The Weaknesses of an Unbalanced Critique of Abiy Ahmed’s Leadership
Comment on this article by Emedo Farda July 11, 2025 At 11:59 am
The argument that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed relies solely on war and instability to maintain power suffers from several weaknesses, undermining its credibility as a balanced assessment. First, it presents an overly deterministic view of Abiy’s motives, reducing complex political decisions to mere distractions from domestic crises. While conflict has been a recurring feature of his leadership, other factors—such as regional security dynamics, internal factionalism, or a genuine belief in Ethiopian unity—may also shape his policies. Additionally, Ethiopia’s landlocked status and economic reliance on port access provide legitimate strategic motivations for his Red Sea rhetoric, rather than merely being a diversionary tactic.
Tthe comparison to Saddam Hussein is hyperbolic and lacks nuance. Unlike Saddam’s outright invasion of Kuwait, Abiy’s statements on sea access have been framed as negotiable, not as a declaration of war. Historical analogies can be useful, but without clear evidence of expansionist intent, such parallels risk being misleading.
The assumption that war with Eritrea is inevitable is speculative. Despite tensions, Ethiopia and Eritrea have a complex relationship, alternating between conflict and cooperation. Claims that Abiy is actively seeking a pretext for invasion require more concrete evidence than rhetorical posturing.
Moreover, the critique omits counterarguments, such as Abiy’s early reforms, mediation efforts in Sudan, or negotiations with international financial institutions. A fair analysis should acknowledge these complexities rather than attributing every crisis to deliberate malfeasance.
Finally, while advocating for nonviolent resistance is commendable, the argument oversimplifies Ethiopia’s political landscape. State repression, ethnic fragmentation, and limited civic space make mass mobilization extremely difficult, a challenge understated in the critique.
While the argument raises valid concerns, its one-sided, conspiratorial framing weakens its persuasiveness. A balanced assessment must consider structural challenges, alternative explanations, and the broader context of Ethiopian politics—rather than reducing everything to Abiy’s supposed manipulation
Tthe comparison to Saddam Hussein is hyperbolic and lacks nuance. Unlike Saddam’s outright invasion of Kuwait, Abiy’s statements on sea access have been framed as negotiable, not as a declaration of war. Historical analogies can be useful, but without clear evidence of expansionist intent, such parallels risk being misleading.
The assumption that war with Eritrea is inevitable is speculative. Despite tensions, Ethiopia and Eritrea have a complex relationship, alternating between conflict and cooperation. Claims that Abiy is actively seeking a pretext for invasion require more concrete evidence than rhetorical posturing.
Moreover, the critique omits counterarguments, such as Abiy’s early reforms, mediation efforts in Sudan, or negotiations with international financial institutions. A fair analysis should acknowledge these complexities rather than attributing every crisis to deliberate malfeasance.
Finally, while advocating for nonviolent resistance is commendable, the argument oversimplifies Ethiopia’s political landscape. State repression, ethnic fragmentation, and limited civic space make mass mobilization extremely difficult, a challenge understated in the critique.
While the argument raises valid concerns, its one-sided, conspiratorial framing weakens its persuasiveness. A balanced assessment must consider structural challenges, alternative explanations, and the broader context of Ethiopian politics—rather than reducing everything to Abiy’s supposed manipulation