(Mis)Education in Authoritarian Regimes: The Case of Eritrea

Abstract

There is a debate on the role of education as a tool to challenge or enforce authoritarian attitudes. Many posit that education, particularly higher education, reduces authoritarianism; whereas vast research indicates that education can be used as an authoritarian tool for regime survival. This suggests that there are other intervening factors, such as the curriculum used, the teaching methodology implemented, and the educational administration employed, to securitise the academic space and impose authoritarian attitudes. Informed by the notion of hegemony and the banking concept of education, this article explores the nexus between education and authoritarianism, determining the role of education as an authoritarian tool for regime survival. We use the case of Eritrea, a country that has been under authoritarian government for more than two decades. The article is based on a literature review because it is risky to conduct an objective empirical study on the “politics of education” in Eritrea, given the country’s political sensitivity. The findings suggest that the Eritrean government politicises the curriculum and militarises secondary and higher education levels to create false consciousness and maintain power. The article contributes to advancing knowledge regarding the nexus of authoritarianism and education, helping people understand the state of the politics of education.

1. Introduction

There is a large amount of literature that discusses if and how education contributes to the survival or removal of authoritarian governments (see Sanborn & Thyne, 2014; Simpson, 1972). In line with this, Mirshak (2020) suggested that the provision of education is not free from the influence of the political system (see also Hanson & Sokhey, 2021; Perry, 2020). Authoritarian regimes are wary of critical education that nurtures socio-economic and political consciousness and participation of citizens. This is because authoritarian regimes do not involve true participation of societies in the governance of their nation-state (see Havel, 2018; Caygill, 2015). Instead, they rely on the military and other coercive institutions to rule. In addition, they use education and media to impose the regime’s values and legitimacy (Gramsci, 2006). Mirshak (2020) and Hanson and Sokhey (2021) further indicate that these regimes engage in misleading discourses to create a “false consciousness” and prevent people from perceiving their true nature.

Many authoritarian regimes increase access to education and, hence, improve the literacy level of their citizens (Sanborn & Thyne, 2014). The same is evident in the Eritrean situation, where access to education at all levels has increased since independence (Tsegay, 2019). However, Freire (2005) and Sanborn and Thyne (2014) argue that authoritarian regimes use education to mask people’s consciousness and reinforce their oppressive practices. Therefore, research on educational provisions in authoritarian contexts should focus beyond access and investigate its goals and objectives, with an emphasis on the intertwined links between power and education.

Eritrea is a country located in the Horn of Africa and has a population of about 5 million people. Successive colonial governments ruled the country until its independence in 1991 (Morten et al., 2021; Tesfazion, 2020). The Eritrean people fought for decades to create a democratic country where they could enjoy peace, liberty, safety, and development (see Amar, 2022; Hagos & Weldemichael, 2023; Mohamad et al., 2021; Solomon, 2024; Tesfazion, 2020). However, the country has been under one authoritarian leader for more than two decades, and the situation has gotten worse since 2001, when many senior government leaders asked for political reform (Hagos & Weldemichael, 2023; Tsegay, 2020). The authoritarian nature of the Eritrean government has been discussed in different reports and studies. For instance, the United Nations’ investigation on human rights described the Eritrean situation, saying, “It is not law that rules Eritreans, but fear” (United Nations, 2015, p. 8). Moreover, Tsegay (2019) highlights the propaganda machines of the government both within and outside of the country (see also Müller, 2008). This article, therefore, expands the literature on the nature of the Eritrean government by focusing on education as a tool for maintaining power.

This article is guided by the following two research questions: (1) Are there indicators that the Eritrean government is using education as an authoritarian tool for regime survival? (2) If so, what are these specific indicators? To address these research questions, the article employs a scoping review of various documents such as books, articles, reports, and policy documents. In so doing, the article sheds light on the topic, as an empirical study from Eritrea on the “politics of education” is risky, given the country’s political sensitivity. The article is also significant because it provides in-depth insight regarding the nexus of authoritarianism and education, helping people’s understanding of the role of education in shaping political ideologies and vice versa. It also extends the academic discussion on how education contributes to reproducing the ruling class’s ideals and political interests. The article starts by exploring the country’s context to set the scene. Then, it discusses the theoretical frameworks used to support the data analysis. Following the research methods, we present the findings, discussion, and conclusions.

2. Country Context

It is difficult to understand the case under study without discussing the country’s political system. Eritrea was born out of 30 years of war for independence, mostly led by the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF). After Eritrean independence, the EPLF formed the “Provisional Government of Eritrea” (PGE) under the leadership of Isaias Afewerki (Hagos & Weldemichael, 2023), the man who has been leading the country until now. The PGE’s mandate was to organise the UN-observed national referendum for Eritrea’s independence, which was held in 1993. Subsequently, in 1993, the EPLF established the Transitional Government of Eritrea to oversee the country’s transition to constitutional rule (Mohamad et al., 2021). Accordingly, from 1994 to 1997, the Eritrean government started some initiatives, such as allowing freedom of press and drafting a new constitution, which was ratified by the National Assembly in 1997 (Tsegay, 2020). Nonetheless, the process of building a democratic and economically vibrant state was interrupted in 1998 due to the border war with Ethiopia (1998–2000) and its aftermath (Tsegay, 2020, 2022).

From May 1998 to June 2000, Eritrea and Ethiopia engaged in a border war, which many referred to as “Brothers in War” (Negash & Tronvoll, 2000; Tsegay, 2020). The border war and the aftermath conditions severely damaged the political development of Eritrea in general and the democratic process in particular. In 2001, the government of Eritrea froze the 1997 constitution and closed the free press in the name of “national security” (Ahmed & Rukema, 2023; Patterson, 2016; Reid, 2009). It also imprisoned many journalists and senior government officials who demanded political change and implementation of the constitution (Müller, 2008; Patterson, 2016). The government labelled the critics as “traitors”, accusing them of treason in times of war and national security threat (Hagos & Weldemichael, 2023). Most of them were detained without any charge or trial, while the rest fled the country to live in exile. President Isaias Afewerki and his party (People’s Front for Democracy and Justice—PFDJ) also used the situation to rule the country for decades.

Many argue that authoritarian regimes are different from one another based on their traits, such as a dominant party regime and military regime (Caygill, 2015; Havel, 2018). Yet, they share many features in way they maintain power and treat their opponents. The Eritrean government is characterised by a long-time grip of power without election, a lack of the rule of law, and subjugation of dissident voices without due process, which are typical traits of an authoritarian regime. The government could also be explained as a hybrid (of dominant party, military, and personalist) regime. Hence, it might be unique to Eritrea while sharing many features and tactics of authoritarian regimes with other contexts (for example, see Hanson & Sokhey, 2021; Mirshak, 2020; Perry, 2020). President Isaias portrays his regime as the protector of the Eritrean nation and its hard-won independence in order to legitimise his authoritarian government. Nevertheless, Eritrea’s constitution has been frozen, and the national assembly suspended for decades. The powers of the ruling party, the government, and the state institutions have all been folded into the office of the president (see Hagos & Weldemichael, 2023; Solomon, 2024). The president governs the country through the army and security, constructing an image that equates his office with the Eritrean nation. Dissidence against this state of exception is condemned with violence, disappearance, and death (Hagos & Weldemichael, 2023). It could be due to such situations that the United Nations’ investigation on human rights indicated that Eritreans are ruled by fear, rather than by law (United Nations, 2015).

Overall, the promise of hard-won independence to establish a democratic government has not been materialised (B. A. Kidane, 2024; Solomon, 2024). Yet, the regime has survived for more than three decades with significant support at home and in the diaspora, which brings the fundamental question: “Is the regime using state institutions to impose its authoritarian ideals?” If so, how? In this article, we focus on the role of education based on a scoping review and the notion of hegemony and the banking concept of education, concepts that we explain in detail below.

3. Theoretical Framework

In this section, we discuss the theoretical frameworks used to inform this article. We adopt Freire’s (2005) banking concept of education to discuss the pedagogy of the oppressor (i.e., Eritrean government). Following Mirshak (2020), we also employ the Gramscian notion of hegemony to explain how the authoritarian regime in Eritrea employs education to impose the hegemony of the ruling class on students and society in general.

Lauderdale and Amster (2008) define hegemony as the dominance of one group over another through a shared system of ideological or cultural norms, ideas, and values within a society or community. The significant point of hegemony is the power or influence that the ruling class exercises using various mechanisms to ensure their socio-economic and political interests (Gramsci, 2006). The government of Eritrea uses multiple mechanisms, such as the media, to influence the Eritrean people and present itself as the beacon of democracy and protector of the state and the people. Many also suggest that the education system (Müller, 2008, 2014; Tsegay, 2019), as part and parcel of social hegemony, is carefully designed to serve the regime to maintain power by reproducing the regime’s “dominant ideology and culture” (see Cornelius-Bell & Bell, 2024). However, since authoritarian leaders are wary of educators, they control critical educational institutions, such as higher education institutions, through administrative and coercive institutions of the state.

In his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire discusses critical and banking concepts of education. In critical education, Freire (2005) emphasises the role of education for critical consciousness through praxis (action and reflection). Freire (2005) suggests the need for critical pedagogy based on dialogue, reflection, and communication (see also Hooks, 1994; Gadotti, 1996, 2017; Rush, 2004). On the other hand, Freire (2005) argued that education can take the form of a banking model or an act of depositing, in which students are not allowed to ask, invent and reinvent but to receive, file, and store any information given by the so-called “teacher”. Beyond student–teacher relationships, Freire noted that the attitudes and practices of the banking model of education mirror the conditions of an oppressive society as a whole. In so doing, Freire (2005, p. 73) stated the following characteristics of a banking concept of education:

• The teacher teaches and the students are taught;
• The teacher knows everything and the students know nothing;
• The teacher thinks and the students are thought about;
• The teacher talks and the students listen—meekly;
• The teacher disciplines and the students are disciplined;
• The teacher chooses and enforces his choice, and the students comply;
• The teacher acts and the students have the illusion of acting through the action of the teacher; the teacher chooses the programme content, and the students (who were not consulted) adapt to it;
• The teacher confuses the authority of knowledge with their own professional authority, which they set in opposition to the freedom of the students;
• The teacher is the subject of the learning process, while the pupils are mere objects.

As indicated above, education, as a medium, part and parcel of human rights, plays a significant role in promoting freedom and democracy (Ramirez et al., 2007). However, education can also be used to reinforce authoritarian ideals and oppress people both in content and method of delivery (Freire, 2005; Torres, 2002).

Furthermore, Freire (2005) posits that education is heavily influenced by the reigning political system of a country (see also Apple et al., 2009). As a result, authoritarianism negates the development of critical thinking since critical education requires democracy (Freire, 2005; Misiaszek et al., 2011; Torres, 2002). This suggests that participatory democracy is an important priority in education, especially higher education, to further socio-economic and political justice (Misiaszek et al., 2011). Without participatory democracy in education, only those with power determine the structure and content of education. Similarly, it is difficult to attain participatory democracy in education without a democratic state. Thus, defending the democratic state becomes essential for all aspects of society and education (Torres, 2002) because democracy needs responsible individuals, cultural diversity, mutual respect, and transparency, which are lacking in Eritrea.

4. Research Methods

This paper is based on a scoping review of the literature focused on a specific case study (i.e., Eritrea) to offer in-depth insights rather than generalise to other spaces. A scoping review identifies and synthesises an existing or emerging body of the literature on the topic (Mak & Thomas, 2022), while a case study provides a detailed analysis of a specific example of a context or phenomenon, offering in-depth insight into the situation (Priya, 2021). Moreover, a case study does not only use any method of data collection (Priya, 2021) but it is also open to the use of theoretical or conceptual frameworks to guide the research and data analysis (Meyer, 2001), which are vital for this study.

We employed a scoping review to identify and synthesise the existing literature through a systematic and iterative approach (Mak & Thomas, 2022). The literature review was based on Mak and Thomas’s (2022) five steps of conducting a scoping review: identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, selecting studies to be included in the review, charting the data, and collecting, summarising and reporting the results.

Identifying the research question and relevant studies: We identified two research questions (see the Section 1) to guide the article in terms of scope, breadth, and depth of the review and check whether any previous research has been conducted on the topic. Moreover, the two research questions were used to test the availability of sufficient literature to address the case under study. To answer the research questions, we searched and identified various articles and books considering the time of publication (published since 2000) and relevance of the articles or books (i.e., focusing on Eritrea) (Munn et al., 2018). Therefore, books, articles, and report documents written in English and Tigrigna (Eritrean official language) were considered. We used four keywords (“education AND Eritrea” OR “authoritarianism AND Eritrea” OR “Eritrea AND school” OR “Eritrea AND university”) to search articles and books written since 2000 on ERIC and Scopus. Accordingly, 308 studies (112 on ERIC and 196 on Scopus) were obtained after eliminating duplicates. Moreover, a search on Google and Google Scholar was conducted with the keywords (“Eritrea”, “authoritarianism”, AND “education”) to seek any other relevant books and articles, especially those written in Tigrigna. Although the Google and Google Scholar searches resulted in 6230 books and articles, careful consideration was taken to select recent (published within the last ten years) and important articles and books based on their relevance to the topic. After eliminating duplicates and articles focusing on other countries and issues, the 6230 books and articles were reduced to 149 papers.

Selecting and Charting the Studies to Be Included in the Review: As indicated above, the general inclusion criteria were to select papers published in English or Tigrigna since 2000. Generally, 457 papers were selected and exported into RefWorks. Then the selected papers were reviewed by both authors, considering their significance in addressing the research questions, the publisher, and publication time, respectively. The authors agreed to read at least the abstract (the conclusion, if the abstract is unavailable) of the papers before deciding. Finally, 36 papers were selected for review. These studies include reports, journal articles, and books covering information from the colonial period of Eritrea until recent times. Some of our sources (particularly the Tigrigna books) are written by former EPLF/PFDJ leaders who were in senior leadership positions during the armed struggle and in post-independence Eritrea. Considering the studies’ differences, which limit uniform charting of data, five main categories were used to chart the studies: author’s name, year of publication, geographical location (Eritrea), and main arguments/results.

Collating, summarising, and reporting the results: Finally, the data was collated, summarised, and reported through thematic and content analysis. Using both methods is essential to develop a comprehensive analysis of the data (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). Thematic analysis allowed us to systematically organise the data and interpret the recurring themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Additionally, it was used to provide a thick analysis of the data in relation to the context (see Braun & Clarke, 2006; Özden, 2024). Furthermore, content analysis was employed to “organise and elicit meaning from the data collected and to draw realistic conclusions from it” (Bengtsson, 2016, p. 8). It was informed by Bengtsson’s (2016) four stages of content analysis: decontextualisation (coding), recontextualisation (comparing with the original data), categorisation (theming), and compilation (drawing realistic conclusions). Although these stages share similar traits to Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases of thematic analysis (familiarise with the data, generate initial codes, search for themes, review themes, define and name themes, and write up), content analysis is significant to address the first research question by systematically coding any indicators that suggest that the Eritrean government is using education as an authoritarian tool for regime survival (see Bengtsson, 2016).

The generation of codes and their collation into themes were based on the research questions, whereas the theoretical frameworks were used to inform the data analysis and draw realistic conclusions. It is important to note that we, the authors, are Eritreans who lived under the current Eritrean government for more than two decades. We are not only aware of the Eritrean context but also served under the autocratic nature of the Eritrean government. Hence, we were careful of our positionality as insider–outsider researchers and were engaged in continuous reflexivity throughout the review process, particularly during the data analysis, to conduct a rigorous study (Creswell, 2013).

5. Findings

The findings show that many indicators suggest that the Eritrean government is using education to support its political ideology and regime survival. The government creates a hostile space for critical education and educators to prevent their influence on society. Moreover, it uses education to impose its ideas and values by securitising the curriculum and militarising secondary and higher education sectors. We discuss these themes one by one below.

5.1. Securitisation of Curriculum and Pedagogy

The focus of this section is not to analyse the details of the curriculum in Eritrea but to critically discuss the evidence regarding the actions of the Eritrean government to securitise the curriculum and downplay the democratic principles in schools. One might argue that the government’s education policy is educating citizens to meet the socio-economic and political challenges of the country and the world. However, various studies have evidenced that those policy objectives are not fully implemented (Tsegay, 2016b, 2019). On the contrary, the government securitises education to supplement its administrative and coercive controls and demonise alternative Eritrean views and democratic ideals that contradict its idealistic self-reliant developmental state (Kibreab, 2009, 2013, 2017b; Tsegay, 2020). The Eritrean government did not implement strategies to steer the country from its current conditions. For example, in 1991, Eritrean education experts identified and suggested the following critical responsibilities for the Ministry of Education to help in the reconstruction of the newly born country:

• Formulation of national education policy;
• Development of strategic plan;
• Development of regulatory framework;
• Training of teachers and other professionals (Solomon, 2024, p. 164).

Although these suggestions were taken into action, implementing a non-partisan national educational policy has been impossible. Through the imposition of the EPLF/ PFDJ history and ideology, persecuting any Eritrean dissident voices, and expelling international cooperation agencies, the regime ignored the country’s societal and political diversities and developmental needs (Hagos & Weldemichael, 2023; Solomon, 2024). Furthermore, the government discouraged and later closed private schools, especially schools associated with religious institutions (Solomon, 2024). The plan to control or nationalise schools goes beyond discouraging religious educational institutions and reflects the regime’s mission of imposing EPLF/PFDJ hegemony. This can be seen in the government’s decision to close the emerging private higher education institutions and distance education centres providing higher education services in the country. These actions not only contradict the Eritrean National Education policy, which encourages private sector investment in schools (Ministry of Education, 2012) but also affects access and the internationalisation of education in the country.

Moreover, most of the Eritrean government’s narration focuses on social justice (Hedru, 2003). However, social justice cannot be separated from democracy (Khechen, 2013) and democracy from human rights (Rhoads & Torres, 2006). Many countries include human rights in their national curriculum, whereas Eritrea rarely mentions the issue. At the same time, many democratic countries employ liberatory pedagogy, whereas authoritarian regimes prefer banking ones in order to promote democratic political cultures or deposit the political ideas of authoritarian regimes and mould individuals’ attitudes towards their political objectives, respectively (Freire, 2005; Gadotti, 1996). This indicates that the content and pedagogy used reflect the type and objective of political structures, and the concepts of democracy and democratic citizen are both political and pedagogical practices (Apple et al., 2009; Freire, 2005; Gadotti, 2017; Rush, 2004).

Another significant finding is related to the teaching and learning process. The sensitive political context hinders teachers from teaching students to read the word and the world critically (Tedla, 2012; Tsegay, 2016b). There is also a lack of ICT infrastructure, including the internet, which prevents students and teachers from finding alternative sources of knowledge and developing independent learning (Tedla, 2012). Eritrea is the country with the lowest internet penetration rate in the world and perhaps the only one without a mobile data connection (Tsegay, 2016a). However, it is important to mention that some teachers try to navigate the system to nurture students with knowledge and skills to be responsible and conscious citizens (Tsegay, 2016b).

Through critical pedagogy practices, it is possible that students can gain knowledge and skills that cultivate them into democratic citizens (Freire, 2005; Hooks, 1994; Tsegay, 2016b). Nonetheless, authoritarian regimes are not keen to cultivate or see a democratic citizen. Hence, students at all education levels mostly become victims of banking education, despite the efforts made by some teachers at the cost of their consequences. This corroborates the idea that oppressors use all the means they can to suppress the voice of the oppressed and dominate and subjugate any kind of opposition (Gramsci, 2006). These regimes argue that democracy is not part of their culture and that countries need time to nurture democratic citizens without setting any timeframe. Hence, they do not take any steps to develop a democratic citizen, which leads to creating an uncertain future (see Capella, 2000).

5.2. Militarisation of Secondary and Higher Education

The militarisation of secondary and higher education is one of the techniques the Eritrean government uses to impose its authoritarian ideals on the youth of the country. This started with the Summer Student Programme, which mobilises the country’s youth to familiarise themselves with the nation and engage in reconstructing the war-ravaged infrastructure (see Berhe & Kidane, 2019; Giorgis, 2014; Kibreab, 2017b). However, in 2002, the government forced every Grade 11 complete student to go to Sawa (the country’s military training centre) to finish Grade 12, sit for the Eritrean Secondary Education Certificate Examinations (ESECE), and complete military training (Müller, 2008; Tsegay, 2019, 2020). This is a different plan compared to the previous National Service programme, which required students who completed high school and the ESECE to travel to Sawa for military training as part of their national service (Berhe & Kidane, 2019). The new initiative mostly removes young students from their parental care and exposes them to the EPFL/PFDJ propaganda. The state intervention affects the parent–child natural bond and disciplines the creative minds of the youth to create a silent and docile society that serves autocracy. The intervention also invades citizens’ privacy, including private and family life, in the name of education.

Moreover, in 2002/03, the Eritrean government closed Asmara University and opened seven higher education institutions (HEIs) in different parts of the country (Tsegay, 2019, 2020). It might seem that the government opened more HEIs, but the target was the autonomy and freedom of the university and its students. For example, in 2021, the Eritrean government detained University of Asmara students in Wi’a and Gelalo, the eastern lowlands of Eritrea, where the temperature reaches about 45 degree Celsius, for “opposing to participate in a summer work programme due to low pay on offer” (Müller, 2008; Tsegay, 2019, 2020). The government later decided to take secondary school students to Warsay-Yikealo Secondary School in Sawa and appoint military and political personnel to the newly established HEIs (Müller, 2008; Riggan, 2020; Tsegay, 2019, 2020). Therefore, this enabled the government to control the narratives and teaching and learning spaces.

In its national service and summer student programme proclamations, the regime claims these programmes are meant to help the youth to integrate into their societies, learn about the country’s history and patriotism, and develop physical fitness and modern academic and technical skills required for the reconstruction and protection of Eritrea (see Kibreab, 2013, 2017b; Tsegay, 2020). We argue that there is nothing wrong with educating the youth about their country’s history, contributing to the nation-building process, or integrating them into society. However, the problem comes when the regime uses education to consolidate a partisan and undemocratic EPLF/PFDJ state at the expense of the youth’s future and life (Solomon, 2024). The fact that education is provided in militarised spaces also suggests that teachers and students are obliged to adhere to the unwritten codes of securitised and regimented military life (Müller, 2008, 2014; Riggan, 2020), which prohibits critical pedagogy and critical thinking.

The number of Eritreans passing through securitised and militarised education system is significant. For example, during the 25th anniversary and 31st commencement of Sawa, the government announced that 454,966 youth (including 102,388 women) graduated from the military training centre (Berhe & Kidane, 2019). The report also indicated that 198,624 students completed Grade 12 in Sawa (Warsay-Yikealo Secondary School) and took the ESECE in the centre (Berhe & Kidane, 2019). This suggests that the securitisation of education is one of the techniques of the government to influence people and extend its hegemonic rule, despite its long-term implications for the youth and the country, including the mass exodus of Eritreans (Tsegay, 2020).

6. Discussion

As evidenced in the findings, the Eritrean government politicises the curriculum, militarises secondary and higher levels of education, and uses banking models of education to downplay democracy and create a false consciousness, which could help the regime to impose its ideas, silence dissidents, and maintain power. We discuss the findings in two themes in relation to the theoretical foundations presented above.

6.1. Downplaying Democracy

The Eritrean government has been working for a quarter of a century to downplay democracy and institutional governance using all the tools at its disposal (Hagos & Weldemichael, 2023; Solomon, 2024). Similarly, the education system has been crafted to not only exclude democratic education but also politicise democratic institutions and ideas. It could be argued that democracy has been one of the most contested practices in the world, with many governments, including autocratic ones, claiming that they are democratic. It is also not surprising to hear some governments like the Eritrean regime noting that there is “no commodity called democracy” (Burkle, 2024). This is what is being projected in the country’s education system.

However, despite nation-states’ differences in their understanding and practices of democracy (Ramirez et al., 2007), scholars have long defined democracy and its significance in the socio-economic and political development of countries. For instance, as cited in Rhoads and Torres (2006), John Dewey explained:

A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. The extension in space of the number of individuals who participate in an interest so that each has to refer his own action to that of others, and to consider the action of others to give point and direction to his own.

(1916, p. 93)

Dewey has put that democracy is shared experiences, decisions, and practices that influence and shape the lives of its practitioners and others. Nevertheless, the political system in Eritrea does not address these issues while education is being used to justify this by pointing out the pitfalls of democracy in developing nations (for example, see Abeyasinghe, 2004). Instead, they portray the “heroic” picture of the president and his accomplice who played a major role in liberating the country. The message is that “who is going to question the leaders who sacrificed their entire life for the country”, and many fall for it without critically assessing what is happening on the ground.

The Eritrean government emphasises the need for social justice, but social justice cannot be separated from participation and human rights (Khechen, 2013; Rhoads & Torres, 2006). The notion of democracy is not new for the people of Eritrea. In the 1940s and 1950s, Eritrea had more than six politically divided but nationally united political parties (R. Kidane, 2011; Venosa, 2014). Despite being forcefully federated with feudal Ethiopia, Eritrea practiced a democratic system of government for ten years from 1952 until it was fully annexed by Ethiopia in 1962 (Negash, 2019; Venosa, 2014). However, since its independence, Eritrea has not only one party, but it has also been under one leadership. This is often presented in schools and other academic centres as necessary for national unity and protecting the country’s sovereignty. It mainly blurs the boundaries between the government and the country, leading to oppression and subjection of people for the country’s sake (Freire, 2005).

The government employs education to provide a biased narrative of democracy with a focus on its possible disadvantages. It states that certain features of democracy threaten national security, allowing other countries to intervene and even re-colonise Eritrea (see Ahmed & Rukema, 2023). The government uses the unimplemented boundary decision and the UN sanctions as examples and scapegoats for its failure to set up a democratic system in the country. This is mainly a manipulation of the people using the country’s historical conditions and experiences under oppressive foreign rules (Freire, 2005). Yet, the government uses it as a justification to teach students that political decisions overcome any human rights or democracy issues (Freire, 2005; Mayo, 1995; Torres, 2002).

As indicated above, in 1997, Eritrea ratified a constitution, but it was suspended before implementation and later declared “dead” by President Isaias. Some demands of the people, including the need for an election, human rights, and a multiparty system, were then scrapped along with the constitution. President Isaias, in his early 2014 interview, confirmed this by stating, “There will not be any party to govern Eritrea besides PFDJ. If anyone thinks of Eritrea without PFDJ rule, he/she must search it in the moon” (see also Khalaf, 2009). As a result, instead of teaching democratic principles and human rights, a focus is given to the history of the EPLF and other nationalistic principles, which are utilised to mask people’s consciousness. There is no meaningful civic participation, election, or rule of law in Eritrea. Decisions are being made by a few individuals, particularly by the president, and influence the lives of the Eritrean people, mostly negatively.

Overall, the Eritrean government is using education to teach its social justice-based governance (as a unique system of democracy that fits the country) and to create false consciousness. Nevertheless, similar to Memmi’s (1991) argument, many Eritreans are aware that they have no say in the nation’s affairs, as their voice is not heard. There is no democracy without political representation, a cluster of rules that secure the safety of people, freedom of conscience, information, and expression, and the right to oppose governments and stand for office (Freire, 2005; Torres, 2002), which are missing in Eritrea. If there is any consciousness without praxis (action and reflection), it is mostly false consciousness (Freire, 2005; Hanson & Sokhey, 2021; Mirshak, 2020), which we discuss below.

6.2. Creating False Consciousness

The findings suggest that the Eritrean government is using education (curriculum and pedagogy) and its space to impose its ideology on the youth and society and create a false consciousness. Freire (2005) saw the link between banking education and false consciousness as they are both meant to create a disciplined population that serves its leaders without question. They also create a perception that masks the true nature of the authoritarian regime and its hegemonic policies on the ground.

As stated above, the lack of a democratic state affects the teaching and learning process. Teachers not only lack training, but they are also not confident enough to teach critical thinking for fear of repercussions. Authoritarian regimes understand that critical pedagogy leads to critical thinking, which challenges their leadership and system (Freire, 2005; Solomon, 2024). Hence, they do whatever they can to control and manipulate education to facilitate a regulated discussion on certain government policies and performances. However, they reject any discourse and discussion that creates public consciousness and a politically critical mass that would threaten the regime’s legitimacy. In Freire’s terms, they provide education and use pedagogy that allows them to talk, choose, and discipline while the students (and people) are subjected to listen, comply with their choices, and be disciplined (Freire, 2005). This is also what Gramsci called hegemony (Gramsci, 2006).

To be fair, the Eritrean condition goes beyond the Gramscian notion of hegemony because the Eritrean government uses hard power to force students into militarisation of education (Müller, 2008; Tsegay, 2019). For instance, those who do not abide by the militarisation of secondary education are not allowed to join the HEIs. Moreover, the government developed intertwined security, military, police, PFDJ, and local administrative committees and institutions deployed to implement this policy. This means that the committees practically engage in spying, tracking, and rounding up of Grade 11 students who failed to go to Warsai Yikealo secondary school and forcefully take them to the compulsory national service (Kibreab, 2009, 2013, 2017b). As a result, many youths leave the country to evade forced military conscription and become refugees in other countries (Tsegay, 2020, 2022; Kibreab, 2013).

The data shows that Sawa has been a fertile ground for imposing the government’s autocratic ideas and principles (Kibreab, 2017a; Rena, 2008). In a mixture of academic and military life, students are taught the EPLF/PFDJ political principles of nationalism, self-reliance, and discipline, which Rena (2008) described as the continuation of the EPLF’s legacy and revolutionary culture. The students are also inculcated with the idea that no one can protect and save Eritrea except for President Isaias Aferwerki and his party, PFDJ. Overall, students are exposed to PFDJ’s ideas and principles, leading to “false consciousness”. The target is that you should support the regime or at least not oppose it. The government uses any opposition group, such as the G-15 and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) sanctions, as textbook examples of internal and external conspiracies against Eritrea, and to create a distorted narration to enforce its agenda.

It is important to note that Eritrea has been a victim of different decisions taken beyond its control. Eritrea’s voice was not heard during its federation with Ethiopia in 1950 (Tamburini, 2020), its request for full implementation of the Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission decision in the 2000s fell on the deaf ear of the international community, and it became the victim of the UNSC sanctions in 2009 (resolution 1907) and 2011 (Resolution 2023), which targeted the economic sources of the country (Tsegay, 2020). However, the Eritrean government was not proactive enough to engage with the international community to deter such sanctions. Instead, it pulled its membership from the African Union and lashed out against the big powers, particularly the United States of America. Above all, it used these cases to create an obedient generation and extend its rule over the Eritrean people. This was a continuation of what EPLF leaders were doing in the name of the organisation (as a representative of the Eritrean people) during the independence struggle (see Hagos & Weldemichael, 2023; Solomon, 2024).

Moreover, the militarisation of education and the absence of experts and professionals in senior positions affect the motivation of youth to focus on education. It is also not surprising to see some youth fall into the trap of the government’s propaganda. Many tread carefully through the dangerous territory of the government’s autocratic nature, whereas others become tools of manipulation and oppression. Those who took the government’s side note that the current situation is better than the colonial era, which was ugly and dreadful. They fail to see what the country could become with a democratic government and strong public institutions. The government’s manipulation of education and continued propaganda have created a false consciousness among many Eritreans. Hence, many argue that they are settled with what they have, even though they have the opportunity to become a voice for the voiceless. This suggests that there is a need for commitment to the social transformation of the country, particularly with the contribution of the diaspora, who could be a voice for their people (see Apple et al., 2009; Freire, 2005; Gadotti, 1996, 2017; Rush, 2004). In this sense, as Freire (2005) argued, there is a need for critical pedagogy to unveil the consciousness of teachers, students, and the community, and work towards liberal education in Eritrea.

To conclude, oppressors use their educational, socio-economic, and political power to suppress the voice of the oppressed and endure their dominance (Gramsci, 2006). Furthermore, the Eritrean government deploys security forces to dominate and subjugate any kind of opposition (see Hagos & Weldemichael, 2023; Solomon, 2024). Hence, there is a need for a democratic state for the development of critical education and socio-economic and political justice in Eritrea.

7. Conclusions

This article explores indicators that suggest the use of education as an authoritarian tool for regime survival in Eritrea. The findings indicate that the Eritrean government uses education to impose its ideas and values on society and extend its rule. It applies various educational measures, such as the politicisation of the curriculum, the teaching and learning space, and the pedagogy used, to downplay democracy and create false consciousness to achieve its objectives (see Freire, 2005; Gramsci, 2006). It could be noted that the manipulation of education and other tools has been effective to some extent because it has obstructed many citizens, including those in the diaspora (see Hepner, 2011), from uncovering the deceptive and authoritarian features of the regime.

The paper extends the debate on the nexus of education and authoritarianism. Many posit that education, particularly higher education, reduces authoritarianism (Carnevale et al., 2020; Simpson, 1972), whereas others argue that education can be used as a tool for regime survival (see Hanson & Sokhey, 2021; Mirshak, 2020; Perry, 2020). In this article, we have not only indicated the role of education as an authoritarian tool but also evidenced the influence of other intervening factors, such as the curriculum used and the teaching methodology implemented, in producing critical or false consciousness.

Moreover, the article contributes to advancing knowledge regarding the nexus of authoritarianism and education in Eritrea, helping people understand the state of the politics of education. It could also play an essential role in shaping policy and practice for international cooperation, diaspora engagement, or post-authoritarian educational reconstruction. However, the paper is based on a scoping review from a single country. Therefore, there is a need for an empirical study, based on a mixed research approach, to expand knowledge on the role of education in the survival of authoritarian regimes. Furthermore, a comparative study covering two or more countries can broaden the article and enhance people’s knowledge and understanding of the issue.