This discussion assumes that the Ethiopian and Eritrean leaders, Mr Meles Zenawi and Isayas Afeworki, are in a position to open new opportunities to advance peace in the area by employing peace initiatives that are considered to be unconventional by both countries' standards.

Many political analysts believe, as witnessed by the victims, that the absurd war that started in mid-1998 has brought unimaginable pain to both countries' citizens and severe destruction to their economies. Unfortunately, the employment of the world's major players as mediators - the OAU, UN, US and others, did not succeed in alleviating the problem. People continue to suffer in both countries, the defence forces of both countries continue to concentrate on each other's movements at the war fronts and the potential intermediaries are 'successfully' maintaining their distance from the affairs of the duelling states. What is then left to be done?

Without shutting the current peace portals, it is argued, both countries' leaders can afford to search for new methods in order to push the peace process forward. One of such methods is the Socratically defined citizen's approach. This method calls for citizens to avail themselves to 'government matters' by using the bottoms-up approach to problem solving. The bottoms-up approach, in its experimental form, may open a channel for dialogue among citizens, between citizens and their leaders and consequently, it is hoped that it may create an effective channel that either encourages or pressures the two leaders to communicate with each other..

Two things are assumed here: firstly, the main protagonists in the dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia are both countries' leaders; secondly, the citizens do not have access to one another and their respective leaders - a communication gap that needs mending if the two leaders are to initiate a meaningful dialogue. On one hand, citizens, in spite of paying a dear price for their leaders' mistakes, do not have a say in matters concerning the conflict. On the other hand, it is believed government leaders have circumscribed understanding of what their citizens are going through at this moment. Therefore, it is argued that there is major breakdown in the dialectic between citizen-to-citizen, citizen-to-leader and leader-to-leader. This missing link could provide a solution to some of the riddles surrounding the conflict at this junction. Let's call this dialectic 'Socratic Methodology'.

Most ancient Greek philosophers, Socrates included, were advocates of a rational vision of the universe. As such they considered the intellectual component of human nature to be the most important. Reason, therefore, was a most powerful thing, with the force of truth being able to force people to accept logical conclusions even if they wished to do otherwise. Socratic methodology stresses the importance of asking questions in order to arrive at commonly agreed points of references to conceptions. In this case, asking questions, ones based on personal experiences, may prove helpful in conceptualising the needs of the concerned. In other words, the Socratic methodology can be considered as one way of facing up to current problems and the leaders. Who knows, this approach may invite the leaders to reconsider their style in the political management of the area and view the world of their citizens from a different angle.

Government officials, nationalists, avant-guards and other pro-government groups may refuse to listen once they see the flow of the dialectical argument leading in a direction which would compel them to abandon their beliefs. How different this is from their current behaviour where they are more than willing to embrace their personal beliefs regardless of how inconsistent, illogical, or hypocritical they may be. It is most important to notice that, with the close knit interrelation of citizens of both countries in diaspora, is breaking up that the concept of the individual as opposed to society comes more and more into prominence. This era is increasingly being marked by a tendency to accentuate the spirit of individualism, as the individual is becoming an independent unit. Here we might notice by way of comparison to pre-Badme era, the increasing importance of the individual in the development of the self, as citizens are beginning to free themselves from past relations. Both countries' intellectuals are at the forefront of this new development.

As Socrates insistently questioned the confidence of people, in the truth of popular opinions, Ethiopian and Eritrean intellectuals can do the same to confront issues of concern. They should aim at understanding the truth through the application of a dialectical method that uses critical inquiry to undermine the plausibility of widely held but ineffective methods (uncritical allegiance). The intellectuals should prompt the average citizens to ask hard questions to/about themselves, their fellow citizens and their leaders. Perhaps only then will both leaders consider to open a meaningful dialogue between the two states. One think should be remembered, even though Eritrea and Ethiopia are in the hands of Mr Isayas Afeworki and Mr Melles Zenawi respectively, much can be accomplished if the citizens dare to organisedly ask the 'unaskable'.

Dawit Mesfin
London