SUPPORT ETHIOPIA INSIGHT
Independence must come first
Independence is a right, not something to be earned as a reward. Grounded in international law and the universal drive for self-determination, independence means a people exercising full self-rule, free from external domination. This right is not conditional on building a flawless democracy within the very system that denies people agency in the first place.
To insist otherwise is to justify endless oppression. The case of Tigray demonstrates this clearly. When a people are politically marginalized, economically exploited, and physically threatened, the pursuit of sovereignty becomes not an aspiration, but a necessity for survival.
Some argue Tigray must first build a functioning democracy within Ethiopia, but this claim collapses under scrutiny.
If Ethiopia’s system truly allowed Tigrayans to participate fully in politics, safeguarded their rights, respected their culture, and shared resources fairly, then the case for separation would be weaker. Democracy is expected to provide a framework for addressing grievances, but in Ethiopia the opposite is true.
The argument that Tigray need to first prove its democratic credentials ignores the oppressive reality of the Ethiopian state. A democratic enclave cannot grow under the shadow of a centralized regime that suppresses dissent, undermines the rule of law, and denies basic freedoms.
Cruel Denial
True democracy requires an enabling external environment, yet Tigray has been systematically denied this by a state that sees self-rule rights as an existential threat. As long as Tigray remains trapped in this structure, its hopes for justice, accountability, and self-rule will remain blocked, making genuine democratic development impossible.
This is not a theory but a lesson from Ethiopia’s long record of violent assimilation. The Ethiopian state has repeatedly attempted to erase distinct nationalities, with Tigray a central target. Emperor Haile Selassie’s brutal campaign to suppress the first Weyane rebellion, the Derg’s scorched-earth campaigns in the 1970s and 80s, and, most recently, the genocidal war waged by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s government all testify to this pattern.
This was compounded by a pre-war federal government systematically excluding Tigrayan officials from key security and economic posts, a postwar siege that has weaponized aid and crippled the region’s economy.
The brief interlude under the EPRDF, which constitutionally recognized self-determination, stood as an exception that proved the rule.
This shows that within Ethiopia, Tigrayans are denied not just democracy but even the right to exist autonomously. Independence, therefore, is not a choice but a prerequisite: The essential step to creating a sovereign space where security, justice, and eventually self-governance can take root.
To demand that Tigray remain within the very structure that has inflicted such harm until it meets an impossible standard of “pre-independence democracy” is not only illogical. It is a cruel denial of its right to survival.
Historical Lessons
The notion that a people must first perfect democratic practice while under an oppressive regime is illogical and unworkable. History shows, time and again, that sovereignty is the precursor to democracy, not its reward.
Numerous modern nations gained independence first, then used that hard-won sovereignty to build democratic institutions on their own terms. The peaceful “Velvet Divorce” of Slovakia from Czechoslovakia in 1993 produced a sovereign state that matured into a stable democracy.
The Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—declared independence from the collapsing Soviet Union in 1991. After difficult transitions, they became successful, democratic members of both NATO and the EU. Slovenia’s declaration of independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, though met with a brief conflict, resulted in a secure and prosperous state.
Even where independence did not immediately produce liberal democracy, sovereignty laid the foundation for future success. Singapore’s separation from Malaysia in 1965 paved the way for its transformation into a global economic powerhouse known for stability and effective governance.
Ireland’s independence from the UK in 1922, though followed by civil war, paved the way for its eventual evolution into a stable republic. Together, these cases show that independence, though challenging, is the necessary first step. It is the soil from which democracy and prosperity can grow. Attempting to cultivate democracy under foreign domination is a contradiction in terms.
Wrong Models
Skeptics often point to Eritrea and South Sudan as cautionary tales, suggesting independence without democracy leads to failure. This argument is flawed for three reasons.
First, it ignores context. Each country’s trajectory is shaped by unique historical, geopolitical, and economic conditions. Their struggles cannot dictate Tigray’s future.
Second, this line of reasoning misunderstands democracy itself. Democracy is not a guaranteed endpoint but a fragile, ongoing process, prone to backsliding even in the world’s oldest states. Independence does not ensure democracy, but it grants the sovereign agency to attempt it, an agency that is denied under domination. History is replete with examples of nations that secured sovereignty under far less favorable governance conditions and gradually built strong democratic institutions over time.
Third, the erosion of democracy is not unique to newly independent states. Even the most established democracies can falter under the weight of corruption, foreign interference, or deep internal divisions. This has occurred in countries with centuries of statehood.
Data from the Global State of Democracy project shows that more countries have recently experienced net declines in democratic performance than net gains. The lesson is clear: democracy is not a static achievement but a continuous struggle.
Fourth, it prescribes a poisoned cure. It implies that people should remain under a genocidal regime to avoid the possibility of future setbacks. This is an immoral and impossible standard.
Unstable Foundations
Moreover, the struggles of Eritrea and South Sudan arise from fundamental questions of statehood viability, which bear little resemblance to Tigray’s situation. When there is no common language, religion, ethnicity, or culture on which a national identity can be built, and when a state is the product of colonial-era imposition, political tensions almost inevitably arise after independence.
One group often seeks dominance, others feel marginalized, and governments frequently turn undemocratic in an attempt to suppress and silence these tensions. The experiences of Eritrea and South Sudan illustrate this pattern: both are multiethnic constructs created by colonial borders that united groups with little shared identity while deepening divisions.
Eritrea amalgamates nine distinct groups, split between Christian highlanders and Muslim lowlanders with a history of antagonism. South Sudan is even more fragmented, comprising 64 ethnic groups with a long history of interethnic conflict. Their failures reflect the immense challenge of forging cohesion from such diversity, not the inherent futility of independence itself.
By contrast, Tigray presents the case for a viable nation-state. It comprises only a few ethnic groups, and no visible tensions exist among them. Minorities such as the Irob and Kunama are integrated communities with a strong sense of identification as Tigrayans.
Cohesive Society
Unlike Eritrea and South Sudan, Tigray’s ethnic groups share a long history of cohesive coexistence, providing a solid foundation for effective self-governance and sustainable independent statehood without the need to rely on artificially constructed civic bonds.
Moreover, Tigray also possesses a long pedigree of statecraft that predates the Ethiopian empire, demonstrating its capacity for stable governance. This cohesion offers a much stronger foundation for successful statehood than the examples critics invoke.
Tigray cannot build a democratic enclave inside an authoritarian state. Democracy requires not only internal will but an external environment that allows it to grow.
The right to self-determination is inherent. It does not depend on the conditions imposed by an oppressor. For Tigray, independence is the indispensable first step toward security, reconstruction, and accountable governance. The journey to democracy will be long, but it can only begin once a people are free to chart their own course.
Independence provides the fenced garden where the seed of democracy can be planted and protected from trampling. It does not guarantee the seed will flourish, but without independence, the soil will never be theirs to till.
Query or correction? Email us
While this commentary contains the author’s opinions, Ethiopia Insight will correct factual errors.
Main photo: Mekelle, 1971: The palace of Emperor Yohannes IV towers over a modest neighborhood. The contrast between Tigray’s historic sovereignty and the daily struggles of its people underscores today’s debate over independence as a foundation for democracy. Source: Social media
Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
Mr Gidey , I am sorry for personal comment.
The northern Ethiopian people once a dedicated Christian and Hamble, didn’t deserve civil war for hundred Years.
It should be clear to everyone that the destiny of the people of Tigray will not be determined by any Ethiopian—let alone by those who supported or participated in the Tigray Genocide committed by the current Ethiopian regime—but solely by the people of Tigray themselves.
However, I have a question for those who constantly belittle or undermine any efforts raised by Tigrayans. Ethiopians have never agreed—not in their past, not in the current situation, and not even in the vision of the nation-state they claim to build. So, what reason do these peoples have to continue living together, other than to destroy one another? Wouldn’t it be wiser to openly discuss separation and, at the very least, strive to live as peaceful neighbors?
I have had known Dr. Gidey and have read his works—he has been consistent in advocating peace, democracy, and accountability. On Tigray’s independence, it is a demand born from a people who gave everything to be Ethiopian but were met with genocide. Independence is not about mercy from enemies; it is the only path to end endless conflict.
I have had the privilege of knowing Dr. Gidey, the author, and have read his books as well as many of his articles on issues concerning the Horn of Africa. He has remained consistent in his views on peace, democracy, and accountability, always supporting his arguments with solid references.
With regard to Tigray’s independence, it is a demand that comes from a people who gave everything to be Ethiopian, yet were met with genocide in return. Tigray does not expect mercy from its adversaries, who continue to reject peaceful solutions.
In my view, Tigray’s independence is not only justifiable but also the necessary prescription for Ethiopian politics. The people cannot afford endless cycles of conflict—independence offers the only path toward lasting peace.
A society that will sustain any democratic order or build on its democratic foundations is a society that is free and independent. A society under tyranny and forcefully assimilated can not sustain democracy or build democratic institutions. Tigrayans have been victims of genocide and have been subjected and manipulated for centuries to sustain the Ethiopian empire in many of its forms over the past hundreds of years. For many Tigrayans I know enough is enough and they are ready to move on and depending on your understanding, to leave the rest of Ethiopia behind or for the rest of Ethiopia to leave Tigray alone. Democracy and democratic order in Tigray can only be had if and if only Tigray and Tigrayans are free from the current unimaginable cruel government in Ethiopia.
Note: Tigrayans have paid enough to democratize Ethiopia and it failed miserably! Enough is enough.
Ato, Gidey Amare ?
Which country secession from?
Was Yugoslavia or Soviet union?
Yugoslavia was formed at the end of the frist world war.(by uniting 4 independent countries )
Yugoslavia was formed by independent countries in 1918 and gone in 1991 , it gone based on haw they come.
The story of the Soviet union was the same as Yugoslavia. It was formed after the end of the frist world war by 15 independent countries. and gone as the way they united ,On the principle of secession.
They formed union , becouse they know they leave .
But the problem of You was your history teacher , he did not teach
You, becouse part of You were a gorilla fighter since 1970s to 1980s) as Your friends were in cliffs and mountains to blooded the Ethiopian people.
What a shame but not considered by is ,their are hundred thousands ethnic groups, who never clam idiot ideas.
Don’t live for food, find a job.
Dear Regassa Jimma,
Thanks for your comment. The countries briefly described as an example are mentioned to show how building democracy cannot serve as a prerequisite for seeking independence. It is not about how and why they agree to form a union and then disagree to separate. The other issue, your statement “…. gone as the way they united, On the principle of secession. They formed union, becouse they know they leave….” seems as if the separations were peaceful. There were political and economic crises and military interventions. What I am not sure is why you opted to affront insult instead of respectfully and professionally providing your comments and point of view. In any case, thanks!
How can Tigrayan leaders or elites claim exclusion and oppression, when they were the dominant force in Ethiopia’s federal government for nearly three decades? Your leaders are the creators of the 1995 constitution, hence, the democratic system of Ethiopia – that’s how you participated in Ethiopia’s democracy. Meles and the TPLF imposed ethnic federalism on everyone portraying it as the best system for all the diverse people in Ethiopia. Using this for the rise of the Tigrayan elite supremacy in Ethiopia- knowing well that they are only a small percentage of the population. Groups like the Anuaks faced ethnic abuse and mass killings in Gambella by the Woyane military because oil was found in their region – It’s been documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. When TPLF was in power, abuses in Oromia, Gambella, Somali, Amhara regions were rationalized, denied, or ignored. But when Tigrayans became the victim, suddenly there’s a call for global solidarity, justice, and human rights. This hypocrisy has caused resentment among other Ethiopians. Tigrayans don’t like to talk about the damage their beloved TPLF did to other groups. Now, after failing to maintain that grip it had on Ethiopia, choosing war over dialogue and facing instability, you want to be independent. Tigrayan civilians don’t deserve collective punishment for their leaders’ crimes. But, you supported these leaders and you won’t renounce them now as they beat war drums and even align with that vile devil Isayas. You want democracy and independence but the rest of us are well aware that will cause more wars between the Ethiopian state and a hypothetical Tigrayan nation. Not only that, you will most likely join borders with Eritrea and become another prison state. Why not peacefully work with the rest of Ethiopia and coexist as one people? Issues can be resolved if both sides want to resolve it. From the Debretsion side there is no desire to resolve issues but to regain federal power and control over Ethiopia. Not going to happen.
Awssa Adal,
you can’t twist Ameharic language as You twisted your mentality .
Thanks to our grandparents who gave us Ameharic writting systems.
In the Ameharic language, once You have learned the Alphabet and how it represents vowel sounds, you can’t easly twist the word becouse each symbol and its modified forms correspond to specific sounds and vowels, this makes words pronunciation consistent and unambiguous.
What a pleasant sound and written systeam!
For the record, Amharic has no its own alphabet; it adopted Geez, the invention of the Axumawian.
Crazy genocidal thinking. I don’t share it. There will be no Tigrean Sovergn land. You are either Ethiopian or a foreigner living outside Tigray- Ethiopia, for good.
Gidey Amare is a talented writer who is able to justify his reasoning for a Tigray nation-state.
Let me ask this, there are many forms of governance, is Democracy really the best choice? Also a couple problems I want to point out. First, since 1991, Tigrayans have forcefully imposed themselves onto Ethiopians. It will be hard to separate now after all the intertwined fables. Ethiopian culture which is claimed to be dominated by the so-called “Amhara” culture is just an extension of Tigrayan culture.
Second, Tigray has an identity crisis stemming from the unusual and unknown word called “Habesha”. Majority of Tigrayans are uneducated and clueless when it comes to political discourse. I would say most people in Southern Tigray are loyal to Ethiopia. That means to gain independence, Tigrayans must completely stop using Amharic names and implement segregation policies. You guys haven’t proven the ability to succeed, as shown by your diaspora, so garnering support for your cause will be harder than you expect.