By: Abrar Fitwi

The debate on Tigray’s future, whether within Ethiopia or as an independent state, has reemerged with urgency. In a recent article in Ethiopia-Insight, “Tigray Needs Democracy Before Secession,” I argued independence without democracy risks becoming a flag over a prison, a symbol of sovereignty without the substance of freedom. Some critics including Mulugeta Gebregziabher have since responded by suggesting this view misreads history, underestimates the urgency of Tigrayan survival and ignores Ethiopia’s structural flaws.  I welcome this engagement and offer this rejoinder to further clarify and deepen the case.

History Is a Warning, Not a Blueprint
Yes, many countries were not democratic at birth. The United States, for example, excluded most of its people at the start, and its early democracy was deeply flawed. But that history is a warning, not an excuse. Independence should not copy old mistakes, it should be a chance to do better.

The fact that others stumbled through undemocratic beginnings does not mean we must follow them. It means we have the benefit of hindsight and should use it to avoid repeating their mistakes.

The Historical Precedent Is Clear: Foundations Matter
Some have argued that “no state was democratic at birth,” implying that democracy can naturally follow independence. But this is a selective reading of history. In fact, global evidence suggests that how a state is born, and what kind of political and institutional culture it carries into independence, shapes its long-term trajectory. Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012; Fukuyama, 2011; Daron Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson, 2001.

Look at post-colonial Africa, where many states, after achieving formal sovereignty, fell into authoritarianism or conflict, not because they were doomed to fail, but because they lacked inclusive institutions and traditions of accountable governance at the point of independence. Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012; Herbst, 2000; Young, 1994
Contrast this with much of post–Cold War Eastern Europe and the Balkans. While not all of these states became liberal democracies overnight, those with stronger pre-independence institutions, civil society networks, and traditions of political pluralism were more successful in building democratic states. The Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Estonia, for instance, transitioned more smoothly than others because they had already begun to lay democratic foundations, however limited, before asserting full sovereignty. (Grzymala-Busse, 2007; Ekiert & Hanson, 2003; Bunce, 2003).

The Balkan case also shows the risk of statehood without democratic consensus. Bosnia and Herzegovina remain fragile decades after its independence, in part because its post-independence state-building process lacked genuine internal legitimacy and consensus. This is a warning: statehood without shared values and strong institutions creates not liberation but fragmentation.
This historical pattern is not anecdotal, it is well supported. Studies consistently shows that countries with stronger pre-independence democratic institutions are far more likely to become stable democracies after independence.

Robert Jackson’s seminal concept of positive vs. negative sovereignty helps us make sense of this. Negative sovereignty is the legal recognition of a state’s independence, its flag, seat at the UN, and international borders. Positive sovereignty, by contrast, is the ability of a state to exercise meaningful internal governance, uphold the rule of law, and command legitimate authority.

If we must talk history, let’s get it right Yes, many states were imperfect at inception. But the lesson is not that democracy is irrelevant, it’s that democracy is hard to build after power has already been centralized and legitimacy questioned. Many newly formed states achieved negative sovereignty but failed to attain positive sovereignty. They were recognized, but unable to function. Let us not fall into that trap.

Democracy Is Not Opposed to Survival, It Ensures It
Some argue democracy can be deferred because survival must come first. Let us clarify a dangerous misreading: my argument was never about choosing democracy instead of survival. It was about the relationship between democracy and independence. Secession without democratic foundations can just as easily lead to renewed vulnerability.

But the belief that independence automatically guarantees survival is deeply flawed. South Sudan’s collapse after independence proves that without inclusive institutions and internal trust, new states can descend rapidly into internal conflict. True survival depends not on new borders, but on effective governance, rule of law, and public legitimacy.

Tigray’s Case Must Stand on Its Own Merits
Tigray’s right to self-determination should not depend solely on proving that Ethiopia is irredeemable. Our aspiration for independence must rest on a clear vision of what we want to become, not just what we want to escape. One compelling basis for self-determination is the existence of distinct political values, priorities, and governance aspirations. Value differences within a multiethnic state can be a legitimate reason for seeking a separate political path. A society’s unique understanding of justice, leadership, accountability, and community should be enough to justify the pursuit of sovereignty, if done peacefully, democratically, and responsibly. Independence should be a proactive choice grounded in identity and vision, not merely a reaction to dysfunction elsewhere.

No One Is Demanding Perfection, But the Basics Matter
No one insists on fully formed liberal democracy before independence. But we must at least establish a foundation: space for dissent, functioning institutions, public participation, and basic checks on power. If opposition is silenced or pushed and political power monopolized, what meaning does an independence referendum truly hold? Self-determination without public voice is not liberation, it is illusion.

Owning Our Own Mistakes
Tigrayans have suffered deeply, but we must also admit our own record. Centralization of power and authoritarian practices were not only imposed on us, they were also exercised by us. When Tigrayan elites held power at the federal level, these practices affected others as well as ourselves. Even within Tigray, governance has often been marked by suppression of dissent and over-concentration of authority. When we speak of Ethiopia’s structural flaws, we must also acknowledge our own share in them, however small it may seem. Recognizing this is not self-blame; it is an act of maturity and the first step to building something better.

The Harder Path Is the Wiser One
We are not merely choosing between being part of Ethiopia or not. We are choosing what kind of future we want to live in. Independence is not a shield against suffering. It is a tool for self-determination, but only if it is wielded responsibly.

Democracy is not a luxury to be postponed. It is the only way to ensure independence serves everyone, not just a ruling elite. It is the only way to ensure that the scars of war lead to peace, not to a recycled tyranny.

Let us do the hard work now, of truth-telling, reform, inclusion, and democratic institution-building. Only then will independence be more than an escape. It will be a beginning.

______________

You can reach the author at afitwi@saintmarys.edu