After Abiy Ethiopia Election or Referendum What Comes Next

What will the transition after Abiy look like? Many ask whether Ethiopia should settle core questions by election or by referendum. The Ethiopian Constitution recognizes self-determination, yet practice and process matter: who votes, when, and under what rules? In a diverse federal system, clarity on ownership, inclusion, and mandate is critical to avoid confusion and conflict.

This article maps the opportunities and threats ahead, and sets a clear roadmap:

• Opportunities: institutional reset, inclusive dialogue, security reform, economic stabilization, and national unity.
• Threats: fragmentation, elite bargains without consent, legal vacuums, and renewed violence.

Key questions: Who is included in any referendum? What issues go to election? Which body runs the process, and on what timeline?

These choices will shape the transition after Abiy.

Historical Context and Recent Developments

Ethiopia’s political landscape after Abiy Ahmed is shaped by years of deep transitions and ongoing challenges. The rise of Abiy Ahmed in 2018 brought high hopes for peace, reforms, and democratization, but also unleashed new rivalries and old grievances. His early leadership saw the loosening of past restrictions, the release of political prisoners, and an opening up of the political environment. However, as time passed, tensions between federal and regional forces increased, as did ethnic-based violence and political disputes.

Since 2020, Ethiopia has experienced a brutal civil conflict in Tigray, violence in Amhara and Oromia, and a humanitarian crisis affecting millions. The peace deal signed in 2022 with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) stopped major fighting in the north but left deep scars and political mistrust. As of 2024, violence and security risks remain high, with ongoing clashes and popular dissatisfaction in multiple regions. The political mood is one of uncertainty, and many Ethiopians worry about the stability of both the government and the federation itself.

Federal Structure and Ethnic Dynamics

Ethiopia’s federal structure is unique in Africa because it is based mainly on ethnicity. The 1995 Constitution created regions largely along ethnic lines, granting each the right to self-governance and even secession. This ethnic federalism was designed to solve historic injustices and give all groups a sense of ownership in the country. However, in practice, it has often fueled rivalry between ethnic elites and led to competition for land, resources, and political power.

In recent years, the federal system has come under increasing stress. Major ethnic regions such as Oromia and Amhara have pushed for more autonomy, at times even resisting central authority. Factions within the Tigrayan, Oromo, and other groups have called for new arrangements, including more decentralized or even confederational models. Insurgencies in both Oromia and Amhara regions have challenged the federal government’s legitimacy and tested its ability to keep the country united.

Ethnic-based militias and shifting alliances keep the political atmosphere tense. Instead of healing divisions, the federal order now often seems to deepen them, complicating the path to a stable, inclusive national dialogue.

The Role of the Prosperity Party

The Prosperity Party (PP), established in late 2019, became the dominant actor in Ethiopia’s political life after replacing the old ruling coalition, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). Abiy Ahmed’s vision was to create a pan-Ethiopian party, moving beyond ethnic lines to foster national unity. The Prosperity Party absorbed several regional parties but notably excluded the TPLF, which deepened political divides and eventually led to the Tigray conflict.

Under Abiy’s leadership, the Prosperity Party centralized much power, but its attempts to manage Ethiopia’s ethnic diversity have been controversial. Critics accuse the party of concentrating authority in the hands of Abiy and his allies, limiting space for opposition and dissent. Despite ambitious economic plans and some achievements, the PP faces backlash from regional elites, youth movements, and civil society organizations.

Going forward, the party’s ability to adapt to Ethiopia’s complex social fabric and demands for reform will shape the country’s fate. Many Ethiopians are now debating whether the Prosperity Party can deliver on promises of unity and progress or whether new political solutions are required.

Types of Political Transitions in Ethiopia

Transition Through Agreement Among Elites

Transition through agreement among elites in Ethiopia usually means major political changes are handled by a small group of powerful leaders. These elites might be heads of political parties, military figures, or influential regional leaders. In many past cases, Ethiopia has seen changes shaped behind closed doors, with the public having limited involvement.

Such elite-driven transitions often aim for stability and smooth change. Leaders in Addis Ababa or regional capitals sit together to share power or set new rules. The fall of the Derg regime in 1991 and the creation of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front are clear examples. This method can avoid open conflict, but sometimes, ordinary people feel excluded, leading to problems later. There is often criticism that these types of transitions create fragile agreements that may not last if some groups feel left out.

Transition By Popular Consultation and Referendum

Transition by popular consultation and referendum means directly asking the people to choose the political direction. This process is more open and public, allowing many voices to be heard. Ethiopians have sometimes demanded a say on important matters, like local autonomy or future political structures.

Using a referendum can strengthen legitimacy because the decision comes from the population, not just leaders. However, organizing fair and peaceful referendums in Ethiopia is challenging. Local conflicts, logistical problems, or political mistrust can make it hard to ensure everyone’s voice is counted equally. But when done right, referendums can result in clear political solutions backed by the will of the people.

The Eritrea and Sidama Precedents

The Eritrea and Sidama precedents are important examples of transition by popular consultation and referendum in Ethiopia.

Eritrea’s independence came after a United Nations-supervised referendum in 1993. Overwhelmingly, Eritreans voted to break away from Ethiopia. This model became a major reference point for self-determination movements in the country.

Sidama’s bid for statehood followed a different but similar process. In 2019, the people of Sidama held a referendum to decide whether their zone should become a federal state. The vote passed, and Sidama became Ethiopia’s 10th federal state, showing that significant changes can be peacefully achieved through ballots rather than violence.

These precedents highlight both the opportunities and challenges with popular consultation in Ethiopia’s diverse context. They show it is possible to address deep-rooted questions of identity and autonomy through democratic means, but also reveal the potential for new demands and tensions elsewhere as other groups look to these examples.

The Constitutional Debate: Federation vs. Confederation

The constitutional debate between federation and confederation is central to Ethiopia’s ongoing political transition. Ethiopia’s current federal system is based on ethnic and regional divisions. Each state has its own government, with significant local powers. However, there is still strong central authority in Addis Ababa.

Some political groups and scholars argue that moving toward a confederation could offer more autonomy to the regions. A confederation would mean regions have even greater independence and may only join together for things like foreign affairs or defense. Supporters of this idea believe it could reduce tensions by giving each group more control over its own affairs.

Others worry that a confederal system might weaken national unity and encourage fragmentation. They argue that Ethiopia needs a strong federal government to tie diverse peoples together and manage nationwide issues.

This ongoing debate shows how the structure of the Ethiopian state remains a key question in the country’s political transition. The choice between federation and confederation will shape not only politics, but also the future of peace and unity in Ethiopia.

Distinguishing Election from Referendum in Ethiopia

Elections and referendums in Ethiopia have different meanings and roles in the country’s political landscape. Elections are used to select representatives for government offices. In Ethiopia, this happens at the federal, regional, and local levels. Citizens vote for their preferred candidates who then make policies and laws on their behalf. However, many studies and reports (Tandfonline, BTI 2024 Index) point out that Ethiopia’s elections have a history of controversy, such as issues with free and fair processes.

A referendum in Ethiopia is a direct vote by the people to decide on a specific issue, not to elect a leader. For example, referendums are often used to decide state boundaries, ethnic autonomy, or other big national questions (see the Sidama case). These votes reflect the will of the eligible population on a clear, single issue rather than choosing between candidates. Referendums rely more on public participation in decision-making, whereas elections rely on the ongoing accountability of elected politicians.

The debate between elections and referendums in Ethiopia continues to be important because referendums provide a direct “yes” or “no” answer to a problem, while elections are about picking who will represent people and solve broader issues over time.

Regional vs. National Decision-Making

Regional vs. national decision-making is a key debate in Ethiopia due to the federal system based on ethnic regions. Ethiopia’s federalism gives significant power to regions, letting them manage education, language, and local governance (as explained by Harvard researchers and The Conversation).

Regions in Ethiopia are built around ethnic identities. They have their own governments for local issues, but big decisions, especially those that affect the entire country—such as security, national budget, or border adjustments—often require national involvement. Sometimes, there is tension because the central government tries to control or limit how much power regions really have, especially in sensitive moments like referendums or times of unrest.

When it comes to referendums, the national government usually sets the framework but the vote typically happens within one region (like the Sidama referendum for statehood). However, issues such as interregional boundaries or questions affecting multiple regions can quickly become national matters, needing both levels of government to cooperate or negotiate.

Who Is Included in Referenda?

Who is included in referenda in Ethiopia is not always clear or simple. In most cases, all eligible adult residents of the geographical area affected by the referendum have the right to vote. For example, the Sidama statehood referendum allowed all adults in the Sidama Zone to vote, regardless of their ethnic identity or native language.

Ethiopian law says people have the right to be included, but there are sometimes challenges. Some voting requirements can unintentionally exclude minorities, for example through language issues or lack of access to registration. There have also been debates about whether people living in border areas—where two ethnic groups claim the same territory—should be included in one referendum or another.

Inclusivity is important to ensure the result of a referendum is accepted by all and does not lead to new conflicts. Reports from organizations like the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) highlight the need for fair lists, proper outreach, and protection for minorities and marginalized groups during referenda.

Challenges in Electoral Administration

Challenges in electoral administration in Ethiopia are a major concern, especially in the past few years. The National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) is responsible for organizing all elections and referendums, but it faces many practical obstacles:

• Security issues: Ongoing conflicts have disrupted voting in certain regions, making it unsafe for people to go to the polls and difficult for officials to set up polling stations.
• Logistical problems: Poor roads, lack of electricity, and limited technology make it hard to deliver materials and register voters on time, especially in rural areas.
• Delayed processes: Preparations have often fallen behind schedule. For example, in the 2021 elections, voting was delayed due to incomplete voter lists and delays in opening polling stations (see Al Jazeera and Chatham House).
• Political interference: Some parties or regional actors have attempted to influence the process, limiting fairness or preventing some groups from voting.

Other issues include lack of training for poll workers, low trust among the public, and debates about the independence of the NEBE (IFES, Freedom House Reports). Making sure everyone eligible is registered, that their votes are counted, and that disputes are handled fairly remains a huge challenge in Ethiopia’s emerging democracy.

Successful elections and referendums in Ethiopia require transparent rules, careful planning, and a commitment to include all citizens fairly—otherwise, the results can increase tensions or be seen as illegitimate.

Key Political Actors and Agendas

Elite Competition and Alliances

Elite competition in Ethiopia after Abiy Ahmed is marked by deep factionalism and frequent shifts in alliances. According to recent reports, Ethiopia’s political elite have not succeeded in building a shared vision for the country. Instead, various actors focus on advancing their own agendas, usually along ethnic or regional lines. This competition is not just about access to power but also about the future direction of the Ethiopian state. Regions, parties, and influential personalities negotiate, ally, and at times confront each other, which impacts national dialogue and prospects for peace. The growing political crisis has also pushed some elites to demand more decentralization, while others seek a return to a stronger central government. For Ethiopia to move forward, resolving these elite struggles and promoting broad-based dialogue are widely seen as essential.

Jawar Mohammed’s and Lidetu Ayalew’s Positions

Jawar Mohammed has become one of the most influential but controversial political figures in post-Abiy Ethiopia. His background as an Oromo activist and founder of the Oromia Media Network (OMN) gave him a powerful platform among youth, especially the Oromo Qeerroo movement. In 2024, Jawar shifted his stance from strict Oromo nationalism towards a more reconciliatory approach, advocating for “progressive patriotism” and broader civic nationalism. He emphasizes dialogue, recognizes Ethiopia’s risk of collapse, and pushes for constitutional reforms that bring competing groups together.

Lidetu Ayalew, a seasoned politician and founder of the Ethiopian Democratic Party, maintains a moderate reformist stance. In recent years, Lidetu has been active in promoting peaceful struggle, political dialogue, and unity—despite facing government bans and legal pressures. He is seen as a critic of both the current government and regional hardliners, calling instead for inclusive reform and the creation of a competitive multiparty system. However, his movements have been partially restricted by legal and political challenges, including a travel ban and property seizures.

The Influence of TPLF and Other Regional Forces

The Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) remains a key regional force, despite losing dominance over federal politics after 2018. After the Pretoria Agreement, TPLF influence in Tigray is marked by internal splits and leadership struggles. Tensions within the party risk destabilizing both Tigray and wider Ethiopian politics, especially as factions compete for control of local government and the party itself. Nationally, TPLF’s involvement is complicated by lack of formal recognition and ongoing disputes over boundaries and representation.

Other regional forces, including Amhara and Oromo groups, play similarly influential roles. Amhara elites tend to mobilize around defense of communal interests, while the Fano movement in Amhara and various organizations in Oromia advocate for regional autonomy and self-defense. These dynamics create a multi-polar system of regional competition, often leading to intermittent conflict and stalled reforms as each force seeks to assert its agenda at the national level.

The Role of Regional Elites and Youth Movements (e.g., Qeerroo)

Regional elites in Ethiopia shape much of the country’s political agenda. They represent the interests of regional administrative units and ethnic constituencies, and their cooperation or opposition can make or break national reforms. Elite alliances often shift with the changing security environment or pressures from their constituencies, and they frequently negotiate with federal actors as well as regional rivals.

The Qeerroo, Ethiopia’s Oromo youth movement, has proven to be a transformative force in recent years. Emerging from grassroots organizing, Qeerroo played a leading role in protests that toppled the pre-Abiy government and continue to demand authentic self-rule and fair federalism for their region. Their activism is rooted in calls for justice, economic opportunity, and respect for Oromo identity. The Qeerroo’s organizational tactics, use of social media, and ability to mobilize mass protests have set them apart from other youth groups in Ethiopia. Their alliance with political elites is sometimes uneasy, as they do not always follow established leaders and frequently express frustration with elite bargains that leave ordinary people out.

Together, regional elites and youth movements like Qeerroo are vital players in Ethiopia’s ongoing transition. They can help push for needed reforms, but their demands can also fuel tensions if not managed inclusively and constructively. Their actions and alliances will significantly shape the trajectory of Ethiopian politics in the years to come.

Prospects for Political Pluralism

Prospects for political pluralism in Ethiopia are currently mixed. After the dramatic changes of 2018, there was real hope that pluralism and democracy would take root. The major reform period created space for new voices and opposition parties, offering a window of opportunity for a more open and competitive political environment. Recent reports highlight efforts, such as the National Dialogue initiative, to address long-standing political crises and find a path toward national consensus.

However, these prospects are under threat. As covered in recent Ethiopia Insight analysis, pluralism still remains largely stifled by the government. Many opposition leaders face harassment, restrictive laws limit participation, and media outlets remain under pressure. Ethiopia’s political system still leans toward central control, with real risks that diversity of opinion and party competition could be suppressed if security concerns dominate political decisions. This ongoing tension between reform and control shapes current debates over Ethiopia’s democratic future.

Risks of Elite Bargains Versus Broad-Based Inclusion

Risks of elite bargains versus broad-based inclusion have become central to Ethiopia’s transition debate. An “elite bargain” is a power-sharing arrangement made among a few powerful leaders or parties, often sidelining the broader population. Ethiopian history shows that these elite deals can sometimes stabilize the country for the short term. But when the wider public and diverse communities are excluded, it can fuel frustration, deepen ethnic divides, and even spark violence.

2024 commentary in sources like The Habesha and the BTI Transformation Index highlight the dangers: elite-driven politics may ignore local grievances and disrupt trust in institutions. Experiences from national dialogues in Ethiopia and across the region underline that real peace and reform require broad input, not just decisions struck behind closed doors. The risk is that without true inclusion—from youth groups, women, minorities, and civil society—efforts to resolve Ethiopia’s many problems will not last. Only comprehensive inclusion can build lasting legitimacy and stability.

The Danger of Political Fragmentation and Violence

The danger of political fragmentation and violence is very real in today’s Ethiopia. According to recent reports by ACLED and Freedom House, internal conflict and political violence remain widespread, especially in regions like Tigray and Amhara. The continued presence of armed groups, ethnic militias, and persistent communal tensions threaten to break up the country’s fragile unity.

Fragmentation is not just ethnic but also political: alliances shift quickly, central authority is challenged, and local actors often pursue their own agendas. If national dialogue and reform fail to deliver tangible benefits or a sense of belonging, aggrieved groups may turn to violence as a means of expression or protection. From 2018 to 2024, observers have repeatedly noted cycles of unrest, with each round further eroding trust in the federal government and deepening local grievances. If left unchecked, this fragmentation could spiral into wider disorder or even state collapse.

The Impact of Humanitarian and Security Crises

The impact of humanitarian and security crises profoundly shapes Ethiopia’s transition. The country is facing multiple overlapping emergencies: millions displaced by fighting, severe food insecurity triggered by drought and climate shocks, and recurring outbreaks of disease. Humanitarian groups like OCHA and the IRC warn that more than 20 million people are in need of assistance, and the situation is worst in crisis-affected regions.

Security is also threatened by widespread conflict and the presence of armed groups. These crises make it extremely difficult for authorities to govern effectively or for reforms to take hold. Humanitarian emergencies stretch resources and limit the space for dialogue, while insecurity creates fear and hinders travel, commerce, and political meetings. If these crises continue, they will increase the risks of conflict, undermine public trust in any transition process, and slow any progress toward inclusive, peaceful governance.

Overall, Ethiopia’s transition stands at a crossroads where opportunities must be seized carefully and threats managed wisely if a peaceful and prosperous future is to be achieved.

The Need for National Dialogue and Consensus Building

The need for national dialogue in Ethiopia is crucial after years of political turmoil and conflict. National dialogue can help bring together different groups, including political parties, regional actors, ethnic representatives, and civil society. Many experts and local voices agree that consensus building is essential to address Ethiopia’s deep-rooted issues. Without honest conversations about power sharing, self-determination, and federalism, mistrust and grievances will likely continue.

National dialogue must be wide and inclusive. It is not enough for only the political elite or central authorities to make decisions. Traditional leaders, youth groups, and women’s organizations should have a seat at the table. Open discussions can help heal wounds from recent conflicts and provide a path for negotiating solutions to longstanding problems. By aiming for consensus, Ethiopia can avoid the cycle of confrontation and move toward peaceful reform.

Electoral Reform and Civic Engagement

Electoral reform is often discussed as a key element for sustainable stability in Ethiopia. Serious flaws in past elections, including issues of fairness, access, and trust in electoral bodies, have harmed public confidence. Reforming the electoral system to ensure transparency, true representation, and impartiality can help build legitimacy for future governments.

Encouraging civic engagement is also vital. When Ethiopians feel their vote counts and their voices matter, they are more likely to participate in peaceful political processes rather than resort to unrest. Civic education efforts can teach citizens about their rights and responsibilities and explain how different electoral systems work. This can lead to higher voter turnout and a better-informed public, both of which support a stronger democracy.

The Role of Civil Society Organizations

The role of civil society organizations (CSOs) in Ethiopia’s transition cannot be overstated. CSOs act as vital bridges between the government and the people. Their work includes advocacy, conflict resolution, human rights monitoring, and voter education. Recently, restrictions on civil society have loosened somewhat, allowing more independent organizations to operate and voice concerns.

Strengthening CSOs is essential for accountability. They can monitor government actions, report abuses, and advocate for marginalized groups. They also help organize community dialogues, mediate disputes, and offer support to victims of violence. By supporting civil society, Ethiopia can benefit from more voices holding leaders accountable and promoting peaceful change.

In summary, national dialogue, electoral reform, and an empowered civil society represent fundamental pillars for Ethiopia’s journey toward stability and reform. These steps can help the country overcome division and move toward peace and prosperity.

International and Regional Influences

Mediation Efforts and External Leverage

Mediation efforts and external leverage have played a significant role in Ethiopia’s recent political developments. Over the past few years, international actors such as the African Union (AU), United States, and European Union have tried to mediate Ethiopia’s conflicts, especially during the Tigray crisis. The AU led several attempts to bring the Ethiopian government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) to the negotiating table. These mediation efforts showed that Ethiopia’s internal issues have drawn global attention because they affect the wider Horn of Africa region.

Mediation efforts often involve pressure and incentives. For example, the United States used both diplomatic pressure and threats of sanctions to encourage a ceasefire and humanitarian access. The United Nations also urged all parties to allow aid into conflict-affected areas. Regional states, such as Kenya and Sudan, tried to help as mediators or hosts for talks. External leverage is therefore both political and economic, as countries and organizations can use aid, loans, or sanctions to influence Ethiopia’s decisions.

International actors encourage inclusive dialogue. They have called for all voices, from opposition parties to civil society, to be included in any political settlement. While Ethiopia’s leadership sometimes resists outside influence, fearing it might undermine sovereignty, there is still recognition that international support is necessary for long-term peace.

Lessons from the Pretoria Agreement and International Observation

Lessons from the Pretoria Agreement are crucial for understanding current and future peace processes in Ethiopia. Signed in November 2022, the Pretoria Agreement ended active hostilities between the Ethiopian government and the TPLF. The negotiations were facilitated by the African Union, with support from the US, the AU, and other observers. One key lesson is that successful mediation often requires trusted, neutral parties and strong backing from external actors.

Another important lesson from Pretoria is the value of verification and monitoring by international observers. The agreement included mechanisms for disarmament and humanitarian access, with third-party monitoring. This helped build trust between the parties. The presence of international observers not only increased transparency but also reassured local and global communities that commitments would be honored.

International observation in Ethiopia’s peace and electoral processes is seen as beneficial. Observers from the European Union and the African Union have attended elections and referendums to ensure credibility. However, sometimes they face challenges, such as restricted access to sensitive regions. Still, their involvement is important for building confidence in outcomes and encouraging reforms.

In summary, mediation efforts, external leverage, and lessons from the Pretoria Agreement show that regional and global support are essential for Ethiopia’s peace and stability. International actors play a key role in encouraging political dialogue, overseeing agreements, and promoting peaceful solutions.

Anticipated Scenarios for Ethiopia’s Future

Will Elections or Referendums Legitimize the Next Government?

Will elections or referendums legitimize the next government in Ethiopia? This question is very important for many Ethiopians who want stability. In Ethiopia’s recent history, some elections have been criticized because of irregularities or limited competition. The success of elections or referendums in building legitimacy depends on how transparent and inclusive the process is.

If Ethiopia can organize free and fair elections, and if all major political groups participate, the next government will have clear public support. However, many people are worried about security challenges and deep mistrust between different ethnic groups. In this context, a referendum—especially on key questions of autonomy or federal structure—might offer a clearer signal of public will. But, referendums can also be divisive if some groups feel excluded.

What matters most is people’s confidence in the process. If elections or referendums are organized well, and if the outcome is widely respected, they can help bring stability and legitimacy. But if not, the results could be contested, leading to more political chaos.

The Stakes for National Unity and Federalism

The stakes for national unity and federalism in Ethiopia are very high. Ethiopia is a diverse country with more than 80 ethnic groups. The current federal system was designed to give these groups a sense of autonomy. Yet, over the years, federalism has also brought tensions between the central government and the regions.

Right now, many Ethiopians fear that growing local demands for more power could threaten Ethiopia’s national unity. If regional states push for independence or if competition between regions increases, the country could face fragmentation or even civil conflict.

On the other hand, a strong commitment to federal principles might offer a way forward. Federalism, if respected and reformed, can keep the country together while letting different communities feel represented. But this demands careful negotiation, power sharing, and respect for the rights of all groups. National unity will depend on finding a balance between regional autonomy and a sense of common identity.

Possible Pathways for Peace and Political Settlement

Possible pathways for peace and political settlement in Ethiopia include national dialogue, power-sharing deals, and constitutional reforms. Many experts and citizens believe that a broad-based, inclusive dialogue is needed to address political grievances and ethnic tensions.

A meaningful national dialogue would involve all key groups: the ruling party, opposition leaders, youth movements, and marginalized regions. They need to discuss not only electoral reforms but also deep questions about identity, justice, and federalism.

Other pathways include forming a transitional government with shared power. Such arrangements can build trust among competing elites while preventing a power vacuum. Implementing serious constitutional reforms, especially about the distribution of powers, may also help.

Lastly, peace efforts must address causes of violence, including fair access to resources and justice for past abuses. When these steps are taken together, Ethiopia has a better chance to achieve stability and a peaceful political settlement. But every process must be open, transparent, and credible to build trust and lasting peace.