Breaking Ethiopia’s Vicious Cycle – Ethiopia Insight

We need to develop a new political culture

Watching Donald Trump’s inauguration, I was struck by the sight of him sharing the stage with rivals like Barack Obama and Joe Biden, united for at least that moment in a democratic tradition that transcends bitter divisions.

The respect for the system they displayed—even amidst all the concerns about Trump’s undemocratic tendencies—was a powerful reminder of how strong institutions and customs help provide stability.

This led me to ask: Why doesn’t Ethiopia possess such a system and can it develop one?

Reflecting on Ethiopia’s history, especially the 1974 revolution and the following Derg era, I recalled the role of students who challenged the monarchy, laying the foundation for opposition parties such as the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP) and the All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement (MEISON).

Still, despite their efforts, ideological differences led to division, and the opportunity for democratization was lost. The violence that ensued illustrated the absence of a political culture focused on negotiation and compromise.

Violent Struggle

Why did Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam’s regime fail to negotiate with opposition groups? Was it solely due to his authoritarian and autocratic tendencies, his military mindset? The answer lies in Ethiopia’s history of power struggles and an entrenched political culture that values military victory more than peace.

The struggle for power has never been settled through negotiation in Ethiopia, but through force, as seen in the Derg’s brutal consolidation of its rule and the later rebel victory over it.

Even the peaceful 2018 transition from Hailemariam Dessalegn to Abiy Ahmed was preceded by a period of violence and followed by deep political struggles that fueled the Tigray conflict.

In Ethiopia, legitimacy is often equated with strength—any sign of vulnerability is immediately exploited, with political adversaries using character assassination to erode a leader’s credibility. Once a leader is labeled as weak, they’re doomed.

This is not just a failure of leadership, but of societal norms that must change. The path forward requires a shift in political culture. The government is not solely responsible for Ethiopia’s democratic setbacks; society must embrace negotiation, compromise, and accountability. Public forums and community discussions consistently fail due to intolerance and division. But this too can change.

Past Failures

The 2018 transition under Abiy initially sparked hope, with peace deals welcoming armed groups into politics and restoring Eritrean relations. Yet zero-sum thinking quickly unraveled these gains, leading to conflict in Tigray, Oromia, and Amhara.

Recent peace talks between the Ethiopian government and the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) in Tanzania, failed to yield results. Without trust, commitment, and experience in dialogue, progress remains elusive. The rise of Fano and OLA highlights the challenge of fostering genuine dialogue in a political culture resistant to compromise.

Successful peace efforts require building trust, inclusivity, and capacity building to shift Ethiopia’s political culture toward negotiation and reconciliation. Mediators need to recognize this reality.

Zero-Sum Roots

Ethiopia’s political history is shaped by a deep-seated belief in dominance over dialogue. A common childhood anecdote—shared by leaders like Mengistu—illustrates this mindset: “If I lost a fight, my father would punish me—not for fighting, but for losing.”

This belief in winning at all costs means negotiation is seen as weakness and power is secured through force.

Historically, Ethiopian rulers have consolidated control through conflict. Emperor Haile Selassie’s rise to power saw the defeat and elimination of rivals like Lij Iyasu and Ras Gugsa Welle. This pattern continued through successive regimes, with leaders prioritizing survival over dialogue.

Political movements have rarely sought reconciliation, viewing adversaries as threats to be crushed rather than partners in nation-building. This zero-sum mentality has eroded trust. Governments that pursue talks are dismissed as weak (lifisfis), while opposition groups fracture when their leaders engage in negotiations.

OLA Example

A striking example is the recent OLA split between Jaal Morro and Jaal Sanyii following the failed Tanzania talks. Sanyii eventually reached a peace deal and returned with thousands of soldiers.

Even when Abiy called for peace and unity, many dismissed his rhetoric as not only naive but indicative of someone better suited to be a pastor.

The Amharic saying ‘ወይ ፍረድ ወይ ዉረድ’—’either lead decisively or step down’—carries the implication that leadership requires strength to be legitimate.

That was the sentiment five years ago when Ethiopian intellectuals advised Abiy to exercise strong control and not to appear indecisive or weak.

Fano Dilemma

Fano is also at the center of controversy, particularly with the faction led by Eskinder Nega expressing interest in negotiating. This shift has stirred tension within the movement, as many view the willingness to engage in talks as a betrayal. This highlights the deep-rooted skepticism in Ethiopia’s political culture toward dialogue and compromise.

In Ethiopia, rebel leaders fear being branded as traitors if they engage in negotiations, especially by diaspora supporters funding their movements. The OLF’s negotiations with the EPRDF, for example, caused internal fractures and accusations of betrayal.

Government leaders face similar pressures, as when Meles Zenawi resisted talks with rebel groups he called “terrorists”. Peace efforts are often seen as power plays rather than genuine compromise, fueling mistrust and failure. Political rivals exploit negotiations to discredit opponents, deepening divisions.

Unless a willingness to negotiate is redefined as a strength not a weakness this cycle will persist.

Public Authority

The rejection of negotiation extends to public discourse.

Media outlets, deeply polarized, rarely promote balanced debates. Opposition platforms that acknowledge government achievements or advocate for peace and reconciliation often face a backlash, while pro-government media risk dare not critique government policies.

Let me share a story I heard from a friend about the 2005 election that highlights this mindset: A rural voter, surprised by the criticism of the government on public media, asked his son, “My son, has the opposition already seized power? How can the government allow the opposition to insult it on its own platform unless it has been overthrown?”

The story reflects a widespread belief that true authority requires total control over information.

Distrust permeates political participation in Ethiopia. Many view politics as a corrupt game for opportunists rather than a vehicle for change. Critics are dismissed as paid agents. This hostility stifles dialogue.

To break this cycle, Ethiopia must redefine leadership as the ability to foster dialogue and compromise. Media independence, institutional integrity, and a shift in societal values are crucial.

Dialogue Space

Fostering a political culture rooted in negotiation and compromise requires creating safe spaces where adversaries can engage in dialogue without fear of retribution. It also demands educating the public on the value of compromise.

Public education, media, and political leaders must champion compromise as the path to peace. Ideally progress will be measured not by who holds power, but by whether the system is just, transparent, and inclusive.

A historical example Ethiopia could learn from is South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). While imperfect, the TRC helped address the atrocities of apartheid through dialogue and accountability, demonstrating that healing deep societal divisions requires confronting painful truths and building consensus.

In addition to South Africa, Sudan ended decades of conflict with the 2005 Peace Agreement. Rwanda rebuilt trust after genocide through community-based justice. Sri Lanka and Colombia found stability through Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration, integrating former rebels like the Tamil Tigers and FARC into society. Kenya has achieved a more stable democracy, greater national unity, and fewer conflicts. Ethiopia must embrace these lessons.

Constitutional Reform

Ethiopia’s own attempts at reconciliation—such as the struggling National Dialogue launched in 2022—must learn from such models by ensuring inclusivity and addressing underlying grievances.

While the National Dialogue Commission has made progress and its term is nearing its end, it would be in the best interest of the country and the government to take a step back and work toward making the process truly inclusive before moving forward.

However, dialogue alone is not enough. Ethiopia also needs constitutional reforms to establish a foundation for peace and democracy.

One critical area requiring amendment is the authority to interpret the constitution, currently vested in the House of the Federation. This power should instead be transferred to the judiciary or specialized constitutional court to ensure impartiality and legal expertise.

Beyond Identity

Moving forward, Ethiopians must abandon the notion that political differences, ethnic identity, or religious background make someone an enemy. Civil society, religious leaders, and grassroots movements must actively promote dialogue.

One of Ethiopia’s greatest obstacles to democracy is the fear of opposing views. A thriving democracy depends on open dialogue, mutual respect, and a willingness to engage with contrasting perspectives. Without these fundamental values, political discourse stagnates, and democracy fails to take root. Ethiopians must embrace a culture where debate strengthens, rather than threatens, national unity.

A free and balanced media is essential to promoting dialogue, yet Ethiopia’s media landscape remains deeply polarized. Independent media that encourages diverse perspectives and fosters respectful debate are required.

Political Participation

Ethiopian elites, regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or background must be able to participate fully in the political process.

To achieve this, we need to break free from outdated mindsets rooted in the Derg era, such as the saying ‘poletika ena korenti beruku’ (‘stay away from politics and electric wires’). This phrase emerged during the terror of the EPRP-Derg conflict, when many educated youth were killed for their activism.

This negative view of politics as a self-serving or immoral endeavor must change. Committed, intelligent individuals with integrity, vision, and resources should be encouraged to participate in politics to bring about meaningful reform.

Ethiopia’s path to peace and stability lies in embracing dialogue, compromise, and institutional resilience. The cycle of conflict and power struggles must end, replaced by a political culture rooted in unity, democracy, and reconciliation.

Query or correction? Email us

Main Image: Participants at a National Dialogue Commission training session.

While the opinions in this article are those of the author, Ethiopia Insight will correct factual errors.

Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.