Tribal Democracy

Democracy for Truth, Justice for Peace and Harmony for All Communities of Beings

Just what is democracy?

Just what is democracy? If you were to define it, the definition would inevitably fail because there is too much behind the word. With a word used so often, and in some very prominent contexts, it is worth taking some time to reconsider what the word signifies. Begin by saying it:

"democracy"

— touch the syllables on your tongue and "taste" them, paying attention to your body as your mind connects the word with meaning, for mind and body are both the same person. Notice the your own aesthetic reaction — a gut feeling we all get from such a charged word, not just the sounds or the look of the word itself, but from our compounded associations that give the word shades of meaning by connotation.

Maybe the word inspires a lift of pride that swells the chest. Maybe it produces a certain cynicism, a halted breath reserved for such clichés as apple pie and baseball. Outside of America, especially where democracy has never been in practice, the word probably suggests America, and the physical reaction will follow whatever is reserved for that association. For a very few, the reaction is clinical — the reaction to a technical term of political science like bicameral or disestablishmentarian. Still others might react with nausea, or lightness in the stomach or chest, or a recoiling of the spine from their own associations.

The word democracy — for some it is synonymous with idealism, uttered in the same breath with liberty and justice and other divine incarnations of Principle. For others it is a political justification founded on the force of that idealism. For still others, though, democracy holds uncertain value. Perhaps it is even unimportant to some, although the places where this is the case are quite rare. It is difficult in most places on earth, among most people, to escape the necessity for anyone who would have public legitimacy either to pay homage to it, or to reject it as a threatening incursion. Rarely can democracy be ignored. In some way, it has penetrated thought virtually everywhere.

The word democracy — possibly more than any other one word identified with a complex set of concepts about our multifarious human world, this word is glossed over. Almost all of us assume we know what it means to us, and never give it a second thought to why it means what it means to us, or to what it means to others, or to what it means in practice.

So often the mind is supposed to slide past "democracy" — to fail to consider it well or entirely take it for granted as a known quantity, and ultimately grant a fuzzy, warm legitimacy to those who wave the word about as though it were solidly understood. It is quite impossible in this day and age to escape this rather mindless homage and the leverage thereby applied on a semiconscious level, whether in political speeches or in product advertisements on days around a national holiday.

So, we should know what it is, and what it means to us.

In fact I suggest this is not at all a question with a quick or easy answer, and an ongoing aim of this series will be to explore it. But first of all, it is important to recognize democracy in at least two senses: as a cultural emphasis, and as a political system which has evolved through those cultural trends.

 

Cultural Democracy

 

The cultural aspects are exceedingly complex and interwoven, of course. But we can draw out from them a few differentiable threads. One is the principle that any person regardless of their birthright might be important and worthy and might achieve, and should be allowed to do so — a trend which became something of an antidote for the aristocracy by birth which kept down in lower stations even some of the most exceptional people. Thus "democratization" often means nothing more than widespread access to a thing previously hard to access, even just goods or services previously too expensive for most. Coming along with this democracy-as-openness is a new willingness to pay attention to the lives of the "common" man in writing histories and creating art, and all other respects in which, previously, the lowborn would have been excluded out of hand as uninteresting. This too is called "democratization" sometimes. From the standpoint of what has advanced individual life, I will not take issue with democracy in these senses of the word.

But, not unconnected to this, there has emerged a glorification of the truly commonplace as though it were equal to the exceptional. Extending beyond the purer idea of a "democratic" end to artificial barriers, this implies an overthrow or reversal of traditional aristocratic values, deliberate in many cases, vengefully in most of those, whether the vengeance is hot-tempered and violent, or cool and slyly resentful. In the practice of "democratic" politics this has led to economic redistribution by taking from the prosperous and giving some to the "common" poor. This can be seen as a parallel to socialistic and communistic cultural sympathies elsewhere, in social movements and arts of all kinds. As an example: what after all was the great difference between the focus of democratically-inspired artistic glorification of "the common citizen" in the west, and that of the arts of socialist realism pursued in the Soviet Union according to supposedly antithetical ideology — that is to say art for "the average Joe" compared to art approved by Joe Stalin — besides the latter having official endorsement and sponsorship? (This distinction actually dissolved during the Great Depression when Franklin Delano Roosevelt wielded the presidency.) That insistent valuation of the common, average, or mediocre is the same sort of cultural drive prominent behind the democracy of the French Revolution; the slogan did not stop with liberty but demanded equality as well, by guillotine if need be, and by the burning of great art by mobs.

The "cultural" democracy has then been a mixed bag indeed — on one hand, a quest for freedom absolving the world of the worst legacies of an aristocratic or royal heritage, on the other hand a rebellion against the very idea of the exceptional and the great.

 

Political Democracy

 

Following these cultural sentiments came the establishment of political institutions, the second meaning for the word "democracy" we must understand. We can only know "political" democracy by understanding cultural "democracy" as being composed of interwoven but different threads with very distinct motivations behind them at the individual level, ranging from a yearning for openness, opportunity, and freedom, all the way to jealousy and spite.

The political system of democracy consists of the essential principle of majority rule, expressed both in the election to determine officials who will hold invested political power, and in voting directly on laws and political resolutions. Although these have been endorsed as a result of all the sorts of cultural democracy discussed above and as a means for fulfilling any or all of them, it is worth noting that throughout the history of democracy those who predominantly sought individual freedom through democracy have most often considered political decision-making by the majority a necessary means for freedom, whereas those who have represented a vilification of the exceptional or an endorsement of the common over the exceptional have reveled in the pursuit of majority power through elections and direct voting. The difference is not to be found in the means found by both, but in the motivations underneath, and in the degree to which political power and government of any kind is trusted. There is quite a difference between democracy as "the worst form of government, except for all of the others" and romanticized visions of democracy as though the process is a worthy or worthwhile one in itself.

If political democracy does not serve as the best means for freedom, it must and should be surpassed, according to the real aims of the great cultural pushes for openness, opportunity, and freedom which produced it. And indeed, now this precisely describes the situation at hand. Democracy in a political sense is not a worthy and substantive ideal which has merely been corrupted behind political machinations. Rather, the practice of democracy masks and retards what is worthy, and the theory is without substance.

The major point made in The Promethean Manifesto about democracy as a political system, and I believe the major point which should be made, is that democracy in practice is largely a justification for political power. It is the latest in a series of smokescreens taking various forms of enshrined mandates, from loyalty to tribal or clan hierarchy, to the pharaoh's descendance from the gods, to the divine right of kings according to the apostle Paul, to the voting booth today, fronts behind which the more important affairs of politics can be conducted — exertion of control and dominance, maneuvering for factional advantage, power-brokering, exploitation and oppression. We may grant some credit to those who advance each stage for the dissolution of the convention which came before, and nothing less is deserved by the early proponents of democracy for overturning the rigid, stratified classes of aristocracy and monarchy.

But democracy remains one of many species of government, which in the greater scope of possibilities is not so much different from other types as it is the same, however much we are presently conditioned to regard democracy as a really fundamental source of progress. As in all other governmental social systems, which is to say centrally and ultimately forcibly ruled systems, those administering democracy use and justify a conceptual political power which can otherwise be supported only by naked force. That in some form is the basic pattern of government. Specifically, in the case of democracy, the idea of granting choice to the individual is subverted. The appeal of this apparent choice justifies a rule which otherwise would be unacceptable. But as The Promethean Manifesto (2003 edition) put it, "Perversely, in the electoral process a vote "against" a candidate actually amounts to a vote for him if he is elected; by voting, one confirms the process, and implies a pledge to accept the authority of whoever is elected by majority." Participation in democracy becomes an endorsement of more than a particular government official. Participation also serves to endorse the legitimacy of whatever officials are elected and their actions, and the legitimacy of whatever unelected bureaucrats operate under the nominal control of those elected officials (and in turn their actions), and the legitimacy of government itself.

Despite the similarities, it is worth understanding the differences between democratic systems and others to learn what is unique about democracy as a sociopolitical system, even as we must remain willing to face the potentially harsh conclusion of that lesson: that difference, that democratic uniqueness may not deserve idealization, as in fact I will argue.

Ethno-Tribal Politics, Religion, And Democracy


 Print E-mail
Awate - Featured Articles
By Ismail Omar-Ali - Sep 19, 2009   

When discussing issues that touch upon region, religion, or tribe I think it is always a good idea to begin the discourse with a self-disclosure.  This helps readers to put things in context and understand us better.  So let me briefly state who I am and how I generally see the issue:

I am a Muslim by birth and persuasion and a Saho highlander by birth, dialect, and lineage.  I believe our country needs two crucial components to survive and thrive:  democracy to accommodate our diversity and religion to pump it with a healthy dose of morality.  Democracy is needed to secure our freedom to speak, to write, to form associations, and to decide our fate among other things.  It is also only under a democratic Government that politicians can be held accountable for their deeds/misdeeds.

But for democracy to flourish and prosper, it must be complemented by upright and morally sound citizens.  Religion (both Christianity and Islam) provides us with an ultimate basis for ethics and values - a feature noticeably absent in other world views including tribally based ones.  All major religions teach selflessness, sacrifice and philanthropy. Needless to say, bigotry and fanaticism should be condemned in the strongest way possible taking care not to equate devotion to fanaticism. The former leads to acts of charity and goodwill while the latter leads to hatred and destructive wars. I firmly believe that religion, devoid of these evils can be a positive force in our society.

Tribe and region, I perceive them quite differently.  Tribe and region to me are identity emblems that we carry around so we may recognize one another and our boundaries – nothing more; nothing less.  Unlike religion, tribal folklores do not provide us with a coherent set of moral systems or principles that we can use as a reference point from which to begin a dialog.  To the ethno-tribal mind, the clans you belong to, the particular dialect you speak, even the number of markings etched on your face assume far more importance and will earn you more favors or trust than say, your views on what type of Government you envision for the country or what system of economy you espouse.  

That is why I consider ethno-centricity and tribalized politics one of the most alarming trends to sprout forth out of the resistance movement and I strongly believe that if we insist on riding this ethno-tribal wolf at full gallop, we may one day wake up to find ourselves unable to get away without being devoured by it so to speak.   Once out of the bottle and fully aroused, the ethno-tribal genie can easily spin out of control to plunge our nation and our people into horrors not unlike those of Somalia. 

That is why I wish Ali hadn’t gone as far as he did extolling tribalism or regionalism though I am grateful to him for educating us about the problem. But the issue of land and other equal rights concerns are undoubtedly enduring themes and legitimate topics for discussion.  It requires no argument I hope to demonstrate that Land is one of the most prized commodities a people possess.  Barren or fertile, hot or cold, high or low, land’s emotive powers are enormous as a place where one’s parents, grand parents and distant ancestors roamed far into the distant past. Take it away and you rob people of their identity, their roots, and their livelihood.    Land is also the source of economic and political power among other things.

Ali Salim’s spirited campaign on this issue is thus quite understandable and quite natural.   He is within his rights to raise the issue of “land grabbers”; within his rights to severely criticize certain highlanders for their silence or indifference; and within his rights to condemn PFDJ and its illegal activities in the lowlands. I also agree with him that the mere chanting of “NETSAN DIMOKRASYAWITN ERTRA” will get us nowhere unless the chant is followed by concrete plans and actionable programs. 

All this is true and Ali is to be commended not only for doing such a splendid job at presenting and raising the issues for consideration but also for doing it so clearly, rationally, and forcefully.  In article after an article Ali minced no words but kept pounding and pounding at the issue so loudly and so persistently that he shook me out of deep and peaceful hibernation (for which I will never forgive him!). 

Ali Salim was reluctant to frame the issue as a Muslim/Christian concern preferring instead to tackle what he considered to be more  “negotiable” items of highland/lowland differences. But eventually (I don’t know if he was aware of it), he ended up doing exactly that by exonerating the Sahos and the Jebertis from “highlanders” or “ethnic Tigrignas” (as Selam alluded). 

This is hardly unexpected. Circle around it all you will, the issue at its core is hardly reducible to lowland/highland issue alone because the persecution is not limited to lowlanders.  Yes, this particular problem is happening in the lowlands but one must dig deeper or ponder and ask: why are the lowlanders being targeted? And who is taking their land? The pattern clearly indicates, in view of what is happening elsewhere to Muslims in Eritrea, that this is an all-out effort to subdue Muslims everywhere. 

The form and scale may differ but Muslims are being persecuted everywhere.  The “land grabbing” phenomenon is merely the latest in a long series of targeted injustices toward Muslims that span three regimes and beyond.  As recently as last month, we read that “about 30 religious Eritrean Muslims” were arrested and earlier, it was dozens of Muslims in the Akeleguzay region.  Many are languishing in various prisons throughout Eritrea.  These are not isolated incidents but part of a systematic persecution of Muslims that still draws inspiration from the apocalyptic visions of Nhnan Elamanan.  

This being the case, why frame the issue as a lowland/highland issue?  Why shouldn’t Muslims speak with one voice against all forms of religious persecution that are specifically directed at them? Notwithstanding Huntington’s Doomsday predictions, Christian/Muslim issues do not have to boil over into “irreconcilable differences” between Civilizations.  That may be true if we were to discuss theological doctrines, for example, but where is the irreconcilability in asking or demanding equal treatment, equal access to resources, freedom, and justice?

That is why I think it is more fruitful and healthier to frame the issue into a larger block of Christian/Muslim disparity taking into account the historical context and the persistent nature of these inequalities through regime changes. Framed that way, what do we find? We find that Muslims and Christians have shared common struggles, dreams, and aspirations; that they lived side by side for centuries in peace and mutual respect (for the most part); that they fought side by side to rid themselves of occupation; and that even today, they are struggling together to bring about freedom and democracy to Eritrea.   

As laudable as this legacy of peaceful coexistence had been, however, it was marred by lopsidedness and inequality in which Eritrean Muslims often found themselves disproportionately carrying the largest share of sacrifice, blood, and toil receiving little in return except for more toil and blood.  

It will be no exaggeration to state that if any group of people has whole heartedly lived by Patrick Henry’s credo of “give me liberty or give me death”, it is certainly Eritrean Muslims. Eritrean Muslims have abandoned everything including their livelihood, their social status, their villages, their wealth, and their very dear lives in the pursuit of freedom and independence. They received little of the former (liberty) and too much of the latter (death).  They have died in masses (and continue to die) and those that have survived find themselves excessively disadvantaged in their own country and in the Diaspora compared to their Christian compatriots. 

Muslims never enjoyed - for as long as they could remember - equal participatory power in the affairs of the nation.  In terms of opportunity, access to resources, and political power, Muslims had been (and continue to be) an underprivileged group.  Some of these faults, we must own, are not “in our stars’ but “in ourselves”; in our tendency to tribalize and regionalize but for the most part, it was externally imposed. 

I am speaking here of course from the Muslims’ point of view but all this should not be construed, dear respected compatriots, to imply that the regime’s suppression is limited to Muslims. Nothing could be further from the truth!  No doubt, our society as a whole is suffering from dictatorial repression of the devastating kind and Muslims should work (and are working) closely with all peace loving groups inside and outside Eritrea in that general struggle. But Muslims have their own special concerns and needs that must be addressed separately.  Why?

First, they have been singled out more and suffered more (comparatively speaking) both under Ethiopian occupation and under Isayas’s dictatorship that left them weak, poor, and disadvantaged in many ways.  They naturally don’t want this state of affairs to continue or spill over into a post-Isayas Eritrea.  Second, they have been the primary victims of anti-Muslim bias and prejudice and its resultant material and spiritual agony. The Christian is unlikely to be harassed, arrested, or even killed for wearing a cross for example but a Muslim with a beard or a woman in Hijab* automatically becomes a target.  Prejudices die hard and this phenomenon will not automatically dissipate with PFDJ’s downfall.  Third (and most importantly), they still remain disproportionately at a disadvantage economically, politically, educationally, socially, psychologically, and in many other ways.  

Eritrean Muslims have waited too long, sacrificed too much to be treated like second class citizens in their own country.  Eritrean Muslims as a whole were the first to call for total independence from Ethiopia and they were also among the first to identify and oppose the tyrannical regime of Isayas.  It is high time therefore that Eritrean Muslims be accorded full recognition for the pioneering and crucial role they played (and continue to play) in pre and post liberated Eritrea and for their long sacrifices. Historical disparity and inequality must end and they must be given equal opportunity to advance themselves as a group.    

The how’s and methods we will leave for another day but the asymmetrical position of Eritrean Muslims versus Eritrean Christians is a social quandary that requires careful analysis by all Eritreans and viable solutions sought well before we entangle ourselves into the midst of the complexities we shall inherit when we take over the reigns of political power in a post-Isayas Eritrea. 

The disparity is inexcusable and inexplicable in view of the large population size of Eritrean Muslims and their ubiquitous presence in every tribal and linguistic group in Eritrea.  Eritrean Muslims are significant not only in terms of population size but also in terms of the regional, linguistic, and tribal kaleidoscope of cultures they represent.  They form an integral part of the cultural tapestry that adorns Eritrean Society in all its diversity. 

Some regions have a large Muslim majority; others smaller but Muslims are to be found in all regions, among every tribe in Eritrea, and among speakers of every language in Eritrea. Furthermore, the majority of Tigre, Saho, Nara, Afar, Rashaida, Beja, and Blen are Muslims.  The Kunamas have a large Muslim minority and among Tigrigna speakers, Muslim Jebertis are to be found in significant numbers. 

Yet despite these quintessentially genuine Eritrean characteristics they possess, Eritrean Muslims have suffered (and continue to suffer) a great deal of injustice ever since Eritrea’s current borders were carved by Italian colonizers.  This, dear beloved compatriots, is the collective lament to be heard by Muslims of every hue throughout the length and breadth of Eritrea – lowlands, highlands, and anything in between.  If all these don’t make sense to you, it could simply be because, as the saying goes, the plight of the unfortunate is invisible to the privileged.

Two things bothered me, though, after I read Ali Salim’s last article and some of his earlier articles. First is his seemingly nonchalant eagerness to embrace regionalism and tribalism without any qualification whatsoever and second; his pessimism or skepticism towards democracy. 

.

Stripped of its melodramatic exterior and strident tone (which Ali may have deliberately resorted to), what is Ali Salim’s prescription for Eritrea and how can it be summed?    The two major points that stand out are the ones I just mentioned (ethno-tribal advocacy and pessimism towards democracy): 

He wants us to forget about establishing “Democratic utopia” in Eritrea and urges us instead to strengthen Ethno-Regional groups unconditionally.   He thinks it laughable that a “bunch of naïve Professors, helpless ex-peasants and taxi drivers” could succeed in bringing about a ‘democratic utopia’ in Eritrea where the mighty US failed?” 

First of all, I tend to regard our “naïve Professors, helpless ex-peasants and taxi drivers” more favorably than those big time land grabbers with big guns and deep pockets who travers the Atlantic thinking they could manufacture a democracy by force or buy it for another nation.  They want democracy in other countries but only if it serves their own national interests – this is readily admitted. 

Force can destroy, remove a dictator, and install a fake democracy. But democracy cannot be forced nor can it be imposed from above.  It has to come from the will of the people to serve the needs of the people.  United States failed in implementing democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan not for lack of resources or knowledge but because it lacked a crucial ingredient: legitimacy.  It also failed to earn the trust of the local people who could easily see through its ulterior motives.

Second, I ask Ali what form of Government other than a democracy he wants to have that can withstand the simultaneous and noisy clamor of competing ethno-tribal groups that he wants to encourage and foster? Consider also that we are now living under a dictatorship – a non-democratic regime. What are the chances of solving the grievances we have both enumerated when we can’t even voice them without risking dire consequences?  Freedom of expression can only be sustained in a democracy.

Third, Ali had said: “it is imperative that we sign contracts and agreements and build barriers so that no one will violate other people’s God given rights and get away with it. “  If that will work, isn’t enshrining them in a constitution in a more permanent fashion even better?  Not Bereket’s version necessarily but a more representative and fresh version.  If Sudan failed in implementing its constitution, does it automatically follow that we will fail also? 

Laws, constitutions, rules, and regulations are powerless by themselves.  It is the collective will of the people to follow them that quickens them to life.  The fragile nature of democracy and the freedom and opportunity it accords to everyone in its domain renders it vulnerable to abuse. But what system is proof against abuse?  If constitutions, laws, and democracy cannot bind us, nothing will (including Ali’s idea of contract signing).  If we give up on democracy, we give up on ourselves; in our ability to liberate ourselves and our people.

Fourth, Ali Salim said democracy is “a protracted process that took centuries”.  This is true but it is truer for the pioneers who didn’t have democratic models to follow and had to resort entirely to trial and error.  Fortunately for us, there are now many fully functional democracies we can study and learn from. Moreover, in contrast to old democracies, emerging democracies have the added advantage of operating under a new paradigm where democracy has become increasingly popular around the world. This gives new democracies an added boost and increases their chances of success.

But even if we assume implementation of democracy will take a very long time, what do we have to lose for trying?  Considering that we are starting at the bottom, each small step towards democracy will in itself be a learning and rewarding experience.  In other words, the journey itself will bear fruit along the way.  Just think how relieved we will all be even with such a tiny democratic baby step like freedom of movement or freedom of expression not to speak of the intense reprieve and happiness families will feel when they finally reclaim their sons and daughters from forced labor.  We are not dreaming about a “democratic utopia (as Ali put it).  Democracy is not a panacea but until we come up with a better system, it will have to do.  If you can think of a better alternative, please let me know and I will listen. 

Fifth, Ali’s call for encouraging tribal and ethnic formations stems from his belief that tribes so empowered will have more faith in the system and will cooperate with the general welfare of the nation.  But how convincing is his postulation when viewed against inter/intra-tribal and ethnic wars and other horrors we have witnessed in the last century alone?  From Africa to Asia to Europe, ethnically based conflicts account for the loss of millions of lives.  How are we to believe that the highly charged atmosphere of several interest based groups simultaneously vying or demanding attention will bring about a more prosperous and stable nation?

The great historian, Arnold Toynbee once observed that the entire history of mankind can be summed up in a simple formula: challenge and response. The opposition (Ok, Saleh resistance) faces a challenge and the response it gives will largely shape the future of Eritrea.  But focus on region, tribe, and ethnicity cannot be good for us particularly in the current stage of the struggle.  Please do not take us there. 

Eid Mubarak to all! …back to hibernation…please do not disturb…

ismailomar@verizon.net

Tribal Democracy for West Papua Government: A Rough Draft/Proposal (Open for Discussion) (England, 1999)

(A) INTRODUCTION


This "Draft of West Papua Government System" presents an overview and background reasons of what I would like to call "Tribal Democracy" and "Western Democracy" and how they differ from one to another.


It finally ends with the advantages and problems we are will face if we choose either western or tribal democracy. 

The purpose of this is to avoid any political manipulation and collusion that comes from super power nations in this world.

(B) BACKGROUND

1. We need to be aware that the "Indonesian government" will finally and definitely go away from West Papua. However, we, the people of West Papua will face another "government" called "West Papua government" which will continue the mission and task to rape, torture, intimidate, exploit the human and natural resources, take people away from their homes and families, kill, imprison and many other ways. All of these will become worse when West Papua politicians govern and kill their own people. It will be more inhuman than now to see the celebration for independence turned into suffering because West Papuan government will kill their own people who have fought for the freedom together in unity. It is unbelievable, but definitely, it is going to happen. 

2. We cannot be so optimistic with our own government because our neighbouring country, Papua New Guinea has openly spoken to us all that tension and torture does exist in self-governing nations. Some mountains will rapidly turn into valleys. Some green trees where flora, fauna and tribal people live will be asphalt and cities will be built with concrete walls. Some un-contacted tribes will be quickly reached. In short, "All that are alive will die, and the death will happen because they are killed." Who will kill them? No one else, nothing else. They are there with you. They are the corporations, aid agencies, religious organisations, and such that directly become the agents from the super power nations that up till now see West Papua as a fertile region for exploitation. 

3. If we look at the world atlas, West Papua is one of at least three regions in the world whose resources are not yet subdued/ exploited/managed by the powerful nations "in the west" There is a concept in this world: "All humans must become the same as those in the west, and the western patters of society, culture, government and such should be applied into any society in the world. They believe that "democracy" is the best and the only way of government in the world. They are trying to make the world to become::
  
One in its government systems, even only one system will become the system for all governments; 
One in language, English; 
One in religion; most possibly Christianity or those friendly to Christianity; 
One race; 
One thought and feeling. The though is like this: Development is nice, chopping down trees is necessary, killing other humans is a must for security purpose, etc. 
  
4. For these, they will do all they can in all ways. They will talk any actions, even by bloodshed as we have seen in East Timor and Balkans. All these are not tragedies or incidents. All are very well planned and executed. In West Papua, they are already with us now. They are sleeping and eating with us. They are actively participating in various meetings among West Papua people. They will say, "Let me have your neck, I am thirsty of blood and hungry for flesh after such a long time since East Timor feast!" 

5. Their aims are these:
* Mining in Tembagapura should continue without any hindrance, because when it is stopped, western economy will be in trouble;
* Logging activities will not end because the modern nations have not got any trees left in their countries for their furniture, paper, carpentry and others. 
* Road construction, Mamberamo Dam construction should be resumed because world organisations must take away resources available in West Papua and the best way is by investing into the region, without leaving any single waste at all. 

6. We need to be aware that the problems in West Papua are not only originated from Jakarta, but they are from far away countries. They are relaxing, eating and sleeping in a relaxed situation. Meanwhile, Indonesian army is paid to kill West Papua people for the sake of supplying the needs of those far away countries. Here is how Jakarta is foolish. Jakarta is not clever or sensitive anymore to its problems. It is already the puppet of the western powers since New Order government came into power. Until now, it is obvious that foreign governments are intervening into internal affairs of Jakarta. What is being done by those intellectuals educated in foreign nations? They are all under the control of "Mind Control Policy" far away. They are being controlled by remote control from far away. Just like you can control revision channels from distance, the mind-control is happening in the same way. Is this a dream? It is a reality my brothers and sisters. 

7. That is why we should be clever in judging the situation in West Papua people and in trying to help ourselves to get out from the problems. We should not continue supplying the demands, in which way we will be continuously killing our own people. We must stand for our own selves and problems. We should avoid committing suicide in our political decisions in these days. We must reach our goal "Save the people of West Papua and all the resources in the island from any colonialism" and not on the contrary.

(C). A ROUGH DRAFT "GOVERNMENT SYSTEM THAT WILL STAND FOR THE PEOPLE IN WEST PAPUA "

1. The concepts of "nation" and "government" are close friends to murder, torture, rape, disappearance, exploitation, and environmental destruction, the home of tribal people. We have seen these since the Dutch was colonising us, after German came some hundreds years ago. What is happening now is the development activities based on outsiders' principles and theories. These means exploitation will continue, rape will not stop, disappearance will become unavoidable. Intimidation will be a must. Imprisonment of Melanesian people in their own land will not end. All things will go on. Their banner will say "Business as usual!" 

2. In relation to no. 1 above, I would like to express my view that we need to know from now on in forming a modern style way organising people called "government." We need to be aware that we do not need to COPY the governmental systems that work in outside Melanesian community. We have learnt from PNG and other Pacific nations as our Melanesian brothers and sisters that some of the principles copied from outside Melanesia and tribal contexts do not work at all. Even they create tribal wars among us. Therefore, creating a new nation (West Papua) by refusing another nation (Indonesia) is an unwise action because both still have the same principles and philosophies. When both governments have the same ways of governing the people, then should we say that we will not kill our own people anymore? It us highly unlikely. Most probably, the processes of exploitation, tribal war, road construction, dam construction and other problems will be accelerated. These will not solve fundamental problems that we have now. In particular, more violations of human rights will be committed by West Papua government. More destruction of the environment will happen. 

3. Some are suggesting that all Indonesia provinces become federations of Indonesia with full autonomy to each federation. The purpose is to build a "democratic government" in Indonesia. If we choose this, then it is impossible to create a "democratic government" per se. Jakarta itself is already a corrupt government. Its people are under full control of some people outside Jakarta. They have been in harmony for a long period of time, since the New Order government came into power. "Definitely, the harmony could not be let go easily!" They are already too close to each other. To take our gold, silver, trees, gas, copper and others in West Papua, Jakarta has been made unconscious of what it has been doing biased and will be so for ever. Megawati herself is obvious to us. They are already in the "mud" of super-power nations. A year later, their sense of humanity will totally disappear. It is typical, once someone gets power, the control of feeling as human beings disappears. They will forget what they had been saying for more than 30 years to their people on their political platforms. This is not only for Megawati, it is the way this world is controlled. "It does not matter if you fulfil you promises or not, the important thing is winning the votes NOW!" Therefore, do not get confused if Megawati and Gus Dur allow or even support the killings of people in West Papua and further exploitation all we have in West Papua. A clear example is the Mamberamo Dam Project, which is "ON" now. 

4. There is a significant tension between "Western Style" of government being exposed to use now and "Native Style" which existed in our life since centuries ago in Papua. Actually Jakarta has this "native style of government", but it has been destroyed by themselves. They may feel sorry about it, maybe not, that is their business. From these mistakes, we should be able to establish our own system that can work for ourselves. We need to anticipate further problems in our government. If we do not, we are more foolish than those in Jakarta are, because we will repeat their mistakes even though we know which ones are the problems. 

5. To balance the tensions between "western style government" called "democracy" and our way of governing ourselves, we need to think about combining the two (democracy and tribal way) become a "Tribal Democracy" government. It is neither federal system nor guided democracy as being considered in Jakarta and in the liberal world generally. The "Tribal Democracy" has the following characteristics.

C. THE CONCEPT OF TRIBAL DEMOCRACY GOVERNMENT

1. The Form of Government: Tribal Democracy 

2. The Place of Each Tribe in the Tribal Democracy System. Each tribe, either big or small tribes, primitive or modern tribes, developed and undeveloped tribes, educated or illiterate, all will have THE SAME AND EQUAL STATUS in the Tribal Council within each tribe. The Tribal Councils will govern their tribes without any single disturbance or intervention form other tribes around or far away from them. For example, if Bade tribe in Mamberamo do not speak English, Lani people should not go there and stand as prophets and priests for them and expose Lani values on them. There is no need for Lani people to bring in aids, Bible, education, or whatever into the Bade people. It is none of other tribes' business. Of course, Bade Tribal leaders will be invited and will have an equal position in the government but the tribe itself will make its decisions for whatever they need and they want. All depend on them. There should be no single tribe or nation or organisation from outside Bade to become their priest or prophets or apostles. They will develop or change in their own time and pace. One thing for sure is that they will definitely grow and develop according to how their needs, wills, wishes and wants. 

3. Management in Each Tribe: Each tribe will organise in their own community and villages. There is no need for other tribes that are regarded as educated, elite politicians, and such to expose their expertise or knowledge or degrees and regard their fellow tribes lower or less educated or less civilised. All tribes should treat others as the same and equal. In other words, West Papua as a tribe/community, we do not need to create elite politicians or new order of politics in our society. The danger is that the new order or new elite groups will become the good targets for exploiters, head-hunters, oppressors who do not have human values or moral values in their businesses, who only work for profits. They have no moral or cultural responsibilities to West Papua and its people. What they want are the resources to be taken away from us. That is why the way of managing each tribe should be under the control of each tribe. By this way, we will be strong against any wills and plans to exploit us.

4. Economy: Economically, a tribe is 100% (fully) responsible for the management of all resources in, on and under the land they inhibit. We do not need to create a system where only a small number of people plan the development and dray maps for logging, mining and killing activities; and then come to the people and give instructions to move out, to comply, to obey and such. If a tribe wants to turn a mount into valley as it has been happening in Timika, it is the right of people in Timika, it should be the decision of the five tribes in the region. If lakes should be filled up to make settlement areas, it should become the decision of tribes who own the area. If dams should be established from some rivers (like Mamberamo Dam case), that depends on tribes related to the land. Of course, other tribes can give suggestions and opinions, but the decision is on the hands of the tribes related to the land. 

5. Administration of the Government: The administration of the government will be centralised in an office. It can be called the Central Administration Office (CAO/KPA). Geographically, it is logic if the CAO/KPA is based in the central highlands. (CAO/KPA) will organise administration activities and tasks as well as documentation. The CAO/KPA is the place where all educated people from West Papua be based. They are not to make decisions, but they are to listen to and give advice or suggestions to their tribal leaders, to formulate and reformulate the opinions of Tribal Councils so that they can be presented to the international community. The staff of CAO/KPA will be chosen by each tribe (tribal council) to represent each tribe in the CAO/KPA. Each decision will be made at tribal council level and then submitted to the CAO/KPA for further administrative handling. 

6. The CAO/KPA Leadership: The CAO/KPA will be chaired by one Head Office, with General Secretary, General Treasurer and other experts and specialists in various sectors. Office administration tasks are under the head of the CAO/KPA. The head office will be changed after certain period of time in turn and each tribe should have a chance to be the head of the CAO/KPA. The head of the COA/KPA will chair the administrative tasks and the head will be in turn replaced by each tribe after certain period of time. In this case, we do not need President, Prime Minister, MPs and such. We are tribal people and we live in tribal ways. We have our own Tribal Leaders. If the world demands us to have a government, then it is called Tribal Government. If they want a "democratic" government, that it is called "Tribal Democracy".

7. Tribes and Tribal Leaders: West Papua has 245 tribes. That means it is logic and acceptable to say hat West Papua government will have 245 Tribal Leaders as the heads of the tribes. At least 2 persons from each tribe will represent each tribe (2 X 245) to run the office in the CAO/KPA. In addition, the academics, experts, specialists will have special status in the system, but they will not have power to make decisions.
  
Some deputies, such as War Chief, Food Chief, Chief of Farm will assist tribal leaders, etc. as we inherit in generations. All deputies are responsible to the people, not to the Tribal Leaders. 
However, for the coastal areas, the "kingdom" system will be applied because that is the way the organised the community. 

There is no absolute democracy "from heaven" on this earth. There is no democracy with the truth like the Bible as the standard for government. All systems of government in this earth are imperfect and some principles only appropriate for certain groups of community on this planet. In other words, for instance, not all principles that work in the states should work in West Papua and visa versa. The principles applied in each society should be adapted to the existing systems. 
That means the western democratic principles and organisation systems should not become the absolute ways of governing West Papua people who already have our own ways. This is similar to the issue of Christianity. There has been a view that "There is only one way to heaven!" Similarly, there is a belief that "There is only one way of government system that is good for all humans and culture, that is democracy." We need to think about these concepts as results of wishful thinking.
  
International relationship: West Papua people need to have our representatives in foreign countries and organisations like the UN. That is why we need to think about how we will be represented in the international forum. I propose that each tribe will have their own representative abroad, channelled through the CAO/KPA by each tribe concerned with the foreign nations. For example, if Mee Tribe has a contract with Freeport MacMoRan Inc in New Orleans, the USA, then a Mee tribesman/woman should represent West Papua in the states. If some tribes are related to the mining, then they tribes concerned will talk about it and then they can decide in their final meeting to nominate and appoint people to represent their tribes. This representative will carry out ambassadorial tasks. The CAO/KPA will handle the administrative tasks of the offices abroad.

8. The Equality in Managing Natural Resources: If some geographically some tribes have more natural resources than others, then it is the basic rights of those who live in the are to decide what proportion they would like to share with the rest of the tribes. For example, if there are five tribes in Timika, then five tribes should discuss the shares for them. Here are some mechanisms of co-operation:
  
Principally, we, the tribal people are not selfish people; we are not individual beings like in the modern society. We put society first, and then individuals later. Naturally, tribal people will treat each other better than modern society. The most important characteristic of tribal community is "We share what we have!" 

The tribes who have the land will have some meetings to arrange the shares in each tribe. Then they will meet in general meeting for final decisions. 

Final decisions will be submitted to the CAO/KPA and will be processed and presented to investors. 

In the minutes of decisions, the proportions of shares should be stated clearly and understood by each tribe.
  
9. Relationship with Foreign Investors: If no 8 is the principle of operations, all businesses of contracts, investments, development plans etc that are related to private and public organisations in and outside West Papua, should be thoroughly discussed inside each tribe. Then each tribe will have separate contracts or agreements with the investors. Also tribes affected by the investment have the right to veto any agreements made. All tribes have veto on the investment processes. For example, if Mamberamo Dam is to be built, in Mamberamo and the roads should be built through other tribes in Arso and Genyem areas, then it is not only the rights of Tribes in Mamberamo to make the decisions. The tribes whose lands will be affected by the Dam will also have the right to approve or disapprove the plan. 

10. Law and Order: Traditional law is the prime law for each tribe. As it is happening now, each tribe has its own norms and traditions. We are all Melanesians, therefore, the norms and traditions are similar (with a few differences) The important thing is that each tribe has its own laws and each tribal people understands what they mean to them. There is no need to impose any laws from anywhere in the world. Most of the modern laws are in fact used to justify certain elite groups and capitalists to further exploit the world and to justify and defend for their brutal actions. These should not be allowed in West Papua. 

11. The Armed Force: Tribal people do not have a separate armed force. The separation of legislative, jurisdiction, executive and security forces is a modern concept. They are good and very effective for modern society. It does not mean that they are also effective and work very well for Melanesians in West Papua. Tribal community knows that all males are members of the armed force, without exception. There need certain regulations inside each tribe when women want to become members of the armed force. This needs to be consulted to the husbands or parents of the females. All members of the tribe are the members of the armed force. The people only can apply to the War Chief if they do not want to be listed as members of the armed force for the tribe. In this case, they need to show their preferences of roles to play within the community if the tribe is in war.

D. SOME ADVANTAGES AND PROBLEMS IN TRIBAL DEMOCRACY

1. Advantages
These are some of the advantages of "Tribal Democracy" government:
  
The centralised and oppressive policy making where all plans for exploitations (logging 
concessions, mining contracts and such) will disappear significantly; 

The feeling of being oppressed, manipulated or cheated by one tribe to the other or one group to the other will not exist in this kind of democracy; 

One or some tribes will have chances to become elite politicians and then become oppressors of their own people in West Papua; 

Tribal conflicts and wars will be minimised. This is the main concern of the modern community. They think, "Tribal people will have tribal wars if they have their own governments!" They point out what is happening in PNG and some African nations. They do not know the real problem underneath all the conflicts in tribal community. "It is not because we live in Tribal community!" The reason is because the modern countries expose their principles and systems of government to the tribal communities. They expose "Western democracy" and this is the problem. This is the same as asking Moslems to eat pork. And when they refuse it, we brand them as "primitive." If western democracy does not work well in tribal communities, then it is not because tribal life is wrong. It is because we are forcing the western democracy that works well in the UK and the states to the tribal people. It is, of course, perfect for the modern society, but is it also so for us tribal people?

We will live in harmonious relationship with fellow tribal people, inside each tribe and also with the international community as human beings and with all other beings on this planet. 
This pattern represents our real life as tribal people. This kind of idea is rarely discussed by us, tribal people because we are manipulated by other powers beyond our consciousness. This is the most appropriate pattern of government for tribal people world wide.
  
2. Some problems in this system
  
We have already being "brain-washed" by the capitalists in the modern world with a view that independent means having a President, Prime Minister, Ministers, Governors, Ambassadors, etc. Therefore, even tribal people will see this idea as "a weird concept." Actually this capitalist system is a danger and disaster for the whole world of humanity and nature.

We already have plans to establish cabinets by copying modern types of governments; therefore, even tribal leaders may view this proposal as unrealistic. If this happens, they are the ones who will regret sometime later. 

Modern capitalist world will find this idea as a threat to them. They will do whatever they can do, either by destroying the idea, manipulating the view or even by obliterating the people who support such an idea. This is definitely going to happen. They have done so all over the world. This is not a secret anymore. The capitalists will approach, promote and help West Papua people who can finally give opportunities for them to further exploit and destroy all the resources in the land of West Papua. 

They will use any means they have, even by selling and supplying guns, jet fighters, giving training to intelligence and many others. 
The modern community will create and provoke tribal wars within West Papua people. They will finally say, Tribal Democracy is inappropriate!" They will say, "Let us establish a democratic government!" which means a democracy that allows capitalists to exploit and kill the people. 

  
E. RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
  
1. Each tribe in West Papua should claim their leadership roles from the hands of politicians and other leaders being exposed to us from outside our community. 

2. Each tribal leader in West Papua should act as the elders for all of us, youths, intellectuals and politicians from different groups to give directions and guidance towards the life that agrees with the tradition and culture of people in West Papua. 

3. Tribal leaders should conduct regular meetings and have open communications so that political gangsters from inside or outside West Papua community cannot provoke and manipulate the politics in West Papua. 

4. Intellectuals and elite politicians from West Papua should realise that we are basically the Melanesians from West Papua and that we are tribal people. We are tribal community in this modern world. We are modern people in our tribes. We need not to be biased by various theories, knowledge, philosophies, patterns and systems as well as expertise from outside our tribes, which look good but basically nothing inside them. 

5. Let us continue the National Dialogue Phase II under the co-ordination of FORERI (West Papua political organisation) and PGI (Indonesian Council of Churches). This dialogue will give more chances to Tribal Leaders to say what they want to say for their people and to avoid further manipulation from Jakarta.

These are all my personal views. I believe tribal people of West Papua will agree with me. If not, those who disagree will be "modernised Melanesians" which will not suit into the existing systems of tribalism.
  
Author: Sem Karoba
Email: WP@...
Centre for International Education and Management
United Kingdom

What is Tribal Democracy?

Tribal Democracy is the term originally presented by the one of the Greatpersons our human history, Grandfather Nelson Mandela. Well, not exactly Tribal Democracy, but theoretist call it "Tribal Model of Democracy." I found this when I was searching the Internet ten years back.

When people read this name: "Tribal Democracy", then they will easily relate this name to "Tribe", "Tribal", "Primitive", "Sectarian", "Barbaric", and that means 'un-democratic.'

Well, it does make sense for me, because the word "tribe" and further "tribal" has always been negated. When people see this word, of course, they will suddenly find themselves, or without realising it, will think, "Hmm, something tribal? Something from the old ages?" It does make sense for me, because this modern culture has told us not to accept, even hate what was before, what we inheritted from our past generations.

What I actually mean, or what comes up in my own mind as soon as I think of this concept is:

  1. Something that is "prime", "pure", "fresh", "golden", so exactly the opposite of those above perception I mentioned.
  2. Banks of gold, diamond, and even more than these, that we have denied, refused to accept, and hated, but something that will embrace us and will take care of us, and will continuously sustain and nurture us, sorry, not only us human beings, but ALL Communities of Beings, and not only us, but also will make our Planet Earth stay inhabittable in a longer time that modern culture will bring us to.

I am sorry, let me just theoretically define what Tribal Democracy is. Tribal Democracy can mean one, or some, or all of the following:

  1. Democracy for All Communities of Beings;
  2. Democracy that is Based Upon Tribal System, Ways of Life and Wisdom;
  3. A System of Governance that embraces or enbridge Tribal Values into Modern Cultures;

If you ask me to relate modern definition of democracy to what I mean here, then I would say that a system of governance is called "democracy" when the business of governing is done by a free and fair ellection, chosen by majority of votes, with respect to human rights, and that promote clean governance, etc.. I see, this is a good definition to start with: "Democracy is a form of government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country or a state." [cheack here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy] There is an element of 'majority rule', 'election by the people', and 'supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them'. I want to copy and paste more definitions, however, I would rather say that the modern definition of democracy are all "anthrophocentric". Any kinds or definitions of democracy that claim to care about the nature, not only humans, most notable, Democracy from the Green Movement is unfortunately "anthrophocentric" as well. Human beings are at the centre of the governance.

Well, that is not what I mean by "Tribal Democracy" by the way:

  1. Tribal Democracy is "democracy from all communities of Beings, by all communities of Beings, and for All Communities of Beings with their Planet Earth;
  2. In other words, it is a "democracy" that is run not only by Human Beings, but by all Communites of Beings.
  3. It is a form of government in which state-power is held not by majority of human citizens only, but of all Communities of Beings.

Above all, I would say that Tribal Democracy is A System of Governance that promotes a Society of communities of Beings to life in peace and harmony.

In a more spiritual language, one can say that this model of democracy is:

  1. Democracy as it was in the Garden of Eden, Paradise, Nirvana as it is written in Holy Scriptures of modern religions;
  2. Democracy that will bring us all to a life that is peaceful and harmonious among all Communities of Beings.

I know, I am not more than a tribesperson, a stone-aged person, part of the world whom you normally refer to as "cannibal tribes", even though I have never seen any Papuan eating other humans, other than what I have seen modern peoples eating other humans, in front of my eyes, virtually every second, every minute, every day, every week, every month, every year, so far. I do not wnat to get into trouble by discussing this topic, it is not that important.

I just want to say FRANKLY, HONESTLY, HUMBLY, OPENLY, whatever -lies that would affirm that what I am saying is not just a dream, but based on realities that I have experienced in this 'life' that I have now, which I believe can be implemented by any civilisation who would like to live in this planet Earth, who would like to make this Planet Inhabittable, not only for our generation, but more importantly for generations to come.

I am sorry that I must end this first note now. I will go deeper in later postings.

What I am expecting from my readers, from human beings who happen to read this post is that:

  1. You provide me assistance to edit my poor English, in my blogs and in my books;
  2. Sponsor me in exploring this proposal into a more academic work, either as a Thesis or whatever it is that will make it possible for this concept for a system of governance so that modern scholars, politicians and democratic campaigners understand and share what I am actually talking about, what how this can be applicable, when and how.

See you soon.

 

Sem Karoba
Irish-Honorary Papuan Tribesperson
semkaroba@yahoo.co.uk