July 11, 2025
The Habesha
Meles Zenawi and Lencho Leta played significant roles in shaping Ethiopia’s ethnic-based borders, forever altering the nation’s political landscape. As the architect of the ethnic federalism system, Zenawi aimed to grant greater autonomy to Ethiopia’s diverse ethnic groups and address age-old grievances. Yet, his methods and actions have sparked heated debates among Ethiopians, with some believing he harbored negative sentiments towards the Amhara people. Meanwhile, the TPLF’s prominence in Ethiopian politics, once a dominant force within the ruling coalition, has faced both praise and scrutiny. As if the saga couldn’t get more complex, enter the Oromia Prosperity Party (OPP). Part of the current ruling Prosperity Party, the OPP has been accused of using Oromummaa, an identity-based approach, for political leverage, according to Setit. Does this sound like a political maze? It sure is! Stick with us as we unravel these powerful political dynamics in Ethiopia’s vibrant and ever-evolving history.
Influence of Meles Zenawi and Lencho Leta on Ethnic Borders
Role of Meles Zenawi in Shaping Ethiopia’s Ethnic Federalism
Implementation of Ethnic Federalism
Meles Zenawi’s role in the establishment of Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism was pivotal. As the Prime Minister, he orchestrated the division of Ethiopia into ethnically defined regions. This system of ethnic federalism was designed to offer ethnic groups greater self-determination, allowing each to manage its own administrative matters. The regions, known as kilils, provided autonomy in terms of language and school curricula, aiming to address historical grievances and foster peace among diverse groups. However, this approach has not only transformed the political landscape but also brought to light the complex nature of ethnicity in governance.
Objectives Behind the Ethnic-Based Border System
The objectives of Meles Zenawi’s ethnic-based border system were rooted in the intention to enhance governance and equity among Ethiopia’s diverse populations. The federal framework was designed to empower marginalized ethnic groups by granting them political representation and cultural recognition. By fostering autonomy, the system sought to reduce ethnic tensions and centralize power within regional administrations. Yet, this initiative was not without its challenges, as it also inadvertently exacerbated ethnic divides and competition for resources. Critics have argued that while the borders aimed to promote unity, they often led to rivalries and disputes over territory and identity.
Lencho Leta’s Contribution to Ethnic Boundaries
Influence on Political and Ethnic Dynamics
Lencho Leta, renowned for his influence on Ethiopia’s ethnic boundaries, played a significant role in shaping the political and ethnic dynamics of the country. As an advocate for the Oromo people’s rights, his efforts were crucial in the foundation of ethnic federalism as a mechanism for political empowerment. He believed that recognizing and addressing the unique needs of each ethnic group would contribute to national stability. Leta’s influence extended beyond administrative decisions; it inspired debates on national identity and encouraged discussions on Ethio-centric versus ethnic identity politics. His views have been both celebrated for promoting inclusivity and critiqued for deepening ethnic divisions.
Leta’s Perspective on Ethnic Federalism
Leta’s perspective on ethnic federalism was that it was not merely a political structure but a necessity for sustainable peace and development. He championed the idea that ethnic federalism could rectify historical injustices by decentralizing power and allowing diverse groups to govern themselves. This visionary approach aimed to prevent dominance by a single ethnic group and intended to foster an environment where all could coexist harmoniously. However, some argued that this vision did not account for the potential for regional isolation or a lack of cohesive national identity, sparking ongoing debates about the merits of such a system in practice.
Controversies Surrounding Ethnic-Based Border Creation
Claims of Negative Sentiments Towards Amhara People
Claims of negative sentiments towards the Amhara people have been a contentious aspect of Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism. Allegations suggest that the implementation of this system led to marginalization and discrimination against the Amhara, fueled by historical grievances from other ethnic groups. Critics argue that policies enacted under Meles Zenawi and supported by individuals like Lencho Leta favored certain groups while undermining others. The perception of bias and inequality became a rallying cry for those who opposed the system, leading to heightened ethnic tensions and conflicts over perceived injustices.
Debates on the Impact of Ethnic Boundaries
Debates on the impact of ethnic boundaries in Ethiopia continue to divide scholars, politicians, and citizens alike. Proponents of the system highlight its role in empowering marginalized groups and enhancing cultural representation. However, detractors point to the challenges it presents, such as regional conflicts, ethnic clashes, and the perpetuation of division instead of unity. These boundaries, while intended to be empowering, have often been accused of fostering separatism and complicating efforts towards national integration. The discussion on the lasting effects of these boundaries remains a critical and ever-evolving part of Ethiopia’s socio-political discourse.
Criticisms of TPLF and Oromia Prosperity Party
TPLF’s Legacy and Its Critics
Dominance in the Ruling Coalition
The TPLF (Tigray People’s Liberation Front) played a significant role in Ethiopia’s political landscape through its dominance in the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which held power from 1991 to 2018. As a leading force in this coalition, the TPLF wielded a considerable amount of influence over government decisions and policies. The coalition initially aimed to stabilize the country after years of oppressive rule under the Derg regime and was successful in bringing about economic reforms that spurred growth and development across Ethiopia. However, the TPLF’s prolonged hold on political power did not come without criticism.
The ascent of the TPLF within the ruling coalition often drew ire from various Ethiopian ethnic groups, particularly due to the perception that it prioritized Tigrayan interests above those of other ethnicities. This inclination towards regional favoritism created enduring tensions, as many Ethiopians felt alienated or underrepresented within their own country. Such sentiments were further exacerbated by the disproportionate allocation of political and military positions to Tigrayans, intensifying the overall sense of frustration within different ethnic communities.
Allegations of Authoritarian Tendencies
The authoritarian nature of the TPLF’s rule became a focal point of criticism during its time in power. The organization was frequently accused of employing repressive measures to maintain control, including the suppression of political dissidents, censorship of the media, and imprisonment of opposition figures. Human rights organizations consistently reported on violations committed under TPLF rule, highlighting issues such as arbitrary detention, forceful quelling of protests, and the heavy-handed use of state security forces to stifle dissent.
Furthermore, the centralized control exerted by the TPLF was often seen as stifling Ethiopia’s democratic progress. Critics argued that the lack of political openness and genuine democratic processes only led to further marginalization of non-Tigrayan ethnic groups and sowed seeds of distrust among the broader population. Consequently, the TPLF faced growing internal and external pressures, which ultimately contributed to its loss of power in 2018 after a wave of widespread protests urged for change.
Oromia Prosperity Party and Its Role
Accusations of Ethnic Favoritism
The Oromia Prosperity Party (OPP), a central part of the ruling Prosperity Party, has been criticized for its alleged practice of ethnic favoritism. Many skeptics argue that the OPP has leveraged Oromummaa, or Oromo nationalism, as a political tool to consolidate power and elevate the status of the Oromo population at the expense of other ethnic groups like the Amhara and Tigrayans. Such allegations often highlight a preference for Oromo individuals within government appointments and resource allocation, echoing previous criticisms leveled at the TPLF for Tigrayan favoritism.
While the OPP insists that its policies aim to create unity and equality amongst Ethiopians, apprehensions persist about the party’s genuine commitment to a pan-Ethiopian identity. Concerns about preferential treatment fuel ethnic tensions, challenging the OPP’s declared goal of fostering inclusivity and undercutting confidence in its leadership.
Alleged Human Rights Abuses
Critics have also accused the Oromia Prosperity Party of human rights abuses, particularly in the region of Oromia. Allegations include violent crackdowns against peaceful protesters, targeted attacks on minority communities, and a general lack of accountability for state security forces involved in such practices. Reports of Amhara civilian attacks and the consequent displacement of thousands have marred the party’s rule.
Accounts of arbitrary arrests and media suppression further compound negative perceptions of the OPP’s governance style. Human rights organizations have spotlighted these issues, urging for greater transparency and a focus on protecting citizens’ rights across all ethnic groups. Despite these calls, the OPP’s ability to implement reforms remains under scrutiny, with many questioning whether substantive changes will materialize in the near future.
Overall Impact and Critique
Comparative Analysis with Previous Governments
Comparing the Prosperity Party’s governance with its predecessor, the EPRDF led by the TPLF, provides insight into shifts in Ethiopia’s political dynamics. While both regimes have received criticism for ethnic favoritism and allegations of human rights abuses, the Prosperity Party’s broader-based attempts to transcend ethnic politics represent a notable departure from the EPRDF’s ethnocentric approach. However, the effectiveness of these efforts remains a topic of contention, as ethnic conflicts and regional disparities remain unresolved.
The Prosperity Party, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, aspires to create a more unified national identity. Nonetheless, the challenges experienced by the Oromia Prosperity Party highlight the complexities and deep-rooted issues needing resolution within Ethiopian society.
Public Perception and Political Dynamics
Public perception of the TPLF and OPP continues to largely depend on ethnic and regional affiliations, complicating efforts to achieve nationwide consensus. Those marginalized under the TPLF may view the Prosperity Party as a significant improvement, yet others express skepticism over the current administration’s motivations and policies.
Political dynamics within Ethiopia are consistently shaped by historical contexts, ethnic identities, and personal experiences, contributing to a highly polarized landscape. Understanding these multifaceted narratives is crucial for evaluating Ethiopia’s progress and paving the way for stable governance that ensures equitable representation for all ethnic communities.
Meles Zenawi’s Perceived Hostility Towards Ethiopia
Critiques of Zenawi’s Policies
Accusations of Dividing the Population
Accusations of Dividing the Population are often placed at the forefront of discussions regarding Meles Zenawi’s policies. Critics argue that the ethnic federalism system he implemented led to a fragmentation of Ethiopian society, fostering divisions among different ethnic groups. The creation of ethnic-based regions allegedly encouraged ethnic nationalism, which some see as a strategy that weakened national unity. This division is still a subject of bitter debate, with detractors attributing many of Ethiopia’s current socio-political issues to this policy choice.
Role in Shaping Ethnic Politics
Meles Zenawi’s Role in Shaping Ethnic Politics cannot be understated; he was a pivotal figure in embedding ethnic considerations into the political framework of Ethiopia. Under his leadership, ethnicity became a primary factor in the allocation of power and resources, fundamentally altering the political landscape. This move, praised by some for acknowledging the diversity and autonomy of ethnic groups, is simultaneously critiqued for prioritizing ethnic identity over national identity. The long-term impacts of this shift towards ethnic politics continue to influence Ethiopian governance and inter-ethnic relations today.
Counter-Narratives and Defenses
Acknowledging Historical Context
Acknowledging Historical Context is crucial in understanding the policies Meles Zenawi enacted. Proponents argue that the emphasis on ethnic federalism was a response to Ethiopia’s tumultuous history of ethnic oppression and marginalization. By creating a federal system based on ethnicity, Zenawi aimed to empower historically sidelined groups and promote equality. This perspective insists that without considering the deep-rooted inequalities and the historical oppression of various ethnic groups, one cannot fully comprehend the motives and the outcomes of Zenawi’s policies.
Perspectives on Ethnic Relations
In contemporary Perspectives on Ethnic Relations, it is suggested that Zenawi’s policies provided a framework for voicing minority concerns. While controversial, some defend the system, noting that it allowed for more open expression of ethnic identities, which in turn led to cultural recognition and political representation. This inclusion is viewed by some as a step towards reconciling ethnic divisions rather than a cause of them. However, critics continue to argue that these efforts fail to address deeper systemic issues and inadvertently fuel tensions.
Current Political Implications and Comparisons
Comparisons with Abiy Ahmed’s Government
Comparisons with Abiy Ahmed’s Government often emerge in discussions centering on Ethiopia’s political trajectory. Unlike Meles, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has advocated for a shift away from ethnic federalism towards a unified national identity. This transition strategy highlights contrasting governance philosophies: Zenawi’s emphasis on ethnic federalism versus Ahmed’s push for pan-Ethiopian unity. Observers track the unfolding dynamics carefully, as the efficacy of Abiy’s policies remains under scrutiny amidst Ethiopia’s ongoing political and ethnic challenges.
Impact on Federal and Regional Dynamics
The Impact on Federal and Regional Dynamics resulting from Zenawi’s tenure is profound and still relevant. His policies reshaped the political fabric, influencing federal and regional interactions. While the federal structure intended to empower regions and allow them autonomy, it simultaneously caused friction as ethnic tensions were heightened in regional jurisdictions. The legacy of these dynamics is seen today in the balance of power struggles, regional disputes, and the central government’s ongoing efforts to redefine Ethiopia’s political landscape post-Zenawi.
This article shows how Meles Zenawi and Lencho Leta changed Ethiopia’s politics by creating ethnic federalism. They said it would give more power to each group and fix old problems, but instead it made divisions worse—especially against the Amhara—and caused more conflict.
During Zenawi’s time, the EPRDF sparked some economic growth but ruled harshly, even while the country stayed mostly peaceful. Today, the Oromia Prosperity Party faces even bigger criticism—for not honoring the national flag, for pushing Amhara, Tigrayans, and others out of Addis Abeba, for favoring one group, for human‑rights abuses, and for the lack of peace across Ethiopia.
Lencho Bati, a former OLF leader and now an adviser to the Prime Monster, has admitted that Oromo elites spread false stories about the Amhara people just to grab power. Their aim wasn’t unity—it was to weaken the Amhara and tighten their own grip.
Even Prime Monster Abiy Ahmed accidentally exposed these lies. He once bragged, “Menelik is celebrated for leading 5 million people, while I lead 120 million.” That single line proves the old OLF claim—that Menelik killed 5 million people—couldn’t be true, because Ethiopia’s total population back then was only about 5 million. Put that beside Lencho’s confession, and it shows how dishonest both OPDO leaders and Abiy have been.
When Abiy started the war in Tigray, he never meant to wipe out his enemies completely. He wanted to weaken and control them, not destroy them—especially to keep a balance against the Amhara and Eritrea. But instead, he unintentionally created Fano—a force just as bold and determined. His so‑called victory simply traded one rival for another. That is why he suddenly switched course—abandoning the false narrative “Ethiopianism” and embracing Oromumma ideology.
To anyone still standing with the pathological liar and conflict manipulator boy king: ask yourself—how much more harm must happen before you stop excusing failure and start standing up for Ethiopia? Loyalty should never silence truth. The truth hammer is coming—and it won’t knock. It will break down the door.
Tearing others down may bring short‑term wins, but it is eating Ethiopia from the inside—spreading hate and mistrust, ripping the nation apart. Yet regular people—Amhara, Oromo, Tigray, and others—still share villages, markets, and churches in peace. If they didn’t, Ethiopia would already have broken apart under the Prime Monster’s divisive rule and the lies of selfish elites and fake intellectuals.
May God shine light on the “educated fools” from every group who help the Prime Monster split the country while 85 percent of Ethiopians—poor farmers, mothers brewing tela, everyday citizens—struggle just to live. These elites must be exposed and replaced by a united front of Amhara, Oromo, Tigray, and all Ethiopians who believe in peace, fairness, and a strong, united nation.