Stunning Victory, Aborted Political Transition: Can This Small Nation Still Reinvent Itself?

Stunning Victory, Aborted Political Transition: Can This Small Nation Still Reinvent Itself?

By Semere Solomon

March 12, 2026

I.             Introduction

The thirty-year liberation struggle of the Eritrean people, one of Africa's longest, has been the subject of extensive writing. This commentary distinguishes itself by attempting to connect this struggle with the anticipated political transition following the war. Rather than concentrating on specific events, dates, or individuals, it examines the trends in political processes and the dynamics among stakeholders. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the liberation movement? How did internal and external factors influence it? This article investigates why, after achieving sovereignty, the liberation struggle did not successfully transition into the next phase of the political process, i.e., political transition.

II.           Characteristics of the Eritrean People's Liberation Struggle

History is a matter of perspective

History is inherently subjective, as individuals interpret the past in diverse ways. The interpretation of the Eritrean people's historical struggle for independence naturally invites debate. This history encompasses events, individuals, political organizations, and both external and internal partnerships that influenced the process.

The Eritrean liberation struggle for self-determination and justice was part of the global liberation movement. This struggle belongs to all Eritreans equally, not to any specific group within the population. Everyone participated and bore the same cost, including people from the lowlands and highlands, Muslims and Christians, women and men, and traditional and religious leaders, as well as Eritreans across social strata.

History shaped Eritrea's formation as a concept, beginning in the 1940s, after the Italian occupation ended. The Eritrean people's liberation struggle should thus be viewed as a continuous process (or a continuum) rather than a collection of fragments. Despite varying organizational relationships, leadership dynamics, and positive or negative aspects, it remains a distinct chapter in Eritrean history.

The Legacy and Lessons of the Struggle

Eritrea's history is a shared narrative, with no single group solely responsible for its successes or failures. The challenges encountered during liberation are deeply embedded in the socioeconomic fabric of society. Having said that, the sacrifices and triumphs of the Eritrean people in their quest for independence are unparalleled in modern liberation history, embodying resilience and monumental achievements that fill all Eritreans with pride. However, this history remains largely unexplored, particularly among Eritrean historians. Despite its imperfections, the struggle for independence was both sacred and just. Although past errors cannot be undone, it is crucial to learn from this history to prevent their recurrence. This struggle fortified national identity, enabling Eritreans to hold their heads high.

Leadership, Accountability, and the Process of Healing

In the early stages of the struggle, significant weaknesses included a limited understanding of Eritrean society, a lack of political awareness among leaders, and unclear objectives. Nevertheless, this leadership managed to rally people under a common cause based on the level of awareness they possessed at the time. Despite its shortcomings, the leadership did not deliberately act against people's interests, although it grappled with internal conflicts due to political immaturity.

It should be recognized that its leadership deserves acknowledgment for its role in liberation. However, mistakes must be openly criticized, and apologies must be made for historical events to facilitate national healing.

The organizations were unprepared for diverse perspectives; however, substantial corrective movements emerged over time.

Conflict Resolution and Ideological Rivalry

The internal dynamics of the struggle were characterized by violence rather than dialogue in resolving differences, as seen in the conflicts between the ELF and Haraka, the People's Liberation Forces, the EPLF against the ELF and its splinter groups, and the EPLF's actions against the "1973" movement. The civil war remains one of the most tragic chapters in Eritrean liberation history. The leadership's failure to learn from it underscores the consequences of choosing violence over dialogue.

Both dominant organizations embraced leftist ideologies and harbored secret Marxist-Leninist parties, a fact known to both despite their claims of ideological differences.

Political Myopia and the Struggle for Hegemony

The inability of both dominant organizations (the ELF and the EPLF) to unite under a minimal political program highlights their immature political vision, which I term political myopia. Their primary focus was political dominance, driven by narrow elite interests. This "incurable disease" persists to this day. Their failure to coordinate their efforts against the enemy demonstrated a lack of foresight. Resources were squandered on internal conflicts rather than combating the primary adversary. When the ELF was ousted, it had an armed force of up to 40,000, significantly affecting Eritrean morale.

The Legacy of Division

The disparities between the fronts and their violent resolutions fostered divisions among Eritreans, both domestically and abroad, setting a damaging precedent in which violence supplanted dialogue.

The Dissolution of the ELF and Marginalization

The dissolution of the ELF marked a somber chapter in Eritrean history, profoundly affecting the political landscape. Its absence marginalized many Eritreans—both lowlanders and highlanders, Muslims and Christians—who felt represented by it. The exclusionary nature of the post-independence PFDJ exacerbated this alienation. Many concluded, "this regime does not represent us," leading numerous political organizations and individuals outside Eritrea to lose hope in participating in nation-building. This wasted potential proved costly for Eritrea.

The Intervention of the TPLF and Its Historical Consequences

The Tigray People’s Liberation Front’s (TPLF) intervention in the Eritrean Civil War was a significant political miscalculation. This action engendered lasting resentment among supporters of the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) supporters. During the 2020 Ethiopia-TPLF conflict, some ELF members opposed the TPLF and supported Eritrea's intervention in Tigray, declaring, "We stand with our army."

III.          International Conditions and Primary Sources of Support for the Eritrean People's Liberation Struggle

Global Blocs and the Rise of Ideological Movements

Throughout the thirty-year armed struggle, Africa witnessed a surge of decolonization, with liberation movements thriving across the continent. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana was a prominent advocate of Pan-Africanism, which gained momentum during this era.

From 1961 to 1991, Eritrea faced a challenging global political environment, resisting annexation without allies during the Cold War.

The world was split between the Soviet-led socialist bloc and the US-led Western bloc, with international relations marked by détente, deterrence, peaceful coexistence, and containment. The Soviet Union supported African anti-colonial struggles to extend its influence and promote national self-determination. The rise of leftist ideology spurred movements in regions like Mozambique, Angola, and Guinea-Bissau, where Marxism was declared the guiding principle in their fight against Portuguese colonialism. However, many self-proclaimed Marxist leaders lacked a thorough understanding of the philosophy they endorsed.

Regional Dynamics and the Diplomatic Struggle

During the anti-colonial struggle, various movements emerged, including pan-Arabism in the Middle East. Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal symbolized regional resistance against Western interests. The alignment of forces in Africa and the Middle East has shaped Eritrean history.

From 1961 to 1991, Ethiopia maintained a diplomatic advantage by portraying the Eritrean liberation movement as an Arab/Islamic-instigated uprising.

The Western bloc supported the Haile Selassie regime, while the Eastern bloc remained indifferent. The OAU maintained a hostile stance due to Ethiopia's diplomatic dominance. After 1974–75, the Soviet-led socialist bloc supported the Derg regime with political, diplomatic, economic, and military aid.

IV.           Primary Sources of Support for the Eritrean Liberation Movement

The Eritrean liberation movement was unique in its reliance on internal resources, primarily the Eritrean people within the country and abroad, as its main support. The Eritrean people were the backbone of independence, achieved through immense sacrifice. Both the EPLF and ELF, despite their conflicts, represented the people's voice and helped realize their aspirations. The victory reflected the sacrifices made by all Eritreans, across gender, region, religion, and ethnicity.

The Eritrean diaspora made vital contributions through organized mass organizations, serving as a political backbone and financial source after both movements were isolated from major global powers. Through public diplomacy, the diaspora helped introduce the Eritrean struggle internationally, thus strengthening the movement.

When an army veteran was asked who provided support to the liberation movements, the answer he gave was the Ethiopian army. That was to say that the liberation movements fought the occupying army with its weaponry and logistics.

V.           Strategic Alliances and the Doctrine of Self-Reliance

In such circumstances, Eritrean liberation movements relied on internal resources and embraced an ideology of self-reliance. They also received support from Arab nations, including Egypt, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar. This support from Arab countries was primarily driven by geopolitical factors and Ethiopia's relationship with Israel.

Eritrea's strategic alliance with Ethiopian opposition forces proved effective, ultimately leading to the downfall of the Derg regime and the establishment of provisional governments in both Eritrea (EPLF) and Ethiopia (EPRDF).

The Eritrean liberation movements, specifically the ELF and EPLF, also established connections with Western leftist movements and humanitarian organizations to secure political, moral, and material support.

VI.          Contributing Factors to the Victory

The primary credit for achieving independence belongs to the perseverance and determination of the Eritrean people. Despite the conflict between the EPLF and ELF, both played significant roles as representatives of Eritrean aspirations. The liberation fighters, martyrs, and war-disabled deserve the highest honor for their sacrifices. The Eritrean people, both within the country and abroad, were crucial to this victory through their unwavering support. This triumph of independence represents the collective sacrifice of all Eritreans, transcending political, gender, regional, religious, and ethnic divisions.

Several other factors also contributed to the victory: A) the influence of Ethiopian opposition movements in reshaping the situation and power dynamics within the Derg regime; B) the strengthening of the EPRDF-led movement for change in Ethiopia and its operational alliance with one of the Eritrean liberation movements; and C) the internal weakening of the Derg regime, highlighted by the 1990 coup attempt against Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam.

Global events also had a significant impact on the independence struggle. The disintegration of the Soviet Union, which had been a source of military and diplomatic support for the Derg, along with the fall of the Berlin Wall and popular uprisings in Eastern Europe, were pivotal. The momentum of these international political changes played a decisive role in shaping the outcomes of the liberation struggle.

VII.         Post-Independence Challenges

From Liberation Movement to Government: The Challenge of Transition

The liberation movement demanded resilience, courage, discipline, and a military structure with a strict chain of command. Adapting to changing circumstances and making urgent decisions under pressure were crucial. The movement needed clear norms and value systems to guide organizational conduct during the liberation struggle. Post-independence challenges were different.

Key questions emerged following independence: Could the movement evolve from military effectiveness to managing development and reconstruction? Could it understand and navigate new circumstances? Could it meet post-independence demands? Would the rule of law prevail, with power transferred to the Eritrean people? Could a political transition be the order of the day? Could the movement abandon secrecy and militarism to develop democratic traits? How could it transform into an entity ensuring inclusivity, accountability, transparency, and individual liberty? Whether the political transition was properly resolved and whether the necessary steps were taken?

The Stalled Political Transition

Nevertheless, these questions remain insufficiently addressed. Despite sporadic efforts, I perceive the thirty-five years since independence as a thwarted political transition. This situation is marked by the absence of a constitution and the failure to hold elections. The PFDJ has completely usurped governmental control, and the country is governed by dysfunctional institutions. The sole political discourse centers on "Security." War has repeatedly become a consumable commodity, with the Eritrean regime's survival hinging on the prospect of conflict, which has become the cornerstone of its existence. Suppression of opposition has reached its peak, and extreme oppression is now routine. Indefinite national service and forced labor have become the norm, while the regime's foreign policy is characterized by isolationism and military interventionism. In Eritrea, poverty is utilized and implemented as a policy.

The PFDJ

The current ruling party, the People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ), is a re-invention of the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), which helped conclude the thirty-year independence struggle. The 1993 UN-observed referendum established Eritrea's sovereignty, raising hopes for a prosperous and democratic nation. Some called it a potential "beacon of hope." However, Eritrea exemplifies a liberation movement that resisted political transition. What remains is a liberation movement that once held legitimacy but has unfortunately led to a politically stagnant, economically crippled, and socially silenced country.

A Betrayed Vision

Eritrea’s path since independence exemplifies a liberation movement betrayed by its leaders. The regime prioritized its own survival over the welfare of the people, liberating the country but not its people. A nation with the potential for regional stability is now held hostage by a government fostering institutional poverty to preserve dictatorial rule. This outcome was not inevitable. By learning from the experiences of similar countries, Eritrea could have avoided these mistakes; however, its leadership lacked the wisdom to fulfill its people's aspirations.

The Way Forward

Decisive efforts must be made to establish a peaceful, just, and prosperous Eritrea. The nation must transform the lives of present and future generations through the collective actions of justice-seeking Eritreans. Eritreans face a critical juncture in confronting the government's failed policies. Decades without constitutional governance or economic viability demand wisdom and inclusion rather than isolation. The change aspired by all must open political space and invite all Eritreans to participate in decision-making and should encompass constitutional restoration, national reconciliation, economic opening, and institutional reform. This approach alone can secure peace, protect sovereignty, and ensure that future generations inherit a stable nation that respects its neighbors. Eritrea can still reinvent itself, but needs resolve and vision.