Introduction:
Being a Meakelawit, which in Tigrinya means “being in the middle,” is someone who prefers to be an independent or centrist. With the current political landscape we are in, it is not for the feint of heart. Being a Meakelawit, or a centrist, is to see things from the whole picture in order to come to a conclusion that is grounded on facts, logic and reasoning. This calls for leaving whatever feelings, bias, or grudge you may have at an entity or individual at the door in order to be pragmatic and come to a logic and reason based conclusion. The best part is that as a Meakelawit, you are not grounded by a political party with its own rules, but you are confined to logic, reasoning and balance (this is not to be confused as being a langa-langa as some people may misinterpret.)
One of my main frustrations of being a politically independent Eritrean is the lack of quality-based YouTube channels that do that. Yes, there may be a few YouTube channels that may appeal to a centrist in the wilderness of Eritrean politics, but there is a huge lacking of commentary that is not only informative, but thought provoking. Eritrean political commentary videos often come off as tabloid-ish or sensationalist. We need less of a dopamine hit and more of something that gets our mind going and thinking. Otherwise, we would be spoonfed information, which seems to be the case. Often times, the analysis of serious topics in those videos are rather poor, too-conscice, and a one-sided narrative that looks to validating/normalizing the wrong (this is something I will elaborate more on later).
What To Do:
An example of thought-provoking commentary is Feruz, whom I believe is a lawyer who is well known for her coverage on the lawsuit that revolved on the 2024 ERISAT strife. Recently, she has been doing interviews with Saleh Younis on topics such as prison reform, as well as the now defunct idea of a “government in exile.” What was refreshing about this content is that both individuals (in a respected manner) are challenging each others ideas rather than affirming or validating it. When the ideas of two individuals are actively being challenged and questioned, it can allow the person to open their mind into another person’s perspective and viewpoints as well as their way of thinking. Often times, it can lead to people changing their views or ideas, and at times it can be for better or worse. In cases like this, it usually goes for the better as the intent is to tackle taboo issues and improve it for the better.
LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY5tQ8tJPsU&t=863s
Commentary channels shouldn’t just be a two man show. It can also be ran on a single individual that has a talent on making their content interesting while also maintaining impartiality and thought provoking. The goal is to bring up a hot topic, and look at it holistically. What are the pros and the cons? What are the benefits and what are the downsides? What needs to be improved? Are we setting the bar high enough or is it too low? Those are the type of questions that will eventually get the people thinking. Some may start thinking in the comments section, but a lot of the silent majority that prefer being an observer than an active engager will really start to think a lot.
What Not To Do:
The commentators that are well known within the Eritrean political sphere is Alena Walta Hager (Meabel Kiflay), Solo Media (Solomon Tesfamariam), and G Drar (George Drar/Dirar), the latter of which escalated in popularity when he rightfully condemned the arsoning of property and attacks launched on Eritrean festivals by Brigade N’Hamedu.
These three commentators wield significant influence in public opinion, which in my opinion has been for worse and not for better. One of the commentators did something that was extremely inappropriate which I will elaborate on later.
The problem with these commentators is that while their intentions may be good, their content is lacking of any substance. The analysis are subpar and of low quality, and watching their commentaries is cringe as it often comes off as immature. For example, the constant insulting of individuals in the opposing political spectrum and the constant celebration of something that is of the bare minimum (such as importing a diesel generator to Eritrea) will then cause the audience to mimic their behavior. This will then keep the minds of the audience like stagnant water in the rain. More water will pour in from the rain, but will that stagnant water move? Will some of the water evaporate? The jobs of these commentators should be more of along the lines of this for example:
“Eritrea importing a generator is something that is good! Something is better than nothing, but have we set the standard too low? Why not pressure the government in contracting the energy sector to allow for more imports of electrical equipment? Wouldn’t powering a diesel generator be costly considering the price of fuel? What are your thoughts.”
These are the type of questions that we are really lacking. Thought provoking questions that will slowly, but surely get the ball rolling. The goal in this juncture of Eritrean politics is that since all of our existent threats are over, we should be comfortable with asking questions that we originally thought was taboo. To ask questions and to be in the know will then pressure the Eritrean government into making meaningful reforms that will in turn improve the quality of life for our people back home. We need less “hip hip horray” and more “Ok this is good, but what can we do to improve?”
Another issue that I have is the coverage, or delivery of sensitive topics, one of which is the G-15. I believe that topics like this should be dealt with with care, as it isn’t an easy conversation to have even over 20 years later. The individuals that I have an issue with on the coverage on this issue is Aklilu Sahle, George Drar, and Sahel Press. But I would like to call more attention to George Drar as the view count on the video he uploaded had more views than the other two YouTube channels.
LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj4GxXqBR8I&t=1049s
The title was called “Listen, but make your own conclusion.” In the video, the person that was speaking is believed to be Zerai Haile condemning the G-15 for “treason.” The said individual is also believed to be the estranged husband of one of the political prisoners (Miriam Hagos) arrested in 2001. However, how can one form a conclusion on one sided information? That is not logically possible. In order for someone to reasonably and rationally make a conclusion, they must hear and consider both sides of the story. I will elaborate more on the G-15 issue in a future article, but in short, the delivery of the topic by these individuals is rather reckless, with absolute disregard to families of political prisoners that might come across those videos.
Conclusion:
I believe that now is the time for a great “renaissance” in political commentaries by Eritreans. We need to do away with the useless Zoom bantering and halewlew, and create thought provoking content that can get people’s minds going. While it is important to deliver people information, the commentary and analysis that we should deliver should be of high quality, and something that can inspire our people to think for themselves. These commentaries shouldn’t be biased, or of poor and mediocre quality either.
By teaching our people to think and not just be recipients of information by whoever throws what at them, the boulder will start to move and roll and the Eritrean people will become true thinkers.