The Architecture of Sovereignty: Distinguishing Independence, Statehood, and Freedom in the Eritrean Context.

30/05/2026 14:45 PM

The Architecture of Sovereignty:
Distinguishing Independence, Statehood, and Freedom in the Eritrean Context.

by Dr. Gebre Gebremariam

The Architecture of Sovereignty: Distinguishing Independence, Statehood, and Freedom in the Eritrean Context.
Dr. Gebre Gebremariam, May 24, 2026

Preface: This article was born out of a profound and timely necessity for conceptual clarity within the Eritrean political discourse. On Saturday, May 23, 2026, the Organization of Eritrean Unity (OEU) hosted a historic public seminar via Zoom to commemorate the 35th Anniversary of Eritrea’s Independence. The event brought together a wide array of Eritreans - both members and non-members alike - to reflect on our national journey and the challenges that lie ahead.

I had the distinct honor of serving as a featured speaker alongside Mr. Fessahaye Mebrahtu. Our presentations were designed to address key national issues of significance that befit such a monumental occasion. However, it was during the lively Question and Answer (Q&A) session that a recurring and critical challenge became evident. It was clear from the inquiries and comments of some participants that a deep-seated confusion persists regarding the fundamental distinctions between National Independence (Natsnet - ናጽነት) and Freedom (Harnet - ሓርነት), as well as the separate identities of the Nation (Hager - ሃገር), the State (Dawla - ዳውላ), and the Government (Mengi’sti - መንግስቲ).

This confusion is not merely academic; it has practical, and sometimes dangerous, implications for our struggle for a democratic transition. When we fail to distinguish the “house” (the State) from its “current tenant” (the Government), we risk undermining the very sovereignty our martyrs died to secure.

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Organization of Eritrean Unity (OEU) for having the courage and the wisdom to celebrate Independence Day in the right way - by fostering intellectual engagement and national reflection rather than mere rhetoric. By prioritizing education and unity, the OEU has set a standard for how we should honor our past while building our future. It is my sincere hope that other Eritrean organizations and individuals will follow the example set by the OEU, recognizing that true patriotism requires us to protect our national integrity even as we relentlessly challenge the systems that suppress our internal freedoms.

The following article is developed as an educational guide to help bridge these conceptual gaps. It is my hope that this manual serves as a tool for the Eritrean public to better navigate the complexities of our political reality and to strengthen our collective resolve for a just, democratic, and sovereign Eritrea.

As Eritrea commemorates thirty-five years since the end of the armed struggle for independence, the nation stands at a critical conceptual crossroads. For decades, the Eritrean political consciousness was dominated by a singular, heroic objective: National Independence (Natsnet - ናጽነት). During the liberation struggle, the prevailing logic held that the expulsion of foreign forces was the absolute precondition for all other rights. It was argued that democracy, the rule of law, and individual liberty – collectively understood as Harnet - ሓርነት – could only be addressed once the land was sovereign.

However, the post-1991 reality has revealed a painful paradox. While the “house” of independence was successfully built, the “life” of freedom within that house remains unfulfilled. This gap has created a dangerous conceptual vacuum. Many Eritreans, disillusioned by the lack of democratic progress, have begun to view independence itself as a failed project, sometimes taking actions that inadvertently threaten the country’s sovereignty. Conversely, others defend the current administration’s every move under the guise of “protecting the state.” Both errors stem from a failure to distinguish between the State (Dawla - ዳውላ), the Government (Mengi’sti - መንግስቲ), and the Nation (Hager - ሃገር).

The Four Pillars of the State: Why the Government is Not the Sovereign

To understand the current crisis, we must first define what constitutes a State (Dawla - ዳውላ). According to the 1933 Montevideo Convention – the gold standard for international law – a State is defined by four essential criteria: (1) a permanent population; (2) a defined territory with clear borders; (3) a government; and (4) sovereignty (Grant 1999, 6).

In the Eritrean context, it is crucial to recognize that sovereignty resides in the State, not the Government. Sovereignty is the supreme, legitimate authority over a territory that is recognized by the United Nations and other global powers. The Government (Mengi’sti - መንግስቲ) is merely the temporary administrative body tasked with exercising that sovereignty on behalf of the State.

When the distinction between the State and the Government is lost, the ruling party begins to act as though it owns the sovereignty of the nation. This is a dangerous fallacy. Sovereignty belongs to the Eritrean people as a collective political body. A government can lose its legitimacy, it can be replaced, or it can be voted out of office – but the State’s sovereignty and its borders must remain intact.

Independence (Natsnet - ናጽነት) vs. Freedom (Harnet - ሓርነት)

The distinction between liberation and freedom is not merely linguistic; it is fundamental to political science. National Independence (Natsnet - ናጽነት) refers to the external sovereignty of the State – its freedom from foreign occupation. In contrast, Freedom (Harnet - ሓርነት) refers to the internal condition of the citizens – their right to self-determination, freedom of expression, and the protection of the law.

Political theorist Hannah Arendt argued that “liberation may be the condition of freedom but by no means leads automatically to it” (Arendt 1963, 22). In the Eritrean struggle, Natsnet - ናጽነት was the successful act of liberation. However, the subsequent failure to establish a constitutional order means that Harnet - ሓርነት remains an unrealized promise.

The danger of conflating these two is that when a government fails to provide Harnet - ሓርነት, citizens may begin to devalue Natsnet - ናጽነት. This is a category error. One does not burn down a house because the landlord is oppressive; rather, one seeks to change the management of the house while preserving the structural integrity of the building. To undermine the sovereignty of Eritrea because of the failures of its current administration is to sacrifice the collective sacrifice of the martyrs for temporary political grievances.

The Trinity of Political Identity: Nation, State, and Government

To navigate the path toward a democratic transition, Eritreans must disentangle three distinct concepts that are often intentionally blurred by authoritarian systems.

The Nation (Hager - ሃገር)

The Nation is the cultural and spiritual essence of the people. It comprises the history, the diverse ethnic and linguistic identities, the shared memory of the struggle, and the soil itself. The Nation is permanent and belongs to no political party. One can be a staunch patriot of the Hager - ሃገር while being a fierce critic of its current political state (Müller 2014, 45).

The State (Dawla - ዳውላ)

The State is the legal and institutional framework. It is the “shell” that holds the population and the territory together. It includes the borders, the permanent civil service, and the military as an institution. In a healthy society, the State is a neutral vessel. As Max Weber famously defined it, the State is the entity that holds the “monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (Weber 1946, 78). The State must survive even as leaders come and go.

The Government (Mengi’sti - መንግስቲ)

The Government consists of the individuals and the political party that currently hold the “keys” to the State. In a democracy, the Government is temporary – a tenant chosen by the people to manage the State’s resources for a limited time.

The current crisis in Eritrean political thought is that the Mengi’sti has absorbed the Dawla and claims to be the only true representative of the Hager. When the government says, “To oppose us is to oppose Eritrea,” they are committing a logical fallacy designed to stifle dissent.

Historical Lessons: The Dangers of Confusion

History provides stark warnings about what happens when the lines between State, Government, and Sovereignty are erased.

The Tragedy of Somalia (1991)

Somalia serves as a somber lesson for those who, in their justified hatred of a dictatorship, lose sight of the importance of the State (Dawla- ዳውላ). In 1991, opposition groups successfully overthrew the dictator Siad Barre. However, because the opposition did not distinguish between the Barre government and the Somali State, they dismantled the institutions of the state entirely – the army, the courts, and the civil service. This led to decades of statelessness, civil war, and the erosion of meaningful independence, as the nation became a playground for foreign intervention and lost the capacity to govern its own destiny (Nduwimana 2013, 12). Eritreans must learn that the struggle for Harnet must be a struggle to reform and occupy the institutions of the State, not to destroy the State itself.

The Collapse of Libya (2011)

Under Muammar Gaddafi, the State and the Government were identical. Gaddafi famously claimed there was no state, only “the masses” led by him. Because there were no independent state institutions, when his government fell, the State itself collapsed (Pargeter 2012, 210). Libya ceased to function as a sovereign entity and fell into a decade of chaos. For Eritreans, the lesson is that we must build State institutions that can survive the fall of any specific regime.

The Fall of the Weimar Republic

In the 1930s, the Nazi party successfully argued that they were the sole embodiment of the German Nation and State. By merging the office of the Chancellor (Government) with the Presidency (State), Adolf Hitler eliminated all checks and balances. Citizens who opposed the government were labeled “enemies of the state” and stripped of their rights. This confusion allowed the government to hijack the State’s sovereignty to lead the nation into a cataclysmic war (Evans 2005, 39). For Eritreans, the lesson is clear: If we do not build independent State institutions (like a judiciary and a professional civil service) that are separate from the ruling party, the country’s survival becomes tied to the survival of a single regime.

The Stability of Constitutional Systems

In contrast, systems like that of the United Kingdom maintain a strict distinction between the permanent and the temporary. “The Crown” represents the State and Sovereignty – a permanent, symbolic fixture that holds the loyalty of the military and the civil service regardless of which party is in power. The “Prime Minister” represents the Government – a temporary administrative figure who can be removed by a vote of no confidence at any moment. This separation ensures that even during intense political turmoil, the State remains stable and the borders remain secure.

The Lesson for Eritrea: The vital lesson for the Eritrean public is that national stability must never depend on the survival of a single individual or a single political party. In many authoritarian systems, the leader is conflated with the State; this creates a dangerous “all-or-nothing” scenario where the public is told that if the leader falls, the nation will fall with him. Constitutional systems solve this problem by depersonalizing power.

For Eritrea, the path to a stable democracy requires shifting the loyalty of our national institutions - especially the military and the civil service - away from a specific leadership and toward a permanent National Constitution. By moving from a “Government of Men” to a “State of Institutions,” we ensure that Eritrea’s sovereignty remains eternal, unshakable by the rise or fall of any political figure. When the State is separate from the Government, “dissent” can no longer be confused with “treason,” and a change in leadership can occur without threatening the integrity of the country.

The Path Forward: Educating for a Democratic Transition

For a democratic transition to occur in Eritrea, the public must adopt a new political vocabulary. We must recognize that:

Sovereignty is our Collective Inheritance: The sovereignty of Eritrea belongs to the people. It is not a gift from the government, nor does it disappear if the government changes.

Dissent is not Treason: Criticizing the Mengi’sti - መንግስቲ (Government) is an act of love for the Hager - ሃገር (Nation) and a desire to improve the Dawla - ዳውላ (State).

The State is Ours: The army, the police, and the ministries should belong to the Eritrean people, not to a specific party. The transition to democracy requires these institutions to shift their loyalty from a person to a Constitution.

Sovereignty is the Foundation: We must protect the Natsnet - ናጽነት (Independence) of Eritrea at all costs. To seek the intervention of foreign powers that may have designs on Eritrean territory is to confuse the “landlord” with the “house.”

Conclusion

The 35th anniversary of our independence should be a time of celebration for the land we reclaimed, but also a time of sober reflection on the rights we have yet to secure. By distinguishing between the permanent (the Nation and the State) and the temporary (the Government), and by recognizing that sovereignty resides in the people’s institutions, we can build a more resilient Eritrea. True patriotism lies in protecting the sovereignty of the State while relentlessly demanding a government that respects the Harnet - ሓርነት of its citizens.

References

Arendt, Hannah. 1963. On Revolution. New York: Viking Press.

Evans, Richard J. 2005. The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin Press.

Grant, Thomas D. 1999. The Recognition of States: Law and Practice in Contemporary Relations. Westport: Praeger.

Müller, Tanja R. 2014. The Making of Elite Women: Revolution and Nation Building in Eritrea. Leiden: Brill.

Nduwimana, Donatien. 2013. The Role of State Institutions in Nation-Building. Nairobi: African Leadership Centre.

Pargeter, Alison. 2012. Libya: The Rise and Fall of Qaddafi. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Weber, Max. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.

Read in PDF Here.

See also more articles from Dr Gebre Gebremariam:

Global Policy / መትከላት

Snitna: Code of Conduct — መርበብ ሓበሬታና ዝምራሓሉ መትከላት

ስኒትና.ኮም (www.snitna.com)፡ ነቲ ኣብ 1936 ዝወጸ መትከላት ጋዜጠኝነት (UK and Irish journalism): ከምኡውን ንመትከላት ሃገራዊ ማሕበር ጋዜጠኛታት (National Union of Journalists (NUJ)፡ የኽብር። Snitna Policy Code Asset Logo ብተወሳኺ፡ ነቲ ኣብ ዩቱብ ቻነል ዝወጽእ ሓበሬታ፡ ንመትከላት ማሕበራዊ መትከላት ዩቱብ (YouTube Community Guidelines)፡ እናኽበረ የውጽእ። ስኒትና፡ ብዝከኣሎ መጠን፡ ነዚ መትከላት'ዚን ናይ ሃገርና ኤርትራን ህዝባን ክዉንነትን ምርኩስ ገይሩ፡ ኣብ መርበብ ሓበሬታኡ ስኒትና (www.snitna.com) ክውጽእ ዝግብኦ ሓበሬታ እናመመየ ከውጽእ ይህቅንን ይጽዕርን። እዚ ስራሕዚ ምሉእ ዓወት ንክህልዎ ድማ ብዓቢኡ፡ ግቡእ ኣጠቓቕማ ተሳተፍቲን ምትሕብባርን ምስዝህሉ ኢዩ። ስለዚ፡ ነዚ መትከላት ዚ ንምኽባር ንኹሉ ተገልጋላይ'ዚ መርበብዚ ንጽውዕ። ዝኾነ ሃሳዪ ተርእዮታት ምስዘጋጥሙ፡ ቅሬታኹም ወይ ርእይቶኹም ብኢመይል ኣድራሻና ኣቢልኩም ክትልእኩልና ንላቦ። Read more

See also Related / ምስዚ ዝተኣሳሰር ሓበሬታ፡-