Mass Media and Free Press in Eritrea
Sign up  |   |   |  Latest Topics  |  Chat
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Jordan

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #1 
-Your take on:
-Border verdict-Eritrean Sovereignty[firm stand
-Relgious parties-against Eritrean Constitution
-Possiblility and willingness for Inclusive reconcillaition with the current government/with compromise
-on labelling Eritrea as a terrorsit state-specially at this moment when the ERitrean stand on Somalia case became a win-win situation/stand, in afct the only and the best solution for the Horn
I Expect objective and clear answers
jordan M

__________________
jordan m
Commission

Registered:
Posts: 27
Reply with quote  #2 

These questions are answered in the other questions. Thus, we advise the author of these questions to refer to the other answers.

Freweini

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #3 

As others have already said, obviously, it is imperative to take a firm stand on Eritrean Sovereignty as no nation can be controlled if not by the decisions of its own people.  The people’s will should be of paramount.  No foreign entity should have the right to rule or unduly influence the decisions of a people. 

   

There is in fact, no Eritrean Constitution in that there is not an active document today.   If you are asking about what should be, that is a different story.  After all, government, when run properly is really there to represent and carry out the will of its citizens.  The draft party program clearly states the division of religion and state. In addition, citizens should take issues of other pertinent and important matters to the ballot box.  This would be done during the election process as well as after candidates are elected to office in Eritrea.  People would select candidates (and parties) by their views on a host of ideas, religion included.  At that point, it would also be the people’s duty to ensure that their candidates (and parties) are following through on their promises.  In a true democracy, that is done naturally, regularly and with dialog. 

 

Your question in regards to reconciliation with the Eritrean government can be answered as follows. Dictators think of themselves above the law. Instead of negotiating and making compromises with those who oppose their policies, they eliminate or silence them.  It is impossible to negotiate with a system which believes its policies are off limits to questions. From the very start, it was the Eritrean government that rejected to work with other political organizations.  On the dawn of independence, the president declared laud and clear that no other political organizations will be tolerated in Eritrea. Thus, your question of whether the party in making has readiness to compromise with the current government is only of academic value.  

 

With regard to your question on the Eritrean government's foreign policy with emphasis on Somalia:  First of all, it is not the job of the commission to defend the Eritrean government or its policies. Secondly, your question is not about Eritrea but rather about Somalia.  It is not a win-win situation for those who want to see a secular government established. As the saying goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Therefore, if a secular government is good for Eritrea as your second question implies, then a secular government should as well be good for Somalia.

aarag

Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freweini

As others have already said, obviously, it is imperative to take a firm stand on Eritrean Sovereignty as no nation can be controlled if not by the decisions of its own people.  The people?s will should be of paramount.  No foreign entity should have the right to rule or unduly influence the decisions of a people. 

   

There is in fact, no Eritrean Constitution in that there is not an active document today.   If you are asking about what should be, that is a different story.  After all, government, when run properly is really there to represent and carry out the will of its citizens.  The draft party program clearly states the division of religion and state. In addition, citizens should take issues of other pertinent and important matters to the ballot box.  This would be done during the election process as well as after candidates are elected to office in Eritrea.  People would select candidates (and parties) by their views on a host of ideas, religion included.  At that point, it would also be the people?s duty to ensure that their candidates (and parties) are following through on their promises.  In a true democracy, that is done naturally, regularly and with dialog. 

 

Your question in regards to reconciliation with the Eritrean government can be answered as follows. Dictators think of themselves above the law. Instead of negotiating and making compromises with those who oppose their policies, they eliminate or silence them.  It is impossible to negotiate with a system which believes its policies are off limits to questions. From the very start, it was the Eritrean government that rejected to work with other political organizations.  On the dawn of independence, the president declared laud and clear that no other political organizations will be tolerated in Eritrea. Thus, your question of whether the party in making has readiness to compromise with the current government is only of academic value.  

 

With regard to your question on the Eritrean government's foreign policy with emphasis on Somalia:  First of all, it is not the job of the commission to defend the Eritrean government or its policies. Secondly, your question is not about Eritrea but rather about Somalia.  It is not a win-win situation for those who want to see a secular government established. As the saying goes, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Therefore, if a secular government is good for Eritrea as your second question implies, then a secular government should as well be good for Somalia.


Hi Freweini
Your answer is not clear. That is because you do not have any base to to depend on. the commission is responding on draft (party formation) The draft can be ratified, changed by committee or "elected officials" (leaders). of new party (ELF-RC) on which the commission is a member of. Some of the questions you fail to answer are talk a
-Border verdict-Eritrean Sovereignty[firm stand
I would like to know your respond both personal & organizational

-on labeling Eritrea as a terorist state-specially at this moment
Do you support in labeling Eritrea as a terorist state again personally and organizationally



__________________
merhaba
Freweini

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #5 

Dear aarag,

 

My personal and organizational stand on the Eritrea-Ethiopia border verdict is that it is final and binding. As a result, we have to wait and see the border demarked by those who are entrusted legally to do the job.   

 

As to Eritrea being labelled a "? state", as I have already stated, it is not for me to seek for justifications. In other words, it is not my place to take the rap for the government. ማለት ኣነ ንኽሲ መንግስቲ ኤርትራ ክስየፈሉ ኣይኮንኩን። The Eritrean government should be able to defend its own policies. It is high time that the Eritrean government starts ventilating its dealings both internally and externally, so that we as citizens would be able to talk based on an informed basis.

 

 

yafiet

Registered:
Posts: 15
Reply with quote  #6 
Hi frewieni ....please if you don't mind can you answer the following question:

What is a party? What differentiates it from other political actors, such as social Movements, political organization and interest groups? What are the advantages and the limitations of the definitions offered by different theories? What are the implications of these different conceptions for party interaction?

 
Thanks in advance!
aarag

Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freweini

Dear aarag,

 

My personal and organizational stand on the Eritrea-Ethiopia border verdict is that it is final and binding. As a result, we have to wait and see the border demarked by those who are entrusted legally to do the job.   

 

As to Eritrea being labelled a "? state", as I have already stated, it is not for me to seek for justifications. In other words, it is not my place to take the rap for the government. ማለት ኣነ ንኽሲ መንግስቲ ኤርትራ ክስየፈሉ ኣይኮንኩን። The Eritrean government should be able to defend its own policies. It is high time that the Eritrean government starts ventilating its dealings both internally and externally, so that we as citizens would be able to talk based on an informed basis.

 

 

 

Freweini
Your respond regarding BOARDER VERDICT is as follows" 
"My personal and organizational stand on the Eritrea-Ethiopia border verdict is that it is final and binding."
 
If so then why is your organization officially siding with ethiopians asking for a negotiation If you really mean it you or your organization should stand tall once decided by court there shouldn't be room for negotiations. To me your organization is dictated by woy anes. If I remember correctly your organization use to blame the regime in Eritrea that they gave our land to TPLF. 
 
Labeling STATE OF ERITREA  as a terror harboring state you reply as follows:
"As to Eritrea being labelled a "? state", as I have already stated, it is not for me to seek for justifications. In other words, it is not my place to take the rap for the government."
 
The question was not to defend GoE. where you stand in favor or against. I don't want to but words in your mouth but you sound in favor
 

__________________
merhaba
Freweini

Registered:
Posts: 6
Reply with quote  #8 

Dear aarag,

 

I have no doubt that you are sincere about your questions and I will be happy to answer them. The organization to which I belong is, the Joint Party Formation Commission. This organization is on Eritrea's side.  I do not understand you, when you say, negotiations, TPLF and the like.  If you have specific organizations in mind, you should address these issues with them. I can only speak for the JPFC.

 

I am sad and disappointed for Eritrea to be labelled a terror harboring state. It is obvious then, I strongly disfavour it. I am one of those who believe Eritrea doesn't deserve this label as much as Eritreans don't deserve the maltreatment they receive from their government. However, as much as it is wrong, it should not be surprising, given the fact that the majority of us tolerated a dangerous leadership for so long. I read the following quote somewhere, which sums up the above sentence.  "Put simply, there is no bad leadership without bad followership."  The combination of the two is what caused Eritrea and Eritreans to get what they don't deserve. The question now is, when will the remaining supporters of the Eritrean regime say enough is enough and instead work towards making Eritrea, a place where her citizens find what they truly deserve?  I think it is long over due. How about you, aarag?

 

Dear Yafiet,

 

First of all, you don’t need anyone to explore these subjects for you; a library near you will suffice, and even a good dictionary for the definitions. I remember you asking similar questions in a Paltalk discussion approximately a year and half ago. I trust that you have found your answers by now. You can probably lecture others on these subjects. 

 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!