom fighter, government official, and later an exile writer. The coherence of the chapters and articulation of points/issues in the paragraphs are at the highest level. From an average reader’s point of view, however, the writer should be aware that a reader’s high-caliber analytical skill and a good memory of past chapters are required for the reader to fully understand and comprehend what the writer intends to disseminate from a particular chapter. This is due to the fact that the writer fully quotes and cites secondary data and highly relied on literature reviews for a particular issue he discusses. I must underline that below average readers would definitely get bored after passing the first few chapters. And those who have the courage to finish what they have started might not fully comprehend the message of the book that the writer intended to disseminate. Having noted the quality of the book I preferred to make a SWOT analysis than just share my glimpse admiration or brief critics. I have also jotted down a few recommendations on how to proceed further.

Strength

• The writer’s command of the English language is highly demonstrated in every paragraph of the book.
• The writer’s writing skills are highly demonstrated in the articulation of paragraphs and coherence of chapters.
• The writer’s and/or proofreader’s reviewing skills are highly demonstrated as there could not be notable spelling and punctuation errors except in a couple of pages, which may or may not have happened post-review.
• The methodology utilized: drawing a hypothesis in the introduction, discussing all the hypotheses in detail, setting arguments and contesting counter-arguments based on primary data and duly cited secondary data, and finally drawing conclusions and recommendations have left no room for any critic whose contradiction emanates from love of the regime/leadership.
• The inclusion of full articles cited in the book in the appendices enabled a curious reader to get a full understanding of a particular issue by further reading available within the book while keeping non-patient readers from getting bored by prolonged discussions.
• The way the writer dissimilates vital information (genealogy of the head of state) that was already known by the general public but with a different name of great-grandfather is very smart. Had it not been in a systematic way while addressing another important issue and quoting a reliable source, the writer would have fallen prey to the apologists by falling into their level, compromising his values and level of integrity.
• The consistent integrity of the writer to fully focus on discussing the issues and not the personalities except at one, which he believed the personality/behavior is the cause is commendable.
• The narration of all the milestone events of dissidents and the writer’s acknowledgment, except for two, which are listed as weaknesses, is highly commendable.
• The writer’s non-disclosure of his personal opinion on the quest of the 1973 movement but only sticking to his persistent disagreement on the violent way of handling dissidents is highly commendable. Disclosure of his opinion would have diluted the very strong argument that the front’s political program manual categorizes dissidents as secondary enemy and should have been resolved by democratic dialog pursuant to what the manual states.
• The disclosure of the writer’s non-inclusion in the secret party, while fully aware of its existence, by denouncing his firm belief described above against his conscience, is very important. This fact being revealed in the book adds value to the integrity of the writer. And revealing the fact that after independence, many comrades who were members of the secret party regretting their approach towards him doubly solidify the writer’s integrity is unquestionable.
• The acknowledgement of various historical events that have contributed to the realization of Eritrean independence in addition to the main three reasons: the just cause, persistence of the freedom fighters and unwavering support of the Eritrean people, leaves no room for any critics by an alien to the Eritrean cause or those who tirelessly trying to create a false narrative.
• The non-disclosure of the writer’s opinion on what Mesfin Hagos believes about various milestone events as written in his book but rather only quoting his words as a first-hand witness as part of the leadership is a very smart move. Confirming or confronting Mesfin’s beliefs could have only resulted in undermining the evidence utilized by the writer.
• It is commendable that the discussions in various chapters made the architect of the policy (the head of state) accountable for all the wrongs, and such a big acquisition is convincingly supported by theoretical analysis from various literature reviews and primary and secondary data findings of the events unfolding.
• The non-disclosure of the writer’s opinion on the modes operandi of the security apparatus, except the fact that higher military commanders have unquestionable authority as long as they are loyal to their commander-in-chief, is highly commendable and is in line with the writer’s recommendations in the final chapter. Revealing details of the modes operandi, however, could have contradicted his recommendations.
• The development issues discussed in the initial chapters of the book might have bored some readers, but the writer demonstrated without any doubt that Eritrea not only could stand on its feet as a country but also was referred to as a beacon of hope had it not been for the failures as the result of dictatorship. Having noted what has been achieved during the first years of independence, the writer proves his arguments that it could also be done again if the various recommendations he listed are undertaken.
• Revelation of the pen name Zeineb Ali’s true identity surprisingly proves that a man of integrity who earned great value until 1998 has never taken a day off in his fight for the realization of a developed and democratic Eritrea. His tactics, however, have been changed for reasons he believed safe for many. 
• The book clearly demonstrates the writer’s understanding of the root cause of the problem through deeply researched literature reviews as well as primary and secondary data references. It also highlights some well-articulated recommendations for solution

Weakness

• In the preamble, the writer should have clarified why he chose such a methodology of writing, which is beyond the capacity of an average reader to fully comprehend. For example, the writer could have stated that the intention of his book is to deliver an academic/ professional research grade book discussing the just cause of the struggle for Eritrean independence and elaborate on the root cause of the unmet expectations, contesting some elites’ questions, doubts, and/or counter-arguments.
  • Two milestone events of dissidents have been omitted in the book.
  • First, the march of the disabled fighters from their camp at May Habar and the consequent violent measures taken to control it. This happened while the writer is at the helm of the government position as director general, so omission of the event in his book is nonexcusable and is highly advised to apologize. Apology adds integrity, especially when it comes from a person whose integrity is unquestionable.
  • Second, the religious quest raised by Haji Musa about an Islamic school at Akria which resulted in his subsequent detention as political prisoner and the protest at Liberty Avenue (fist of its kind) that follows and violent measures taken to control. Furthermore, following his death in prison, there was a protest at his burial and subsequent mass detention. Omission of this incident in the book might have interpreted by a negative perception which I assume the writer would regret as soon as it comes to his attention. Correcting it by interviews at any chance acquired is highly recommended.
  • The writer has the liberty to believe whether the above two events may or may not have weighed as dissidents, but acknowledging the incidents as they have happened indisputably would have created completeness in the narration of milestone events.
  • In section 18.2, as a concluding paragraph, the writer shares his opinion that he does not foresee a change driven by outside forces or through external intervention. The reasons beyond any doubt that his opinion change driven by outside forces is not foreseen is convincingly discussed in the book. On the contrary, while the writer boldly underlined that the second national security threat is the perception and ambitious past glory of the Amhara elites; highlighted the recent PM Abiy statements about Red Sea; and correlated the diplomatic faults could be exploited by Ethiopia to align the West rally against Eritrea, his conclusion with one sentence nullifying external intervention as a possibility does not hold water.
  • The writer should have discussed in detail what drives him to state that he doesn’t foresee change driven by external intervention. God forbid it, but in a book of academic /professional research grade, just stating external intervention is not a possibility doesn’t alleviate the possibility or convince the readers.
  • The writer might believe that any external intervention results in unresolved prolonged chaos than a change he stated in his book, and the same statement should have been clearly articulated and supported by various examples in various countries (eg, Libya) and convincing local realities.
  • Alternatively, the writer might foresee the developments inside are fast enough to happen prior to any possibility of external intervention required to materialize. In such case, the writer should have clearly discussed the time frames and stages required for an external intervention and compared it with the fast folding local events to justify his conclusions.
  • The tenth recommendation for the diaspora elaborates some detailed solutions for a problem that is barely discussed in the book. The recommendations are without any doubt perfect; however, it would have been complete if the writer had included the challenges of identity, integration, status and cultural preservation that many Eritrean refugees encounter and justify that same was one of the reasons that they fall into a trap of the regime to become hard core supporters. Primary data supporting the above analysis could have been arranged through interviews, or alternatively, secondary data from casual talk shows at Radio Erina’s Yonatan Habte’s (shekortetino) program could have been quoted.
  • The writer states the commencement of the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia in 1997. Not just to pass it as a clerical error, he stated it twice, so I believe it has to be addressed as a weakness. The official UN papers and general public perceptions reveal that the war broke out on 6th May 1998. The writer has the liberty to believe the root cause of the war commenced way before May 1998, and he could have justified why he believed so. Alternatively, if the writer shares the opinion of Andebrehan Weldegiorgis, he could have quoted from his book “Eritrea at Cross Roads,” in which he stated that hostilities commenced at Adi Murug, not in Badme.

Opportunity

• It is my firm belief that this book will motivate other Eritrean elites who are hiding in their comfort zone, along with the silent majority or those who never took a day off fighting for the cause they stand for under pen names, to come forward, sharing their story, and reveal themselves, respectively.
• The narration of events in the book, combined with the high-caliber writing methodology utilized, opens an opportunity for academic reference in our colleges to the least, if not in well-known universities and research institutions.
• The internal forces of change will be highly motivated as the book endorses positive action they might take by clearly stating it is the sole foreseen drive for change. The reservation revealed not to join the internal forces of change by some influential inner-circle members for fear of accountability after change is watered down in the book and will further motivate joining the movement.
• The recommendations for diaspora could create an opportunity for unity in one and only one major cause without compromising the unresolved difference demonstrated amongst some.
• The vision of the writer will cultivate the hope that has been continuously downgrading in the hearts of many and will create revival. Hope is the most important factor to achieve the goals of a movement of change, and the book will implant the same in the hearts of many readers.

Threat

• The writer’s vast experience in many international ventures will make him the victim of his own success. The apologists of the regime will not waste a day to label him as a known recruit of international intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA. The nullification of external intervention without due analysis to support the same will definitely create an allegation that the writer is a recruit who has access to intelligence findings. I have put this threat based on the usual defamation tactics used by many dictatorships.

Recommendations

• A glimpse summary of the book in the Tigrigna language should be published immediately for the general public to be aware of the book.
• Translating the book into Tigrigna is also important in due course. Nevertheless, the writing methodology should be addressed to suit the general public readers.
• If the writer is going for an interview, he should first highlight why he decided to write a book, then elaborate on the hypothesis he posed in the book, then briefly narrate the milestone events that have contributed to his conclusion, and then fully elaborate and justify his conclusion. The details of some events or issues should only be raised as a question and answer.
• When the writer finds the right occasion during an interview or other platform, he should proactively address the above weaknesses and threat.