Dr. MeKonnen Birru ([email protected])
Nations do not fail because of their people. Throughout history, people have shown immense resilience, innovation, and the capacity to create thriving societies. Rather, nations fail when their leaders fail to serve the common good and prioritize the collective prosperity of their country. The psychological drivers behind these leaders often stem from ego, personal ambition, and an unrelenting desire for power. The result of such leadership is the erosion of institutions, the marginalization of democratic processes, and the fragmentation of national unity. The consequences of these actions can lead to civil war, state collapse, and, at worst, genocide.
Looking at various examples from around the world, the narrative is consistent: nations crumble under the weight of authoritarian leadership that disregards the needs and rights of its people. From Russia to Syria, Libya, and Yugoslavia, failed states share a common thread — leaders who chose personal power over national progress.
Under Vladimir Putin, for example, Russia has shifted away from a path of democratic development into a more centralized, authoritarian state. Putin’s leadership is characterized by the stifling of political opposition, suppression of free speech, and a concentration of power within his inner circle. This has led to international isolation, economic stagnation, and internal unrest. Despite the wealth of resources in Russia, the nation’s trajectory has been undermined by a leader’s insistence on consolidating personal power rather than building robust, transparent institutions that serve the people. The fate of Russia will be bad.
Bashar al-Assad’s rule, another example, has turned Syria into a battlefield, ravaged by civil war and humanitarian disaster. Rather than fostering unity or reform, Assad’s regime has used military force and violence to maintain power, leading to the displacement of millions and the destruction of the country’s infrastructure. The reluctance to engage in inclusive dialogue or negotiate with the opposition was one of the key reasons why the Syrian crisis escalated into a full-scale conflict that destroyed what could have been a prosperous and stable country.
Muammar Gaddafi’s reign over Libya, same as Syria, was marked by years of absolute control and the suppression of any opposition. Instead of building lasting institutions and strengthening the rule of law, Gaddafi created a system where power was concentrated in his hands. After his fall in 2011, Libya descended into chaos, with rival factions and militias fighting for control, ultimately leading to the collapse of state institutions and the fragmentation of the nation.
The disintegration of Yugoslavia, my final example, in the 1990s is a tragic example of how national unity can be destroyed under the leadership of power-hungry individuals. Slobodan Milosevic’s nationalist policies stoked ethnic divisions and encouraged violence between groups. Rather than promoting reconciliation and unity, his actions led to a brutal civil war, the death of thousands, and the eventual breakup of Yugoslavia into separate nations.
The common thread in these cases is a leader’s inability or unwillingness to foster national unity, prioritize institutions, and engage in a democratic process that includes all citizens. These leaders chose personal power, often backed by their egos and self-interest, over the long-term stability of their nations. The results were catastrophic for their people, and history is rife with such examples.
Leaders who turn into dictators often operate from a deep-seated insecurity and a desire to consolidate power, control, and personal wealth. Their psychological makeup may be driven by a number of factors, including:
1. A Hunger for Power: Dictators often feel that the only way to guarantee their position is by centralizing power and eliminating any threats to their authority. In this pursuit, they suppress opposition and create a culture of fear and loyalty.
2. Fear of Losing Control: Dictators are often terrified of losing their grip on power. To secure their reign, they destroy institutions, undermine democratic processes, and use violence to suppress dissent. The ultimate goal is to protect themselves at all costs.
3. Ego and Narcissism: Many authoritarian leaders view themselves as indispensable to their nation’s survival, assuming that only they can lead the country to greatness. This inflated sense of self often leads to a disconnect from the reality of their people’s needs and desires.
4. A Desire for Legacy: Many leaders who have been in power for extended periods view their leadership as a historical necessity. They often focus on how history will remember them, leading them to prioritize short-term political victories or personal accolades over the long-term welfare of the nation.
As I explained in my book (Deception, Centralization, Manipulation and Betrayal: The Complex Leadership of Abiy Ahmed Ali), Abiy Ahmed’s leadership is marked by two key psychological traits that are often seen in authoritarian regimes: ego and narcissism and a desire for legacy. Both of these traits, while they may start with the belief that the leader is acting in the nation’s best interest, ultimately lead to actions that prioritize the leader’s personal aspirations over the collective good.
Narcissism, at its core, is the belief that the individual is superior, more capable, and more worthy than others. When a leader exhibits narcissistic traits, they often view themselves as the sole solution to national problems, becoming blind to the diversity of voices and needs within their society. In this regard, Abiy Ahmed’s leadership can be seen as a case study in how excessive ego can lead to a disconnection from the reality of the people’s desires and needs.
When Abiy first ascended to the position of Prime Minister in 2018, he promised reform and national reconciliation. His efforts to initiate peace talks with Eritrea were hailed as a groundbreaking achievement, and his early image as a peacebuilder resonated deeply with both Ethiopians and the international community. However, as his tenure progressed, Abiy’s actions began to indicate that his vision for Ethiopia was driven less by the realities of ethnic and political tensions and more by his belief that he, and he alone, had the right solution.
For example, Abiy’s decision to dissolve the EPRDF (Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front) and replace it with the Prosperity Party, which he envisioned as a more centralized, unitary political structure, illustrates how his narcissism played out in real-time. The EPRDF, despite its flaws, allowed ethnic groups within Ethiopia to maintain a certain degree of political autonomy. By consolidating power under the Prosperity Party, Abiy dismissed the unique political needs and aspirations of groups like the Tigray, Amhara and Oromo peoples. This decision, which Abiy framed as a step toward national unity, failed to consider the complexities of Ethiopia’s ethnic federal system and the demands for regional autonomy.
The second psychological trait is his desire for legacy. Many leaders who ascend to power with a grand vision for the future of their country often begin to see themselves as historical figures destined for greatness. In Abiy’s case, this sense of self-importance may have influenced his decision-making process, particularly as he sought recognition both domestically and internationally.
Abiy’s Nobel Peace Prize, awarded in 2019 for his role in resolving the long-standing conflict with Eritrea, further fueled this desire for legacy. The international acclaim allowed Abiy to position himself as a transformative leader, a peacemaker who had brokered a historic agreement. However, as history shows, such accolades, while they may elevate a leader’s stature, can also create an environment where the leader’s primary concern shifts from the welfare of the nation to the preservation of their image.
This obsession with legacy has manifested in Abiy’s governance in several ways. First, the centralization of power in the form of the Prosperity Party can be seen as an attempt to solidify Abiy’s control over Ethiopia’s political future. Instead of focusing on building inclusive institutions that could endure beyond his tenure, Abiy has sought to leave a legacy defined by his own vision — a vision that disregards the pluralistic nature of Ethiopia’s society. His push to dismantle the ethnic federal system in favor of a more unitary state was not about healing divisions or creating a sustainable peace but about positioning himself as the architect of Ethiopia’s future, erasing the previous political structures in favor of one more aligned with his ideas of unity.
Abiy Ahmed is at a critical juncture in his governance. His ego and narcissistic tendencies, combined with a relentless desire for legacy, are pushing Ethiopia toward a dangerous precipice. The country is already fragmented by ethnic divisions, and the ongoing conflict in Amhara is just one example of how Abiy’s ego-driven approach to leadership has worsened the situation.
The time has come for Abiy Ahmed and his Prosperity Party to reflect on the course they are charting. The pursuit of power and personal glory at the expense of Ethiopia’s long-term peace and prosperity is a perilous path. Abiy must come to terms with the fact that true leadership is not about self-promotion or personal accolades but about service to the people — about creating inclusive institutions that can withstand the test of time and unite Ethiopia’s diverse populations.
If Abiy does not change course, Ethiopia may face irreparable damage. History has shown us time and again that leaders driven by ego and a desire for legacy can push their countries to the brink of collapse. Abiy and his administration must shift their focus from consolidating power to dialogue, reconciliation, and institution-building — before it is too late. Only then can Ethiopia hope to avoid the kind of fragmentation and violence that has led other nations down the path of failure.
To Abiy Ahmed and the Prosperity Party:
The path you are currently walking — focusing on political control, divisive rhetoric, and ethnic favoritism — will not secure the future of Ethiopia. Your vision for prosperity, while noble, can only be achieved if you prioritize nation-building over party loyalty. Ethiopia’s future lies not in the hands of any single leader or ethnic group but in the creation of strong, transparent institutions that serve all citizens. Here are my key recommendations to avoid a catastrophic outcome:
Inclusive Dialogue: Engage all political factions and ethnic groups in meaningful dialogue. This is not a moment for further polarization. Ethiopia’s strength lies in its diversity, and every group must feel heard and represented. Failure to do this will result in further fragmentation and possibly even civil war.
Strengthen Institutions: The state’s institutions must be independent, transparent, and capable of holding all individuals, including leaders, accountable. Rather than undermining the judiciary, the media, and civil society, invest in making them robust, impartial, and inclusive.
De-escalation of Military Engagement: The use of force must be the last resort, not a first instinct. The military should be used to protect national sovereignty, but it should not be a tool of oppression. The political leadership must work toward diplomatic solutions and reconciliation, not conflict.
Focus on National Unity: Ethiopia can only survive and prosper as a unified nation. Your leadership should be about uniting, not dividing. Ethnic politics, while deeply entrenched, must give way to policies that promote the greater good of the country.
Protecting the People: Ultimately, the true measure of leadership is how well the people are served. Protect the well-being of all Ethiopians and remember that your power is derived from the trust placed in you by the people. You must demonstrate that your leadership is not about self-preservation but about national preservation.
Finally, Ethiopia, like many nations before it, stands at a crossroads. The potential for success exists, but only if the leadership chooses to prioritize national unity, peace, and the long-term development of its institutions. The path to this future is not through personal ambition or the entrenchment of power. It lies in dialogue, institution-building, and a commitment to the people’s well-being.
To Abiy Ahmed, the Prosperity Party, and the Ethiopian military:
Take a hard look at the lessons of history. Nations have failed because their leaders allowed their egos, ambitions, and fear of losing power to override the welfare of their people. Ethiopia is at risk of following this tragic path unless you choose to put the nation first. The future of Ethiopia depends on your ability to listen, to build, and to lead with humility. The alternative is too dangerous to contemplate.
