Does Ethiopia need all these political parties?

I read the statement made by Dr Dessalegn Chane, one of the founding members and former chairperson of the National Movement of Amhara (NaMA), during the party’s 3rd regular congress, where Dr Belete Molla was elected as the new party chair. Dr Chane remarked: “NaMA, from now on, will be a party that serves the Amhara people better in its absence than in its existence.”

Fifty years have passed since we first heard mention of a political party in Ethiopia’s political arena. Since then, we have witnessed political parties repeatedly forming and dissolving. In all that time, the faces behind these parties have rarely been new. New logos and acronyms but the same people. 

Those involved in Ethiopia’s political struggle — those repeatedly imprisoned under Mengistu’s regime, who have endured physical and psychological traumas, who have faced politically motivated court rulings time and again, and who have appeared under different party names at different times — are, for the most part, the same groups of individuals still operating behind the facades of new parties or associations.

Moreover, the culture of defecting from one party to another after falling out with the leadership, or founding entirely new parties, has long been a feature of Ethiopian politics and politicians. Often, individuals establish or shift to new parties, moving on with surprising speed.

This repetitive cycle raises numerous questions in my mind: Do we really need all these political parties? Given the trajectory most political parties in Ethiopia have followed, how can they claim to solve problems, foster reconciliation, or demonstrate leadership when they have failed to do so even at the party level? How can such actors claim to lead a country, respond to the people's questions, and seek power?

These questions feel especially pressing at a time when a hegemonic ruling party, such as the Prosperity Party, controls every aspect of the political space, drafts and enforces self-serving laws, and exercises unchecked power.

Although we cannot imagine modern representation and democracy without political parties, a political party is essentially a citizens’ association that unites people through membership, offers an organised means to express civic voice, and competes for power through elections. However, when parties fail to institutionalise themselves, become personality-driven, and recycle the same leadership without accountability or renewal, they lose credibility.

Political parties are vital to a healthy democracy. But the failure of many Ethiopian parties to function beyond temporary formations, factional conflicts, or personal ambitions reveals how far we are from a mature, party-based political culture.

Beyond their ability to organise and present differing interests, visions, and ideas, political parties play a fundamental role in acquiring political power. To achieve this aim, they participate in elections, strive to win the hearts of voters through their ideas, and attempt to gain government power — thereby playing a significant role in the political system and in the development of democracy.

When political parties are referred to as permanent civic organisations, it is based on the fact that they are composed of individuals with voluntary memberships and defined programmes, who seek to gain power through elections and express their political positions on critical national issues and social problems through their leadership.

Furthermore, the existence of political parties also plays a unique role in strengthening democracy by holding the government accountable, enabling the public to cultivate democratic practices and experiences, representing public interests, and establishing and sustaining a functioning government.

The Rockingham Whigs, active in 18th-century England, are often cited as one of the first groups to display the defining traits of a modern political party. As such, they are frequently regarded as the first political party in history. In the United States, political parties emerged from the factions that arose in the early 1790s, amid debates over the powers of the federal government, leading to the creation of two main parties.

Although the formation of political parties in Africa is often associated with the struggle for independence from colonialism, the first political party is believed to have been founded in Liberia in 1860. While most African countries were still under colonial rule in 1945, some studies indicate that small political groups had already been established by African elites. However, the majority of political parties on the continent emerged during the 1950s, as colonised nations began to gain independence. These parties were often created by nationalist leaders seeking to inherit power from colonial administrations.

In Ethiopia, political parties began to emerge following the 1974 revolution, with their roots tracing back to student movements. Later, leftist political entities such as the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP) and the All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement (Meison) came onto the scene. These were followed by other groups like Wez League, Echat, and Malered. These parties played a central role in shaping Ethiopia’s modern political landscape.

After the change of government in 1991, the political structure, under the leadership of the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), began to promote the formation of various political parties and alliances. In particular, the adoption of an ethnic-based political framework contributed to the consolidation of EPRDF’s political dominance, setting the country adrift on the tides of identity-driven politics.

Under the ruling party, a pattern of oppression, imprisonment, exile, and personal attacks was deployed against rival political parties. More than 100 political parties were registered, and some notable alliances formed — most notably in 2005 — as part of efforts to counter the regime's practices. Chief among these was the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD), composed of four existing political parties. This alliance aimed to unify opposition forces and present a collective challenge to the government. It was one of the most influential coalitions of the time, as it managed to capture and articulate the frustrations and demands of the public.

However, following disputed election results and subsequent government announcements that further narrowed the political space, serious questions arose about the future of the political landscape. These developments eroded public trust in political parties and the political system as a whole. The resulting climate of political insecurity persisted for many years. Yet despite the hostile environment, political parties continued their resistance undeterred.

In 2018, a political shift triggered by changes within the ruling EPRDF ushered in a new chapter in Ethiopia’s political history. This chapter, which began with hopes of democratic reform and ended in accusations of “terrorism”, marked not only a turning point within the country but also allowed previously exiled citizens to return and participate in a national election.

Over the course of more than five decades of political party history in Ethiopia, it would not be an exaggeration to say that — rather than gaining popular legitimacy or overcoming populism — most parties, due to internal issues, have ended up as marginal entities remembered only in passing, despite their once considerable numbers. Calling them “seasonal leaders” who pack their bags and vanish after elections would not be unfair.

Time and again, the public’s question of whether any political party can truly be trusted to represent their interests and deliver on its promises seems to be fading into hopelessness. And if we ask ourselves what underlies these persistent weaknesses in political parties, we can begin to identify a few key causes.

Prioritising personal interest

Most of these political parties reduce the mission of building democracy to a mere scramble for individual power, rather than aligning themselves with the goal of transforming citizens’ lives. Instead of serving the public good, they select their leadership based on personal interests. Rather than prioritising education, training, critical reading, and the development of strategic solutions, they settle into routine bureaucratic tasks and daily office work — hoping to gain public support, achieve political success, and win elections not out of duty, but out of desire.

They expect genuine change while adhering to conventional leadership paths. Rather than asking themselves what experience they have gained from their political engagement, what improvements they have made, what personal success metrics they hold, or what kind of change they truly wish to bring about, they move from one day’s task to the next without meaningful reflection.

They continue to raise the same questions, issue the same statements, work with the same small circles, and treat politics as a profit-driven side hustle — a pattern that has become all too familiar.

All focus on elections alone

Elections are just one of the pillars that uphold a democratic system. However, our political parties tend to view elections solely as a means of transferring power. They seek public and member support primarily during the final stages of election campaigns, and the outcome is often treated as the ultimate test of their popularity on the ground — which, in reality, is negligible. Yet democracy — and the democratic system and its institutions — must be built through experience, consistent effort, and long-term commitment. This requires the active participation and dedication of all stakeholders in the political space.

When political parties treat elections as the end goal, they miss the broader purpose of democracy — and this is one of their most significant weaknesses. In a country where strong civil society organisations are lacking, parties fail to recognise that their role also involves raising public awareness, building sustainable support, and fostering a sense of collective identity. This is their responsibility.

Failing to grasp the meaning of difference

Every party is established with a purpose and an objective. Members join because they believe in the ideology the party represents. However, many parties publicly express their disagreements on social media without clearly understanding the structural or procedural differences, leading to confusion and division. Despite previous warnings regarding misconduct and ethical violations, parties still find themselves in similar disputes. A recent statement — “we were not mere opportunists” — seems to be a strong indication of this problem.

A democratic process is one that respects rights, honors differing opinions, and resolves differences through dialogue. Yet, our parties are often tone-deaf to this process, and their leaders rarely engage in conflict resolution. When differences widen, and instead of addressing them constructively, both sides turn into accuser and accused, they drift away from the people, their founding mission, and even their own supporters.

Party leaders and organizers should not even consider questioning the necessity of their members — not even hypothetically. No matter how wise, popular, or persuasive a leader might be, without the support of members, they cannot achieve results. Furthermore, if the party is to be principled and democratic, the final decision-making body must be its members — and this must be stated explicitly and proudly.

Let alone the Prosperity Party — any organization that uses public property, which has been entrusted to the people and their representatives, as a tool and servant of a political party, cannot be said to be following democratic principles. In countries where the party and government structures are intertwined like this, separating the party from the state becomes a serious and difficult challenge.

Now, the parties that claim to exist in Ethiopia today — if they are not able to establish internal structures based on proper organisation, operational systems, engaging their members, grounded in knowledge and principle; if their leaders cannot self-reflect, evaluate, set limits, and define their roles; if they do not choose to depart from the conventional paths and create new ones — then I have serious doubts that the upcoming election will bring anything new.

As Dr. Desalegn Chané once said: “It would be better for the Ethiopian people if some of these political parties did not exist at all, rather than continue to operate the way they currently do.” 

• This article was originally published on the Meseret Media website and can be found here.