May 7,2026
Wondmagegn Ejigu Kebede
Enköping, Sweden
Before beginning, I would encourage readers to first engage with the thoughtful article by Mohamud A. Ahmed, titled “When a Political Analysis Abandons Complexity for Certainty, Critique Itself Risks Becoming a Mirror Image of the Dogma It Condemns,” published on May 6. For fuller context, it may also be valuable to revisit my own earlier piece, “Can We Escape the Cult and Personification?,” published on May 5.
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Mohamud A. Ahmed for not only reading my article but for engaging with it directly and substantively. This kind of thoughtful dialogue—where ideas are respectfully challenged and examined—is essential. It deepens nuance, broadens understanding, and is precisely the kind of exchange we need more of in public discourse. My intention in responding is to continue this conversation in a spirit of openness and mutual respect.
I should clarify from the outset that I am engaging here not as a political professional, but as a concerned observer. My expertise lies outside the formal field of political science, and my involvement in politics—particularly within the Western hemisphere—has been more that of a part-time practitioner than an academic. Consequently, my perspective tends to be grounded in practical engagement rather than purely intellectual discourse. While theoretical and academic analysis of politics has great value, I believe political analysis must also account for the real-world impact of politics on people’s everyday lives. In my original article, my observation regarding the role of cult-like dynamics and personification in our political landscape was offered as one perspective—a nuance rather than a definitive conclusion.
With that in mind, I would like to address the critique put forward.
Mohamud A.Ahmed contends that my characterization of the Prosperity Party as a cult-like entity lacks “analytical depth,” asserting that as a governing body, it provides platforms for dissent and allows for the discussion of policy failures within its political arena. I respectfully disagree and propose an examination of the practical realities within Prosperity’s political framework.
To initiate this analysis, several foundational questions must be addressed: Does the Prosperity Party possess a substantive political document, coherent policy narratives, or an ideological discourse that merits in-depth scrutiny? What are the rationale, logical underpinnings, and intellectual nuances that form the core of its political philosophy? I invite clarification from Mr. Ahmed on these points.
To my knowledge, there is a notable absence of a rigorously prepared political document or policy paper that articulates the essence of Prosperity through structured logic, reasoned argument, or ideological clarity. Instead, the party appears predominantly driven by the aspirational rhetoric, teachings, and publications of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, which often emphasize a “believe it to achieve it” mindset. This approach raises questions about its foundation in evidence-based policy versus emotive persuasion.
Furthermore, I have not observed genuine, productive debates between dissenting voices and the ruling party. The current governing style does not seem to foster tangible policy frameworks that invite concrete, substantive debate. Rather, public discourse is frequently dominated by the Prime Minister’s assertions that national development is underway—yet imperceptible to the physical eye, requiring instead a form of spiritual revelation. One must ask: Does this constitute sound policy or echo the characteristics of a doctrinal belief system like a cult?
In essence, when the central mode of engagement leans heavily on visionary optimism without clear, analyzable policy structures, what exactly is there to analyze in depth? Can wishful thinking be subjected to rigorous political and intellectual scrutiny, or does its very nature resist the demands of empirical and theoretical examination?
In my original argument, I contend that personification is a defining feature of Ethiopian politics, where individual figures are elevated and glorified in an almost mythic manner. This phenomenon, however, is not limited to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and the Prosperity Party alone; it extends across the political spectrum, equally characterizing the opposition. Ethiopian politics revolves around personalities rather than institutions—this is an undeniable reality.
To be clear, personification exists elsewhere in the world. But my central point is this: in Ethiopia, the culture of political personification, combined with a regime that fosters a cult-like following, is a primary driver of the endless turmoil that now engulfs the nation. This is not solely the fault of political leaders; society itself is complicit, often enchanted by the very phenomenon of personification.
Furthermore, I question whether strong institutions can truly coexist in a political ecosystem where personification is the norm. In modern political history, there are few—if any—examples where a leadership obsessed with grandiosity and personal glorification has nurtured robust, functional institutions. The two are fundamentally incompatible; one must ultimately give way to the other.
Another point of confusion for me is the regime’s and Mohamud A.Ahmed’s framing of the current crisis as part of a “transformation.” What exactly does this transformation entail? What is its envisioned destination—prosperity? Has the nation been in a continuous state of transformation for the past eight years? Where is the ideological clarity—the starting point and the end goal? Where is the concrete, documented policy roadmap showing economic transformation from point A to Z?
Instead, what we witness is a transformation that appears to manifest in the enrichment of party loyalists and the beautification of select parts of Addis Ababa, while the masses endure war, displacement, unemployment, and a profound economic crisis. In this context, I invite Mohamud A. Ahmed to engage critically with this paradox: how can one intellectually reconcile the rhetoric of transformation with the reality of multidimensional crisis?
As I noted at the outset, I am not a political expert, but politics must be evaluated on practical grounds. In essence, it should be judged by what it delivers to people in their economic and social lives. What the Prosperity Party offers through its cult-like approach is mere promise—empty hope paired with a failing state. These are tangible measures. Intellectual and academic discourse hold value only when anchored in practical reality; otherwise, they amount to little more than elegant, seemingly sophisticated jargon floating in abstraction. Moreover, most of us expect politics to yield positive, visible outcomes in economic and social welfare. The public has little patience for wishful thinking discernible only through so-called spiritual awareness—we are discussing a state, not a spiritual retreat to be guided by the prime minister’s personal piety.
My mirror shows a clear reality: it reflects a nation in persistent political turmoil, engulfed in endless conflict and war, and mired in deep economic crisis. Day after day, the country’s leader admonishes citizens that they are on the path to prosperity but lack the “spiritual sight” to perceive it. What my mirror reveals is a cult—and a dangerous cult leader. I wonder, what does your mirror show you?
Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena
To Support Borkena : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/ – one time support or small monthly options available. Inquire information about it : info@borkena.com
Like borkena on Facebook
To submit Press Release, send submission to info@borkena.com
Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory
Join the conversation. Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter) @zborkenato get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly.