By Worku Aberra
(For the convenience of readers, the article is presented in installments)
Jawar Mohammed asserts that he has chosen to break his silence and re-enter the political arena out of a sense of duty to prevent the Ethiopian state from collapsing. His detractors, however, contend that he is exploiting the political crisis to advance his personal ambitions. They accuse him of engaging in political merchandizing.
This criticism overlooks a fundamental aspect of politics: its intrinsic connection to opportunity. Politicians respond to crises. Unsurprisingly, Jawar the politician would capitalize on crises. As an American politician once observed, crises present opportunities that should not be squandered. A sanguine interpretation of his motive suggests that Jawar is neither the first nor the last to seize a political crisis while advancing legitimate personal ambitions that are consistent with shared goats. His behavior reflects the essence of politics itself. The point is not to state the obvious but to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to restrain his ambitions, if they turn undemocratic.
A distinction between opportunity and opportunism is needed. Opportunity in politics refers to using circumstances constructively to achieve broader goals, while opportunism involves exploiting those circumstances for selfish gains through unethical means. Whether Jawar is taking advantage of the opportunity created by the political crisis for advancing the common good or pursuing nefarious personal gains is an empirical question that can only be resolved once the outcomes of his actions are evident. It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions in advance, even if doubts persist.
Political crises create opportunities for politicians, but there is no guarantee that their intentions will be realized. It is possible that he may not emerge as the leader, assuming that is his goal, during the transition phase or afterward. In periods of political crises, leadership often arises from unexpected quarters. Jawar’s advocacy for unity may in fact pave the way for another individual to take on a pivotal role. In politics, outcomes can never be guaranteed in advance.
The Government’s Imminent Collapse
The regime’s days appear numbered. While it is difficult to predict how long Abiy Ahmed will remain in power, the signs of impending collapse are clear, driven largely by his own ineptitude. Abiy Ahmed’s government, perhaps the most incompetent in Ethiopia’s modern history, has exacerbated the structural problems confronting the Ethiopian people.
Instead of addressing pressing problems facing the country—high unemployment, rampant inflation, rising poverty, growing income inequality, and others—Abiy Ahmed has been fixated, almost childlike, on superficial projects—fountains, resorts, and parks—projects that dazzle but fail to provide relief to citizens.
His obsession with appearances over substance characterizes his leadership. Resources are directed toward grandiose ventures, including the construction of an extravagant palace, with little economic benefit to the population. Vanity-obsessed leadership emphasizes optics over substance.
The structural adjustment policies imposed by the IMF have wreaked economic havoc in Ethiopia. Abiy Ahmed’s reliance on the military to suppress democratic political demands has alienated large segments of the population. He has failed to achieve a military victory over the armed resistance in the Amhara and Oromo regions. Peace and security are virtually absent in Ethiopia. Kidnappings for ransom, often conducted with the complicity of government officials, have become a grim feature of everyday life in Ethiopia. A state exhibiting these traits can only be characterized as a failed state.
Compounding the crisis, the ruling elite lacks internal cohesion. Trust, confidence, and solidarity are absent among its members. The autocrat neither trusts nor respects his ministers, who reciprocate with distrust and resentment. This cycle of mutual suspicion, contempt, and disdain underpins the regime’s internal dynamics.
Abiy’s frequent reshuffles his ministers because he has no confidence in them. Over seven years, many individuals have rotated through five or six ministerial positions; the reshuffling has diminished institutional efficiency, memory, and continuity. The military, exhausted of supporting an unpopular regime, may ultimately withdraw its backing. Such a fragmented government is unlikely to endure for long.
The ruling elite, united by its thirst for power but divided by its conflicting ideological commitments, is highly fractured. His cabinet, like the rest of the Ethiopian society, is fragmented along ethnic lines. Some officials show covert sympathy for the armed resistance in the Amhara and Oromo regions. His officials leak sensitive information to various YouTube channels opposing the administration. This dysfunctional government faces the constant risk of collapse.
If the regime is too weak to endure, the opposition is equally too weak to replace it. The regime has imprisoned, exiled, and even killed its adversaries. Several opposition leaders have also been co-opted to join the authoritarian regime. The Abiy government is a clientelist government. Jawar is accused of exploiting the political vacuum created by a coopted, fragmented, and weakened opposition to further his ambitions. As previously noted, he is a politician, and while caution is necessary, outright dismissal is unwarranted.
Jawar’s opponents, especially advocates of national unity, seem to underestimate his political power. To be sure, some Oromo nationalists see him as a traitor, as someone who abandoned Oromo nationalism because of his advocacy for national unity, but he still enjoys substantial support among Oromo youth. He also commands national attention. The debates sparked by his interviews indicate the extent of his influence.
The Rise of Ethnic Nationalism
Jawar calls for a peaceful struggle against the regime, though he admits that the restricted political space imposed by the government has fueled armed resistance. Armed conflict in Oromia and the Amhara regions has further weakened the government, but neither side seems poised for a decisive military victory.
The most plausible path to change involves the defection of security forces from the regime, a scenario Jawar considers realistic. If this occurs, negotiations between opposition forces and the security apparatus would become essential. Jawar hints that his connections with government officials position him well to facilitate dialogue between the two sides.
Ethnic politics, combined with the policies of the Abiy government, have intensified ethnic nationalism in Ethiopia. Amhara nationalism has risen because of the measures implemented by the Abiy government against the Amhara people. It has been further reinforced by the armed resistance of Fano. As a result, Amhara nationalism has emerged as a potent political force that cannot be ignored.
Oromo nationalism appears dormant at present, but the government’s repression, indiscriminate violence against civilians, and the rising cost of living could quickly spark its revival. Comparable circumstances prevail among other ethnic groups in Ethiopia.
Jawar believes he is well-positioned to channel Oromo nationalism in a constructive direction. He has also welcomed the tendency among some Amhara individuals to shift their focus from Ethiopian unity to embrace ethnic nationalism, although it is unclear how the evolution is consistent with his all-inclusive approach to the Ethiopia’s political problems. Amhara and Oromo nationalisms, representing the two largest ethnic groups in the country, require careful management. Mishandling them could escalate tensions, deepen divisions, and spark conflict, even civil war.
If approached delicately, the elites of these two predominant ethnic groups could collaborate to bring about democratic change in Ethiopia. He has expressed his willingness to engage in ethnic political bargaining that could bring about democratic change in Ethiopia
Although we cannot rule out political entrepreneurship, leaders are indispensable, more so for political change. They provide vision, structure, and energy to propel collective action. History shows that transformative political change rarely occurs without leaders who articulate goals, inspire unity, and overcome obstacles. Leaders consolidate fragmented efforts and turn abstract ideals into practical strategies. They also sustain morale and focus.
The relationship between shared political goals and individual political ambition is complex. Legitimate political ambition acts as a driving force for leaders seeking to reform political systems. It provides the motivation, determination, and resilience needed to confront the obstacles inherent in such struggles, but the same ambition can blur the distinction between personal aspirations and collective goals, potentially reinforcing authoritarian tendencies.
Legitimate ambition can be a positive force when it motivates leaders to pursue reforms that benefit society, but safeguards must be in place to prevent the centralization of power. Jawar, like all aspiring leaders of change, warrants careful evaluation to determine his suitability for leadership through a democratic process. Democratic guardrails are required to prevent the rise of authoritarianism.
