Why Was Prime Minister Meles Z. Gobena an Economically Effective Dictator, Unlike Dr. Abiy Ahmed?
Ethiopia’s political history over the last several decades has been marked by a series of regimes led by individuals who, while hailing from the Oromo ethnic group, have predominantly advanced an Amharic-dominated political agenda. These leaders include Teferi Meles Gudisa, Mengistu Hailemariam, Meles Zenawi, and Abiy Ahmed Ali, all of whom have been seen as suppressors of Oromo identity and language. These authoritarian regimes worked to undermine the Oromo’s socio-political standing, effectively marginalizing Oromic as both a demographic and geographical force within the country.
Among these rulers, the leadership of Meles Zenawi stands out as an economically effective regime, whereas Dr. Abiy Ahmed’s administration has faced significant criticism for its political and economic failures. The question then arises: Why was Meles a more economically effective dictator than Abiy? There are two primary factors that explain this disparity.
Meles’ Alignment with the TPLF and Strong Constituency Support
Meles Zenawi’s leadership was supported by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which positioned itself as the vanguard of the Tigrayan people. This provided Meles with a solid base of support among the Tigrayan community and allowed him to consolidate power more effectively. His policies were geared toward economic growth and stability, which earned him the backing of his constituents. In contrast, Dr. Abiy Ahmed, upon assuming power, made the critical error of alienating the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF)—long considered the leading organization of the Oromo struggle. This alienation led to the loss of the critical support of the Oromo majority, undermining Abiy’s ability to lead effectively.
Administrative Reforms: Replacing Ineffective Bureaucracy
Meles’ economic success was also rooted in his ability to neutralize entrenched Amhara bureaucrats, who often sabotaged progress, and replace them with capable Tigrayan intellectuals. These intellectuals were tasked with implementing economic reforms that led to measurable growth. By contrast, Dr. Abiy has struggled with a similar issue. Rather than empowering skilled Oromo intellectuals, he prioritized the interests of the Oromo People’s Democratic Organization (OPDO), which many view as inefficient. This misstep weakened the administrative capacity of his government, hampering his regime’s ability to execute economic and political reforms effectively.
Meles was also known for his ruthless control over dissidents, particularly the “Naftagna”—a derogatory term for those perceived as part of the old feudal system that Meles sought to dismantle. Under his rule, the Naftagnas were effectively silenced, and their opposition was stifled. In contrast, Dr. Abiy’s attempts to appease and accommodate the Naftagnas have only resulted in increased opposition and have undermined the progress of the Oromo liberation movement.
The Betrayal of the Oromo Cause by Dr. Abiy
Dr. Abiy’s tenure has been marked by his attempt to please his political allies, notably his in-laws, at the expense of the Oromo cause. Despite initially portraying himself as a reformist, Abiy’s actions have led to the imprisonment of Oromo leaders and the launch of military offensives against Oromo liberation forces such as the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA). In doing so, Abiy has not only betrayed the Oromo people but has also alienated himself from the broader Oromo nationalist movement. Had a genuine Oromo nationalist been in power, it is likely that the Naftagnas would have had to accept the legitimate rights of the Oromo people, including their rightful ownership of Finfinne, the capital of Ethiopia.
Dr. Abiy’s recent actions suggest that he could still rectify his mistakes, but only if he takes meaningful steps toward reconciliation with the OLF, OLA, and other Oromo political groups. This would include releasing all Oromo political prisoners, restoring Oromo language rights, and placing Finfinne under Oromia’s administration. In essence, Dr. Abiy would need to take bold actions to address the core demands of the Oromo people, such as recognizing Oromic as the primary working language of the federation and restoring Oromo autonomy.
The Path Forward: A Choice Between Dictatorship and Democracy
In reflecting on the political trajectory of Dr. Abiy, one might argue that it would be more beneficial for him to emulate Meles in terms of political effectiveness, though ideally, he should strive to be a true democrat. Dr. Abiy’s concept of “Medemer” (synergy) is reminiscent of the vision articulated by Oromo intellectuals like Fayyis Oromia, who championed an inclusive, democratic, and federated Ethiopia. However, Dr. Abiy’s actions have consistently undermined these ideals, opting instead to prioritize the interests of Amharic-speaking elites at the expense of Oromic national rights.
The Oromo Political Spectrum: The Odaa Tree Metaphor
The political landscape in Ethiopia, particularly among the Oromo elites, can be understood through the metaphor of the “Odaa tree,” which is divided into several branches based on different political orientations toward freedom and sovereignty. These include:
- Ethio-Dictators (e.g., Mengistu Hailemariam): Advocates for a unified Ethiopia, often using force to maintain order.
- Ethno-Dictators (e.g., Dr. Abiy Ahmed): Promotes an Amharic-dominated ethnic federation, often through authoritarian means.
- Inclusive Democrats (e.g., Fayyis Oromia): Supports an inclusive political agenda that respects all ethnicities.
- Ethio-Centralist Freedom Fighters (e.g., Haile Fida): Calls for a centralized democratic state with fair representation for the Oromo.
- Ethio-Referendists (e.g., Birtukan Mideksa): Advocates for a referendum on whether Ethiopia should be centralized or federated.
- Ethio-Federalists (e.g., Andargachew Tsige): Promotes a federal Ethiopia led by the Oromo.
- Dual Federalists (e.g., Merera Gudina): Supports either ethnic or geographic federalism, as long as freedom is ensured.
- Ethno-Federalists (e.g., Bulcha Demeksa): Supports ethnic-based federalism, specifically Oromic-led federalism.
- Ethno-Referendists (e.g., Dawud Ibsa): Demands self-determination through a referendum.
- Ethno-Separatists (e.g., Galàsà Dilbo): Calls for an independent Oromia.
The first two categories represent reactionary forces that oppose freedom, while the latter seven consist of freedom fighters seeking different forms of autonomy or independence. Dr. Abiy, at one point, seemed to align with the inclusive democratic vision, but his actions have instead reinforced the status quo of Amharic domination.
Final Reflections
The political landscape in Ethiopia has become increasingly polarized, with three distinct camps emerging: the opposition (Unitaryists and Federalists), the rebels (Unionists and Secessionists), and the ruling elite (Hegemonists). Dr. Abiy’s failure to live up to his promise of democratic reform has solidified the positions of these three groups, and the Ethiopian political system remains largely unchanged.
Had Dr. Abiy embraced an inclusive democratic path, he could have empowered the Oromo people and led Ethiopia toward a more just and equitable future. However, his decision to align with the Naftagna system has left him isolated from the broader Oromo liberation movement.
Ultimately, the vision of Fayyis Oromia—a vision of an inclusive, democratic, and federated Ethiopia—remains the ideal. The Oromo will continue to push for their legitimate rights, and it is only a matter of time before they reclaim Finfinne and govern Oromia in a way that ensures justice and equality for all Ethiopians.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/1 ... as-fayyis/