Meles Zenawi Legacy Why Ethnic Federalism Still Haunts Ethiopia

“#Tigray–#Tigrinya” history👇:

In the early ’90s, the #Ethiopian Government fell into the hands of fascist anti-#Ethiopian #Adwa terrorists known as the #TPLF. The #TPLF led by Meles Zenawi claimed that #Ethiopia was an artificial state which unfairly only benefitted the ethnic… pic.twitter.com/aBqwOibRlT

— Lij Biniyam 💚💛❤️ (@JegnaAnbessa) August 23, 2025

Looking for a clear, energetic guide to Meles Zenawi and his impact on Ethiopia? Many search how the TPLF-led government reshaped the state and why critics say it deepened divisions and limited freedoms.

In this article, we’ll unpack the big debates, including:

• Ethnic federalism and whether it fueled conflict or protected diversity.
• Authoritarianism and human rights abuses, especially after the disputed 2005 elections.
• Suppression of opposition through security and anti-terror laws.
• The Eritrean conflict, secession, and loss of seaport access.
• Alleged corruption and ethnic favoritism.

We’ll also map the ongoing legacy debate—stability and growth to some, repression and resentment to others—so you can judge the record of Meles Zenawi.

Historical Background of Ethiopian Governance

The Derg Era and Its Downfall

The Derg era is one of the most turbulent chapters in Ethiopian governance. The Derg, which means “committee” in Amharic, was a military junta that took power in 1974 by overthrowing Emperor Haile Selassie, ending centuries of monarchy. They quickly abolished the imperial system and declared Ethiopia a socialist state, influenced by Marxist-Leninist principles.

From the start, Derg leadership, especially under Mengistu Haile Mariam, ruled the country with an iron fist. The period became infamous for the Red Terror, a campaign of political repression and executions targeting opponents and suspected dissidents. State violence, mass arrests, forced relocations, and famine devastated millions of lives.

The Derg’s policies were unpopular, leading to multiple resistance movements across Ethiopia’s diverse regions. By the late 1980s, their grip on power was weakening due to military defeats, economic troubles, and international isolation. Finally, in May 1991, a rebel coalition called the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) captured Addis Ababa, forcing the Derg regime to collapse and ending the long civil war. This dramatic fall opened the way for a new era in Ethiopia’s governance.

Ascendance of the TPLF and Meles Zenawi

The rise of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) changed the landscape of Ethiopian politics forever. Starting as a small group in the 1970s, the TPLF grew into a powerful armed movement fighting for autonomy and change in the Tigray region. During the bloody struggles against the Derg, the TPLF built alliances with other opposition forces and became the core party in the EPRDF coalition.

A key figure in both the TPLF and the new government was Meles Zenawi. Emerging as the leader of the TPLF in the mid-1980s, Zenawi played a critical role in organizing the final push against the Derg. When the regime finally collapsed in 1991, Zenawi became the President of the new Transitional Government and later Ethiopia’s Prime Minister.

The TPLF’s success was not just military; it was political and strategic. Their vision was to create a more inclusive system after the abuses and centralization under the Derg. Under Zenawi’s leadership, the EPRDF government began to redesign Ethiopia’s entire political structure and identity, aiming to address the historical grievances of various ethnic groups.

Shaping the New Ethiopian State

Shaping the new Ethiopian state after the Derg was a monumental task. The EPRDF and Meles Zenawi set out to rebuild a fractured nation. Their solution was ethnic federalism—a bold new idea in Africa at the time. The aim was to give different ethnic groups self-rule and a sense of ownership, hoping to reduce conflict and promote inclusion.

Ethiopia was reorganized into ethnically defined regional states, each with its own local government and authority. The new constitution, adopted in 1995, enshrined the right of nations, nationalities, and peoples to self-determination, even up to secession. This radical move shaped Ethiopian politics and administration for years to come.

The new state faced many growing pains. While ethnic federalism was supposed to bring peace and harmony, it also stirred up new tensions. Still, the transition under Zenawi and the TPLF marked a gigantic transformation in Ethiopian governance—moving from a centralized, repressive system to a federated, multi-ethnic model with complex promises and challenges.

Revolutionary Background and Rise to Power

Meles Zenawi’s revolutionary background shaped everything about his future leadership. Born in the Tigray region of Ethiopia, Meles dropped out of medical school in the mid-1970s to join a rising rebellion against the Derg, a brutal Marxist military regime that had overthrown Emperor Haile Selassie. Meles joined the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), quickly moving up the ranks thanks to his sharp intellect and strategic skills.

Meles was not just a fighter; he was a leader who rallied others around him, eventually becoming the TPLF’s chief political strategist. By 1991, after years of guerrilla warfare and shifting alliances, the TPLF-led coalition Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) toppled the Derg and took control of Addis Ababa. Meles, only in his thirties, became the transitional president and later the first prime minister of the new federal republic.

This background as a guerrilla leader fighting for the rights and recognition of Ethiopia’s diverse peoples deeply influenced his approach to governance, politics, and development.

Ideological Foundations: Ethiopianism vs. Ethnic Identity

Ideological foundations in Meles Zenawi’s vision were rooted in tension: balancing a unified “Ethiopianism” with the powerful push for ethnic identity. Meles recognized Ethiopia as incredibly diverse, with over 80 ethnic groups. He argued that earlier governments had promoted a forced unity that silenced these differences.

Meles’s solution was to embrace ethnic identity directly. He pioneered ethnic federalism, allowing regions to be organized by dominant ethnic groups, hoping this would stop old grievances and give all groups a voice. Many saw this as a way to address unfair treatment from past regimes, to fight inequality, and even to support cultural pride and language rights.

However, he did not throw out the idea of Ethiopian unity. Meles believed the state should support both unique group identities and a shared Ethiopian destiny—a tough balancing act. Critics claim this led to more division, but supporters argued it was the most realistic way to keep Ethiopia together while honoring its diversity.

The Promise and Problem of Developmentalism

The promise of developmentalism was at the heart of Meles Zenawi’s strategy. He believed Ethiopia needed to move past chaos and poverty by building a “developmental state,” where the government would drive fast economic growth, control key investments, and expand infrastructure. Under his rule, the state invested heavily in roads, schools, clinics, and mega-projects like the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

This approach brought impressive results: Ethiopia’s economy grew rapidly, millions were lifted out of poverty, and the country began to look like a “development success story” in Africa. Meles’s bold rejection of Western-style “free markets” in favor of strong state guidance earned him global attention.

However, the problem of developmentalism also became clear. State control sometimes meant limits on democracy and free speech. Rapid growth came with corruption, mismanagement, and growing inequality. Powerful state-led growth benefited some groups more than others, deepening feelings of unfairness.

In the end, Meles Zenawi’s vision was ambitious and complicated, seeking fast development but risking deeper divides—a legacy that still sparks debate in Ethiopia today.

Why Ethnic Federalism? Goals and Expectations

The implementation of ethnic federalism in Ethiopia was seen as a bold and unique move, mainly after the fall of the Derg regime in 1991. Ethnic federalism was chosen to address long-standing issues of ethnic inequality, marginalization, and centralization of power. The new system aimed to recognize and empower Ethiopia’s many nations, nationalities, and peoples by granting them greater self-administration. According to sources such as academic journals and the Ethiopian constitution itself, the main goals were to promote ethnic autonomy, preserve national unity, and prevent future conflicts by giving each group a stake in the state.

Many ethnic groups in Ethiopia saw self-rule as needed to redress historic injustices. By building a federal system where each major group had its own region, the government hoped to ensure equality, peace, and development across all communities. Another vital expectation was to create a sense of belonging and ownership among all ethnic groups, which had often felt excluded during previous centralized regimes. Ethiopia’s leaders believed this approach would help consolidate the nation-state, maintain stability, and foster development while respecting diversity.

Structure of the Federal System: Regional States and Kilils

Ethiopia’s federal system is structured around its ethnic and linguistic diversity. At present, there are twelve regional states (called “kilils” in Amharic) and two chartered cities—Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa. Each regional state (kilil) is based mainly on the dominant ethnic or linguistic group in that area, though some regions are still quite diverse internally.

Regional states have their own constitutions, governments, flags, and councils. They manage their own security, education, and health care, among other responsibilities. Each regional government is led by a president, elected by the state council. Kilils are an expression of self-government, acting as administrative and political homes to the major ethnic groups. These divisions are, in theory, designed to grant as much autonomy as possible while still keeping Ethiopia as a unified federal republic.

The central (federal) government is responsible for national defense, foreign relations, monetary policy, and other powers defined by the national constitution. This structure balances regional autonomy and federal oversight, but the practical implementation has proven complex and sometimes controversial.

Key Provisions in the Ethiopian Constitution (Article 39 and Secession Rights)

The Ethiopian Constitution, adopted in 1995, contains very special and controversial articles that form the legal backbone of ethnic federalism. One of the most famous is Article 39, which deals with the rights of nations, nationalities, and peoples.

• Article 39(1) grants every nation, nationality, and people in Ethiopia the unconditional right to self-determination, even up to secession from the federation.
• It also provides the right to develop their own culture, use their own language, and exercise self-government.
• There are detailed steps outlined for how a group could, in theory, conduct a referendum and choose independence.

This provision was intended as a safeguard against domination by one group and a way to ensure that all peoples felt secure within the Ethiopian state. The right to secession is almost unheard of in global constitutions and reflects the highly divided and sometimes tense nature of Ethiopian society at the time the constitution was written. Article 39 is praised by some as a civilized way to end disputes, but others see it as a threat to national unity.

In summary, ethnic federalism in Ethiopia was implemented to deal with deep divisions and foster fairness through autonomy, with the federal structure and the constitution—especially Article 39—providing the framework for this bold experiment.

Autonomy and Self-Administration for Ethnic Groups

Autonomy and self-administration for ethnic groups became a central element after Ethiopia adopted ethnic federalism in the early 1990s. The new federal system divided the country into regions mostly based on major ethnic groupings. Each regional state, also called a “kilil,” received powers to manage its own affairs. According to many studies, this system offered ethnic communities the constitutional ability to run local governance, create regional laws, and manage local resources.

The constitution even gave ethnic groups rights to language, culture, and self-rule, and (in theory) the right to secede. For marginalized groups, this was a dramatic shift. Previously, decision-making was heavily centralized, but now, local parties and councils gained more say at the regional level. For example, parties representing Oromos, Somalis, and Southern nationalities had their own regional administrators.

Of course, the early outcomes were mixed. While some groups felt genuine empowerment, others faced new local power struggles and inter-ethnic tensions. Still, for the first time in Ethiopian history, many ethnic groups saw their identities and voices reflected in official policy and government.

Language Rights, Education, and Cultural Policies

Language rights, education, and cultural policies transformed Ethiopian society after the new federal structure. Article 39 of the 1995 constitution protected every ethnic group’s right to use and develop its own language. This led to the introduction of mother tongue instruction throughout primary education. Instead of only Amharic, children in places like Oromia or Tigray could learn and be taught in their native languages.

Regional governments chose official working languages for administration, courts, and education. This change gave millions of Ethiopians the opportunity to read, write, and access government services in their first language for the very first time. It also encouraged ethnic literature, radio stations, and books.

These strong language and cultural rights were celebrated by many as a way to heal old wounds. Ethiopia’s diverse peoples could finally express their identities openly. But there were also practical challenges, such as shortages of curriculum materials and qualified teachers for all languages. And there was worry that such separation might weaken national unity or isolate children from each other. Still, the expansion of local language rights stands as one of ethnic federalism’s most visible early effects.

Transformation of Political and Administrative Landscape

Transformation of the political and administrative landscape in Ethiopia was dramatic under ethnic federalism. The constitution transformed a once-centralized nation into a federation of states, each with wide autonomy. The new regional map redrew old provinces along ethnic lines, giving birth to new regional parliaments, constitutions, and executive councils.

Politically, this meant the rise of many new local political parties and leaders, who could now represent their ethnic communities more directly. In many regions, these local elites gained significant power and influence—sometimes, for the first time. Local governments now handled budgets, policing, education, and much of day-to-day administration.

This transformation was not just political; it changed how people saw themselves as citizens. Many began to identify first with their region or ethnic group, rather than the old idea of Ethiopian nationality. While this helped communities reclaim lost pride, it also sometimes deepened divisions between regions.

Overall, the shift to ethnic federalism brought a major restructuring of how power, resources, and responsibilities were shared across the country. It empowered millions but also came with new challenges, as Ethiopia’s diverse groups learned to live—sometimes uneasily—within this new federal framework.

Institutionalizing Ethnic Identity and Rivalry

Institutionalizing ethnic identity has been one of the most deeply debated outcomes of Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism. By restructuring the country’s regions along ethnic lines, the system has made ethnicity the primary marker of political identity. Many experts argue that this legalization of ethnicity has increased ethnic consciousness and rivalry rather than promoting harmony. Instead of seeing themselves as Ethiopians first, many people identify with their ethnic region or group. Websites like Ethiopia Insight and Wilson Center highlight how ethnic federalism reinforces group boundaries, making ethnicity the main lens through which politics and society are viewed in Ethiopia. This division has weakened national unity and fueled political fragmentation.

Ethnic Tensions, Resource Competition, and Conflicts

Ethnic federalism in Ethiopia has contributed to intense ethnic tensions and competition for resources between different regional states. Since administrative boundaries often follow ethnic divisions, disputes over land, water, jobs, and political representation have become common. According to Accord and Modern Diplomacy, there has been an upsurge in ethnic conflicts—sometimes deadly—due to these rivalries. For example, the boundary between the Amhara and Tigray regions, as well as disputes between Oromia and Somali regions, have led to serious clashes. Local politicians and elites sometimes use ethnic federalism to mobilize support along ethnic lines, deepening mistrust and fueling struggles for power and control over resources.

Impact on Amhara, Oromo, Tigrayan, and Other Groups

Impact on the major groups—Amhara, Oromo, Tigrayan, and many others—has varied but remains profound. For the Oromo and Tigrayan groups, ethnic federalism provided formal recognition and self-government, which was seen positively at first. However, as documented by the International Crisis Group and The New York Times, some groups have felt excluded or threatened by the power of others, while minorities inside each region have faced marginalization. Tigray enjoyed political dominance for years under the TPLF, which led to resentment among the Amhara and other groups. The competition for land and administrative power sometimes results in displacement, violence, or calls for new regions based on ethnicity. Minority groups within regions, like the Sidama or the Wolaita, have demanded their own states, adding new layers of conflict.

Allegations of Discrimination and Favoritism

Allegations of discrimination and favoritism have been persistent under the ethnic federal system. Critics, including CyberEthiopia and Borkena, have noted that favoritism for the ruling group in any region can lead to exclusion of minorities and rising tensions. Political appointments, public sector jobs, and even access to development projects are often said to be distributed according to ethnic loyalty, not fairness. This “us vs. them” mentality causes individuals to hide or switch their identity to secure benefits or avoid exclusion, as highlighted in research from various academic and policy publications. Reports show that these patterns have led to real grievances and a sense of injustice among multiple groups, sometimes drawing comparisons to systems of segregation or apartheid.

In summary, ethnic federalism’s consequences and criticisms are closely linked: it shapes identity, stirs competition, drives conflict, and generates claims of discrimination, impacting nearly every aspect of Ethiopian society and politics.

Suppression of Opposition and Civil Liberties

Suppression of opposition and civil liberties was a defining feature of Ethiopian governance during Meles Zenawi’s rule and the dominance of the EPRDF. After coming to power in 1991, the government led by the TPLF and EPRDF limited political competition and marginalized rival groups. Reports from Human Rights Watch highlighted systematic efforts to weaken the opposition, including arrests, harassment, and intimidation. In the lead-up to elections and during mass protests, security forces used excessive force and detained activists and opposition leaders. Political opponents were often accused of terrorism or threats to national unity, with many held without trial. Civil liberties such as freedom of assembly and association were sharply restricted, shutting down meaningful public debate and protest. This highly controlled environment created a “managed democracy” where the government, rather than the people, shaped political outcomes.

Control Over Media and Dissent

Control over media and dissent became especially tight under the EPRDF and TPLF. The government regulated all major media outlets, making most newspapers, radio, and television either state-owned or closely monitored. Independent journalists faced severe restrictions, with defamation and anti-terrorism laws used as tools for silencing critical voices. Several prominent reporters were jailed, while many fled the country to avoid arrest. Online speech was also closely monitored. Laws targeting digital dissent, website blocks, and surveillance ensured that even social media became risky spaces for political discussion. Publicly funded media functioned mainly as the government’s mouthpiece, rarely offering criticism or opposing viewpoints. This level of control over the information space helped the EPRDF avoid scrutiny and maintain its authority.

Political Dominance of the EPRDF and TPLF

Political dominance of the EPRDF and TPLF was total for most of Ethiopia’s recent history. The EPRDF, a coalition of four regional parties led by the TPLF, ruled Ethiopia from 1991 until 2019. Although the front included seats for Amhara, Oromo, and Southern parties, the TPLF held the most power, especially in the federal government, the military, and the intelligence services. Opposition parties were allowed in theory, but in practice, the ruling coalition controlled national elections through state resources, intimidation, and manipulation of electoral commissions. In key votes, the EPRDF and its allies won overwhelming majorities, often leaving few or no opposition members in parliament. This dominance allowed the EPRDF and TPLF to shape policy, change constitutions, and govern largely unchecked, fueling accusations of authoritarian rule and sparking resentment among groups who felt shut out of the country’s political life.

These patterns of suppression, media control, and political dominance continue to influence Ethiopia’s stability and its ongoing struggles for genuine democracy and human rights.

The “Developmental State” Model

The “Developmental State” model was at the heart of the economic legacy of Meles Zenawi’s rule in Ethiopia. Under this model, the Ethiopian government played a central, active role in managing the economy instead of leaving growth to free market forces. Meles Zenawi believed Ethiopia needed strong state leadership to overcome poverty and a weak private sector. The government became the main investor and decision-maker, especially in the areas of infrastructure, education, and health.

Key components of the developmental state included large-scale public investment, strict state control over key assets like land, and the promotion of industries that could compete internationally. The state owned most large businesses and banks, and policies focused on long-term planning rather than quick profits. This approach set Ethiopia apart from many African countries that followed more Western-style liberal economic policies. Meles often defended this system as necessary for building a new Ethiopia, with aims to turn the country into a middle-income economy within a generation.

Growth and Poverty Reduction Achievements

Growth and poverty reduction were areas where the legacy of Meles Zenawi’s rule shines brightly. Under his leadership, Ethiopia recorded some of the fastest economic growth rates in Africa. GDP growth often hovered around 10% per year, a truly notable achievement for a country once known for famine and instability. This rapid growth led to visible changes: new roads, modern railways, schools, and health clinics appeared across the country.

Poverty rates also fell significantly. In 2000, more than half of Ethiopia’s population lived below the national poverty line. By the end of Meles’s era, this rate had dropped to about 39%. Life expectancy and access to services improved. Major efforts in rural development helped millions of smallholder farmers increase productivity. Meles Zenawi’s government also set an ambitious target for Ethiopia to become a lower middle-income nation by 2025, and progress made under his rule set a foundation for these dreams.

Still, the story had complexity. While growth was impressive, it was also deeply uneven. Urban centers and regions close to the core of government saw the most benefits, while remote and marginalized areas often lagged behind.

Corruption, Nepotism, and Public Discontent

Corruption, nepotism, and public discontent became dark shadows over the economic legacy of Zenawi’s rule. As the government grew bigger and economies boomed, so too did challenges with corruption and favoritism. Reports showed billions of Ethiopia’s resources were lost to corrupt practices. Nepotism (favoring friends and family for jobs and contracts) and inefficiency affected the civil service and state-linked businesses.

Public frustration grew, especially among those who felt excluded from the new prosperity. Inequalities in resource allocation and accusations of ethnic favoritism sometimes led to tension and protests. While the government claimed to fight corruption, critics argued that the ruling coalition (especially the TPLF wing) used its power to enrich its own members and allies. For many ordinary people, grinding poverty or seeing officials grow rich while they struggled sparked anger and resentment.

Despite the state’s efforts to present a clean, development-focused image, corruption and lack of accountability kept holding Ethiopia back from reaching its full potential.

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD)

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) stands as one of the boldest and most controversial projects started under Meles Zenawi. In 2011, Meles formally announced the beginning of construction on the GERD, an enormous hydroelectric dam on the Blue Nile River. For Ethiopia, this was a true symbol of national pride and a future built on self-reliance.

GERD promised to transform Ethiopia into a power hub, exporting electricity across Africa and lighting up villages across the nation. The project was funded mostly by Ethiopians themselves, who purchased bonds and made personal contributions. Meles called this project essential for lifting Ethiopia out of poverty and freeing the country from dependence on foreign aid.

But it also triggered fierce regional disputes, especially with Egypt and Sudan, who feared that the dam would reduce their share of Nile waters. Negotiations and diplomacy around the dam’s impact continue even years after Meles’s death. Even so, the GERD remains a lasting symbol of his development vision—bold, ambitious, and sometimes divisive.

In summary, the economic legacy of Meles Zenawi’s rule was one of great ambition, rapid change, and real progress, but also controversy and unfinished challenges.

Eritrea’s Secession: Causes and Outcomes

Eritrea’s secession from Ethiopia in 1993 was the result of a long struggle for self-determination and independence. Eritrean nationalists never accepted Ethiopia’s sovereignty over their region, which had once been an Italian colony before it was federated with Ethiopia by the United Nations in 1952. Over the next decade, the Ethiopian government dissolved Eritrea’s autonomy, which led to feelings of resentment and a powerful independence movement. The struggle for self-determination grew into a thirty-year civil war, with the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) eventually defeating Ethiopian forces.

The causes of secession were both historical and political, with roots in colonial legacies and the denial of local autonomy. After the fall of the Derg regime in Ethiopia, a UN-supervised referendum in 1993 saw the overwhelming majority of Eritreans vote for independence. The outcome was the internationally recognized birth of Eritrea as a sovereign nation. However, this peace was short-lived, as unresolved border and citizenship issues continued to strain relations between the two countries.

The Eritrean-Ethiopian War

The Eritrean-Ethiopian War broke out in May 1998 and lasted until June 2000. The conflict began as a border dispute, focusing on the small but symbolic town of Badme. Both countries claimed this territory, and what started as a skirmish quickly escalated into a full-scale war.

This war was devastating for both Eritrea and Ethiopia. Tens of thousands of people were killed, hundreds of thousands were displaced, and both economies suffered tremendous damage. The fighting included massive trench warfare, aerial bombardments, and disrupted daily life for civilians on both sides. After two years of conflict, a ceasefire was signed and followed by the Algiers Agreement in December 2000. International arbitration later awarded Badme to Eritrea, but Ethiopia resisted withdrawing from the town for many years, leaving the peace fragile and relations tense.

Loss of Access to Seaports and Strategic Challenges

The loss of access to seaports was one of the most significant and lasting consequences of Eritrea’s secession. Before Eritrea became independent, Ethiopia enjoyed direct access to the Red Sea through ports like Assab and Massawa. With Eritrea’s independence, Ethiopia became landlocked, losing not just its coastline but also vital trade routes for imports, exports, and fuel.

This turn of events brought severe strategic and economic challenges for Ethiopia. The country suddenly relied on Djibouti’s ports for nearly all its international trade, increasing transportation costs and making Ethiopia reliant on its neighbors’ political goodwill. Ethiopia has since struggled with geopolitical maneuvering to regain sea access, but diplomatic, legal, and even military efforts have yet to deliver a solution.

The loss of the seaports not only heightened Ethiopia’s economic vulnerability but also increased regional rivalries and tensions. It remains a sensitive issue in Ethiopian politics and a driving factor behind some of its foreign policy ambitions in the Horn of Africa. The challenge of being landlocked continues to shape Ethiopia’s economic decisions and strategic outlook in the region.

Abiy Ahmed’s Reforms and Pan-Ethiopian Identity Project

Abiy Ahmed’s reforms began in 2018 and quickly brought hope for a new era. Prime Minister Abiy released political prisoners and invited exiled opposition groups back to Ethiopia. These early moves won him praise at home and abroad. Abiy also started to unwind the long-standing ethnic federal model, aiming for a Pan-Ethiopian identity. He introduced the concept of “Medemer,” which means “synergy” or “coming together,” driving his vision of national unity over ethnic divisions.

His administration tried to centralize power and promote a common Ethiopian citizenship rather than focusing on ethnic identity. There was talk of creating a pan-Ethiopian democracy with institutions that would get past ethnic rivalries. Some saw these reforms as a way to heal the nation’s deep divisions. However, critics feared the new approach would erase local cultures or bring back old types of centralized authoritarianism. Ethno-nationalist groups, especially in regions like Tigray and Oromia, were skeptical or outright hostile to these changes.

The ambitious reforms led to pushback from various regional and ethnic groups, setting the stage for greater tension instead of lasting unity. The dream of a Pan-Ethiopian identity is still debated hotly in society and politics today.

Ongoing Ethnic Violence and Instability

Ongoing ethnic violence remains one of Ethiopia’s biggest challenges. Since 2018, Ethiopia has seen repeated and severe conflicts among its ethnic groups. Although the government signed peace deals—like the Pretoria Agreement in 2022 to end fighting in Tigray—instability, rights abuses, and violence did not disappear.

Most of the new violence has taken place in regions such as Amhara and Oromia. According to the UN and human rights organizations, these areas experienced frequent clashes between local armed groups and federal forces in 2023 and 2024. Amhara Fano militias resisted federal control, while Oromia saw ongoing fighting between government troops and the Oromo Liberation Army.

Many civilians have suffered during these conflicts, with reports of extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, and mass displacements. Victims say both the government and rebel groups committed grave human rights abuses. Ethiopia’s peripheral regions are also affected, with border disputes and local feuds fueling a constant cycle of violence.

Efforts by Abiy’s government to build unity have sometimes made the situation worse, as some ethnic groups view reforms as threats to their autonomy or security. As a result, Ethiopia continues to struggle with large-scale insecurity, making lasting peace a distant dream.

The Tigray Conflict and National Disintegration Threats

The Tigray conflict, which erupted in late 2020, was one of the deadliest and most destructive wars in modern Ethiopian history. Although the Pretoria peace deal formally ended the main fighting in November 2022, Tigray was left deeply scarred. The region’s capital, Mekelle, faced devastation and hardship, while federal forces regained formal control.

Even after the peace agreement, distrust and sporadic violence remained. The relationship between the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the federal government is still tense. Reports of continued abuse, slow recovery, and limited access for aid agencies make the humanitarian crisis in Tigray ongoing.

The impact of the Tigray conflict has not been limited to the north. It deepened Ethiopia’s fracture along ethnic lines, encouraging other groups to push for autonomy or resist federal authority. The war’s brutality and controversies over war crimes have polarized Ethiopian politics more than ever before.

Experts warn that, unless deep reforms are made and real reconciliation begins, Ethiopia faces a serious risk of national disintegration. Fears persist that more regions could seek independence, following Tigray’s example, or that violence will tip the fragile federation into full-scale civil war. The threat of national disintegration looms large, making the search for sustainable unity and peace urgent for all Ethiopians.

Perspectives of Supporters: Progress, Stability, and Modernization

Many Ethiopians and international observers view Meles Zenawi’s legacy in a positive light, especially when it comes to development and stability. Supporters highlight how Meles Zenawi focused on ambitious plans for modernization that pulled Ethiopia out of crippling poverty and backwardness left by the Derg regime. Under his leadership, Ethiopia made big strides in building infrastructure, expanding roads, railways, and energy like the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. According to articles from Pambazuka News and MISTT Innovation Hub, supporters credit him for creating Ethiopia’s “developmental state” model which prioritized economic growth and large public investments.

Supporters also point out that progress during Meles’s era included massive school construction, improved healthcare, and a bigger safety net for the poor. They believe that stability returned to Ethiopia after the chaos of the 1980s, with Meles restoring order and setting the country on a path to stability and prosperity, as noted by sites like Suffragio.org. For this group, his focus on transformation helped Ethiopia become one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. They argue that Meles Zenawi’s leadership gave Ethiopia a new national direction and increased its visibility in Africa and the world.

Perspectives of Critics: Division, Authoritarianism, and Repression

On the other hand, many critics view Meles Zenawi’s legacy as deeply problematic. According to sources including The Guardian and Zehabesha.com, one of the most common criticisms is that his rule was authoritarian, with widespread suppression of dissent, weakening of civil society, and limited room for political competition. Critics argue the government’s tight control over the media and opposition parties greatly limited freedom of expression and political pluralism.

Another sharp criticism is that division increased under Meles’s policy of ethnic federalism, which, critics claim, fragmented Ethiopian society and made ethnicity a central political fault line. Ethnic tensions and resource competition became widespread, with many believing the system fostered rivalry and mistrust between different groups. The Addis Standard notes his development approach, while effective in some ways, was also top-down and designed to keep power concentrated among a small elite. Human rights organizations and opposition voices repeatedly accused the regime of abuse, excessive police force, and stifling open debate. For these critics, Meles Zenawi’s legacy includes ongoing ethnic conflicts, heavy-handed governance, and missed opportunities for democratic reform.

Enduring Influence on Ethiopian Politics and Society

Whether admired or criticized, it is clear that Meles Zenawi’s influence continues to shape Ethiopia to this day. As highlighted by sources like the Addis Standard and Horn Review, many of the policies and institutions created under Meles remain central in today’s Ethiopian politics. The developmental state model he introduced still inspires economic decision-making. Ethiopia’s federal structure, with its complex balance of ethnic and central power, continues to provoke heated debates about unity and diversity.

Meles’s approach to foreign policy, especially his balancing act between national interests and international partnerships, is still considered a lesson by today’s leaders. His legacy lives on both in the physical infrastructure built under his watch and the ideology that guides political debates. Even under recent leaders like Abiy Ahmed, comparisons with Meles’s era, for better or worse, are always close at hand. Ethiopia’s ongoing struggles with ethnic tensions, centralization of power, and rapid modernization reflect issues that started or accelerated during Meles’s rule. In short, Meles Zenawi’s impact—good or bad—remains deeply woven into the story of modern Ethiopia.

Current Crisis and International Responses

The future of ethnic federalism in Ethiopia is deeply shaped by the current crisis gripping the country. Since the end of the Tigray conflict, violence has spread to other regions, especially Amhara and Oromia. Ethnic tensions remain high, and the rise of regional militias makes the central government’s control very weak. According to the 2024 BTI Transformation Index and Human Rights Watch, civil conflicts have reversed many economic and social gains. Civilians face killings, displacement, and human rights abuses, including reported cases of ethnic cleansing and sexual violence.

These ongoing crises have drawn strong international attention. The United Nations, United States, African Union, and European Union have called for peace, humanitarian access, and protection for minorities. Humanitarian agencies like UNHCR and IOM focus on urgent needs like food, relocations, and protection for those displaced by violence. However, international responses have been criticized for being slow or insufficient, and real solutions remain elusive as political instability and ethnic division continue.

Debates on Unity, Federalism, and National Identity

Debates on unity and federalism dominate Ethiopian politics in 2024 and 2025. The heart of the issue is the tug-of-war between two big ideas: preserving national unity versus embracing ethnic autonomy. Supporters of ethnic federalism argue it is the best way to celebrate Ethiopia’s many diverse peoples and give each group self-rule over their own affairs. They believe federalism can help ensure peace, justice, and representation in a land with more than 80 ethnicities.

However, critics say Ethiopian federalism causes more division than unity. Studies and opinions from sites like Scholasticahq.com and Tandfonline.com highlight concerns that the current system encourages exclusion and ethnic conflict, making it even harder for the country to come together. There is also a growing group calling for a shift toward a more centralized, civic-based system, which they hope would build a stronger national identity for all Ethiopians.

Meanwhile, the political divide remains sharp. Federalists fear domination by one group and loss of cultural rights. Unitarists worry that keeping ethnic regions powerful will always threaten national integrity. These fierce debates echo in parliament, on the streets, and even among Ethiopian communities abroad.

Prospects for Lasting Peace and Integration

Prospects for lasting peace and integration in Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism remain uncertain but not impossible. Many experts warn that, without deep reforms, the cycle of ethnic mistrust and violence could continue. Recent analysis from academic and policy sources stresses that peace efforts must go beyond just political deals between leaders. Grassroots reconciliation, genuine dialogue about power-sharing, and new social contracts are needed.

Some say that for true stability, Ethiopia might later need to rethink or even replace its ethnic federal model. Others still believe with adjustments and commitment to justice and equality, the current system could support unity in diversity.

For now, integration is a big challenge. Decades of ethnic-based politics have created suspicion and competition everywhere—from city hall to local schools. But there are also inspiring stories of citizens working together in joint projects, intermarriages, and youth organizations for peace. Many Ethiopians still dream of a country where everyone feels at home, no matter their language or village.

In summary, Ethiopia’s path forward is crowded with both risks and reasons to hope. Achieving lasting peace and integration will require patience, open minds, and brave leadership from all sides. Is unity possible in a federal, multi-ethnic Ethiopia? The answer depends on how Ethiopians write the next chapter—together.