Mekelle፡Telaviv, Nairobi, Pretoria, London, (Horn News Hub).
Tigrayan Nationalism at a Crossroads: Between Isolation and Strategic Renewal
By Mengsteab Tsegay
I. The Crisis of Tigrayan Nationalism
Dr. Gebreyesus Teklu has recently made a compelling case for why Tigray should be
considered an integral part of Ethiopia’s core historical and cultural identity. In his view,
it is impossible to disentangle Tigrayan identity from that of Ethiopia-if, indeed,
Ethiopia has a unified identity at all. Much of what is widely recognized as Ethiopia’s
unique culture and national image-from ancient architecture and classical literature to
religious traditions and political institutions such as Kibre Negest-has deep roots in
Tigray. Far from being a peripheral region, Tigray has historically been the cultural and
political heart of what the world knows as Ethiopia.
This argument has resurfaced just as the question of Tigrayan nationalism dominates
intellectual and political debate, particularly on social media platforms. Though often
informal, these debates have captured wide attention. As I observe the growing
polarization, I return to some foundational questions: What does Tigrayan nationalism
mean today? What issue is it attempting to resolve? Who benefits from it? And-most
urgently-under what terms and toward what future might it be realized?
At first glance, one might expect today’s nationalist discourse to be inclusive, critical,
and forward-looking-especially given the immense trauma Tigray has endured in
recent years. However, I am troubled by a dominant rhetoric that equates Tigrayan
nationalism solely with separatism and isolationism. This view, propagated by self-
proclaimed nationalists on media platforms, presents secession as the only path forward, often justified solely by the recent genocide. Yet rarely do they articulate a coherent political, economic, or strategic vision for independence beyond that point of
rupture.
Even more concerning is the climate of intolerance surrounding this discourse. Those
who challenge or question the separatist narrative are often vilified. Instead of fostering open debate, gatekeepers of nationalism resort to smear campaigns, branding dissenters as traitors and questioning their identity. In some cases, individuals are symbolically excluded from the community simply for advocating a more integrative or nuanced approach. Such hostility suffocates intellectual exchange, especially on a matter as consequential as national identity.
II. A Generational Shift
Amid this polarization, a new and encouraging trend is emerging. A growing number of young, educated Tigrayans-many of whom were children or not yet born during the TPLF’s 17-year armed struggle-are questioning the foundational assumptions of the older generation. For decades, it was widely believed that the TPLF had resolved the “Tigrayan national question” by securing constitutional recognition for self-
determination. This belief was treated as sacred, largely shielded from critique.
But times have changed. This younger generation is not content with inherited
narratives or simplistic definitions of nationalism. They ask difficult questions: What exactly did the armed struggle achieve? Was self-determination truly delivered, or
merely promised? Is the old model of nationalism still viable in the 21st century?
For these emerging voices, nationalism is not about isolation but about justice, dignity,
empowerment, and a coherent vision for the future.
They call for a nationalism that
engages critically with history and geopolitics-not one that repeats past slogans or settles scores through emotional rhetoric. This generational shift may be uncomfortable, but it is necessary. No political idea-especially one as consequential as nationalism-should be immune from scrutiny. The ability to revisit, revise, and even abandon outdated beliefs is the hallmark of a mature political culture and a prerequisite for meaningful progress.
The late Abay Tsehay, one of the TPLF’s most influential thinkers, admitted during a
Mekelle conference that the party’s program never genuinely aimed at Tigrayan
secession. Rather, nationalism was a tactical tool to mobilize rural youth during the
armed struggle. This aligns with John Young’s argument in Tigrayan Peasant Revolution,
which challenges the idea that peasant revolutions are driven primarily by economic
grievances. In Tigray, nationalism was the key mobilizer. In hindsight, the TPLF’s
approach appears more instrumental than ideological-a case where the ends justified
the means.
Yet this raises a fundamental question: If a “national question” was being addressed,
what was its intended resolution? According to the TPLF’s leadership, the ultimate achievement was the constitutional
right to self-determination. But the people of Tigray were never given the opportunity
to ratify this right through a referendum. The decision was made by party elites, and the
population was expected to align with the party line.
Unlike other liberation movements that achieved full independence or meaningful
autonomy within federations, the TPLF delivered neither. Tigray emerged as a minority regional state vulnerable to federal manipulation and military aggression. Worse still, under the TPLF’s rule, Tigray lost significant portions of its historical territory-
particularly to the newly formed Afar and Amhara regions. What was celebrated as a
triumph turned out to be both a strategic and territorial setback.
Equally damaging was the TPLF’s failure to forge durable alliances with other Ethiopian
nations and nationalities. Instead of building solidarity, its policies bred resentment and
animosity toward Tigrayans. It also failed to recognize Ethiopia’s fractured political
reality-split among Amhara, Oromo, and Tigrayan nationalisms. Without a negotiated
settlement among these forces, Ethiopia’s long-term stability remains fragile. Ethnic federalism, as designed by the TPLF, alienated both Oromo and Amhara elites. What was intended as a pluralistic governance model ultimately fueled suspicion, deepened polarization, and failed to evolve into a genuine political community.
III. Toward Strategic Renewal
If Tigray truly seeks to shape its future-whether as a sovereign state or as a powerful autonomous region-it must learn from these failures. A central strategic imperative is to neutralize the political project of Isaias Afwerki, whose regime has long viewed Tigrayan identity as a threat to Eritrea’s cohesion. Any alliance with Isaias-whether tactical or strategic-is a grave miscalculation. His hostility toward Tigray is well-documented, and his interests are fundamentally incompatible with Tigrayan aspirations. To trust him as a partner is not only naïve-it is politically suicidal.
By contrast, a strategic realignment with Ethiopia, however challenging, presents a
more realistic and potentially fruitful path forward. This does not mean surrendering
Tigray’s identity or interests. Rather, it means leveraging its historical and cultural
capital to reposition itself geopolitically, recover from strategic setbacks, and engage
the Ethiopian state on its own terms. Tigrayan nationalism must evolve. It cannot survive as a purely reactive or isolationist
force. It must become a forward-looking, strategic project-rooted in historical
consciousness, informed by past missteps, and guided by a vision of collective dignity
and long-term security.
The future of Tigray will not be decided by the slogans of yesterday, but by the clarity of
thought, boldness of imagination, and courage to move beyond trauma toward
transformation.
Mengsteab Tsegay – Tigrayan diaspora intellectual, political commentator, analyst, and advocate. He writes extensively on Tigrayan nationalism, Ethiopian politics, and regional strategic issues, combining historical insight with forward-looking analysis.
References:
Abbay, A. (1998). Identity Jilted or Re-imagining identity; the divergent paths of the Eritrean and Tigrayan Nationalist struggle. The Red Sea Press, Inc.
Gagnon, A. & Iacovino , R. (2007). Federalism , Citizenship, and Quebec ; Debating Multinationalism . University of Toronto Press.
Gellner, E (1983). Nations and Nationalism. Cornell University Press.
Hazony , Y ( 2018). The Virtue of Nationalism. Hhachette Book Group.
Ignatieff, M. (1993). Blood and Belonging ; Journeys into the New Nationalism. The NoonDay Press.
Levine, D. (2000). Greater Ethiopia; the Evolution of a multiethnic Society. The University of Chicago Press.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2025). Nationalism . https://plato.stanford.edu
Young, J. (1997). Peasant Revolution in Ethiopia; Tigray People’s Liberation Front, 1975-1991. African Studies.
