September 4, 2025
“It is difficult to categorize Abiy Ahmed as a liberal. You cannot take him from any political alignment unless you consider him a person who suddenly emerged in Ethiopian history and brought chaos to the country.”
Is Abiy Ahmed a liberal, a conservative, or beyond old labels? Many ask where his political alignment truly sits. Early reforms and peace overtures met later with conflict, insecurity, and rising prices. This contrast shapes a story in Ethiopian history that blends promise and chaos.
In this guide, we trace ideas, speeches, and policies: civil liberties, markets, the state, federalism, and security. What does “liberal” mean in Ethiopia today? How do words compare with results on the ground? Follow key moments to weigh the real political alignment of Abiy Ahmed.
Gedu Andargachew’s Perspective on Abiy Ahmed’s Leadership
Background of Gedu Andargachew
Gedu Andargachew is a prominent Ethiopian political figure known for his long-standing influence in the country’s political landscape. Born in the Amhara region, Gedu started his career as a teacher before entering politics. His background includes deep ties to the local communities of Amhara, which shaped his views and leadership style. Gedu became known for his pragmatic approach to governance and his commitment to public service. With his educational and professional background rooted in Ethiopia, he rose through the ranks by building trust with both grassroots supporters and fellow politicians. Over the years, Gedu has established himself as someone with a strong sense of responsibility to his region and the wider nation.
Gedu’s Roles in Government and Ethiopian Politics
Gedu Andargachew played several key roles within Ethiopia’s government and its complex politics. He served as the President of the Amhara Regional State, a position he held from 2013 to 2019. In this capacity, Gedu focused on regional stability, economic growth, and conflict management. Later, Gedu was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs, giving him a vital role in representing Ethiopia on the international stage and shaping foreign policy during a time of significant national transition.
Gedu was also a senior member of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), one of the country’s main political coalitions. As part of EPRDF, Gedu was involved in critical party decisions, especially during moments of political crisis and reform. His leadership positions connected him to key reforms and negotiations and placed him at the heart of many important decisions affecting Ethiopia’s direction. These experiences gave Gedu insight into the strengths and weaknesses of various leaders, including Abiy Ahmed.
Initial Perceptions of Abiy Ahmed
When Abiy Ahmed first emerged as a national political leader, Gedu Andargachew, like many others, viewed him with cautious optimism. Gedu saw Abiy as a fresh face with the potential to bring change and unity to Ethiopia, a country facing internal strains and external pressures. Abiy’s rhetoric of peace, reform, and national reconciliation resonated with many, including Gedu, who initially supported the Prime Minister’s drive for political opening and democratic reform.
Gedu appreciated Abiy Ahmed’s willingness to tackle old problems with new solutions, such as releasing political prisoners and reaching out to exiled opposition groups. In the beginning, Gedu perceived Abiy’s leadership style as energetic and inclusive, hopeful that the new Prime Minister would strengthen democracy and improve the country’s prospects. However, as Abiy’s leadership style became clearer over time, Gedu’s views grew more complex, leading to diverging opinions about the Prime Minister’s actions and intentions.
EPRDF’s Internal Crisis and Transition to Prosperity Party
EPRDF’s internal crisis was one of the main factors that led to major changes in Ethiopian politics. For many years, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) was a coalition of four main parties that governed the country. However, by the late 2010s, EPRDF faced deep divisions, especially between the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and other member parties such as the Amhara Democratic Party (ADP) and Oromo Democratic Party (ODP). Mass protests and growing demands for change put enormous pressure on the coalition.
This internal crisis forced the political establishment to look for new solutions. Abiy Ahmed and his allies believed that comprehensive reform was the answer. In 2019, Abiy dissolved the EPRDF and founded the Prosperity Party, merging almost all member organizations except the TPLF. The move aimed to create a “pan-Ethiopian” movement and reduce ethnic-based politics. However, this transition was very controversial, especially as the TPLF refused to join, marking a split that later fueled further conflict.
Circumstances Leading to Abiy Ahmed Becoming Prime Minister
Circumstances leading to Abiy Ahmed becoming Prime Minister began with nationwide protests, especially among the Oromo and Amhara communities. Protesters were unhappy with political repression, lack of opportunity, and domination by elites from one region. The growing unrest made it difficult for the EPRDF government to maintain control.
Amid this crisis, Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn resigned in 2018, becoming the first Ethiopian leader to step down voluntarily. Abiy Ahmed, as a senior member of the EPRDF and a leader representing the Oromo, quickly gained support from both reformists and those seeking stability. In April 2018, parliament elected Abiy Ahmed as prime minister. His appointment came during a time when the country was searching for hope, peace, and a new political path.
Abiy Ahmed’s Political Personality and Public Perception
Abiy Ahmed’s political personality is often described as charismatic and energetic. In his early days as prime minister, Ethiopians cheered his message of forgiveness, peace, and reform. Abiy’s background in the military and intelligence services, along with his education in transformational leadership, gave him the confidence to address Ethiopia’s long-standing problems.
Public perception of Abiy Ahmed has shifted during his time in office. Initially, many people saw him as a unifier and a bold reformer. He released political prisoners, lifted media restrictions, and made peace with Eritrea, winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Over time, though, critics say he has cultivated a “cult of personality,” using strongman tactics, propaganda, and nationalist rhetoric to maintain control. Some people admire him for his vision, but others worry about growing authoritarian tendencies, especially after several crises and conflicts under his watch.
The Unknown Factor in Abiy’s Leadership
The unknown factor in Abiy Ahmed’s leadership is his unpredictable nature. Many observers note that Abiy can be very hard to read or anticipate. He often presents himself as a man of peace, but his responses to political opposition, ethnic violence, and criticism have been swift and sometimes harsh.
This unpredictable side has both helped and hurt him. Supporters believe it keeps his rivals off-balance and allows him to act decisively. Critics argue it makes his leadership risky, especially in a country as diverse as Ethiopia. Some analysts describe him as a “charming but modern dictator,” shifting quickly from democratic reforms to centralized power. The unpredictable style leaves many Ethiopians guessing what might happen next.
Populism and Political Realignment in Ethiopia
Populism and political realignment have defined Ethiopia’s political scene since 2018. When Abiy Ahmed took power, there was a wave of hope, and many saw him as a leader who could speak directly to the people’s struggles. He promised unity and highlighted Ethiopia’s ancient glories to rally support, using both patriotic language and symbols familiar to ordinary citizens.
Political realignment also followed his rise. The creation of the Prosperity Party, abandoning EPRDF’s ethnic coalition model, was a huge shift. Abiy tried to create a broader, inclusive national identity by moving away from exclusive ethnic federalism. However, critics say that his brand of populism, including media campaigns and large rallies, was used not only to connect with citizens but also to consolidate power. As a result, the country saw both periods of optimism and further polarization between groups with different views on Ethiopia’s future.
Looking back, these years have been marked by constant change, as Abiy Ahmed’s government balanced public expectations, institutional reforms, and the realities of governing a diverse society.
Criticisms Leveled by Gedu Andargachew
Description of Abiy Ahmed as a “Ruthless” Leader
Gedu Andargachew has not held back when describing Abiy Ahmed’s style of leadership. Many of Gedu’s public comments label Abiy as a “ruthless” leader. According to Gedu, Abiy often puts his political goals above the well-being of citizens and colleagues. Gedu argues that the Prime Minister easily sacrifices allies and ignores traditional values of listening to advice or sharing power. This ruthless image is reinforced through Abiy’s bold moves to reorganize government, silence critics, and maintain a firm personal grip on Ethiopia’s future. Critics say this approach leaves little room for compassion and can be seen in the heavy-handed ways the government deals with opposition.
Accusations of Authoritarianism and Strongman Tactics
Accusations of authoritarianism under Abiy Ahmed have been a core complaint from Gedu Andargachew. Gedu claims that Abiy has used state power to push his own agenda, rather than building a team-based government. These strongman tactics include dissolving the former ruling party, setting up a structure where he alone makes key decisions, and sidelining long-time political allies. Many Ethiopians who hoped for a more open democracy see these moves as a step backward. Gedu warns that power has become too centralized in the hands of one man, which can threaten Ethiopia’s fragile democracy.
Allegations of Human Rights Abuses and Military Aggression
Gedu Andargachew’s criticisms also touch on allegations of human rights abuses. He points to the use of force against protestors, the arrest of opposition leaders, and government crackdowns in various regions. There have also been accusations about the army’s role in conflict zones, especially in the Amhara and Tigray regions. Gedu believes Abiy has given too much control to security services and the military, often allowing or encouraging aggressive actions that harm civilians. These human rights concerns have drawn the attention of international groups and continue to stain the government’s reputation in the eyes of many.
Claims of Betrayal and Mismanagement of Government
According to Gedu Andargachew, Abiy Ahmed has also betrayed allies and key government supporters. Gedu argues that promises made at the start of Abiy’s term were not kept. Former partners, opposition figures, and even members of Abiy’s own Prosperity Party have felt sidelined or pushed away. On top of this, Gedu accuses the Prime Minister of mismanaging government affairs, especially regarding the economy and public services. He claims Abiy’s rush to consolidate power has led to poor planning and growing social problems instead of the stability and prosperity Ethiopians hoped for.
Suppression of Dissent and State of Emergency Policies
Suppression of dissent is another area where Gedu says Abiy Ahmed has gone too far. Critics are often afraid to speak out openly. There have been cases where journalists, activists, and political opponents have been detained without fair trials. When unrest grows, the government quickly passes state of emergency laws, further limiting free speech and assembly. Gedu and others see this as an abuse of power that damages Ethiopia’s progress toward becoming a more democratic country. These measures make it difficult for the public to challenge government decisions or demand accountability.
This string of claims and criticisms highlights Gedu Andargachew’s belief that Ethiopia deserves a more open, just, and inclusive government—one that values its people’s voices and protects the country’s fragile unity.
Governance and Impact on Ethiopian Society
Government’s Handling of Regional Unrest and Conflict
Governance in Ethiopia under Abiy Ahmed has faced severe challenges, especially in managing regional unrest and armed conflict. The government’s response to rising tensions has drawn both domestic and international criticism. Security operations, frequent states of emergency, and military deployments have become common tactics. Instead of building local trust, these approaches often fueled resentment and deepened divides.
Many Ethiopians and observers argue that the focus on military solutions has weakened local governance structures. Dialogue and negotiation are sometimes only considered after violence escalates. Critics claim that harsh crackdowns and mass arrests overshadow efforts for peace and reconciliation. This reactionary approach has contributed to a cycle of instability, with violence erupting in several regions.
Focus on the Amhara Region
In the Amhara region, tensions between regional forces and the federal government have boiled over in recent years. The government’s handling of the Amhara region has included imposing internet shutdowns, declaring states of emergency, and carrying out large-scale military operations. Amhara activists and local leaders have repeatedly accused the government of targeting their population with collective punishment.
Gedu Andargachew, himself an Amhara political figure, has been especially critical of these tactics. He describes a pattern where genuine regional grievances are met with violence rather than reform. Mass arrests and displacement of civilians have become central complaints. The ongoing unrest has also threatened food security and disrupted daily life, driving many to flee or hide.
Impact on the Oromo Region
Conflict management in the Oromo region has also been problematic. Oromo communities have voiced their frustration over perceived marginalization and repeated military interventions. Operations targeting the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) have resulted in civilian casualties and displacement. Dissent is often met with heavy-handed police or military action, contributing to a climate of fear.
Local leaders point out that administrative measures like closing off towns and shutting down communications do not address the core political concerns of the Oromo people. Instead, distrust towards the central government has grown, and reconciliation efforts have made little headway. The government’s approach frequently escalates tensions rather than calming them.
Displacement, Massacres, and Economic Consequences
Ethiopia has witnessed widespread displacement as a result of ongoing conflicts. According to various reports from humanitarian organizations and local observers, millions have been forced to leave their homes. These internal displacements are often caused by fighting between government security forces and rebel groups or communal violence.
There have also been credible reports of massacres committed by different forces, sometimes in retaliation or as part of broader military campaigns. The government has been accused of not doing enough to protect civilians or respond adequately to war crimes claims. This cycle of violence has left deep scars across affected regions.
The economic impact of continued conflict is visible everywhere. Disrupted agriculture, blocked roads, and destroyed infrastructure have caused prices to rise and food shortages to worsen. International investors grow cautious, aid is more difficult to deliver, and families face uncertainty about their livelihoods. Schools and businesses in conflict zones often remain closed. All these factors have further undermined Ethiopia’s ambitions for economic development and stability.
The Role and Reputation of the Ethiopian Defense Force
The Ethiopian Defense Force (EDF) has long been considered a pillar of national unity. However, its role in recent conflicts has led to controversy. Many in Ethiopia and the international community see the EDF as both protector and aggressor, depending on the context.
During the recent conflicts, the EDF gained a reputation for both discipline and brutality. While some praise its ability to restore order, others point to alleged human rights violations including civilian massacres, arbitrary arrests, and widespread intimidation. International human rights groups and local activists demand accountability for actions taken during various military operations.
The politicization of the EDF has also worried many Ethiopians. Critics argue that the armed forces have sometimes been used for partisan purposes, rather than acting as a neutral force for national stability. This debate about the military’s proper role is likely to continue, as Ethiopia seeks a way forward amid ongoing crises.
Political Fallout and Repercussions
Internal Opposition and Dissent within the Ruling Party
Internal opposition and dissent within the ruling party in Ethiopia grew more intense during Abiy Ahmed’s time as Prime Minister. Many long-standing party members, including influential figures like Gedu Andargachew, voiced their concerns about the direction of the government. They were unhappy with the centralization of power and the breakdown of the traditional collective leadership that once defined the former EPRDF coalition.
Disagreements often centered on Abiy’s unilateral decision-making. Critics within the party argued that important political and security decisions were increasingly made without wide consultation. This led to feelings of frustration and alienation among veteran party members. Some openly criticized the government’s handling of regional conflicts and human rights issues, while others quietly withdrew, reducing their political activity and influence.
The result was a deepening rift inside the party. Factions became more visible, and the lack of open dialogue created an environment of uncertainty and mistrust. This internal crisis weakened the sense of unity, making the ruling party more vulnerable to both public criticism and competitive political threats.
International Perceptions and Asylum of Political Figures
International perceptions of Ethiopia changed significantly as political tensions and violence escalated. Abiy Ahmed, initially hailed as a reformer and Nobel Peace Prize winner, faced mounting scrutiny from global powers and human rights organizations. Reports of alleged human rights violations, military crackdowns, and suppression of free speech created a less favorable image abroad.
As the pressure increased, some high-profile Ethiopian political figures sought asylum in other countries. Fearing prosecution or persecution, these individuals, including former officials and critics, requested international protection. Their testimonies often highlighted repression, lack of due process, and threats to personal safety inside Ethiopia. This drew more attention to the political fallout at home and raised questions about the country’s direction under Abiy’s rule.
International institutions, such as the United Nations and the African Union, expressed concerns over Ethiopia’s political climate. Western governments sometimes issued warnings or called for investigations into alleged abuses. The combination of international criticism and the flight of notable political figures served to isolate the government diplomatically and question its commitment to genuine reform.
The Erosion of Collective Leadership Traditions
The erosion of collective leadership traditions became a major talking point among analysts and former party leaders. Ethiopia’s previous ruling coalition, the EPRDF, operated through a consensus-based system. Power was shared among leaders from various regions and backgrounds. This approach aimed to prevent abuses and encourage broad participation in governance.
With Abiy Ahmed’s rise to power and the formation of the Prosperity Party, this tradition weakened dramatically. Decisions that once required debate and approval by a group were now made by the Prime Minister and his closest advisors. Critics, such as Gedu Andargachew, argued that this change damaged political trust and sidelined experienced leaders.
The loss of collective leadership made it harder to respond effectively to Ethiopia’s complex political and ethnic challenges. Many believed that without genuine collaboration, decision-making became more erratic and short-sighted, increasing the risk of conflict. The move away from shared power also fueled the sense of betrayal among longtime party members and deepened divisions within the ruling elite.
In summary, the political fallout and repercussions from Abiy Ahmed’s style of governance included internal party dissent, growing international criticism, the asylum of key political figures, and the decline of Ethiopia’s unique tradition of collective leadership. These factors have all contributed to a turbulent political environment that continues to shape the country’s future.
Gedu Andargachew’s Vision for Democratic Reform
Gedu Andargachew’s vision for democratic reform in Ethiopia is clear: he has always supported the expansion of political space and the creation of an inclusive and participatory government. As a prominent leader in both the Amhara region and at the federal level, Gedu promoted reforms intended to benefit a broad constituency rather than just a single ethnic or political group. He spoke out many times about the need to move away from one-party dominance and urged the government to widen democratic participation.
During his tenure, Gedu was known for defending the idea that Ethiopia should pursue irreversible political reforms (see The Habesha). He advocated for democratic order and played a part in opening dialogue among rival groups. According to sources like The Habesha and East African Review, Gedu hoped Abiy Ahmed’s administration would follow this vision and deliver genuine reconciliation and reform; however, his later criticisms show that he believes Ethiopia has drifted away from this path.
For Gedu, true democracy means transparent governance, strong checks and balances, and respect for pluralism. He insists that Ethiopia must advance towards democratic transitions that prevent the concentration of power and guarantee the rights of all citizens.
The Call for Peace, Unity, and Accountability
Gedu Andargachew’s call for peace, unity, and accountability has been a unifying theme in his speeches and interventions. In a country marked by ethnic tensions and recent violence, Gedu consistently urges Ethiopians to build bridges across divisions. He uses the classic concept of “Ethiopiawinet,” which means togetherness and mutual respect, as a guiding principle for national healing and progress (Al Mariam).
Gedu often stresses that only accountable leadership can ensure lasting peace. According to his statements, there can be no unity without justice and transparency. He is vocal about the need for leaders to admit mistakes, address grievances, and open their actions to public scrutiny. As highlighted in recent media coverage, Gedu views the lack of accountability as a key reason for Ethiopia’s ongoing unrest and instability (The Habesha).
In times of national crisis, Gedu argues for negotiation and dialogue over force. He believes that peace is inseparable from truthful leadership and open conversation about the country’s challenges. His continued public engagement shows he wants to see Ethiopia return to a path where collective unity and responsive governance are the norm, not the exception.
Hopes and Fears for Ethiopia’s Future Governance
Gedu Andargachew’s hopes for Ethiopia’s future governance are centered on stability, justice, and true democracy. He wants to see a country where every citizen feels represented and safe, no matter their background or political view. Gedu sees the current political transition as both a challenge and an opportunity for real democratic change, if leaders are willing to learn from the past and make the right choices.
However, Gedu is also open about his fears. He worries about the rise of authoritarian tactics, unchecked use of force, and deepening divisions within both government and society. His interviews and statements reveal his concern that Ethiopia may fall back into cycles of repression and violence if reforms stall or reverse. He views misuse of the military and the silencing of critics as signs that the democratic transition is at risk.
Gedu’s vision for the future contains both hope and warning. He asks Ethiopians not to give up on their dreams for freedom and good governance, but also not to stay silent if those ideals are threatened. In his opinion, what Ethiopia does now will decide whether it becomes a true democracy or moves further away from its promise. The future, he suggests, will be shaped by the ability of the country’s leaders and citizens to demand peace, unity, and accountability above all else.