Ethiopia: Unity By Choice, Not Fear - Lessons From Eritrea's Independence for Future Ethiopia-Tigray Relations

Addis Abeba — Ethiopia's political history is often reduced to the decisions of political parties and armed movements. Eritrea's independence, in particular, is sometimes portrayed as the result of a choice made solely by the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF) or the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). That interpretation is historically incomplete.

Eritrea's separation was the bitter outcome of a long history of foreign intervention, political marginalisation, coercive centralisation, and failed attempts to resolve the question of self-determination through force. The same history offers an urgent warning about Ethiopia's present trajectory, particularly the politics of exclusion and repression directed at the people of Tigray.

The unity and territorial sovereignty of a country cannot be sustained indefinitely through military force or coercion. They endure when they are grounded in a social contract based on consent, equal participation, justice, and the protection of all citizens. When that contract collapses and when state institutions become a threat to the security and existence of a population, political demands inevitably take a different direction.

Eritrea's Independence: Product of decades of conflict, not single party decision

Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines

Eritrea did not separate from Ethiopia solely because of one political group's wishes or decisions. Instead, generations of foreign rule, contested sovereignty, and the marginalisation of Eritrean political aspirations shaped its political history.

The territory was successively subjected to the influence or control of external powers, including the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, and Italy. Later, the federation between Eritrea and Ethiopia was dismantled, and Eritrea was incorporated into Ethiopia. The political rights and autonomy promised to Eritreans were progressively eroded, while demands for self-government were met with repression.

Successive Ethiopian governments attempted to suppress Eritrean political aspirations through military force. The result was not lasting unity but a prolonged armed struggle that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced entire communities. Eritrean independence was therefore not an overnight political decision. It was the culmination of decades of conflict and the failure of successive governments to build a voluntary and equitable union.

The central lesson is straightforward: no people can be compelled to remain within a political arrangement indefinitely through oppression, coercion, and military power.

Tigray's crisis of citizenship, security, and political survival

The current crisis in Tigray must also be understood beyond official narratives that reduce political grievances to "greed," "extremism," or the ambitions of a particular party.

Political commentary subscription Over the past several years, the people of Tigray have experienced profound political exclusion, insecurity, economic hardship, and the erosion of their constitutional and citizenship rights. The war that began in November 2020 brought mass killings, displacement, sexual violence, destruction of infrastructure, and the collapse of essential services. Even after the signing of the Pretoria peace agreement, millions of displaced people remain unable to return home, while questions of accountability, territorial administration, and political representation remain unresolved.

These realities cannot be dismissed as the product of propaganda or partisan competition. They reflect a deeper crisis in the relationship between the Ethiopian state and one of its constituent peoples.

A government's first responsibility is to protect the security and dignity of its citizens. When state institutions fail to do so or when they are used to threaten a population's existence, the social contract begins to break down.

When justice disappears and force replaces consent, unity becomes increasingly fragile."Politics

This breakdown has several consequences. First, citizens lose confidence that the state can protect their rights through ordinary political and legal institutions. Second, political grievances become increasingly framed as questions of collective survival. Third, demands that may initially concern autonomy, equality, or constitutional protection can evolve into calls for self-government or independence.

If Tigray is pushed toward considering a separate political future, that outcome should not automatically be described as the product of the people's ambition or the manipulation of a single organisation. Those who pursue politics based on force, exclusion, and collective punishment also bear responsibility for creating the conditions in which separation may appear to some as the only guarantee of survival.

What Ethiopia can learn from other countries

International experience demonstrates that political unity is not preserved by suppressing national, ethnic, or regional identities. In many cases, repression strengthens the very forces that central governments seek to defeat.

The dissolution of Yugoslavia, the separation of South Sudan, and the complex history of Singapore's departure from Malaysia each illustrate, in different ways, the dangers of political arrangements that fail to accommodate competing identities and interests. These cases are not identical to Ethiopia or Eritrea, and historical comparisons must be made carefully. Yet they share an important lesson: when political systems deny meaningful participation and respond to grievances with coercion, fragmentation becomes more likely.

The same warning applies to Ethiopia. If Tigray continues to be denied security, justice, reconstruction, political inclusion, and the effective protection of its constitutional rights, the country's territorial unity will become increasingly fragile.

The question, therefore, is not whether Tigray should be pushed toward independence or compelled to remain within Ethiopia. The more urgent question is whether Ethiopia can create a political order in which Tigrayans and all other peoples can remain within the federation by choice rather than fear.

Unity must be built on consent, not coercion

Ethiopia's constitutional framework recognises the rights of nations, nationalities, and peoples, including the right to self-determination. These provisions were designed to address the country's history of domination and to provide a political foundation for coexistence.

Yet constitutional guarantees are meaningful only when they are implemented in practice. Federalism cannot function when regional institutions are weakened through political pressure, when elected representatives are excluded, or when entire populations are treated as security threats. Nor can national unity be defended credibly while millions remain displaced and accountability for grave abuses is postponed indefinitely.

A durable Ethiopian state must be built on equal citizenship, accountable institutions, negotiated political settlements, and respect for the rights of all communities. It must reject collective punishment, chauvinism, and the use of military force as a substitute for political dialogue.

Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters

Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox

The experience of Eritrea shows what can happen when a political union is maintained without consent. The current situation in Tigray shows that the underlying dangers have not disappeared. If Ethiopia's leaders fail to learn from history, they risk repeating it.

Conclusion

Eritrea's independence was not solely the decision of the TPLF or the EPRDF. It was the outcome of a long historical process shaped by foreign intervention, political marginalisation, broken promises, and the failure of successive governments to resolve the question of Eritrean self-determination through peaceful and democratic means.

That history should not be used to justify new forms of exclusion or repression. Instead, it should serve as a warning.

Political commentary subscription Ethiopia's unity cannot be preserved through war, hatred, or coercion. It can endure only through justice, equality, accountability, and the voluntary consent of its peoples. The future relationship between Ethiopia and Tigray must therefore be shaped by dialogue, constitutional guarantees, the return and rehabilitation of displaced people, credible accountability, and respect for political choice.

History offers a clear lesson: when justice disappears and force replaces consent, unity becomes increasingly fragile. A country is not preserved by coercion alone but by the willingness of its peoples to remain together within a political order that protects their rights, security, and dignity. AS

Editor's Note: Gebremichael Negash is a refugee who was displaced from Western Tigray and is now an active member of Tsilal (ፅላል), a civil society organization dedicated to the people of Western Tigray. He can be reached at wele63776@gmail.com