Time to question, what makes up a state?

The ideologies within the Horn of Africa’s Ethiopia and Eritrean states differ greatly. One group values statehood over nations, the others seenations and statehood as equal.
John Young states that the core difference in ideology between the EPLF and the TPLF was the idea of nationhood. The Isias led government puts the states’ identity first and the nations second. The Meles led government assessing that it is vital to encourage equal share of the identity stakes supported the ideology of duality in identity. One could hold both their Ethiopianess and their indigenous nation hood in tandem. 

The current day government of Ethiopia and the parties in the Amhara state have the same ideas as the Isias led HGDEF. This idea that one’s state identity is core to survival and the ancient national identity will fade into the background. This key agreeance in ideology finally makes sense to me as to why they are so easily able to work together. It is not because Isais necessarily wants to be part of Ethiopia again, it is that this friendship is based on a deep ideological connection, that statehood is favorable to nationhood.

It is increasingly clear when you look at the conflict zones of Eritrea and Ethiopia, that they are based around regions of geological resources that, should nation states form, would leave the core of the Amhara region quite economically poor. So, to maintain the Ethiopian and Eritrean state with an investors and capitalist market, the minorities protecting these areas must be removed. Debt shall be increased and the country’s sovereignty in policy to its debtors is manipulated.

Whereas under the EPRDF the ideology of a developmental society, which kept foreign debt to a minimum was favored and it clearly held great economic gains for the country. The country was able to maintain its internal policy sovereignty and held much more power as an independent state in the region.

It is also very clear that Tigray is a nation state that is home to diversity and hospitality of all ethnicities. The Irob and Kunama are core to the identity of the Tigray nation, their ability to have a dual identity is a foundation of what I see as being a Tegaru. They are accepted as important members of society and their differences are loved rather than fought into submission. I am certain, should the Agaw, a persecuted minority bordering Tigray, in current Amhara state wish to seek safety in the new Tigray nation state, the would be freely accepted. They would be free to be Agaw Tigrayan.

I ask all of you, including Eritreans, who are wanting freedom of your people to ask yourselves these few questions.

Do you desire statehood over nation hood? Do you respect the rights of the indigenous people who have inhabited the lands for millennia to have their own nation should they wish it? Is it more important to you that the infant states of Ethiopia and Eritrea (younger than 200 years) are maintained over that of nations of the past? For peace to come, is it possible to rearrange how you see the identity of your people in the entire Horn? What economic growth ideology do you support for the development of your people?

Ultimately, these are the key difference in the ideology of the past ruling and current ruling parties of Ethiopia.  The right to self-determination is a core ideology held by the past TPLF and OLF and is a horrible mistake of the past that this alliance was not maintained. But the future will be different if these questions are asked and answered now. If not, there will be another opportunist who will step in, who will answer the question for the public, sell their idea and then still suppress those who feel differently. 

Leave a Reply