Recently, online discourse has erupted over two opposition figures, Daniel Teklai and Kemal Ali, who now identify as reformists. Accusations of betrayal and abandonment of core principles have been levied against them, painting their presumed decision to engage with the government as treacherous. These accusations, however, seem overly reactionary and fail to consider the broader context and potential implications of their actions.
For years, the Eritrean opposition has experienced cycles of support and decline, largely dictated by geopolitical shifts and domestic or related international events. For instance, support surged during key moments of public outrage: the 2013 Lampedusa tragedy, when the Eritrean government dismissed the victims as “illegal Africans”; Isaias Afwerki’s 2017 declaration that the 1997 Constitution was “a dead document”; and the infamous “aykesernan” (“we didn’t lose anything”) remark during the peace agreement with Ethiopia’s Abiy Ahmed.
The opposition faced its most significant setback in 2020 during the Tigray War, when factions sided with the TPLF and TDF, alienating many Eritreans. Subsequent events, such as the rise of the extremist Brigade N’Hamedu group, further eroded trust. This left some opposition members feeling compelled to align with the government to avoid being labeled unpatriotic. Others retreated into silence, and many concluded that decades of opposition efforts had failed to bring meaningful change. Against this backdrop, the idea of reforming the ruling PFDJ began to gain traction.
It is difficult to say whether the PFDJ will reform under Isaias Afwerki’s leadership. History offers little hope: the G-15’s push for political reform resulted in imprisonment, and others advocating for change have met similar fates. Yet, Isaias will not live forever, and the political landscape is inevitably changing. The PFDJ’s 75-member politburo is dwindling due to age, imprisonment, and defections. The same applies to the Eritrean National Assembly. The current system has yielded a collapsed economy, a mass exodus of Eritreans, and severe brain drain. For Eritrea to survive and thrive, reform is not just an option—it is a necessity.
Whether Daniel and Kemal’s dialogue with government officials will succeed remains uncertain, but their efforts represent a bold departure from the status quo. To those accusing them of betrayal, consider this: if a strategy has failed repeatedly for 24 years, does it not make sense to explore alternative approaches? Every Eritrean shares the same aspirations: a prosperous economy, rule of law, and an inclusive political system. It is counterproductive to shame those who dare to try something new when existing methods have yielded no tangible results.
The Eritrean opposition has largely functioned as a pressure group, raising awareness about Eritrea’s challenges through lobbying efforts, presentations at the United Nations, and reports to human rights organizations. While this awareness is valuable, the core issues are well-known. Proposed solutions, such as robocalling, sanctions, regime change advocacy, and protests, have not achieved meaningful change. If anything, the government has weaponized these efforts to strengthen its narrative and discredit the opposition.
This leaves us with one untried option: engaging with the government to advocate for reform. Skepticism about the government’s willingness to change is justified, but at least Daniel and Kemal are attempting something different. Their actions should not be dismissed outright but rather evaluated in the context of Eritrea’s dire need for transformation.
For meaningful change to occur, Eritreans must prioritize unity over division. A comprehensive dialogue involving Eritreans at home and in the diaspora is essential. Infantile name-calling and defamation campaigns on social media serve only to undermine efforts for progress. Pragmatic revolutionaries must rise above such tactics to foster cooperation and consensus.
Awet N’Hafash & Victory to the Martyrs!