3. President Isaias’ view
4. Eritrean citizen view
5. Ethiopian view
7. Eritrea’s solution
8. Closing summary
9. Analytical techniques
Currently the Eritrea’s political policy is a single-party presidential republic. What this means is that president of Eritrea is both the head of state and head of government. Eritrea is also a single party state, and the current ruling party is the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ). Having a government where your president is both the head of state, head of government, and head of State Council and National Assembly can cause issues, and currently Eritrea has many issues that could be fixed if changes in government policy are implemented. This paper will prove that a change of the political climate from a military oriented, strong-arm, non-negotiable policy directed towards the citizens of Eritrea, neighboring countries, and IC, to a democratic political culture would lead to a more stable Africa. This will be done by analyzing the interests of the Eritrean government, citizens, and Ethiopia. Currently, the United States is trying to help promote stability in the Horn of Africa, but the relationship between Eritrea and Ethiopia can do more to facilitate stability than the United States.
Here is a little background information on Eritrea: Eritrea gained independence from Italian colonial control in 1941, and the UN established Eritrea as an autonomous region within the Ethiopian federation in 1952. Ethiopia’s full annexation of Eritrea as a province in 1961 sparked a 30 year struggle for independence that ended in 1991 with Eritrean rebels defeating government forces. In 1998, Eritrea engaged in a two and a half year border war with Ethiopia. In 2007 the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) assigned a demarcation line that Ethiopia has not accepted, and leads to continued border clashes today. (CIA, 2014)
President Isaias Afworki has been in charge since 8 June 1993. President Isaias does not tolerate criticism of his political activities and has made it a criminal offense. He consolidated his power through raw repression and displays a strong contempt for Western-style democracy and a near-paranoiac suspicion towards foreigners. He is regarded as a remarkably stubborn and difficult man who does not respond to threats and diplomatic influence and, in fact, has a distaste for compromise and diplomacy, both of which he considers weaknesses. President Isaias has thus established a reputation and record for toughness and ruthlessness, trying to alter borders by force, willing to go to war for what he perceives to be Eritrea’s interests, regardless of the outcome of past confrontations. (Mesfin, 2008) President Isaias’ goal is to unify and strengthen Eritrea through sheer force. The intent may be noble, but process has thus far brought about the opposite outcome. President Isaias has effectively created a military state. ...