SUPPORT ETHIOPIA INSIGHT .wpedon-container .wpedon-select, .wpedon-container .wpedon-input { width: 200px; min-width: 200px; max-width: 200px; } Independence without civil liberties is like starting a new nation in a prison—ask Eritreans and South SudaneseThe idea of Tigray’s independence—once whispered, now shouted—is rapidly becoming one of the most polarizing questions facing Tigrayans. The recent emergence of The Voice for Independent Tigray (VIT), a diaspora advocacy group, has thrown fuel onto already simmering debates.On 31 May, the group issued a declaration during a public online meeting, making independence its central demand. Since then, social media has lit up with heated exchanges, and public forums—such as those hosted by the Brakhe Show—have brought the topic into the political mainstream.But as voices grow louder, clarity becomes scarcer. Behind the emotional calls for statehood lies a harder question: what kind of independence are we actually pursuing?Let me be clear: I don’t oppose the right to self-determination. Every people deserves the right to shape its destiny—whether through autonomy, federalism, or full sovereignty. But that right must rest on democratic foundations. Without democracy, even the most noble cause can curdle into something hollow—or worse, oppressive.Freedom Requires MoreWhen we talk about independence, we often picture flags, anthems, borders—symbols of sovereignty. But these are only surface markers. Real independence runs deeper. It is about a people’s ability to govern themselves freely, fairly, and with dignity.This deeper version of independence is what political theorists call positive sovereignty—not just freedom from external control, but the presence of internal self-rule, rooted in democratic norms and accountable governance.Under this lens, a country without freedom of speech, fair elections, or independent institutions is not truly independent. Its people may no longer be ruled from afar—but they remain captives, only now of their own.No Shortcut to DemocracySome argue democracy can come later—that sovereignty should come first, and the rest will follow. This is not just wrong; it’s dangerous. You cannot build a free society on undemocratic foundations. A state born without consensus, inclusion, or transparency is unlikely to develop these traits later. And once independence is achieved, the tools to course-correct often disappear.We’ve seen this play out. Eritrea and South Sudan both emerged from brutal wars of liberation. Their struggles were heroic, their hopes real. But what came next? In Eritrea, one of the world’s most repressive regimes took root. In South Sudan, the dream collapsed into a nightmarish civil war. In both cases, independence came before political reform. And in both, many citizens—who once risked everything for freedom—are now fleeing their own governments.Sovereignty alone did not protect them. A flag was not enough.Even the act of declaring independence—say, through a referendum—demands legitimacy. Without a functioning democracy, a vote on self-determination risks becoming a power grab, not a true expression of the people’s will.Trauma vs. StrategyThere’s a deeply understandable sentiment in Tigray that independence is owed to us. That after genocide and betrayal, breaking away is the only moral response. But we must separate trauma from strategy.Yes, the crimes committed against Tigray were horrific. But our ultimate goal must be to prevent them from happening again. And independence alone is not a guarantee of safety.What protects people from genocide is not merely sovereignty—it is governance. Strong institutions, inclusion, rule of law. Without these, even newly formed states can fall into chaos or repeat past horrors.South Sudan is proof. Despite its hard-won independence, its people remain at risk from their own state. If we in Tigray do not prepare the foundations of good governance now, we risk trading one form of vulnerability for another.Internal FracturesAs it stands, Tigray is not ready for true independence. This isn’t because the goal is misguided, but because the conditions are not there.Our political elite are deeply fragmented. There is no unified vision or shared roadmap. Factions undermine each other rather than seek compromise. No one has the authority—or perhaps the courage—to bring all sides to the table.Meanwhile, democratic culture is weakening. Those who challenge the dominant narrative are met not with debate, but with smear campaigns, threats, and blackmail. In this climate, disagreement becomes betrayal.Regionalism within Tigray is also rising. If we cannot forge a unified political identity now, how will we build a functional state tomorrow? And at the grassroots level, local communities still lack the power to elect leaders, set priorities, and hold anyone accountable.Self-determination begins locally. If we cannot practice democracy in our weredas, we cannot claim to practice it as a nation.Cost of SecessionSecession is not cheap. It comes with steep political, economic, and even military costs. Trade routes must be reestablished, institutions built from scratch, and diplomatic recognition sought from a skeptical international community.If we are to bear these costs, the outcome must be more than symbolic. It must bring genuine transformation. As political scientist Michael Keating puts it: “Secession is not just a right to exit—it is a responsibility to govern.”We cannot afford to leap into statehood out of desperation, only to wake up under a new authoritarianism, and with no external enemy to blame.If we seek inspiration, let us look to Somaliland, which focused on building democratic institutions through consensus, elections, and dialogue. Somaliland’s attention to internal governance and state building demonstrates that democracy can be a foundation for de facto sovereignty and long-term stability.It remains unrecognized by most of the world. But it functions, governs, and earns respect through its internal legitimacy. Is it perfect? No. But it shows what is possible when independence is treated as a long-term project rooted in the will of the people.The Way ForwardTigray needs healing. It needs reform, dialogue, and democracy—not as slogans, but as daily practice. Independence must be the result of this transformation, not a shortcut around it.Let’s not confuse sovereignty with liberation. A border does not make a nation. Values, institutions, and collective purpose do.If we truly believe in self-determination, let’s begin exercising it now. In every town, every village, every political process. Let the people speak—and be heard.Only then can we raise a flag not just as a symbol, but as a promise: that this time, independence will mean freedom—not from others, but for ourselves. .wpedon-container .wpedon-select, .wpedon-container .wpedon-input { width: 200px; min-width: 200px; max-width: 200px; } Query or correction? Email us window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function(){if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") {sfsi_widget_set();}}); While this commentary contains the author’s opinions, Ethiopia Insight will correct factual errors.Main photo: Tigray security forces stand in formation, bearing the Tigray flag. Source.Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.The post Tigray Needs Democracy Before Secession appeared first on Ethiopia Insight.