Selamat Berhan and seb Deahi
While sympathizing with your (and Rita's) frustration at the "2% or
out" policy that was introduced on the 11th hour, I fail to see what
purpose will be served by boycotting the elections.
Initially, I objected to the policy not so much on the abstract rights
or wrongs of it but simply because I failed to see the purpose it
could serve.
It is the least effective tool for enforcing compliance with tax
regulations that the government could have chosen. Even when I tried
to put myself in the position of the devil's advocate and assumed
that this was an underhanded maneuver by the government to exclude
undesirables, I still found this tool equally ineffective even for
this malicious purpose.
Considering that a large number of those who have paid the 2% tax
were induced to do so because they needed a service of one sort or
another from the embassies (I present myself as a live specimen :-),
I fail to see how this policy is going to ensure all of them are
"desirable" to the government.
Could the reason for the policy be simply a point of principle,
irrespective of its utility or practicality?
Having listened to the moral, legal and political arguments that
were put forward for and against this policy in the last couple of
days; taking into consideration the significance the government had
attached to full public participation in the constitution making
process; this seems implausible to me. So what am I left with?
I think this is a classic example of a botched up job, someone
somewhere blundered. If I were to venture even further, I would say
that - us, the loudmouths of the peripheries, were the last thing in
the mind of whoever thought of this policy.
If you bear in mind that by far the largest number of the expat members
of the assembly will be from the Middle East, Sudan and Ethiopia (where
rates of compliance with the tax regulations as well as exclusions from
them are, I'm told, much higher) the policy would make some LIMITED sense.
It would serve the purpose of bringing home to the expats there that tax,
like death, is inevitable while at the same time not curtailing the
participation of the majority. This is pure speculation on my part -
and I very much hope it will not "come back and hound me" sometime in
the future:-)
Back to the Eritrean Community in Australia - Berhan, I am equally if
not more baffled by your decision. Somewhere in what you wrote (I'm
afraid I have lost it) there was a mention of a referendum vis-a-vis
the constitution.
If a more fundamental objection to the current constitution making
process was the basis of your boycott, I would like to hear all about
it but please don't confuse me while I'm trying to make sense of the
"2% tax or out" policy.
On the other hand, if the reason for your boycott is the absurd
restrictions that will result from this new policy, then I beg you to
reconsider. A couple of years ago, someone gave me an earful (I think
it was Semere) for thinking purely in practical terms to the point of
being pedantic. At the time this stung a bit (it was too close to the
truth :-) but in moments like this, thinking in terms of practicalities
helps me to clear my mind. Will you ask yourselves if your position
serves any purpose at all except for grandstanding?
Kamal
** Workshop by Prof Sondra Hale, UCLA. March 15-29. "Gender Concerns After **
** the Liberation Front Becomes the State: The Case of Eritrean Women". **
** **
** To join the workshop, send mail to: majordomo@primenet.com with the **
** following in the body of your mail. subscribe dehai-ws your-email-address **