{"id":6520,"date":"2026-04-15T02:42:13","date_gmt":"2026-04-15T02:42:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/?p=6520"},"modified":"2026-04-15T02:44:20","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T02:44:20","slug":"the-discipline-that-holds-us-together-politics-responsibility-and-the-current-moment-in-tigray","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/2026\/04\/15\/the-discipline-that-holds-us-together-politics-responsibility-and-the-current-moment-in-tigray\/","title":{"rendered":"The Discipline That Holds Us Together: Politics, Responsibility, and the Current Moment in Tigray"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Politics does not take its meaning from individuals, <\/em>
but from the collective decisions that bind them.<\/em><\/p>

As Tigray scrambles to reassert constitutional order and meaning in the midst of an ongoing crisis, the political space is becoming increasingly tense and uncertain. Tadesse Worede has publicly indicated his intention to continue within the transitional arrangement following the extension of the interim administration. At the same time, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front is engaged in internal deliberations on the way forward. Across Tigray and in the diaspora, people are closely following these developments, often through a social media environment filled with speculation, misinformation, and emotionally driven narratives. In such a moment, it becomes necessary to step back and reflect on a fundamental issue that is quietly shaping how this situation is being understood.<\/p>

There is a growing and dangerous confusion about what it means to be part of a political system. This confusion is not simply a difference of opinion. It is a structural problem that can weaken political organization at its core. Politics is not a space where individuals act only based on personal belief or private impulse. It is a structured system built on collective responsibility. In the context of Tigray, where political organizations have historically been shaped by discipline and shared purpose, membership in a political movement is not a casual association. It requires alignment with an ideology, commitment to a program, and willingness to operate within a defined system of decision-making.<\/p>

The Tigray People’s Liberation Front was historically defined by this kind of rigor. From the level of the basic cell, known as the meseratawi widabe, up to the Central Committee and the Politburo, the organization maintained a culture in which ideas were debated internally and decisions were made through structured processes. Members had the full right to challenge, to argue, and to shape direction within that system. However, once a decision was reached, it became binding on all. This was not a limitation of individual thought. It was the discipline that allowed the organization to function as a coherent political force.<\/p>

This principle remained in place even during the period of Meles Zenawi, which is often misunderstood. While he played an important role in shaping ideology and strategic direction, he did not operate above the system. There were critical moments when his own position did not align with the majority within the organization. One such example is the decision to reverse the Eritrean invasion of Badme through force. His position did not prevail during internal deliberations. However, once the collective decision was made, he committed to it and led its execution fully. This illustrates an important point. The strength of the organization did not come from the dominance of individuals. It came from the discipline of the system and the willingness of individuals to operate within it.<\/p>

This stands in clear contrast to political systems that are structured around individuals rather than institutions. In systems shaped by figures such as Isaias Afwerki and Abiy Ahmed, decision-making is often driven by personal authority, with institutions playing a secondary role. In such systems, alignment flows from the individual at the top downward. In a structured political organization, by contrast, authority flows through the system itself. Confusing these two models leads to serious political misjudgment and weakens the ability of a political community to act collectively.<\/p>

Recent developments must be understood in light of this principle, because they show clearly where it has been weakened. During the Pretoria process, individuals who were entrusted with representing the organization took decisions that were not anchored in clear and disciplined institutional consultation. At a moment that required the highest level of internal coherence, the principle of collective responsibility was compromised, creating long-term consequences for both legitimacy and trust.<\/p>

A similar pattern appeared during the party congress two years ago, when a group led by Getachew Reda chose to move outside the structured internal process after their views did not prevail. What should have remained an internal political disagreement within the party\u2019s decision-making system instead evolved into fragmentation. That fragmentation did not remain internal. It created openings for external actors to exploit internal divisions and reshape the political landscape to their advantage.<\/p>

More recently, actions such as Tadesse Worede traveling to Addis Ababa to present the one-year performance report of the interim administration, without clear and credible endorsement from his cabinet and without proceeding as an institutional delegation, have further deepened this concern. The issue here is not the act of reporting itself, which is a normal function of governance. The concern lies in how that responsibility was exercised. When a head of administration engages at that level without demonstrable institutional backing, it creates the impression that authority is being assumed at the individual level rather than expressed through the system. This is not a minor procedural matter. It touches directly on the principle of collective responsibility and the proper functioning of political authority within an institutional framework.<\/p>

These developments are not isolated. They reflect a gradual shift away from a system where decisions are shaped and legitimized within institutions toward a pattern where individuals act first and systems attempt to adjust afterward. This shift did not begin recently. It has roots in earlier periods, particularly during the years of economic expansion in the late 2000s, when recruitment standards were loosened and the high level of ideological conviction that once defined membership began to erode. Over time, this weakened the internal cohesion of the organization and made it more vulnerable to exactly the kind of fragmentation being witnessed today.<\/p>

In a context where Tigray is already under immense external pressure and internal strain, this movement from structure to personality is not a minor political problem. It is an existential risk. When politics becomes personalized, decision-making becomes inconsistent, authority becomes unclear, and the trust required for collective action begins to dissolve.<\/p>

It is therefore important to be clear about the nature of political commitment. No one is forced into political life. Those who choose to enter it do so because they align with the ideology and direction of a particular organization. If that alignment no longer exists, there are many other meaningful ways to live and contribute. A person can choose to build a professional career, to work in business, to teach and grow in academia, or to pursue their own independent path. In those spaces, one can act fully based on personal belief, without the obligation to follow collective decisions that political life requires.<\/p>

It is also important to clarify the perspective from which this argument is made. Political participation, including party membership or holding public office, can indeed become a means of livelihood, and in many contexts this reality has been abused. This is precisely why discipline, accountability, and institutional checks must remain central, and why the role of the elite is to insist on these principles rather than normalize their erosion.<\/p>

This reflection is not written from within party structures. I have never been a member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. However, I have worked within systems shaped by it for many years as a professional, which provided the opportunity to understand its internal functioning closely. Like many Tigrayans, my connection is also shaped by lived experience and history, which instills both a sense of responsibility and a commitment to the broader ideals that have guided the struggle.<\/p>

That position has remained consistent. It is possible to recognize the strengths of an institution while also being critical of its weaknesses. In fact, that balance is necessary. The decline in internal discipline, the erosion of recruitment standards, and the weakening of strategic clarity were concerns that some of us raised long before the current crisis. At the same time, it remains clear that despite its shortcomings, the organization still holds a central place in the political structure of Tigray.<\/p>

At the same time, it is necessary to address how the current situation is being interpreted more broadly. Many social media activists, including those who openly identify themselves with political parties operating in Tigray since the 2020 election, are deeply engaged in commenting on the internal affairs of the TPLF. While every citizen has the right to express political views, there is an important distinction that must be maintained. Internal party matters belong first and foremost to the members of that party and are governed by its own structures and procedures. Those who are part of other political organizations have a more constructive role to play by clarifying their own party positions, strengthening their own internal decision-making processes, and contributing to political discourse through structured and principled engagement rather than reactive commentary.<\/p>

A similar responsibility applies to media figures and influential voices who operate between journalism and personal expression. Those who have built credibility as sources of information carry an obligation to maintain a clear distinction between verified information, interpretation, and personal opinion. When that distinction is blurred, it contributes to a cycle of misinformation and speculation that confuses the public and disrupts the very process of political stabilization that Tigray urgently needs. At a time when society is looking for clarity and direction, the role of such voices becomes even more critical.<\/p>

It is also important to acknowledge a concern that is widely felt. Questions about the quality of leadership within the party have not emerged without reason. Over time, there has been a visible erosion in leadership standards, and it is natural, especially in moments of crisis, for frustration to be expressed openly. However, that frustration must be understood within its proper context. The renewal and strengthening of a political organization cannot be imposed from outside. It must come from within the system itself, through its own mechanisms of deliberation, correction, and accountability. The role of the broader elite and the public is not to dismantle, but to engage constructively, offering criticism that contributes to improvement rather than narratives that deepen fragmentation.<\/p>

Whether one agrees with it or not, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front remains one of the most deeply rooted political organizations in Tigray, with a significant presence in the political consciousness of the people. Its internal trajectory therefore has consequences that extend beyond the organization itself. This is precisely why the current moment must be approached with discipline and clarity.<\/p>

The path forward will require difficult decisions, but those decisions must be anchored in a framework that strengthens institutions rather than weakens them. Tigray has endured not by fragmenting into competing personal positions, but by maintaining a sense of collective direction under pressure. That discipline is not optional. It is the foundation upon which any meaningful recovery must be built.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Politics does not take its meaning from individuals, but from the collective decisions that bind them. As Tigray scrambles to reassert constitutional order and meaning in the midst of an ongoing crisis, the political space is becoming increasingly tense and uncertain. Tadesse Worede has publicly indicated his intention to continue within the transitional arrangement following the extension of the interim administration. At the same time, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front is engaged in internal deliberations on the way forward. Across Tigray and in the diaspora, people are closely following these developments, often through a social media environment filled with speculation, misinformation, and emotionally driven narratives. In such a moment, it becomes necessary to step back and reflect on a fundamental issue that is quietly shaping how this situation is being understood. There is a growing and dangerous confusion about what it means to be part of a political system. This confusion is not simply a difference of opinion. It is a structural problem that can weaken political organization at its core. Politics is not a space where individuals act only based on personal belief or private impulse. It is a structured system built on collective responsibility. In the context of Tigray, where political organizations have historically been shaped by discipline and shared purpose, membership in a political movement is not a casual association. It requires alignment with an ideology, commitment to a program, and willingness to operate within a defined system of decision-making. The Tigray People’s Liberation Front was historically defined by this kind of rigor. From the level of the basic cell, known as the meseratawi widabe, up to the Central Committee and the Politburo, the organization maintained a culture in which ideas were debated internally and decisions were made through structured processes. Members had the full right to challenge, to argue, and to shape direction within that system. However, once a decision was reached, it became binding on all. This was not a limitation of individual thought. It was the discipline that allowed the organization to function as a coherent political force. This principle remained in place even during the period of Meles Zenawi, which is often misunderstood. While he played an important role in shaping ideology and strategic direction, he did not operate above the system. There were critical moments when his own position did not align with the majority within the organization. One such example is the decision to reverse the Eritrean invasion of Badme through force. His position did not prevail during internal deliberations. However, once the collective decision was made, he committed to it and led its execution fully. This illustrates an important point. The strength of the organization did not come from the dominance of individuals. It came from the discipline of the system and the willingness of individuals to operate within it. This stands in clear contrast to political systems that are structured around individuals rather than institutions. In systems shaped by figures such as Isaias Afwerki and Abiy Ahmed, decision-making is often driven by personal authority, with institutions playing a secondary role. In such systems, alignment flows from the individual at the top downward. In a structured political organization, by contrast, authority flows through the system itself. Confusing these two models leads to serious political misjudgment and weakens the ability of a political community to act collectively. Recent developments must be understood in light of this principle, because they show clearly where it has been weakened. During the Pretoria process, individuals who were entrusted with representing the organization took decisions that were not anchored in clear and disciplined institutional consultation. At a moment that required the highest level of internal coherence, the principle of collective responsibility was compromised, creating long-term consequences for both legitimacy and trust. A similar pattern appeared during the party congress two years ago, when a group led by Getachew Reda chose to move outside the structured internal process after their views did not prevail. What should have remained an internal political disagreement within the party\u2019s decision-making system instead evolved into fragmentation. That fragmentation did not remain internal. It created openings for external actors to exploit internal divisions and reshape the political landscape to their advantage. More recently, actions such as Tadesse Worede traveling to Addis Ababa to present the one-year performance report of the interim administration, without clear and credible endorsement from his cabinet and without proceeding as an institutional delegation, have further deepened this concern. The issue here is not the act of reporting itself, which is a normal function of governance. The concern lies in how that responsibility was exercised. When a head of administration engages at that level without demonstrable institutional backing, it creates the impression that authority is being assumed at the individual level rather than expressed through the system. This is not a minor procedural matter. It touches directly on the principle of collective responsibility and the proper functioning of political authority within an institutional framework. These developments are not isolated. They reflect a gradual shift away from a system where decisions are shaped and legitimized within institutions toward a pattern where individuals act first and systems attempt to adjust afterward. This shift did not begin recently. It has roots in earlier periods, particularly during the years of economic expansion in the late 2000s, when recruitment standards were loosened and the high level of ideological conviction that once defined membership began to erode. Over time, this weakened the internal cohesion of the organization and made it more vulnerable to exactly the kind of fragmentation being witnessed today. In a context where Tigray is already under immense external pressure and internal strain, this movement from structure to personality is not a minor political problem. It is an existential risk. When politics becomes personalized, decision-making becomes inconsistent, authority becomes unclear, and the trust required for collective action begins to dissolve. It is therefore important to be clear about the nature of political commitment. No one is forced into political life. Those who choose to enter it do so because they align with the ideology and direction of a particular organization. If that alignment no longer exists, there are many other meaningful ways to live and contribute. A person can choose to build a professional career, to work in business, to teach and grow in academia, or to pursue their own independent path. In those spaces, one can act fully based on personal belief, without the obligation to follow collective decisions that political life requires. It is also important to clarify the perspective from which this argument is made. Political participation, including party membership or holding public office, can indeed become a means of livelihood, and in many contexts this reality has been abused. This is precisely why discipline, accountability, and institutional checks must remain central, and why the role of the elite is to insist on these principles rather than normalize their erosion. This reflection is not written from within party structures. I have never been a member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. However, I have worked within systems shaped by it for many years as a professional, which provided the opportunity to understand its internal functioning closely. Like many Tigrayans, my connection is also shaped by lived experience and history, which instills both a sense of responsibility and a commitment to the broader ideals that have guided the struggle. That position has remained consistent. It is possible to recognize the strengths of an institution while also being critical of its weaknesses. In fact, that balance is necessary. The decline in internal discipline, the erosion of recruitment standards, and the weakening of strategic clarity were concerns that some of us raised long before the current crisis. At the same time, it remains clear that despite its shortcomings, the organization still holds a central place in the political structure of Tigray. At the same time, it is necessary to address how the current situation is being interpreted more broadly. Many social media activists, including those who openly identify themselves with political parties operating in Tigray since the 2020 election, are deeply engaged in commenting on the internal affairs of the TPLF. While every citizen has the right to express political views, there is an important distinction that must be maintained. Internal party matters belong first and foremost to the members of that party and are governed by its own structures and procedures. Those who are part of other political organizations have a more constructive role to play by clarifying their own party positions, strengthening their own internal decision-making processes, and contributing to political discourse through structured and principled engagement rather than reactive commentary. A similar responsibility applies to media figures and influential voices who operate between journalism and personal expression. Those who have built credibility as sources of information carry an obligation to maintain a clear distinction between verified information, interpretation, and personal opinion. When that distinction is blurred, it contributes to a cycle of misinformation and speculation that confuses the public and disrupts the very process of political stabilization that Tigray urgently needs. At a time when society is looking for clarity and direction, the role of such voices becomes even more critical. It is also important to acknowledge a concern that is widely felt. Questions about the quality of leadership within the party have not emerged without reason. Over time, there has been a visible erosion in leadership standards, and it is natural, especially in moments of crisis, for frustration to be expressed openly. However, that frustration must be understood within its proper context. The renewal and strengthening of a political organization cannot be imposed from outside. It must come from within the system itself, through its own mechanisms of deliberation, correction, and accountability. The role of the broader elite and the public is not to dismantle, but to engage constructively, offering criticism that contributes to improvement rather than narratives that deepen fragmentation. Whether one agrees with it or not, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front remains one of the most deeply rooted political organizations in Tigray, with a significant presence in the political consciousness of the people. Its internal trajectory therefore has consequences that extend beyond the organization itself. This is precisely why the current moment must be approached with discipline and clarity. The path forward will require difficult decisions, but those decisions must be anchored in a framework that strengthens institutions rather than weakens them. Tigray has endured not by fragmenting into competing personal positions, but by maintaining a sense of collective direction under pressure. That discipline is not optional. It is the foundation upon which any meaningful recovery must be built.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6520","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-3"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6520","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6520"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6520\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6524,"href":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6520\/revisions\/6524"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6520"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6520"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tigrayinsights.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6520"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}