How can Ethiopia sustain itself as a country and establish true democracy?

Whether Abiy Ahmed’s government is loved or hated, its departure is only a matter of time. Let us outline at least three potential scenarios and contemplate how its potential collapse may proceed.

Looking at the tensions Ethiopia is currently experiencing, one possible scenario is a massive popular uprising in Addis Ababa, joined by Fano fighters and their allies. Millions of people could pour into the streets like a flood, with armed groups participating in the confrontation. Such a development could bring Abiy’s government to an end, either after considerable bloodshed or, if fortune allows, without a great loss of life. This could be one of the foremost possible scenarios for the government’s fate. Another possibility is that, as the pressure intensifies and Abiy finds himself with no way out, he could leave the country and flee to the Sheikh of Dubai, whom he calls “my brother.”

In a potential scenario, should the crisis’s severity be recognized, junior military officers might orchestrate a coup d’état. Alternately, when Abiy himself realizes that his fall has become unavoidable, he could hand power to a man or woman from within his own Oromo political circle, refurbish the Prosperity Party government, and attempt to keep the existing system going under new leadership. Or, beyond all these possibilities, something completely unexpected could happen through divine power, bringing Abiy’s time in power to an end. As the saying goes, “Once a glass is cracked, it can no longer remain a proper vessel.”

The issue of regionalism (Kilil)- in Amharic:

This has become a matter that has built fences among the Ethiopian people and turned them against one another. There is nothing wrong with each region being administered according to its own language, culture, religion, and by its own people. The serious problem, however, arises when people who were born and raised in a region, established themselves there, married, built families, accumulated property, and made their lives there are suddenly told, “You do not belong here; leave.”

The greater problem is when people are massacred, not necessarily because the wider ethnic population wants it, but because of hate campaigns promoted by a small number of politicians and violence carried out by armed groups associated with the government. The solution should not simply be for Abiy’s government to fall and then for the next leader—whether from Amhara, Somali, the South, or any other group—to come to power and rule our people without restraint. The Constitution should be amended and laws enacted guaranteeing every Ethiopian the right to go to any region and, without intimidation or discrimination, live there, acquire property, obtain employment, vote, and stand for election.

The mentality of saying, “This is Tigray’s land,” “This is Wolkait,” “This is Oromia’s land,” and so forth should not be used as a basis for excluding Ethiopian citizens, because all of it is Ethiopian land. Anyone who violates the rights guaranteed under such laws should be held accountable under the law. If this principle were established, the people of Tigray could live anywhere in the country as their home, just as they have lived, intermarried, and maintained close relationships for generations with their brothers and sisters in Raya, Wolkait, and Gondar. If these rights were clearly protected by law and properly implemented, what reason would there be for the people of Tigray and the people of Wolkait and Raya to fight one another? Likewise, consider the Wollo Amharas in Wollega, Oromia, many thousands of whom have reportedly been killed in horrific circumstances, disappeared, or suffered permanent injuries. If strong protections of citizenship rights had existed and been enforced there—or if, unlike Shimelis Abdisa, a genuine leader had existed—would so many people have lost their lives?

We can restore the love and peace that once existed among our people only by establishing and enforcing laws that protect everyone. After all, peace without love is like rain without clouds.

Should the segregation of regions be eliminated?

We might ask why all the regional states should not simply be abolished. Indeed, a region such as Amhara might cooperate with such a proposal. However, in a region such as Oromia, where a great deal of ethnic hostility has been cultivated, it would be unrealistic to assume that the regional structure could simply be abolished overnight without resistance. Therefore, these problems must be addressed gradually and carefully. Extremism must be reduced over time, and distorted narratives must be clarified so that our people are not plunged into another crisis. These matters must be handled with great caution.

The Question of the Ethiopian Flag:

Another issue that has contributed to conflict between Oromo and Amhara communities is the national flag. The interpretation of the green, yellow, and red colors has sometimes been linked to the historical concept of the “Neftegna” and to the Amhara ethnic group, turning the flag into a major source of political dispute. We have seen serious confrontations and loss of life associated with these disagreements. There should be one national flag representing the country as a whole: the green, yellow, and red Ethiopian flag. At the same time, regional identities and symbols can also be recognized. Government officials also bear a responsibility to prevent disputes over symbols from escalating. For years, there have been reports of extremists tearing or forcing women to remove traditional shawls and dresses displaying the green, yellow, and red colors, leading to arguments, assaults, and other confrontations. Perhaps one way of reducing disputes over national symbols is to consider the symbols associated with the different regions. For example:

Afar Region — sword
Somali Region — camel
Tigray Region — Axum obelisk
Southern regions — traditional grass house
Oromia — sycamore tree
Other regions likewise have their own symbols.

These and other regional symbols could potentially be incorporated into a national design based on the green, yellow, and red colors. Such an approach might help more ethnic communities see themselves represented in a common national symbol.

For comparison, the United States flag contains fifty stars, with each star representing one of the fifty states. Individual states can have their own flags while still sharing one federal national flag.

Similarly, every Ethiopian region could retain its regional flag while a common federal flag, incorporating symbols representing the country’s communities or regions, would be displayed throughout Ethiopia. Such an arrangement could be established through law in an effort to reduce unnecessary disputes before they cost additional lives. At the same time, the traditional plain green, yellow, and red flag, representing the historical struggles and achievements of our forefathers, should also be legally protected. Preserving such a historical symbol should be a source of pride rather than shame. However, if a small number of extremist politicians continue calling for the green, yellow, and red flag to disappear, be burned, or be torn apart, such disputes can contribute to further violence. Extremists should therefore be encouraged to reconsider these questions calmly, while the law should clearly establish how national symbols are protected.

What Kind of Leadership Does Ethiopia Need?

When we ask what kind of leader Ethiopia needs, another question arises: should the country be led under a presidential system or by a prime minister?

Whether the chief executive is a prime minister or president, there should be a constitutional limit preventing that person from remaining in office for more than two terms.

In many countries, presidents are elected directly by voters throughout the country, while prime ministers generally emerge from the political party that wins parliamentary elections and govern through parliament.

In my view, the parliamentary method of selecting a prime minister may present particular difficulties for a country such as Ethiopia, where political manipulation, ethnic competition, favoritism, and other institutional problems remain significant.

Under a presidential system, by contrast, a candidate would have to obtain support from voters across the country in order to occupy the highest executive office.

Following a presidential election, senior ministerial positions should not be monopolized by one ethnic group or simply by whichever group has the largest population. To reduce discrimination and promote equality, qualified people from different ethnic communities should be appointed to ministerial positions on the basis of their ability. This could also provide smaller ethnic communities with meaningful access to senior national leadership and demonstrate equality in practice.

Why Do Some Leaders Refuse to Leave Power?

Before discussing why leaders in Ethiopia and many other African countries refuse to relinquish power when their time has come, we should emphasize the importance of the rule of law. In established constitutional systems, mechanisms exist for holding presidents or other senior officials accountable when they exceed their lawful authority. In systems such as that of the United States, for example, a president can be impeached by the House of Representatives, and the Senate conducts the trial that can result in removal from office. Such procedures are explicitly established in constitutional law. In Ethiopia, where institutional mechanisms for holding political leaders accountable have often been weak or ineffective, leaders can exercise enormous power over the population. People may be imprisoned, persecuted, displaced, or killed, while political conflict among communities can be used to prolong political power. When leaders hear people condemning them, cursing them, and wishing for their departure, why do some still cling to power so tightly? One explanation frequently discussed in relation to authoritarian systems is that political power brings enormous privileges. Once leaders leave office, they may lose their luxurious lifestyles, influence over employment and appointments, motorcades, prestigious residences, and access to substantial financial resources. Consequently, some may seek to remain in power by any means—“by hook or by crook”—whether they are loved or hated. Another factor is fear among members of parliament. Members of parliament may be unwilling to challenge the country’s leader or government. Why? In a poor country such as Ethiopia, leaving parliament may mean difficulty finding employment. More seriously, politicians may fear harassment or retaliation from government authorities. As a result, they may remain silent and simply agree with those in power. That silence can make the leader feel increasingly secure and untouchable, encouraging the belief that no one can challenge his authority. When this combines with weak or ineffective mechanisms to remove or punish leaders who abuse their authority, political leaders may govern with few meaningful restraints.

At the same time, when citizens do not feel secure exercising their rights to speak, write, assemble, criticize the government, or oppose the leaders they elected—and when they fear the consequences of doing so—they become politically submissive.

The issue of national language:

The country could designate Amharic and Oromia as national languages, but this approach might exclude speakers of other languages, who could be marginalized in this system. One possibility could be to make English the third or secondary national language, which might appeal to those who prefer not to use Amharic or Oromia. Representatives from each language should convene and resolve the issue democratically.

If consensus is reached among all parties or the majority, using English as one of the national languages could attract more outside investors, who would be drawn by the country’s potential as a hub for technology and agriculture, with its abundant, cheap labor force.

Finally, if Ethiopia is to continue as one country, it must not become the private source of livelihood or privilege of any individual or group. It must become a country governed by the rule of law: a country where citizens are free to live anywhere within its borders; where people can work, own property, participate politically, and live without intimidation; and where no person or community can force another to bow its head.

To guarantee these rights, constitutional reform or constitutional change is necessary so that a strong foundation can be established once and for all for every Ethiopian citizen. And if we want to achieve this vision, all of us must contribute and leave our mark on building such a country.

Tesfaye Worku -09/2026
Note: The writer maintains no political affiliation or association.