In many developing nations, which were forced, to embark on multi-party system (mostly as a precondition for receiving aid) the record so far is murky. The dominant parties manipulated elections to reinstate dictatorship. Ethiopia, for instance, has enjoyed "elected government" since the TPLF came to power. But Ethiopia as a country is in turmoil, with rampant corruption, poverty and disease, ethnic bloodletting, and a political elite from Tigray that does not tolerate any kind of criticism. Likewise, in many other countries imported multi-party democracy resulted in decreased law and order but in increased corruption and instability, as the imported system was unfit to the social, economic, cultural realities in their societies.

On the other hand, China has managed to noticeably improve the quality of life of its people. Had the multi-ethnic giant nation implemented multi-party system following the Tiananmen Square uprising, its rampant consequences for its unity and stability is not be difficult to envisage. Likewise, Chile managed to become economical promising and politically stable nation in Latin America by retreating from the western style multi-party system into something, which is in essence disciplinarian system. Similarly, Singapore, which can be seen as a haven of democracy, achieved its current level of development and stability after realizing that multi-party system can emerge only as a result of other social and economic developments. In countries like Eritrea, a party can not win an election unless it finds method of dividing the electorate. Based on the experience around the globe it is not exaggerated to argue that untimely-implemented multi-party system can be a recipe to chaos and division along ethnic and religious lines.

Although it is here not argued that a single party rule is superior and multi-party is awful, the experiences so far demonstrate that multi-party system in western nations should be seen only as capstone to other social and economic achievements. Multi-party system evolved in the west not through the kind of moral arguments that the so-called "reformist" are trying to convince us, but as an outgrowth of development.

Initially, multi-party system neither forms nor strengths states. The specific system is, therefore, more suitable for states that already have efficient bureaucracies and middle class and where sensitive and complicated national issues have already been resolved. In other words, a country needs to be fit for democracy through discipline, stability and economic prosperity rather than the other way around. Basically, to ordinary Eritreans a particular system is democratic if it guarantees fair treatment, economic prosperity and stability. After all, the crucial element is not the name the system goes by but how the system actually functions.

Viewed from this perspective, it is crystal clear that the Eritrean government is on the right track. It is, therefore, erroneous to view multi-party system as magic formula for securing prosperity and rule of law. We need to bear in mind that the rule of law that we are witnessing today in the western world is not something that emerged as a result of multi party system. Rather, multi-party-democracy emerged as a result of the social and economic development that western nations managed to score during the last hundred or so years.

Political parties cannot be created just for the sake of multi-party system. Equally, the Eritrean government cannot be expected to assemble political parties out of the blue just to entertain the west (for the sake of receiving foreign aid). Now the role of the Eritrean government is simply to rehabilitate the war ravaged social and economic infrastructure and to create a conducive atmosphere where democratic practices and institutions could thrive.

Currently Eritrea is confronted with unprecedented drought, which affected large portion of its population. At the same time the country is approaching a crucial phase where its boundaries are going to be demarcated on the ground once and for all. From now on Ethiopian governments (current or future) have no pretexts whatsoever to engineer war and to design chaos against Eritrea. The main task of Eritreans inside and outside the country should, therefore, be to support our government in its endeavors to tackle the current hunger and starvation .The principle of self-reliance is and remains a prerequisite for achieving sustainable development in Eritrea. As always we need to face natural and man-made disasters facing Eritrea holding on to our principle of self-reliance.

As in this era of globalization development is impossible without cooperation and good will of the international community, we need to establish and consolidate a friendly relationship, which is based on mutual respect and honesty with all our neighbors and the international community. We need to understand, however, that designing a development plans that solely or largely relies on foreign aid or embarking in political adventure that does not fit to the realities on the ground is tantamount to self-destruction.

Contrary to what the so-called alliances forces are trying to make us believe, Operation Warsay-Yikealo is a well-thought comprehensive blueprint to address the acute and chronic problems facing Eritrea. The success or failure of the operation depends, however, on the commitment of every Eritrean. We need to think beyond our personal interests. Rather, we need to put in our share. Once we are willing to share the burden, it would not be hard to reconcile whatever differences we may have. Pointing fingers without participating in the struggle is, otherwise, morally incorrect and practically unacceptable. Every Eritrean needs to realise that it would be a grave error of judgment to use issue of multi-party system and democracy as an alibi to do less than what we can to put Eritrea back on track.