When Classical Liberalism first gained prominence as a political movement in Europe and the Western Hemisphere in general, the ideology was closely tied to national struggles for independence against large empires. Aside from the liberal nature of the American Revolution, the wars of independence fought by the nations of Latin America against the Spanish Empire, unsuccessful wars for Polish independence against Russia and the Greek war of independence against the Ottomans were all led both intellectually and militarily by men dedicated to liberalism. The avatar of this channel is a portrait of Lord Byron, a British liberal poet who fought and died for Greek Independence and a celebrated national hero of Greece.

 At Springtime of Nations we seek to revive this spirit of national self determination, for several reasons. While “Nationalism” as understood today can include a number of anti-liberal or anti-libertarian ideas and can even be a barrier to self determination as properly understood, the concept of national sovereignty in the 18th and 19th century was in fact a decentralizing, libertarian concept. The ideal of liberal nationalists was to create a polity with as much consent of the governed as possible. The people, they believed, were a natural social organization that deserved their own say in their own governance. This was in contrast to the form of governance common before the Enlightenment, where multiple peoples were forced together through conquest and the marriages of different nobles. This revolution in conception of governance introduces the idea that at least some government is inherently illegitimate, and that rebelling against these governments is justified or even morally obligated.
This brings us to the modern day, specifically to modern day Ethiopia. The northern region called Tigray is in open revolt against the central government, with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front vowing to continue guerilla warfare against them. The conflict itself has gotten horribly bloody in the last month or so, but what should libertarians think about the cause of the Tigrayans?  Not all national struggles are made equal of course, so it bears looking into why this is happening.
  Ethiopia is often called the only (or one of two) African nations to avoid European conquest during the turn of the 19th century’s scramble for Africa. This is of course, true, with the short interruption of Mussolini’s occupation of the country between 1935 and 1941. However, Ethiopia was an expansionist empire, not a people or even a confederation of peoples bound together by consent or a constitution. During the late 19th century Ethiopia under Emperor Menelik II massively expanded Ethiopia’s control of the Horn of Africa region. The overthrow of Emperor Selassie in 1974 and the creation of a one party Marxist-Leninist socialist state did not change this fact, as Ethiopia fought a bloody 30 year war to keep Eritrea in their grasp. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the Ethiopian Derg regime, like many communist client states, fell. It was defeated by a coalition of ethno-regional forces, most notably the Tigray nationalists. When a new Ethiopian constitution was created, the coalition forces sought to create a multiethnic confederation of autonomous peoples. The reality unfortunately is more complicated.
Notably for a modern nation, the constitution of Ethiopia nominally grants to all “Nations, Nationalities and peoples” the right of secession. The process for secession must involve a supermajority approval of a referendum and a peaceful transfer of power from the federal government to the transitional national government. Seems reasonable right? The trouble is, the Ethiopian government has refused to hold any elections since the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, meaning the ability of the Tigray nation to engage in self determination has been put on hold indefinitely. The Tigray People’s Liberation Front sees this, not without reason, as part of an attempt to centralize political power in the country. The incumbent president Abiy Ahmed is the first non-Tigray president of Ethiopia since 1991, and has curtailed Tigray influence at the highest levels of government.
In response to this, the Liberation Front held elections around when they were supposed to be scheduled, so they would have a free hand to petition the central government to hold a referendum. When the Ethopian government declared this election illegal, the Liberation Front forces preemptively attacked central government forces and the conflict has been ongoing since November 4, 2020.
Now, what should libertarians think of all this? Certainly there is a grey area around the constitutionality of the emergency cancellation of all elections curtailing the self determination of peoples, but is the Tigray People’s Liberation Front a libertarian or classical liberal organization? Not at all! In fact, like most political parties in Ethiopia it is quasi-communist. So why the hell should libertarians care who kills who in this battle? The reason is because secessionist movements, especially successful ones, undermine the legitimacy of state power everywhere. It is far better to support a communist party that wants only to control a small slice of a country, and to proudly state that they have a right to their own destiny, than to sit on the sidelines or support a marginally more “libertarian” central government that wants to crush any resistance to its monopoly on force. Later episodes in this series will explore other noteworthy and causeworthy struggles for nationhood that are ignored even by most libertarian news outlets. What’s your opinion on Tigray secession? Leave a comment below. Next week we’ll be covering the Western Sahara national movement. To stay tuned subscribe to Springtime of Nations.