In January 2021, the United States Armed Forces, through their Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued an unprecedented memo in response to the events in the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. This memo was remarkable in its direct condemnation of the Capitol riot as “inconsistent with the rule of law” and “a direct assault on the U.S. Congress, the Capitol building, and our Constitutional process.” More significantly, it explicitly stated that Joe Biden would be the next commander-in-chief, affirming the military’s recognition of the election results and its commitment to the constitutional transfer of power.
The memo emphasized the military’s non-partisan nature and unwavering commitment to the Constitution above all else. It addressed the involvement of some veterans in the riot, reminding all service members of their oath and duty to the nation. This statement came at a time of heightened tensions and concerns about the polarization of politics and challenges to the peaceful transfer of power in the United States. This rare, unified statement from all members of the Joint Chiefs was seen as a crucial reaffirmation of the military’s role in upholding constitutional democratic principles, particularly civilian control of the armed forces and the military’s duty to remain above partisan politics. The gravity with which the Joint Chiefs viewed the situation was evident in the unprecedented nature of their collective statement.
Tigray at Crossroads: Civilian Control of Armed Forces in Tigray’s Democratic Journey
In the wake of recent developments in Tigray, the region finds itself at a critical juncture, grappling with the complex dynamics between civilian leadership and military power. This situation brings to mind the stark contrast of the United States military’s response to the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff unequivocally affirmed their commitment to constitutional principles and civilian leadership. As we reflect on these events in the United States, recent developments in Tigray and announcements by the former Tigray Defense Forces (TDF), now Tigray Security Forces (TSF), raise many key questions about the role of the military in a constitutional democracy and the challenges of maintaining civilian control during times of political crisis.
The Legal Framework
The legal foundation for Tigray’s governance structure is enshrined in both the Constitution of the Tigray National Regional State and the Federal Constitution of Ethiopia. These documents designate the armed elements of the State of Tigray as part of the executive branch, a critical point to consider in the current Tigray political crisis that may paralyze the TSF. The establishment of the Tigray Interim Regional Administration (TIA) under the Pretoria Agreement has created a new political landscape in Tigray. TIA consists of a president and cabinet, as well as a judiciary. While there were calls for an Interim Council, this did not materialize, leaving the people of Tigray without a sovereign representative body in charge of all state affairs. According to the Tigray Constitution, the Head of TIA is the President, and the Cabinet, including security, police, and enforcement forces, are accountable to the President.
The Unique Context of Tigray’s Security Forces
To chart a course for Tigray’s future, we must first understand the unique circumstances that gave rise to the Tigray Security Forces (TSF), formerly known as the Tigray Defense Forces (TDF). Born out of popular resistance against what many Tigrayans perceived as a genocidal war waged by Eritrean, Ethiopian, and Amhara forces, the TSF represents more than just a military entity. It embodies the armed wing of Tigray’s resistance and stands as an integral part of the Tigrayan state. This origin story, while rooted in legitimate grievances and popular support, also presents challenges for establishing clear lines of civilian control. The emotional and political capital invested in the TSF by the Tigrayan people could potentially blur the boundaries between civilian and military spheres of influence. It is crucial, therefore, to establish robust institutional frameworks that can channel this popular support while maintaining the principle of civilian supremacy.
What may appear on the surface as an internal TPLF leadership crisis is, at its core, a struggle for control of state power. The inability of TPLF office leaders to fully control the TIA cabinet has exposed the fault lines in Tigray’s governance structure. This power struggle, which has seeped from party ranks into state institutions, underscores the urgent need for clear delineation between party, state, and military powers. This crisis began to take shape when the Federal government refused to appoint the former TPLF chairman as President of TIA, and the TPLF office found itself unable to control the TIA cabinet. It’s important to note that transitional governance, by definition, cannot be under the control of a single party, even if the aim was to run it behind the scenes by holding a majority of seats in the TIA cabinet. The risk of external interference, particularly from the federal government under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. There is a real danger that internal divisions could be exploited to weaken Tigray’s leadership and compromise its autonomy. Tigray’s leaders must remain vigilant against such divide-and-conquer tactics, recognizing that unity in establishing democratic norms is crucial for long-term stability and prosperity. Previous political leadership dispensations and errors contributed to catastrophic consequences for the people of Tigray over the last five years. By sticking to principles, establishing the foundations of a new and genuinely democratic governance structure is perhaps one of the only few real recompenses that the current TIA, TPLF and TSF leaders could deliver to the people of Tigray and especially to the new generation of Tigrayans.
The Current Crisis: A Struggle for State Power
What may appear on the surface as a crisis within TPLF leadership is, at its core, a struggle for control of state power. The undercurrent of power politics and major differences are not centered on political platforms as such but rather on the control of the state apparatus now that the TIA leadership is not fully under the control of the TPLF office leaders. This crisis began to take shape when the Federal government refused to appoint the former TPLF chairman as President of TIA, and the TPLF office found itself unable to control the TIA cabinet. It’s important to note that transitional governance, by definition, cannot be under the control of a single party, even if the aim was to run it behind the scenes by holding a majority of seats in the TIA cabinet. The power struggle that began with secretive channels of seeking support from the Federal government has now seeped into the TPLF Politburo and Central Committee and is now playing out within TIA – the seat of state power. This mirrors historical precedents within the TPLF, where control of state power, not just party power, proved to be the decisive factor in internal party schisms.