Introduction
Since assuming office in April 2018, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed captured global attention with promises of reform, national reconciliation, and liberalizing reforms. Yet as years have passed, questions have intensified about how much reform has truly altered the political landscape. This piece, drawing on the recent scholarly synthesis by Caleb Ta (Dr.)—an independent researcher in African political affairs and human rights advocate—explores a paradox: the same leader credited with opening political space has increasingly relied on a set of centralized instruments that echo classic autocratic playbooks. By examining policy choices, institutional maneuvers, and the broader regional context, we can better understand the mechanisms through which power has become more centralized, often at the expense of pluralism and accountability.
The Reformist Shuffle: Early Promises and Constraints
Initial months under Abiy were marked by rapid policy reversals from the previous era. A surge of deregulatory measures, media liberalization, and negotiations with opposition groups suggested a shift toward pluralism. However, observers note that reforms often addressed symptoms rather than structures, and the underlying political calculus remained oriented toward stabilizing state power. The leadership’s capacity to navigate ethnic and regional tensions depended on a delicate balancing act—one that increasingly relied on centralized decision-making to avert fragmentation and maintain a unified national narrative.
Consolidation Through Institutions: Mechanisms of Power
Several structural moves helped consolidate influence within the executive sphere. Key policy shifts included tight control over security and intelligence apparatuses, tighter oversight of regional governance, and selective use of legal frameworks to curb dissent. While reforms opened space in civil society and media, the government simultaneously expanded tools for monitoring, deterring, and disciplining political actors who challenged the center. Critics argue that these strategies blurred the lines between legitimate governance and coercive governance, increasing the risks of human rights violations when security concerns were prioritized over due process.
Legal and Constitutional Maneuvers
Legislative changes and executive decrees have been deployed to redefine the balance of power between the federal government and regional states. In several episodes, emergency-like powers, security laws, and procedural amendments tightened the government’s hand while maintaining an appearance of legality. This tension—between formal legality and substantive rights—has been a recurring theme in Ethiopia’s political evolution, creating space for rapid responses to perceived threats but also risks of overreach and abuses of authority.
Security First: The Role of the State in Stabilization
Security concerns in Ethiopia are deeply tied to interstate and intrastate dynamics. The state has framed its actions as necessary for national stability and unity, a narrative that resonates with a broad audience but can sideline minority rights and regional autonomy. In practice, security-centric policies have sometimes translated into restricted civic space and selective accountability. Critics caution that without robust checks and transparent oversight, security imperatives may become a cover for entrenching executive prerogatives.
Consequences for Governance and Rights
The tension between reform rhetoric and consolidation strategies has tangible implications for governance quality and human rights. While economic reforms and modernization projects have continued, the centralization trend risks marginalizing dissenting voices and eroding long-standing norms of governance that depend on plural participation, independent institutions, and transparent oversight. The challenge for Ethiopia lies in reconciling a legitimate need for stability with a governance model that protects civil liberties and sustains democratic governance over the long term.
Conclusion: Navigating the Path Forward
Abiy Ahmed’s trajectory illustrates a complex path from reformist rhetoric to centralized control. The question is whether the current balance between security, development, and political pluralism can be recalibrated to prevent backsliding into autocratic patterns. For scholars, policymakers, and human rights advocates, the crucial task is to scrutinize institutional designs, strengthen accountability mechanisms, and support inclusive governance that withstands political pressures while safeguarding fundamental rights. The Ethiopian story remains unfinished—and its outcome will shape Africa’s broader discourse on reform, resilience, and the limits of power.
