“Transition Government”: The Phrase Abiy Ahmed Fears Most – But Why?

By:  Habte H.

In Ethiopia’s contemporary political discourse, no phrase strikes more fear in the heart of Abiy Ahmed than “transition government.” While the term might evoke hope for democratic renewal or peaceful power transfer to many, for Abiy it represents the unravelling of his tightly wound authoritarian project. But why does the idea of a transitional government – common in states seeking stability after crises – evoke such hostility from the leader who once promised unity, peace, and reform?

Since taking office in 2018, Abiy Ahmed was greeted with fanfare and messianic hope. He talked of “medemer” (synergy), forgiveness, and building a new Ethiopia. Many of us, inspired by his rhetoric and poetic promises, were swept up in the illusion of renewal. But we forgot a fundamental teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ: “By their fruits, you shall know them” – not by their leaves, speeches, or slogans.

Under Abiy’s rule, Ethiopia has plunged deeper into turmoil than at any other time in recent memory. From the brutal war in Tigray, to violence in Oromia, Amhara, and other regions, to mass displacements, hunger, poverty, and widespread despair, the country’s trajectory has sharply contradicted the “new chapter” he once promised. The so-called reformer has overseen a steady erosion of institutions, freedoms, and national cohesion. Death and displacement have become the bitter fruits of his leadership.

And yet, unlike past Ethiopian leaders who made concessions or stepped aside when the nation fractured – Mengistu Hailemariam fled, and Hailemariam Desalegn resigned – Abiy clings to power with increasing desperation. His fear is not merely about losing office; it is a fear of being exposed, irrelevant, and powerless in a system that does not revolve around him. A transitional government, by its nature, is built on inclusion, shared power, and accountability – everything Abiy’s administration is not.

Let us unpack why the very idea of a transitional government terrifies Abiy Ahmed more than losing power itself:

1. It Shatters His Self-Styled Monarchic Vision

Abiy does not simply want to lead; he wants to be revered, even mythologized. He has repeatedly presented himself as a divinely ordained leader, with grandiose visions of corridor development and national rebirth. But these are not grounded in institutional reform or practical governance – they are dreams without substance. A transitional government, by contrast, is inherently procedural, constitutional, and rational. It kills the myth.

2. It Exposes His Incompetence Without Dictatorial Power

Abiy’s style of governance relies on absolute control. He cannot function in a pluralistic cabinet or rule by consensus. Strip him of the power to imprison, censor, and threaten, and his actual capacity to govern vanishes. A transitional government would lay bare his dependence on repression, revealing that beyond force, there is little skill or strategy.

3. It Ends the Siege of Power Around Him

Currently, Abiy surrounds himself with loyalists, many of whom owe their positions to obedience, not competence. In a transitional arrangement, knowledgeable, independent-minded politicians from across the spectrum would enter governance. The days of controlling every narrative and every institution would end. His ideas – untested in a free environment – would not survive open debate.

4. He Cannot Compete in an Idea-Based Political Arena

In a transitional setting where opposition voices are heard, Abiy would have to defend his policies – not with slogans, but with logic and evidence. His obsession with corridor development and other vaguely defined projects lacks broad support and coherence. Faced with seasoned politicians, he would lose the intellectual contest.

5. He Fears Confrontation More Than Defeat

Interestingly, Abiy would rather walk away from power than face public confrontation. His ego does not permit critique. A transitional government would put him face-to-face with those he marginalized, persecuted, or silenced. That reckoning – political, moral, and possibly legal – is what he fears most.

6. It Removes His License to Repress

Perhaps most crucially, a transitional government would end his freedom to kill and jail at will. Abiy’s administration has detained thousands without trial and overseen countless extrajudicial killings. Under a pluralistic setup with checks and balances, such practices would end – and he could be held accountable for past abuses.

In conclusion, Abiy’s hatred of the term “transitional government” is not merely semantic. It represents an existential threat to his model of rule, which is built not on vision, competence, or consensus – but on fear, control, and illusion. For Ethiopia to truly heal and move forward, we must reject the cult of personality and embrace a system where power is shared, justice is restored, and truth is spoken.

The time has come to judge leaders by their fruits – not their leaves.

Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com

__

Subscribe  : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/ 

Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena

Like borkena on Facebook

Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory  Business Listing Toronto 

Join the conversation. Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter)  @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly.  Subscribe to YouTube channel To share information or for submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com