In a continent beset by domestic unrest, civil wars, and undemocratic regimes, Eritrea stands out as one of the worst offenders of human rights in Africa. In many ways, the East African nation is an archetypal totalitarian state. The regime of President Isaias Afwerki applies uniquely oppressive tactics to maintain power in the midst of widespread political, social, and economic failings. The regime, however, may soon face an existential challenge as the traditional scapegoat for these failures—Ethiopia—ceases to be a threat.

A Revolution Betrayed

The Afwerki regime’s scapegoating tactics are built upon a long history of distrust and conflict with its neighbour and former overlord, Ethiopia. In 1950, Eritrea gained autonomy within a federal Ethiopian state, succeeding British colonial administration. Central authorities in Addis Ababa failed to uphold the power-sharing agreement, systematically repressing political, social, and economic rights in Eritrea. As a result, a mixed opposition began to emerge in the 1960s, prompting a guerilla war against the Ethiopian despots. The war expanded in the following decade as the Eritrean independence forces began to make headway against the faltering Ethiopians, only to have their fortunes reversed when significant Soviet aid propped up the struggling regime in Addis Ababa. As the end of Cold War witnessed Soviet withdrawal from the ‘Third World’, the Eritreans again regained the upper hand, eventually bringing the war to a successful end in 1991. Two years later, Eritrea gained full independence after an overwhelming victory in a national referendum.

In the aftermath of three decades of warfare, the newly-independent Eritrean state appeared unified and hopeful. Isaias Afwerki, secretary-general of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, was voted interim President by the National Assembly to shepherd the country towards constitutional rule. However, the 1997 Constitution has yet to implemented, even with a multi-party state and free and fair elections. In its stead, Afwerki continues to rule the countrywith an iron fist.

Repression by Coercion

As a report from the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs aptly demonstrates, the regime in Asmara, the capital of Eritrea, maintains its grip on power through uniquely oppressive means. Both historical and contemporary authoritarian rulers have typically utilized a variety of both carrots and sticks to maintain and legitimize their rule. Some may leverage class, ethnic, religious, or geographic divisions to their advantage, pitting various groups against one another by patronizing one and punishing another. Others might legitimize their rule through economic growth, arguing that only strong, orderly direction from above can keep the prosperity coming. For still other regimes, myths and propaganda are their main supports, be it the ‘divine right’ of kings and queens of yore or the cult of personality of more modern dictatorships. Eritrea, then, is unique in employing few of these carrot tactics, preferring instead to bludgeon its political opponents through coercion, solely justified by conjuring threats to its national security.

Tied 4thfrom the bottom (with an abysmal score of 3/100) with North Korea in Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World 2018” report, Eritrea’s system of repression is exemplary in its brutality. Nascent opposition movements are nipped in the bud through pervasive jailing, torturing, and extra-judicial killing of political opponents. The military, the only other institution of authority, is constantly kept off balance through continual re-assignment and firing of top generals. To top off its architecture of terror, the Afwerki regime appeals to a common sense of danger from neighbouring Ethiopia. Notwithstanding its long history of victimhood through repression and war with Addis Ababa in past decades, the government in Asmara has continued to stoke fears of a renewal of conflict. In particular, the regime cites the border region of Badme—an area Ethiopia promised to cede in the 2000 peace deal with Eritrea—as justification for incredibly unpopular policies like the mandatory military service law, which essentially permits the state to conscript its population for forced labour.

Peace in Our Time?

Recent developments, however, threatened to break the deadlock which has long kept the Eritrean people in the grip of state terror. On June 5, Addis Ababa suddenly announced it would willingly abide by its 2000 commitment to cede Badme to Eritrea. Both countries appear to be moving past their historical grievances by signing a long-overdue peace treaty and re-establishing diplomatic ties. By purportedly ending an intractable conflict in the Horn of Africa, these developments bode well for peace in the region. However, this newfound state of interstate harmony may bode ill for the Afwerki regime. Although the peace may initially boost the popularity of the regime, the loss of a key foreign enemy may actually undermine a key pillar of the state’s legitimacy. With the border dispute apparently resolved, the government can no longer so easily point to the external danger of Ethiopia as scapegoat for Eritrea’s troubles and justification for its gross human rights abuses. If the government cannot deliver economic or political gains for a restless population, the Afwerki regime’s brutal tactics of repression may not be enough to thwart drastic change from below.