The political elite from the minority serve the so-called mainstream to stay in power and make their group the victim. They divide the complementary identities as nationals and sub-nationals. But such arguments have no academic proofs and substances. Political elite with such arguments either prioritise their individual interests or are not proud of their ethnic identity.

In short, the identity politics was considered a threat to state unity. In addition, accommodating these differences is politically challenging, therefore many states have resorted to either suppress them or ignore them in the political domain. This is argued by our existing and past political leaders. Solving the problems we have created by the old thinking requires a new way of thinking. It is the old political thinking that prevents us from recognising our diversity or to suppress it - but did we succeed by such policies of assimilation?

Policies of assimilation often involves outright suppression of the identities of ethnic, religious or linguistic groups. Policies of integration seek to assert a single national identity by attempting to eliminate ethno–national and cultural differences from the public and political arena, while allowing them in the private domain-for example, the PFDJ policy in Eritrea. Both sets of policies assume a singular national identity. In this article, I will briefly analyse the strategies of nation/state building in Eritrea.

The issue of unity of the Eritrean people under nation building strategy has never been discussed. The nation building policy adopted by the existing regime in Eritrea, copied from the old designs of nation building of single culture and ethnicity in Europe is only privileging singular identity. Such policies failed in the post in colonial African countries and other developing countries. The formation and nation building of the 17th and 18th centuries with one ethno-cultural identity have been challenged by immigrants; and nations with one identity were forced to change their policies of state building and adopted multicultural policies, recently, for example, Sweden and the Netherlands.

The Eritrean political leaders fear from identity politics and suppress it in order to secure their territories and borders, expand their administration and acquire the loyalty and obedience of the citizens through the policies of intimidation and liquidation. It is just these policies of liquidation and assimilation that prevents the diverse people of Eritrea from uniting. In the Eritrean context, the outdated and ceased strategy of nation building does not function. In the Eritrean diversity, in addition to the national identity, a nation building that does not promote the community’s ethnic, religious, linguistic and territory is not sustainable.

In their nation building strategies, the Eritrean political leaders, be it the opposition or the ruling regime, try to establish a singular national identity through the following interventions:

• Centralisation of political power, eliminating forms of local sovereignty or autonomy historically enjoyed by the minority groups so that all important decisions are made in forums where the dominant group constitutes a majority.
• Construction of a unified legal and judicial system, operating in the dominant group’s language and using its legal traditions, and the abolition of any pre-existing legal systems used by the minority groups.
• Adoption of official language laws, which define the dominant group’s language as the only national language to be used in the bureaucracy, courts, public services, the army, higher education and other official institutions.
• Construction of a nationalised system of compulsory education promoting standardised curricula and teaching the dominant group’s language, literature and history and defining them as "national" language, literature and history.
• Diffusion of the dominant group’s language and culture through national cultural institutions, including state-run media and public museums.
• Adoption of state symbols celebrating the dominant group’s history, heroes and culture, reflected in such things as the choice of national holidays or the naming of streets, building and geographic characteristics, for example by renaming the areas the dominant group occupies ( Demographic changes)
• Seizure of lands, forests and fisheries from minority groups and indigenous people and declaring that land as state property.
• Adoption of immigration policies that give preference to immigrants who share the same language, religion or ethnicity as the dominant group.

These strategies of assimilation seems to ensure peace and stability in Eritrea but they are not without risks. Today, there are more than 12 political organisations struggling for their identity that have been oppressed both by the existing regime and those who call themselves democratic opposition. Assimilation policies were easier to pursue in the past where the indigenous people were illiterate and peasants but today at this age of information technology, and with rapid spread of the knowledge of universal human rights, the Eritrean indigenous people are very aware of this assimilation under the cover of national unity. Efforts of assimilation policies have failed globally. There are many academic evidences that national identity and the recognition of diverse ethnic, religious and linguistic identities never contradict.

A short look around the globe shows that a national identity need not imply a single homogeneous cultural identity. Efforts to impose one can lead to social tension and conflict. (See Edward Saed’s and Professor Huntington contributions, "the war of civilisations")

State building in Eritrea must accommodate the multi-ethnic, multilingual and multi religious identities. Bolstering multiple and complementary identities can diminish polarisation between groups within the Eritrean society.

The solution is to construct a viable multi-ethnic society based on political, economic, social and cultural equality and justice without discrimination and segregation. A constitution guaranteeing such rights with institutions and policies for both self-rule (sovereign states) that gives a sense of belonging and a pride in one’s ethnic group and for shared rule (Federal) that creates attachment to a set of common institutions and symbols should be constituted.

Self-rule and shared rule have been a headache for the old dominant political leaders in Eritrea. An alternative to the old formation of nation state is the "state nation" where the diverse identities coexist peacefully and co-operatively under a single polity.

Case studies and analyses demonstrate that enduring democracies can be established in polities that are multicultural.

Even international public opinion allows and permits the break of states on the grounds of ethnic and cultural differences. Why not Eritrea? Efforts are required to end with the outdated policies of centralisation of power and dominant politics and build multiple and complementary identities. Multiple and complementary policies provide incentives to build a feeling of unity, a "We" feeling. Indigenous Eritreans can find institutional and political space to identify with both their country and their other cultural identities, build their trust in common institutions and participate in building state nation.

At this moment, as evident from different corners of the Eritrean political arena, there is a conflict between those who want to impose a single identity privileging one dominant ethnic group and the other indigenous committed to multiple and complementary identity politics.

National unity does not require the imposition of single identity and the denunciation of diversity. Successful strategies to build state–nation can accommodate diversity constructively by crafting responsive policies of cultural recognition. They are effective solutions for ensuring the longer terms of objective political stability and social harmony.