March 25, 2026
Why do dictators insist on holding regular elections even when the outcome is already known? This is a question that must be asked seriously, especially in countries like Ethiopia under leaders such as Abiy Ahmed and the late Meles Zenawi. At first glance, it appears contradictory: if a government already controls the military, the security forces, the media, the courts, and the electoral institutions, why would it still go through the time, cost, and political risk of organizing elections? Why would a government that does not truly allow free political competition still to insist on holding elections every few years? Why not simply remain in power without elections?
This question becomes even more important when we look at election results in such systems, where ruling parties often win by extremely large margins, sometimes 90%, 95%, or even 99%. In such cases, the election does not appear to be a real competition for power. Opposition parties may exist, but they operate under restrictions. Media may exist, but it is often controlled or influenced. Courts may exist, but they may not be fully independent. If the political space is controlled, then the outcome of the election is largely predictable before the first vote is even cast.
So the question remains: What is the real purpose of these regular elections? Are they meant to genuinely transfer power if the ruling party loses? Are they meant to measure public support? Are they meant to create an image of democracy for the international community? Are they meant to divide and weaken the opposition by forcing them to choose between participation and boycott? Are they meant to give legal and constitutional cover to those already in power? Or are they meant to show the population that changes through elections are impossible, thereby discouraging political resistance?
In Ethiopia, under both the EPRDF era and the current government, regular elections have been does the political opposition run on fake elections and are held on schedule, even during times of conflict, political unrest, mass arrests, and restrictions on opposition activity. This raises a fundamental political question that students, scholars, opposition groups, and ordinary citizens must think about carefully: If the political playing field is not level, if opposition leaders are imprisoned, if large parts of the population are displaced by conflict, if media freedom is limited, and if state institutions are controlled by the ruling party, then what function do elections really serve in such a system?
Therefore, the question is not simply whether elections are held, but why they are held, under what conditions they are held, and who benefits from holding them. Why would a government that is frequently accused by its critics of repression, political imprisonment, and control over institutions still insist on holding regular elections? What political, legal, and international advantages do these elections provide to those in power? And most importantly, in such a political environment, does participation in elections strengthen democracy, or does it strengthen the ruling system?
In Ethiopia’s current political context, many opposition groups and political observers argue that the upcoming election cannot be considered free, fair, or legitimate because it does not meet the minimum standards for a credible electoral process. Elections are not simply about placing ballot boxes and counting votes. For an election to be legitimate, certain fundamental conditions must exist: security for voters, freedom for opposition parties to organize and campaign, independent courts, free media, neutral security forces, and the participation of the population without fear or coercion.
Critics of the government led by Abiy Ahmed argue that these conditions do not currently exist. Opposition leaders have been arrested, journalists have been intimidated, and political activities have been restricted in several regions of the country. When opposition parties cannot campaign freely, when media cannot report freely, and when courts are not fully independent, the election process becomes administrative rather than democratic. It becomes a procedure to confirm power rather than a process to choose leaders.
One of the strongest arguments used by those who call the election illegitimate is the issue of disenfranchisement. Large parts of the Ethiopian population are unable to participate in the election because of war, displacement, and insecurity. In Amhara, ongoing conflict has made normal political activity nearly impossible in many areas. In Tigray, the aftermath of war and continuing political tensions have limited political participation. In Oromia, especially in areas affected by conflict between government forces and armed groups, many civilians cannot safely participate in political processes. When large portions of the population cannot vote due to war and insecurity, the election cannot represent the will of the people.
Another major issue is the neutrality of state institutions. In a democratic system, institutions such as the electoral board, courts, police, and military must be neutral and independent. If these institutions are controlled by the ruling party, then the election cannot be fair. The presence of security forces in political processes, intimidation of opposition supporters, and the arrest of political figures all undermine public trust in the electoral system.
Historically and politically, elections held during civil conflict are rarely considered legitimate. Political science research shows that elections require not only voting but also political freedom, civil rights, and institutional independence. Without these conditions, elections become tools of political control rather than expressions of the people’s will.
For these reasons, many critics call the upcoming election not just flawed but also illegal and illegitimate in its political and moral foundations.
Why Abiy Ahmed Wants to Hold the Election
According to many opposition voices, the question is not only why the election is illegitimate, but also why the government is insisting on holding it under current conditions. Critics argue that the government of Abiy Ahmed wants to use the election to claim political legitimacy both domestically and internationally.
In politics, elections are often used to claim legal authority. Even if the election is not free and fair, the government can still claim to have been elected by the people. This allows the government to gain diplomatic recognition, international aid, and political legitimacy on the global stage. In other words, the election becomes a political tool to legitimize power rather than a democratic process for choosing leadership.
Another reason critics give is that participation by opposition parties helps the government. If opposition parties participate, the government can say, “Look, the opposition participated, therefore the election was democratic.” This is why some opposition groups believe that participation itself can legitimize an illegitimate system.
There is also a political strategy involved. By holding elections during conflict, when many regions cannot participate fully, the ruling party can secure an easy victory. When opposition leaders are in prison, when the media is restricted, and when large populations are displaced, the electoral field is not equal. The outcome becomes predictable before the election even takes place.
Therefore, critics argue that the purpose of the election under current conditions is not a democratic transition but the political consolidation of power.
The Responsibility of True Opposition Organizations: Boycott and Political Strategy
Given these conditions, many opposition voices argue that true opposition organizations have a political and moral responsibility to boycott what they consider an illegitimate election. The argument is that participation will only legitimize a fundamentally unfair system.
However, a boycott is not simply a refusal to participate; it must be a political strategy. A successful boycott requires unity among opposition groups, clear communication with the public, and international advocacy. Opposition groups must explain to the people and to the international community why they are boycotting the election: not because they reject democracy, but because they demand real democracy.
The opposition must clearly state the minimum conditions required for participation in an election. These conditions may include:
- Release of political prisoners
- Freedom for opposition parties to operate
- Freedom of the press
- Independent electoral institutions
- End of war and restoration of security
- Respect for court decisions and rule of law
Without these conditions, participation in elections risks normalizing repression and giving legitimacy to authoritarian rule.
History shows that election boycotts can sometimes expose illegitimate systems and attract international attention, but they only work if they are organized, united, and politically clear. If opposition groups are divided—some participating and some boycotting—the government benefits from the division.
Therefore, the responsibility of opposition organizations is not only to boycott but also to organize, educate, and mobilize the population and the international community about why the election lacks legitimacy.
Conclusion
The central issue is legitimacy. Legitimacy does not come from ballot boxes alone; it comes from the consent and participation of the people in a free political environment. Without peace, freedom, independent institutions, and inclusive participation, elections become political tools rather than democratic processes.
Therefore, the debate in Ethiopia today is not simply about whether an election should take place, but whether the conditions exist for a real election. If large parts of the population are excluded by war, if opposition leaders are imprisoned, if courts are not independent, and if media is not free, then the election cannot represent the will of the people.
Under such conditions, participation becomes a political decision with serious consequences. This is why many opposition voices argue that participating in an illegitimate election may legitimize repression, while a united boycott may expose political reality and open the door for genuine democratic change in the future.
Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
Support Borkena : 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