A DIALECTICAL CRITIQUE OF ETHIOPIA’S FAILED 2018 TRANSITION
Author: Shumet Nigus Mengist
ABSTRACT
This article critically examines Ethiopia’s political crisis following the 2018 transition through the philosophical lenses of Hegelian dialectics and the Marxian Law of the Negation of Negation. It argues that Ethiopia’s attempted democratic opening failed because it negated the TPLF-led EPRDF model without replacing its structural logic. As a result, the transition produced not synthesis but fragmentation marked by institutional collapse, ideological polarization, militarization, and the return of pre-1991 political currents. Using the methodological tools of dialectical analysis, this study evaluates how contradictions embedded within the EPRDF state, combined with incoherent reform strategies and opportunistic political alliances, generated a cyclical negation without progressive transformation.
INTRODUCTION
The 2018 political transition in Ethiopia was globally celebrated as a historic democratic awakening. Western governments, international organizations, and African partners described it as a beacon of liberalization in an authoritarian region. Domestically, it inspired hope among millions who had suffered under the repressive structure of the TPLF-led Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). However, within a few years the transition collapsed into a protracted multi-front conflict involving the federal government, Tigray forces, Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), Amhara Fano militias, and other regional armed actors. Rather than democratization, Ethiopia experienced state fragility, political fragmentation, and civil war. This article argues that the failure was not accidental but rather rooted in structural contradictions and a flawed understanding of political negation.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: HEGELIAN DIALECTICS
Hegelian dialectics posits that historical progress emerges from contradictions embedded within social and political structures. A “thesis” is confronted by its “antithesis,” and from their conflict emerges a higher “synthesis.” However, synthesis is not guaranteed; failure to resolve contradictions leads to regression or cyclical instability. In the Ethiopian context, the EPRDF state functioned as a “thesis”—a centralized, developmental authoritarian regime built on the rhetoric of constitutional federalism. The 2018 transition was positioned as its “antithesis,” but lacking structural grounding, it never produced a stable synthesis. Instead, contradictions were magnified.
THE LAW OF THE NEGATION OF NEGATION
Marx conceptualized the Law of the Negation of Negation as the process by which old structures are negated, then re-negated, ultimately producing transformation. However, negation alone is insufficient; it must generate a qualitatively new form. The Ethiopian transition negated EPRDF rule rhetorically but preserved its institutional DNA. The second negation, carried out by armed groups and counter-elites, produced disorder rather than synthesis.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: THE EPRDF ORDER (1991–2018)
The EPRDF established a federal system recognizing ethnic autonomy on paper while enforcing strict authoritarian control through party networks. Despite economic achievements, the EPRDF state was defined by:
1. Party supremacy over the constitution
2. Centralization of security and intelligence agencies
3. Ethno-party dominance, especially by TPLF
4. Limited democratic space
5. Overreliance on coercive stability
Mass protests between 2014–2018 revealed deep governance failures that the EPRDF could not resolve internally.
ANTITHESIS: THE 2018 TRANSITION
The rise of Abiy Ahmed as prime minister symbolized the negation of old authoritarian methods. Reforms included:
- Release of political prisoners
- Return of exiled political groups
- Liberalization of the media environment
- Peace agreement with Eritrea
- Appointment of new technocrats and activists
However, these steps were incoherent. The transition invited former imperial elites, Derg-era generals, ultra-nationalist figures, and Eritrean intelligence networks into the political sphere. Rather than creating pluralism, it opened multiple fronts of ideological and security contestation.
WHY THE ANTITHESIS FAILED
The key factors behind the failure include:
1. Lack of institutional reforms: The judiciary, security sector, and civil service remained EPRDF-era structures.
2. Ideological incoherence: Competing visions—unitary nationalism, multinational federalism, Oromo liberation discourse, and pan-Ethiopian revival—clashed without mediation.
3. Rapid political liberalization without institutional safeguards.
4. External influence: Eritrea’s involvement deepened elite fragmentation.
5. Overcentralization of decision-making in the Office of the Prime Minister.
NEGATION OF NEGATION: RETURN OF OLD FORCES
Instead of producing a new governance system, Ethiopia witnessed:
- The return of imperial-era rhetoric
- Militarization of regional politics
- Revival of TPLF as an insurgent force
- Escalation of Oromo grievances and rise of OLA
- Emergence of Amhara Fano militias opposing both TPLF and the federal government
- Erosion of trust in federal institutions
THE DIALECTICAL STALEMATE
Ethiopia became trapped between contradictory forces:
- Federalism vs. Unitary nationalism
- Reformist rhetoric vs. authoritarian practice
- Regional autonomy vs. centralization
- Political inclusion vs. elite capture
Without reconciliation of these contradictions, synthesis became unattainable.
INSTITUTIONAL COLLAPSE AND GOVERNANCE FAILURE
The conflict was accelerated by the decay of:
1. Judiciary (lack of independence)
2. National Defense Forces (factionalization)
3. Regional governments (paramilitary capture)
4. Electoral institutions (politicization)
5. Civil service (purges and incompetence)
This collapse turned political disputes into armed confrontations.
TPLF, OLA, FANO, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Each actor embodies a different ideological challenge:
- Tigrayan forces fight to restore status and security.
- OLA represents unresolved Oromo national questions.
- Fano symbolizes Amhara communal insecurity.
- The Prosperity Party pursues centralized control.
These forces function as competing antitheses without a shared framework for synthesis.
PROSPECTS FOR SYNTHESIS: A DIALECTICAL PATH FORWARD
A viable synthesis requires:
1. Constitutional renewal through inclusive dialogue
2. Institutional reconstruction
3. Demilitarization of regional politics
4. Stabilization of civil–military relations
5. Rebuilding trust through transitional justice
6. National consensus on Ethiopia’s multinational identity
CONCLUSION
Ethiopia’s 2018 transition failed because it attempted a superficial negation without structural transformation. Hegelian and Marxian dialectical theory reveals that Ethiopia remains trapped in unresolved contradictions. True democratic transformation requires a conscious, institutionalized synthesis rooted in inclusive governance, constitutionalism, and federal democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment