A Reflection on Prof. Messay Kebede’s and Amsal Woreta’s Divergent Diagnoses
Sirak Zena
July 7, 2025
Note on Balance and Scope:
The length of each section in this reflection corresponds to the relative depth and volume of the original essays, not to a judgment of their value. Professor Messay Kebede’s piece, being significantly longer and more expansive in scope, warranted a more extended engagement with its philosophical, psychological, and historical layers. Amsal Woreta’s essay, while more concise, is no less profound—it offers a structurally rigorous and conceptually necessary counterbalance that elevates the overall conversation. My reflection seeks to treat both authors with equal intellectual seriousness, honoring their distinct contributions to understanding the crisis of leadership and system in Ethiopia.
I. Introduction: Two Mirrors, One Crisis
This reflection examines two sharply argued yet philosophically distinct interpretations of Ethiopia’s current political crisis, as presented by Amsal Woreta in “Beyond Volte-Face…” and Prof. Messay Kebede in “Unraveling Abiy’s Relentless Volte-Faces.” Both authors confront the dramatic ideological shift—volte-face—of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, from heralded reformer to increasingly autocratic ruler. Yet they diverge profoundly in their explanation: Amsal foregrounds the structural pathologies of the Ethiopian state, while Prof. Messay centers on Abiy’s narcissistic lust for power and ideological fluidity. These perspectives are not contradictory, but rather dialectical—each is incomplete without the other. The goal of this reflection is to synthesize their insights while illuminating what both capture, miss, and imply for Ethiopia’s political future.
II. The Psychology of Power: Messay Kebede’s Interpretive Depth
Prof. Messay’s analysis presents a compelling examination of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s political trajectory, revealing a pattern of ideological inconsistency and self-serving manipulation that, although seemingly erratic, follows a clear authoritarian logic. What may appear to be inconsistent behavior is better understood through the lens of political instrumentalism, narcissistic authoritarianism, and a Machiavellian calculus devoid of philosophical literacy.
Abiy’s early embrace of Ethiopianism—unifying rhetoric, democratic gestures, prisoner releases, and a promise of post-ethnic politics—resonated deeply with a populace yearning for change. Yet, as Messay convincingly argues, these moves were not rooted in genuine ideological commitment but served as strategic tools for power consolidation. This instrumental use of ideology aligns with Niccolò Machiavelli’s principle that a ruler must often “appear” virtuous while being ready to abandon virtue when necessity demands it. However, unlike Machiavelli, who theorized this as a rational necessity for preserving state power, Abiy’s pattern suggests a Machiavellianism without theory—a crude, instinctual grasp of manipulation rather than a coherent doctrine of statecraft.
Abiy’s shift from Ethiopianism to his ethnic identity, followed by opportunistic alliances and ruptures (e.g., with Amhara forces, Oromo factions, and Eritrea), exposes a fundamental absence of ideological anchorage. What appears as ideological oscillation or fluidity of opinion is better interpreted as a politics of improvisation, governed not by a consistent worldview but by a narcissistic will to power. Here, Max Weber’s “charismatic authority” becomes relevant: Abiy constructs his legitimacy through symbolic gestures and moral grandstanding, presenting himself as a quasi-messianic figure. His reported affinity for prosperity theology feeds this mythos, reinforcing a divine self-image and diminishing his accountability to democratic norms or collective institutions.
This makes Abiy not merely an opportunist but a classic absolutist in the guise of a reformer. His behavior reflects a deep psychological tendency toward paranoia of dissent and intolerance of power-sharing, as seen in his alienation of both Amhara and Oromo allies. The inability to form stable coalitions is not just a political failure—it is indicative of a worldview in which power is zero-sum and loyalty must be monopolized. This corresponds with Hannah Arendt’s insight that totalitarians do not share power—they absorb it, even if it means destroying the very groups that empowered them.
The article skillfully refutes the notion that Abiy’s descent into authoritarianism is merely due to incompetence. While certainly unskilled in governance, Abiy has demonstrated cunning political instincts—outmaneuvering opponents, co-opting elites, and manipulating public symbols. These traits are characteristic of what political theorist Carl Schmitt might call decisionism: the idea that legitimacy flows not from democratic procedures but from the sovereign’s will to decide in times of crisis; the rule of a personal will. The volte-face—the dramatic change in direction—thus becomes possible and even necessary because the leader’s legitimacy and effectiveness are rooted in his capacity to make decisions that respond to necessity, rather than to ideals or consistency. Abiy has made decisions and manufactured such crises—war, economic precarity, territorial disputes—not to resolve them but to expand his executive authority under the guise of “saving Ethiopia.”
In the Ethiopian context, Abiy Ahmed’s instrumentalization of identity politics and ethnic conflict aligns with what Achille Mbembe conceptualizes as “necropolitics”—the use of death, fear, and orchestrated violence as tools of political control. The war in Tigray, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands—by some estimates close to one million—represents a paradigmatic example. So too do the ongoing conflicts in Amhara and Oromia, as well as the targeted massacres in Burayu, Metekel, Gawa Qanqa, and Shashemene. These acts are not aberrations; they form part of a broader strategy of coercive governance, where fear is cultivated and weaponized to suppress dissent.
A recent account by Lidetu Ayalew, recounting a private conversation with Abiy, illustrates the chilling logic of this approach. When Lidetu proposed a constructive project aimed at engaging Oromo Keroos and Amhara youth, Abiy reportedly responded, “Do not worry; when you eliminate three or four, the rest will retreat into silence.” Whether apocryphal or not, such a statement reveals the ethos of rule-by-terror that has increasingly defined the regime’s survival strategy.
Abiy’s oscillation between stoking ethnonationalist passions and invoking national unity mirrors colonial divide-and-rule tactics—but turned inward and intensified. The result is not only authoritarianism but an internalized necropolitics, where governance relies as much on calibrated destruction as on constitutional legitimacy.
Abiy’s politics are not born of books or schools of thought, but of instinct and rehearsal—an unlettered dance with power, stitched from fragments of borrowed words, creeds, and the rhythms of survival. It is not a philosophy or real politics, but a performance—where ideology bends, masks shift, and ambition plays the only constant tune.
What emerges from this reflection is that Abiy’s political posture does not stem from a studied grasp of any philosophical tradition, political theory, or genuine loyalty to an ethnic group or guiding idea. Instead, it is a learned and improvised practice—an instinctive blend of authoritarian impulse, opportunistic maneuvering, and selective use of ideological language. It reflects not a coherent worldview, but a survivalist logic. Such a mode of rule may best be described as instinctual authoritarianism, charismatic despotism, or unprincipled power politics, or a mix of all. Abiy is street-smart.
Messay’s article offers an essential interpretive framework for understanding Abiy—not merely as a misguided idealist or an incompetent manager, which he indeed is—but more profoundly as a political chameleon who operates through instinctual Machiavellianism, pathological narcissism, and opportunistic authoritarianism. His behavior is not erratic in the absence of logic—it is disturbingly coherent when viewed through the lens of power, both as a means and an end.
Suppose there is a hidden angle in Prof. Messay’s otherwise exhaustive account. In that case, it may lie in exploring how the structural incentives of Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism make ideological deception not just a personal strategy but a systemic feature. In a system where identity determines access to power, a figure like Abiy—devoid of ideological fidelity—will continuously morph, deceive, and realign to remain above the fray. In this sense, Abiy is not an aberration but the logical culmination of a broken political architecture. Amsal’s thorough work complements Prof. Messay’s detailed and articulated article.
III. Amsal’s Systemic Critique: Reformism Trapped in Design
Amsal’s article is a rigorous, systems-oriented diagnosis. Amsal’s central thesis is that Abiy’s dramatic reversal is less a function of personal failure than a manifestation of Ethiopia’s structurally dysfunctional political design. Ethnic federalism, institutional decay, and a historically centralized party-state model are the foundational elements that conspire to produce instability regardless of the leader. The state, in Amsal’s view, is a structurally fragmented machine that devours reformers and incentivizes repression.
This structural determinism carries analytical power. It explains why Abiy’s liberalizing reforms—releasing prisoners, inviting exiled groups, expanding civic space—were unsustainable without institutional guardrails. His retreat into militarized governance is framed not as a betrayal, but as a rational response to a hostile and disjointed environment. Amsal draws an implicit parallel to the concept of “path dependency” in political science: once entrenched, institutions constrain available choices and shape behavior through inherited incentives and penalties.
However, Amsal’s analysis risks abstraction. While he compellingly shows why any leader might fail under such conditions, this leaves insufficient space for individual agency, moral responsibility, or political ambition. The structural account explains the cage but leaves open the question of what kind of bird Abiy chose to be inside it.
IV. Overlooked Dimensions of the Volte-Face: What Both Analyses Could Deepen
While Amsal Woreta and Messay Kebede offer compelling, complementary accounts of Abiy Ahmed’s political reversals, there remain critical dimensions that could sharpen their respective interpretations of the volte-face phenomenon:
1. Geopolitical Pressures and Performative Shifts
Both essays touch on the topic only lightly, exploring how external actors—particularly Eritrea, the Gulf States, and shifting alignments with global powers such as the U.S. and China—may have influenced or incentivized Abiy’s ideological repositioning. The volte-face from “peacemaker” to wartime leader, and later to regional provocateur (e.g., the rhetoric of Red Sea access), reflects not only internal pressures but also calculated performances for international audiences and strategic partners. These moves are as much about foreign posturing as they are about domestic consolidation.
2. Instrumental Use of Identity as a Governing Technology
While Messay exposes Abiy’s manipulation of his ethnic identity and Ethiopianism, both authors could further develop how ethnic identity itself has become a tactical instrument of power maintenance. The volte-face, in this light, is not just a switch in ideology but a systematic appropriation of identity narratives—wielded not for representation but for regime survival. This instrumentalism deserves more explicit theorization as a mode of governance.
3. The Role of Crisis as a Repetitive Trigger
Neither article fully explores how Abiy’s pattern of volte-faces is crisis-driven and reactive, often timed around moments of political threat or loss of legitimacy. From the sudden shift post-Tigray war to the crackdown following Fano’s rise, each turn appears as a response to perceived existential danger. Understanding these reversals as tactics of survival amid escalating crises helps connect them to a broader authoritarian playbook.
V. Toward a Synthesis: Leadership Within Structure, Structure Through Leadership
Ultimately, the divergence between structural determinism and leader-centric explanations need not be binary. A more synthetic and interdisciplinary approach would recognize that:
- Leaders shape structures as much as they shape them.
- Structures constrain behavior but do not eliminate moral responsibility.
- Durable peace will require both constitutional reform and a renewed government system with ethical and political leadership.
Ethiopia’s crisis cannot be solved by removing Abiy alone, nor by amending the constitution in isolation. The intertwined crisis of governance, identity, and legitimacy must be addressed in parallel through inclusive national dialogue, institutional rebuilding, and a reimagining of the Ethiopian civic identity that transcends both ethnic hierarchy and personalized rule.
VI. Conclusion
Read together, Prof. Messay’s and Amsal’s essays form a dialectical lens—one examining the skeletal framework of Ethiopia’s political order, the other tracing the pulse of leadership and ambition. Ethiopia’s renewal will require both a reimagining of political design and the emergence of leaders who transcend personal aggrandizement and ethnic exclusivity. What is needed is not simply institutional reform or charismatic leadership, but a synthesis of both—a structure capable of holding power accountable and an agency capable of wielding it with restraint.
The deeper challenge, then, is not merely Abiy Ahmed’s volte-face, but whether Ethiopia itself can undergo a collective transformation. From trauma to trust, from fragmentation to federation, from personalized rule to principled governance—the future hinges on how Ethiopians choose to govern difference, share power, and demand accountability. The crisis is no longer about a single man; it is about the political soul of a nation.
Abiy is less a leader with a compass than a weathervane in a storm—spinning with each shift in threat or opportunity, his politics not anchored in conviction but animated by survival, spectacle, and the compulsive need to dominate. Ethnic federalism, with its fragmented loyalties and built-in incentives for division, serves as the wind beneath his spin—allowing him to pivot, co-opt, and punish at will, all while claiming to represent the federation itself.
A Dual Appreciation: Illuminating Ethiopia’s Political Landscape Through Insightful Discourse
I want to extend my heartfelt appreciation to both Professor Messay Kebede and Amsal Woreta for their profound contributions to the discourse on politics and leadership in Ethiopia.
Professor Messay’s writings serve as a rare intellectual compass in times of political and moral disorientation. His work transcends superficial analysis, demanding from readers not just attention but deep introspection and genuine philosophical engagement. In an age where discourse is often reduced to noise, his essays invite us to pause, think critically, and confront the underlying structures and contradictions that shape our political realities. His latest article, Unraveling Abiy’s Relentless Volte-Faces, compels a serious reckoning with the complexities of power, ideology, and leadership, encouraging us to study his insights and, in turn, gain clarity on the invisible logic of unfolding events.
Similarly, I am grateful to Amsal Woreta for lucid, well-argued, and intellectually grounded analysis in “Beyond Volte-Face…” This work, which was my first deep engagement with Amsal’s writing, leaves a lasting impression. It not only critiques political behavior but also interrogates the very architecture of our state, providing an essential complement to Professor Messay’s incisive critique. Amsal’s contribution reminds us that political outcomes are shaped not only by ambition or ideology but also by the design of the system itself. Amsal’s work challenges us to look beyond individual personalities and to reckon with the institutional and constitutional foundations that perpetuate instability.
Together, the insights from Prof. Messay and Amsal create a critical dialogue that expands our understanding of Ethiopia’s political landscape. Thank you both for encouraging us to think more structurally, critically, and courageously about the future of our nation.