Disclaimer
Before diving into the substance of this article, I feel compelled to make an important clarification. I am one of the founders and the former chairman of Solidarity of Tigrayans for Independence and Liberty, an organization widely known by its Tigringa name, Simret. Based in the United States, our global movement was established in support of the cause of Tigrayan independence. To our surprise, a new political party recently formed by a splinter group from the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) has adopted not only our name but also a logo strikingly similar to ours. The irony is hard to miss: while the old guard TPLF now cautiously flirts with the idea of independence, the splinter group, whose record suggests a more conciliatory approach toward the Ethiopian federal system, has co-opted the branding of a movement built explicitly for Tigrayan self-determination. Let it be unequivocally stated: this newly forming party has no affiliation whatsoever with Simret, aka Solidarity of Tigrayans for Independence and Liberty, other than that its members are Tigrayans.
A New Party for Tigray
In recent weeks, a new political movement, reportedly coalescing under the name Simret, has begun to take shape in Tigray following a split within the TPLF. On the one hand, the formation of an alternative to the TPLF is a sign of political motion in Tigray—something that is urgently needed. On the other hand, the new party risks becoming either a recycled version of the past or, worse, a Trojan horse for PM Abiy Ahmed’s regime disguised as a reform movement. A new party could be a vital step toward breaking the political monopoly of the old guard TPLF, and offering alternative visions for governance, development, and sovereignty. It is especially encouraging that the splinter group is choosing to organize politically rather than act as disgruntled spoilers from the sidelines. This move toward structured participation, however imperfect, is far preferable to unproductive internal sabotage or fragmented dissent.
However, this emerging party is not without concerning features. Most troubling is its effort to be the sole political leader of the newly formed Tigray Peace Force. This force was initiated by progressive young military leaders and patriotic youth, many of whom are committed to building a modern, professional, and non-partisan security institution for Tigray. If developed independently and professionally, the Tigray Peace Force has the potential to become a stabilizing pillar of post-war reconstruction and national defense. But rather than supporting this effort as a national institution, the newly forming Simret party appears to be repeating one of the most damaging patterns of the TPLF era: attempting to fuse party and military leadership.
Reports and public statements suggest that the new party is trying to position itself to be the sole political authority over the Tigray Peace Force. This is deeply alarming. The militarization of political parties—or the politicization of the military—has historically undermined democracy and bred authoritarianism, including during TPLF’s long tenure. If history is any guide, blurring the lines between military and political power rarely ends well for democratic accountability. Tigray needs a clean break from this model. The urgent need in Tigray is for a professional, independent security institution—not a party-affiliated army with its own political agenda. The Tigray Peace Force must remain a professional, independent body accountable to a civilian democratic system, not to any one party’s agenda.
Getachew Reda: An Asset or a Liability?
In a recent press briefing, Redae Halefom, a key figure in the formation of the new party, stated that the party’s chairman will be Getachew Reda, the former president of the interim regional administration of Tigray. While Getachew is widely recognized for his rhetorical skill and emotional resonance with the public, his leadership record raises serious concerns. Over the past two years, his tenure has been marked by strategic ambiguity, inconsistent communication, and a failure to mobilize institutions around a clear vision for Tigray’s post-war recovery. His speeches, while popular in tone, have often lacked substance and at times proved costly in political and diplomatic terms. Those who measure leadership by actions, not just words, have found his record lacking.
More troubling is the growing perception that Getachew is aligning himself, and by extension, the newly forming party with Ethiopia’s ruling Prosperity Party. His recent conciliatory posture toward federal authorities, coupled with his ambiguous stance on Tigrayan autonomy, suggests a shift that many in Tigray see as dangerously out of step with popular sentiment. During and after the Pretoria Agreement, Getachew made several statements that downplayed Tigray’s right to self-determination and minimized federal accountability for the war.
To be clear: I understand that maintaining tactical relationships with the federal government and the Prosperity Party may be politically necessary. Tigray cannot operate in a vacuum. Diplomacy, negotiation, and strategic engagement are part of any responsible leadership. However, what we are witnessing is not tactical engagement — it is the risk of becoming a propaganda partner. The way Getachew has echoed federal narratives, often at the expense of Tigray’s core interests, undermines both his credibility and that of any movement associated with him.
At a time when the majority of Tigrayans, especially the younger generation, are asserting a strong nationalist identity and calling for independence, Getachew continues to promote a more integrationist view: Ethiopian first, Tigrayan second.
This is not a mere philosophical difference. It has direct implications for the legitimacy of the new party. Aligning too closely with the Prosperity Party risks discrediting the party as a federal proxy rather than a truly Tigrayan force for renewal. By placing Getachew Reda at the helm, the party risks sending the message that political transformation in Tigray will be led by the very figures whose leadership failures and federal alignment contributed to the current crisis. It also begs a difficult but necessary question: Is Tigray truly in such a dearth of leadership talent that it must fall back on figures whose liabilities now outweigh their assets?
The formation of the new party, despite its flaws, reflects a yearning for political renewal in Tigray. But for this moment to translate into genuine transformation, it cannot be left to a single splinter group or recycled leadership figures. A win-win future for Tigray demands strategic clarity, inclusive leadership, and institution-building rooted in the aspirations of the people. This is a responsibility shared by both those inside the party and those in the wider nationalist and democratic circles of Tigray.
The burden of shaping Tigray’s political future does not fall on those forming the party alone. The broader community of intellectuals, nationalists, youth leaders, and civil society has an even more critical role to play. We need to form a Nationalist Democratic Coalition. It is time to launch a united front that brings together nationalist political parties, civic institutions, military veterans, scholars, and influential individuals committed to democratic transformation and Tigrayan sovereignty. This coalition must reflect the diversity and depth of Tigrayan society, not the narrow interests of former elites. The dominant mood in Tigray is one of self-determination and national dignity. Any new movement or coalition must put these aspirations front and center, not suppress them under the banner of national unity or federal compromise.
What Simret’s Founding Members Must Do
For the newly forming Simret to avoid repeating the same mistakes that led to the political crisis in Tigray, its leaders and members must take bold, self-corrective steps. First, they must reject the TPLF-era model of party-military fusion. The Tigray Peace Force, established by youth and progressive military officers, has the potential to be a professional and independent national defense force. The new party should respect its autonomy rather than attempt to dominate it as its political wing. Second, they need to reconsider leadership choices. The decision to place Getachew Reda at the helm sends the wrong message. If Simret is serious about renewal, it should elevate new, credible, and untainted leadership that resonates with the current generation’s demand for dignity, self-determination, and democratic governance.
They also need to define their Strategic Identity. The new party must make clear whether it is a nationalist party serving Tigray’s aspirations or a bridge for federal influence. Tactical engagement with the federal government is understandable, but becoming a mouthpiece for Prosperity Party propaganda, as Getachew’s recent public posture suggests, is unacceptable. The new party should not try to present itself as the sole face of political change in Tigray but rather work with others, existing nationalist parties, civic actors, and community leaders, to build a broad-based coalition that reflects the collective will of the people. Members of this party were instrumental in the creation of the Interim Tigray Council. It is both logical and necessary that they now formally apply to join the council and use it as their primary political platform. Doing so would demonstrate a commitment to institutional legitimacy, transparency, and collective governance. Rather than operating outside of the interim regional government structure, they should engage with the council to advocate for their ideas, build trust with the public, and contribute constructively to Tigray’s political transition.
What Tigrayan Intellectuals and Progressive Leaders Must Do
The Tigrayan progressive intelligentsia and civil society must not remain passive observers. They have a dual responsibility: to monitor, critique, and constructively engage emerging political actors to ensure alignment with Tigray’s core interests, and to actively strengthen nationalist political parties that truly reflect the aspirations of the people. This means providing them with financial support, strategic counsel, diplomatic connections, and, where appropriate, directly joining their ranks. Blind support of any party or total withdrawal from political engagement are both dangerous. Tigray’s future requires informed, principled, and sustained participation by its most capable thinkers and leaders.
The Tigrayan intelligentsia must actively encourage all political actors, including the newly formed Simret party, to recognize and utilize the Interim Tigray Council as the primary platform for political engagement and governance. Strengthening the council as the singular, legitimate representative body of the Tigrayan people is essential for building an accountable and inclusive political system. This means all emerging and existing parties should work within the council, not outside or above it.
Moreover, all governmental structures—including the Tigray Defense Forces (TDF) and the newly established Tigray Peace Force—must operate under the authority and oversight of the council. Only through such institutional alignment can Tigray ensure civilian control, democratic legitimacy, and a coordinated path toward peace and self-determination. Institutions such as the Tigray Defence Force (TDF) and Tigray Peace Force must be protected from political manipulation. Progressive forces should work to ensure their professional development, civilian oversight, and operational independence, making it a force for national stability rather than party control.
Mersea Kidan is a member and former founding president of the social movement known as Solidarity of Tigrayans for Independence & Liberty or “Simret” in Tigringa.
Contributed by Mersea Kidan