The Dictatorship and Authoritarianism in Eritrea: A Longstanding Truth
The description of Eritrea’s strongman, Isaias Afewerki, as a dictator is neither new nor contested. The allegations made in the article by former Ethiopian President Mulatu Teshome Wirtu align with what Eritrean pro-democracy activists have long argued. Since its independence, Eritrea has functioned as a one-man state, lacking a constitution, a functioning parliament, or any semblance of civil liberties. The mandatory, indefinite military conscription, which has driven hundreds of thousands of Eritreans into exile, is a well-documented atrocity.
Despite all these, successive Ethiopian governments—both under the TPLF-led EPRDF administration before 2018 and under the current leadership—have chosen to overlook Asmara’s authoritarianism.
Contrary to the opinion by the former President, Ethiopia’s approach to Eritrea has never been one of active confrontation but of deliberate avoidance, driven by flawed assumptions and political expediency.
Before 2018: A Misguided Policy of Neglect
Under the EPRDF government, Eritrea’s crisis was dismissed based on two deeply flawed assumptions: the non-interference doctrine. Ethiopia justified its inaction by framing it as respect for Eritrea’s sovereignty, despite overwhelming evidence that the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) regime was fueling regional instability through repression, militarization, and proxy conflicts.
The second assumption, a perceived Eritrean weakness, led to a belief that Eritrea was too fragile to pose a serious threat, leading Ethiopian policymakers to assume that the dictatorship would collapse under its own weight. Instead, the regime hardened, entrenching its hold over the Eritrean people and expanding its influence beyond its borders.
Post-2018: Strategic convenience over principle
Since 2018, Ethiopia’s leadership has continued to turn a blind eye to Eritrea’s authoritarianism—not out of miscalculation, but out of political expediency. The PFDJ regime was no longer seen as a diplomatic liability but as a strategic partner whose repression could be ignored in favor of short-term geopolitical interests.
This approach, both before and after 2018, was a grave miscalculation. Dictatorships do not simply wither away when ignored—they metastasize. Eritrea’s regime has not only survived but has extended its influence across the region, proving that silence in the face of authoritarianism is not neutrality—it is complicity.
The enabler next door
Mulatu Teshome’s article, while insightful in diagnosing Eritrea’s role in regional instability, glosses over Ethiopia’s own actions. The Eritrean government’s military involvement in Tigray was not only welcomed by the Ethiopian federal government but was planned and executed in coordination with it.
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s (PhD) administration, which openly thanked Eritrea for its military support, did not raise concerns about Isaias’s autocratic nature when it found his regime useful.
Furthermore, the arms embargo on Eritrea, which was initially imposed due to its destabilizing actions, was lifted at Ethiopia’s request—a process initiated while Mulatu himself was in office. The international community’s attempt to curtail Eritrea’s militarism through sanctions was thus undone by Ethiopia’s own diplomatic maneuvers.
The world cannot afford selective memory when it comes to holding destabilizing actors accountable. Eritrea’s dictatorship did not become more repressive overnight; it has been consistently repressive for decades. Ethiopia’s silence—both past and present—must be acknowledged as one of the enablers of Eritrea’s unchecked authoritarianism.
Eritrea’s Awakening : The Blue Revolution
While Ethiopia and the international community have largely failed to counteract Isaias’s dictatorship, a new alternative is emerging: the youth-led movement known as the Eritrean Blue Revolution, or Brigade Nhamedu. This movement, gaining traction among Eritreans inside and outside the country, represents the most promising challenge to Eritrea’s regime. Unlike past opposition efforts, it is rooted in mass mobilization and a vision for a democratic Eritrea that is accountable to its people.
The Blue Revolution must foster alliances, not just with Western powers but with regional actors—especially Ethiopia and, more specifically, the people of Tigray. However, these alliances must be based on truth and mutual benefit, not one-sided arrangements where Ethiopia assumes the role of a benefactor and Eritreans are mere recipients of political goodwill. Ethiopia itself has much to gain from a democratic Eritrea, one that fosters stability rather than exporting conflict.
The perils of half-measures: Confrontation must mean regime change or nothing
Mulatu raises valid concerns, but the strategic motives behind these discussions require scrutiny. Is Eritrea’s dictatorship being cited as a pretext for military action, not to resolve Eritrea’s crisis but to target factions in Tigray? If so, this is a reckless and destabilizing approach that weakens both the legitimacy of Eritrea’s struggle and its international support.
Eritrea’s crisis is its own battle—it must not be used to justify unrelated geopolitical maneuvers. Any armed confrontation against the PFDJ must be clear in purpose, lawful in conduct, and absolute in its goal: the removal of dictatorship and the establishment of democracy. It cannot serve as a tactical ploy or negotiation leverage. If intervention is pursued, it must be decisive. A half-measure that leaves the regime weakened but intact only strengthens its grip under the guise of external threats. Armed confrontation is irreversible—if regime change is not the objective, it should not be attempted at all.
This is not a defense of Isaias’s regime but a warning against his use of any half baked measures to justify his rule, prolong his dictatorship, and frame his actions as a struggle against external forces. No Eritrean or other lives should be sacrificed for agendas that not only fail to remove him but ultimately strengthen his grip on power and fuel further regional instability.
The path: Peaceful resistance, strategic defense, and deliberate alliance towards regime change
Brigade Nhamedu has demonstrated pragmatism and strategic flexibility, consistently upholding its commitment to peaceful resistance and disciplined self-defense in the face of provocations. Notably, groups such as the 4th Front, operating under the direct influence of the Eritrean regime’s diplomatic missions, have actively instigated conflicts—an admission even Eritrea’s ambassador to South Sudan has acknowledged. Yet, despite these provocations, Brigade Nhamedu has remained steadfast in its approach, pursuing regime change through sustained resistance while reserving the right to self-defense.
The solution to Eritrea’s problem of dictatorship lies in the coordination of efforts between pro-freedom Eritreans and all peace-loving allies, pressuring the regime through all legitimate means, including supporting Brigade Nhamedu. However, the solution does not lie in superficial diplomatic settlements or negotiations that merely secure cosmetic concessions from the regime. Fragile international maneuvers—whether imposed power-sharing agreements, hollow transitional frameworks, or external bargains struck without the people’s mandate—only prolong tyranny. Genuine change can only emerge from an organic, people-led movement that is deeply rooted in Eritrean aspirations and driven by those who will bear its consequences.
To this end, support from international actors, regional powers, and Ethiopia must be principled. Brigade Nhamedu should not be treated as a bargaining chip in regional power struggles or a pawn for agendas irrelevant to Eritrea. Any attempt to co-opt the movement for external interests—leaving it vulnerable to abandonment—undermines the broader struggle against the dictator responsible for regional instability. The path forward demands direct, unwavering support for Eritreans’ right to freedom, ensuring that the movement remains a formidable force in achieving the ultimate goal: the overthrow of dictatorship and the establishment of a government by and for the people—Regime Change.
Eritrea’s future: Democracy and regional stability
It is well understood that regional interdependence and trade are vital. Eritrea’s sea access is a strategic service that can be utilized by all regional countries and stakeholders. Ethiopia’s proximity to Eritrean ports makes it an ideal trade and service partner. There is no reason that a democratic government in Eritrea would be unwilling to provide this service as a resource while receiving reciprocal benefits, creating a mutually advantageous win-win arrangement.
However, Eritrea’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, and territorial waters in the Red Sea are non-negotiable and not subject to discussion at all times. Any speculation that Brigade Nhamedu is collaborating with the international community, including Ethiopia on this subject is baseless. It has neither engaged in discussions nor made any concessions regarding Ethiopia’s claims to the Red Sea or the port of Assab. Furthermore, it does not have the legal or political standing at this time to take a position on such matters. Any such claims are irrelevant to the core issue of Eritrea’s governance and democratic transition.
Eritrea’s future must be determined by its people, both within the country and in the diaspora, with the support of allies committed to democratic governance. The international community, particularly Ethiopia, must make a decisive choice: either continue appeasing dictatorship or support those striving for a peaceful and democratic Eritrea. The priority must remain on ending repression and ensuring Eritrea transitions into a nation governed by the rule of law and democratic principles.
The Horn of Africa cannot afford another generation of warlord-style governance. A democratic Eritrea would not only bring peace to its citizens but also contribute to the stability and security of the Red Sea region.
A Call for Principled Engagement
Ethiopia and the wider international community cannot continue engaging Eritrea’s government selectively, supporting it when convenient and condemning it when expedient. If there is to be lasting peace in the Horn of Africa, then alliances must be built on truth, honesty, accountability, and mutual benefit. The Brigade Nhamedu and similar movements offer a viable path forward, one rooted in democratic aspirations rather than political maneuvering. Eritrea’s future must be shaped by its people, and the region must stand in solidarity with their struggle for justice and self-determination.
