Assessing the Political Trajectory of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed According to Dr. Léncô Latà’s Principle
By Fayyis Oromia*
The intensifying tensions between the hybrid political regime of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and segments of the Amhara elite within the broader Habesha political sphere represent a significant development in contemporary Ethiopian politics. This moment may be interpreted through the well-known observation attributed to Dr. Léncô Latà: “When Amhara elites support me, I ask myself whether I have done something wrong; when they oppose me, I know I am doing the right thing.” Viewed in this light, the current confrontation may indicate an important shift in political alignment.
The emerging divide between the so-called Seftegnas (Semenawi Neftegnas)—often associated with groups such as Fanno, Shabiya, and Woyane—and the ruling Prosperity Party (Biltsiginna) suggests that the Prime Minister may be recalibrating his political position. This repositioning appears to bring him closer to Oromo political constituencies, whether as a matter of strategic necessity or evolving ideological conviction. Attempting to balance fundamentally opposing political blocs has proven increasingly untenable, echoing the familiar cautionary metaphor of divided loyalties leading to political vulnerability.
Efforts by Dr. Abiy Ahmed to maintain support among both Amhara and Oromo elites have resulted in a gradual erosion of trust on both sides. Initially benefiting from broad-based backing, his administration has struggled to meet the divergent expectations of these constituencies. More recent indications of alignment with Oromo interests have, in turn, alienated segments of his earlier Amhara support base. Should this shift prove substantive, it may mark a move toward greater political coherence. Policy measures—such as elevating the Oromo language within federal institutions—could further signal a meaningful departure from historically entrenched linguistic hierarchies.
Ethiopian political history reveals recurring patterns of alliance and instrumentalization. Under Menelik II, figures such as Gobana played pivotal roles before falling out of favor. Similarly, Haile Selassie confronted challenges involving Lij Iyasu, while the Derg regime under Mengistu H. Ayàna oversaw the execution of Haile Fida. More recently, the imprisonment of Jawar Mohammed reflects similar tensions. In each instance, Oromo actors were incorporated into state structures in ways that often undermined independent Oromo political aspirations.
During the 1974 revolution, despite substantial Oromo participation, political power ultimately consolidated under Mengistu Ayàna, whose governance was marked by the suppression of ethno-political movements, including Oromo nationalism. This pattern underscores the broader dynamic in which centralized state authority has frequently overridden the political agency of constituent national groups.
Comparable dynamics have persisted in the contemporary period. Although Oromo participation was instrumental in recent political transitions, the Prosperity Party leadership under Abiy Ahmed maintained core elements of centralized governance and linguistic continuity. This approach contributed to conflicts involving both the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), reflecting unresolved tensions within Ethiopia’s multinational framework.
Historically, resistance to the Naftagna system—associated with cultural and political centralization—has been widespread among Ethiopia’s diverse national groups. In its contemporary form, critics argue that elements of this system persist within the current political order. Opposition movements, including Oromo and Tigrayan forces, continue to challenge these structures, although their efforts have been complicated by fragmentation and political ambiguity.
Within Oromo political discourse, there is growing skepticism regarding the prospects for meaningful reform within existing institutional arrangements. Longstanding arguments—advanced by organizations such as the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF)—that the Ethiopian state structure resists substantive democratization are gaining renewed attention.
The characterization of certain political actors as “pan-Ethiopian” has also come under scrutiny. Critics contend that this label may obscure underlying continuities in linguistic and cultural dominance, particularly the privileging of Amharic within federal institutions. This has implications for political participation and representation, especially for non-Amharic-speaking populations.
At the same time, there are indications of evolving perspectives among segments of Amhara political thought, including increased engagement with concepts such as internal colonization. Such developments may create opportunities for dialogue and cooperation between Oromo and Amhara political actors. In this context, the principal point of contention is increasingly framed as the structure and direction of the current political system rather than inter-ethnic rivalry.
Expectations of external support for democratization also warrant critical reassessment. Historical patterns suggest that international actors often prioritize stability and strategic interests over transformative political change. As a result, domestic political agency remains the decisive factor in shaping Ethiopia’s future trajectory.
Looking ahead, the political evolution of the Horn of Africa may be significantly influenced by the relationship between Oromo and Amhara political forces. Constructive engagement between these groups could play a role comparable to other historical examples of regional cooperation. However, such collaboration would require a shift toward mutual recognition and a commitment to political equality.
The Prosperity Party continues to face opposition from multiple fronts, while also employing strategies aimed at preventing unified resistance. These include political fragmentation, narrative control, and the exacerbation of societal divisions. Addressing these challenges will require both internal consolidation within political movements and broader coalition-building efforts.
Ultimately, sustainable political transformation in Ethiopia will depend on the ability of its diverse national groups to articulate a shared vision grounded in equality, self-governance, and voluntary cooperation. Whether through federal or alternative arrangements, the emphasis is likely to remain on inclusive political frameworks that accommodate the country’s complex social fabric.
In this context, the central political challenge remains clear: navigating systemic reform while avoiding further polarization.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/01/1 ... -h-mariam/
Re: Assessing the Political Trajectory of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed According to Dr. Léncô Latà’s Principle
The intensifying tensions between the hybrid political regime of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and segments of the Amhara elite within the broader Habesha political sphere represent a significant development in contemporary Ethiopian politics. This moment may be interpreted through the well-known observation attributed to Dr. Léncô Latà: “When Amhara elites support me, I ask myself whether I have done something wrong; when they oppose me, I know I am doing the right thing.” Viewed in this light, the current confrontation may indicate an important shift in political alignment.
Re: Assessing the Political Trajectory of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed According to Dr. Léncô Latà’s Principle
The emerging divide between the so-called Seftegnas (Semenawi Neftegnas)—often associated with groups such as Fanno, Shabiya, and Woyane—and the ruling Prosperity Party (Biltsiginna) suggests that the Prime Minister may be recalibrating his political position. This repositioning appears to bring him closer to Oromo political constituencies, whether as a matter of strategic necessity or evolving ideological conviction. Attempting to balance fundamentally opposing political blocs has proven increasingly untenable, echoing the familiar cautionary metaphor of divided loyalties leading to political vulnerability.