August 13, 2025
This article sets the stage to examine timelines, personnel changes, and the legal basis for security decisions. We will assess what evidence supports these claims, compare past and present practices, and explore implications for civil-military relations and national cohesion. The goal is to separate fact from rumor and outline steps toward inclusive governance beyond the Oromo leadership.
Historical Background of Ethnic Power Dynamics in Ethiopia
Tigrayan Influence in Government and Military (1991-2018)
Tigrayan influence in government and military dominated Ethiopia from 1991 until 2018. After overthrowing the Derg regime, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) led a coalition called the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). Under this coalition, Tigrayan elites occupied a large number of senior positions across key state institutions. The TPLF’s influence was especially strong in the military, intelligence, and security sectors, with many top generals and security officials coming from Tigray. In government ministries and public enterprises, Tigrayan leaders controlled decisions about national policy and economic programs.
The EPRDF system, despite having members from different ethnic backgrounds, often favored Tigrayans at the highest levels. Many Ethiopians and international observers noted a sense of disproportionate Tigrayan power, fueling resentment in other regions. Even though the EPRDF promoted a federal system, critics argued that real authority remained tightly held by Tigrayan officials in Addis Ababa.
Rise of Abiy Ahmed and Shift in Power Structure
Rise of Abiy Ahmed marked a dramatic change in the power dynamic. In 2018, after widespread anti-government protests and demands for reform, Abiy Ahmed was appointed Prime Minister. Abiy, who is of mixed Oromo and Amhara heritage, quickly promised sweeping reforms to democratize the country and address long-standing ethnic grievances.
With Abiy’s rise, the balance of power shifted away from the TPLF. Many Tigrayan leaders were removed or sidelined from influential positions. The government began introducing new measures to open up politics, free imprisoned activists, and encourage national dialogue. Abiy’s administration also started to weaken the security and intelligence agencies long dominated by Tigrayans.
The shift in power brought optimism among some groups, especially the Oromo and Amhara communities, who felt excluded under the Tigrayan-led EPRDF. However, these moves also created uncertainty and political tension, especially in Tigray, where people worried about their future role in Ethiopia’s leadership.
Formation of the Prosperity Party and Exclusion of TPLF
Formation of the Prosperity Party was one of Abiy Ahmed’s most important steps. In December 2019, he dissolved the EPRDF coalition and replaced it with the Prosperity Party. This new party was meant to unify the country beyond ethnic lines and promote broad-based national identity.
However, the TPLF refused to join the Prosperity Party, seeing it as an attempt to erode regional autonomy and marginalize Tigrayan interests. The TPLF leadership described the party as an attack on the federal system that protected ethnic diversity in Ethiopia.
The result was a clear exclusion of TPLF figures from the national political arena. TPLF officials and supporters lost significant influence over federal affairs. This political split deepened mistrust between Tigray and the central government, setting the stage for later conflict and making ethnic divisions in Ethiopia’s leadership even sharper.
These changes shaped the current ethnic power dynamics in Ethiopia, with old alliances broken and new rivalries taking their place.
Removal of Tigrayan Officials from Government Posts
Removal of Tigrayan officials from government posts was a major step in Ethiopia’s shifting power structure under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. After coming to office in 2018, Abiy began replacing top officials and civil servants with ties to the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). Ethiopian parliament even declared the Tigray regional administration illegal in late 2020, voting to replace its leadership outright (BBC). Senior Tigrayan leaders, who had once filled powerful roles across the government, were systematically removed and, in many cases, shut out of official decision making entirely.
Under this removal policy, federal lawmakers and authorities were instructed to end official contact with any Tigray regional leaders. This move deepened the growing divide between Addis Ababa and Mekelle. As a result, Tigrayan voices were quickly muted inside Ethiopia’s most important political, economic, and security institutions. The removals extended to the army, intelligence service, civil service, diplomacy, and state-owned companies. The TPLF and its supporters saw this as unfair targeting and argued that these actions dismantled political inclusiveness in Ethiopia.
Military Restructuring and Purges
Military restructuring and purges went hand in hand with the political exclusion of Tigrayan elites. Abiy Ahmed’s administration was determined to ensure loyalty within the top ranks of the armed forces. Beginning around 2018, many high-ranking Tigrayan officers—some of the most experienced in Ethiopia—were sidelined, demoted, or removed from their commands (Africa Intelligence). Command positions, especially those related to national security and the federal army, went to other ethnic groups, mainly Oromo and Amhara officers.
Ethiopian military restructuring included:
- Quiet removal of officers linked to TPLF
- Dismantling of Tigrayan-influenced intelligence networks
- Formation of new special forces and a Republican Guard loyal to the Prime Minister personally (see: Martin Plaut reporting)
- Appointment of non-Tigrayan generals to top posts
This military purge fed suspicions and deepened divisions, paving the way for escalating conflict between government forces and Tigrayan units. Critics saw these purges as a way to weaken any potential resistance from Tigrayan ranks and to consolidate new centers of power.
Arrests and Corruption Allegations against Tigrayan Elites
Arrests and corruption allegations against Tigrayan elites became another tool for excluding Tigrayans from positions of influence. Notably, soon after Abiy took office, a series of high-profile arrests targeted former intelligence, military, and business leaders with Tigrayan backgrounds. The government described these arrests as part of a nationwide crackdown on corruption and abuse, but many observers saw it as an ethnic-based purge (Reuters, BBC).
For example, Major General Kinfe Dagnew, who headed the state-run military-industrial conglomerate METEC, was arrested along with dozens of others on charges of large-scale corruption. These actions were highly publicized, sending a strong message to Tigrayan leaders and elites that the new government did not trust or want them in positions of influence.
The TPLF and its supporters have continuously argued that corruption and human rights accusations were selectively used to eliminate prominent Tigrayan figures from political, military, and economic life. This approach helped justify the broader exclusion while gaining support from parts of the Ethiopian population that resented TPLF’s former dominance.
These three actions—removal from office, military purges, and targeted arrests—were central to the policies that sidelined Tigrayans in post-2018 Ethiopia. Each step contributed to the hardening of ethnic boundaries and fueled the cycles of distrust and resentment that would eventually erupt into open conflict.
Consolidation of Power Under Abiy Ahmed
The consolidation of power under Abiy Ahmed started quickly after he became Ethiopia’s prime minister in 2018. Abiy, the country’s first Oromo leader, was seen as a symbol of hope and reform for many Ethiopians, especially after years of protests led by Oromo youth that shook the nation (ROAPE). He moved swiftly to centralize authority and reshape Ethiopia’s political system. One of his main steps was the creation of the Prosperity Party, which replaced the old ruling coalition, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF).
His administration aimed to modernize Ethiopia’s politics and economy, but it also pushed to build a stronger, more centralized government. Many of Abiy’s political moves were seen as efforts to reduce the influence of rival regional elites, especially those from Tigray, and to put more power in the hands of allies, often from his own Oromo community (Foreign Affairs). Critics say that while Abiy spoke about building a united Ethiopian identity, his real actions made him a strongman, reducing power-sharing and concentrating authority among a new circle of trusted elites.
Role of Oromo Elites in Government and Security Apparatus
The role of Oromo elites in government and security increased greatly after Abiy Ahmed came to power. Key Oromo politicians and technocrats were promoted to senior positions in cabinet, regional administration, and especially in the security sector. Over several cabinet reshuffles, Oromo allies remained in influential posts. At the same time, many Tigrayan and non-Oromo senior officials were removed or sidelined (ACLED).
Oromo representation expanded in core institutions such as the federal police, intelligence, and key ministries. For many Oromo activists, this was long overdue. For others, especially among the Amhara and Tigray communities, this shift felt like exclusion and increased competition for power. The new Oromo-centered elite tried to assert more control over national security, sometimes leading to tensions with other regional security forces (including the controversial disbanding of some regional special forces).
However, it is important to note that some analysts argue this rise of Oromo elites was not complete, and that the Prosperity Party did not always represent the diversity of Oromo opinion or interests (Addis Standard). Still, the perceived dominance of Oromo figures in key government branches became a regular source of debate and friction in Ethiopian politics.
Criticism and Controversy Surrounding Exclusive Meetings
The controversy surrounding exclusive meetings and decision-making circles has been a growing concern during Abiy Ahmed’s government. Critics claim that Abiy and his close associates hold many key discussions out of the public eye, often surrounded mostly by trusted Oromo allies. This has led to accusations of lack of transparency, exclusion of other ethnic groups, and favoritism (Foreign Policy). Opposition parties and activists from Amhara, Tigray, and other regions have protested that the government’s closed approach prevents a genuine national dialogue.
Reports suggest that even within the ruling party, many important decisions are made in informal or exclusive meetings, without broad participation. This pattern has contributed to a growing sense of distrust, with many Ethiopians feeling sidelined from national decision-making. Abiy’s critics argue that such exclusivity only makes inter-ethnic tensions worse and feeds the belief that the government is not acting for all of Ethiopia, but for a select group.
These exclusive approaches have sparked controversy, especially when major conflicts have broken out. Many blame the lack of open communication and real power sharing for Ethiopia’s ongoing instability. The issue remains a major challenge for those who want to see a more inclusive and united Ethiopia.
Political Marginalization and Ethnic Profiling
Political marginalization of Tigrayans in Ethiopia has intensified since the start of the recent conflicts and power shifts. Reports from fact-finding missions and international observers in 2024 indicate that Tigrayans, who make up about 6% of Ethiopia’s population, have been increasingly excluded from decision-making roles in both government and public service positions. Many Tigrayan officials have been removed, and the influence of Tigrayan communities, especially in cities like Addis Ababa, has sharply declined.
Ethnic profiling has also become a worrying trend. Sources reveal that Tigrayans across the country have faced arbitrary arrests, detentions, travel restrictions, and increased surveillance based on their ethnicity. Various organizations, including Human Rights Watch and state-linked inquiries, document patterns where individuals are targeted not for criminal acts but simply for being Tigrayan. This profiling has extended into workplaces, schools, and even in access to social benefits, deepening community mistrust and fueling ethnic divisions.
Humanitarian Impact on Tigrayan Citizens
The humanitarian impact on Tigrayan citizens remains dire as of 2024. International agencies like the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and Human Rights Watch confirm ongoing human rights abuses and severe humanitarian challenges. An estimated 4.5 million Tigrayans are in urgent need of aid, with nearly 40% facing an extreme lack of food. Around 3.1 million people are internally displaced within Ethiopia, a large share from the Tigray region.
Aid groups report continued restrictions on humanitarian access in certain zones, especially Western and Northwestern Tigray, worsening conditions for those already vulnerable. Humanitarian workers have also become targets themselves, with several being killed while providing assistance in 2024. Many Tigrayan families are separated, homes are destroyed, and the threat of violence looms over daily life. Calls for accountability and better protection of Tigrayan civilians have grown louder, but the situation on the ground remains extremely challenging.
Spread of Anti-Tigray Sentiment in Media and Society
In 2024, the spread of anti-Tigray sentiment in Ethiopian media and society has reached worrisome levels. Studies and reports point to the growing use of hostile messaging against Tigrayans in both traditional broadcast media and on social media platforms. Certain hashtags and narratives have gone viral, evolving into “hatetags” that encourage polarization and intolerance.
Prominent leaders, including Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, have been accused of amplifying negative stereotypes and even direct hate speech in some instances. Social media accounts believed to be pro-government and anti-Tigrayan often label Tigrayan voices as traitorous or accuse them of destabilizing the country. These patterns have been documented in research and freedom of the press reports, which highlight digital and verbal attacks on Tigrayans.
This widespread stigmatization has affected the daily lives of Tigrayan citizens, creating fear and silencing their participation in public discourse. The normalization of negative sentiment increases the risk of further violence, exclusion, and breakdowns in national unity, making reconciliation even more challenging in Ethiopia today.
Federalism vs. Centralization Debate
Federalism vs. centralization is a main point of debate in Ethiopia’s governance today. Ethiopia uses ethnic federalism, meaning the country is divided into regional states based on ethnic groups. Many Ethiopians see this as a way to protect different identities and give regions some autonomy. According to recent surveys, a majority (about 54%) still prefer a federal system over a fully centralized one because it reflects Ethiopia’s diversity and helps manage ethnic tensions (Afrobarometer, Nov 2023).
However, some leaders and groups now push for more centralization, especially after recent conflicts in Tigray and Amhara regions. They argue that a stronger central government can help maintain security, fight corruption, and improve national unity. Critics of centralization fear it may lead to the loss of regional rights and increased alienation among different groups. The political debate is strong, and every change affects the fragile balance in the country.
Both federalists and centralists use Ethiopia’s recent troubles as evidence for their side. Federalists say that local autonomy can reduce conflict, while centralists believe it fuels separatism and weakens the state. The choice between these systems has a direct impact on governance and stability in Ethiopia.
Reactions from Other Ethnic Groups (Amhara, Sidama, etc.)
The Amhara group has had strong reactions to recent power shifts in Ethiopia. The Amhara region is now experiencing conflict with the central government, especially as it tries to balance local autonomy and national integration (ACLED, Mar 2024). Some Amhara activists argue they are being sidelined in politics and security. They worry that ethnicity-based federalism leaves them vulnerable and complain about exclusion and even discrimination.
Sidama and other southern groups have also raised concerns. In the past, the Sidama people pushed hard for their own state within Ethiopia’s federation, sometimes threatening unilateral action to be recognized as a federal region. The demand for greater autonomy from Sidama was finally recognized with the creation of their own regional state, but their quest shows how tense ethnic politics remain for many groups in the country.
Other smaller ethnic groups watch these changes closely. They sometimes see opportunities to demand more rights, but also fear being overshadowed by bigger regions like Oromia or Amhara. The perception of unfair treatment or exclusion increases distrust, which in turn fuels more demands for decentralization.
Fragmentation Risks and Threats to National Unity
Fragmentation risks and threats to national unity are growing in Ethiopia. Recent events show deepening divides between regions, especially after the Tigray conflict and ongoing disputes in Amhara and Oromia. Analysts warn that the country faces a real danger of breaking apart if ethnic competition and mistrust continue (Tandfonline, Jul 2024).
Conflicts and the politicization of ethnicity have made many groups feel unsafe. They fear that the government, whether centralized or federal, does not protect their interests. This sense of insecurity can lead to calls for separation, more local militias, or even declarations of independence by regions. The rise of regional armed groups and the demand for new regional states are clear symptoms of this threat.
Public discussions and political speeches often reference “national unity,” but growing violence and distrust show that unity is under real pressure. Ethiopia’s political elites are blamed for not building inclusive systems. If the current path continues, the risks of disintegration and fragmentation will only get stronger, threatening not just the government, but the country itself.
Regional and International Reactions
Role of Neighboring Countries and Regional Players
Role of neighboring countries and regional players in Ethiopia’s ethnic dynamics has greatly influenced the course of events. Countries like Eritrea, Sudan, and Somalia have played very different roles during Ethiopia’s political crises. Eritrea, for example, was a strong ally of Abiy Ahmed’s government during the Tigray conflict, contributing troops and resources. This cooperation alarmed many observers, as it intensified the conflict and increased the suffering of civilians.
Meanwhile, Sudan has often had tense relations with Ethiopia, especially over border disputes near the Tigray region. The tension sometimes escalates as thousands of Tigrayan refugees flee into Sudan, posing humanitarian challenges. The African Union (AU), based in Addis Ababa, has repeatedly tried to mediate, but its influence is sometimes limited due to member states’ differing interests.
Regional organizations like the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) have pushed for stability and peace, but divisions among regional players make a united approach difficult. The overlapping concerns of these countries often lead to mixed signals and unequal pressure on Ethiopia’s government.
International Organizations and Human Rights Concerns
International organizations have raised serious concerns about human rights abuses in Ethiopia since the rise in ethnic exclusion and the Tigray conflict. Groups such as the United Nations (UN), Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International have published multiple reports documenting alleged war crimes, ethnic profiling, and restricted humanitarian access.
The United Nations Security Council has debated the crisis several times, although disagreements among permanent members sometimes weaken the impact of their statements. The European Union (EU) and the United States have imposed targeted sanctions and demanded unhindered humanitarian access to affected regions, especially Tigray.
Furthermore, human rights advocates continue to urge the Ethiopian government to allow independent investigations and ensure accountability for reported atrocities. The ongoing violence and displacement of civilians have forced global organizations to maintain pressure on Ethiopia to respect minority rights and address ethnic tensions.
Global Calls for Dialogue and Inclusive Governance
Global calls for dialogue and inclusive governance have grown louder as Ethiopia’s ethnic and political conflicts have escalated. Experts and world leaders stress that a lasting solution can only come through negotiation, inclusivity, and respect for all ethnic groups.
Countries such as the United States, Germany, and the UK have issued joint statements urging Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration to engage with opposition groups, including Tigrayan leaders. The African Union and United Nations have offered to facilitate peace talks and promoted national dialogue forums open to all stakeholders.
International mediation efforts highlight the need for power-sharing frameworks and constitutional reforms, warning that ignoring ethnic grievances could threaten Ethiopia’s stability and security. The main message from the global community is clear: only by including all parties in the political process can Ethiopia move toward peace and development.
Comparisons with Previous Episodes in Ethiopian History
Comparisons with previous episodes of ethnic exclusion in Ethiopian history show that exclusion is not a new phenomenon in the country. During the reigns of Haile Selassie and Mengistu Haile Mariam, many groups such as the Harari, Afar, Oromo, Tigrayans, Eritreans, and Somalis often felt marginalized and faced different forms of discrimination. Social stratification in Ethiopia has deep historical roots. It was often caused by ethnicity, religion, and who held state power. For example, Amhara elites held dominant positions for decades, and Tigrayans later gained dominance after 1991.
Throughout Ethiopia’s history, whenever one group gained central control, other ethnic groups felt excluded. This led to grievances and, over time, to conflict and even violent resistance. The rise and fall of various ethnic elites, including the recent exclusion of Tigrayans, mirror these old patterns. History shows that such cycles of exclusion continue unless deliberate efforts promote inclusion, as highlighted by political analysts and research.
Effects on Democratic Progress and Political Institutions
Effects of ethnic exclusion on democracy and political institutions in Ethiopia have been profound. Exclusion of large groups undermines the sense of national unity. When some ethnic groups are pushed out of power, they may never see the government as “theirs”. This weakens the idea of citizenship and makes people focus more on ethnic identity. Critics argue that ethnic exclusion has fueled separatism, distrust, and violence. It can also damage efforts to create strong, stable democratic institutions.
Institutions built to serve only one group are less likely to gain public trust. As a result, hopes for a robust democracy decrease. When citizens feel the odds are stacked against them because of their ethnicity, faith in peaceful political participation drops, while fear and suspicion rise. Repeated exclusion leads to clashes over representation, rights, and state resources. It slows down or reverses democratic progress and stifles the development of truly inclusive political parties and a civil service open to all.
Pathways for Reconciliation and Inclusive Power Sharing
Pathways for reconciliation and inclusive power sharing have become urgent topics in Ethiopia today. Experts and recent articles recommend broad, honest national dialogues that include political leaders, civil society, and grassroots communities. Building trust will require acknowledging past injustices, addressing grievances, and ensuring fair access to political power.
Recent calls in Ethiopia stress the need for transitional justice, truth commissions, and policies that guarantee representation for all ethnic groups. Practical steps might also include power-sharing agreements, rotating leadership roles, and reforms in the security sector to reflect the country’s diversity. National dialogue, when genuinely inclusive, helps rebuild relationships and offers hope for a stable future.
Efforts towards reconciliation must also address underlying economic and social gaps. Sharing resources equally, protecting minority rights, and using local languages in government foster inclusion. Ethiopia’s stability and democratic future depend on moving away from zero-sum politics and toward a system where all communities feel they belong and have a stake in the country’s success.