SUPPORT ETHIOPIA INSIGHT
How historical fictions foretell future politics
Throughout history, the saying ‘life imitates art’ has proven true in politics, where narratives, beliefs, and ideologies shape power structures. Political fiction has been a powerful tool in shaping collective consciousness and national destiny, from divine kingship to revolutionary movements.
In Ethiopia, the myth of the Solomonic dynasty from the 14th-century Kebra Nagast has been used for various political agendas, including Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s narrative of prophetic destiny.
The Kebra Nagast is a revered national epic written in Ge’ez during the 14th century, claiming that the Ethiopian Solomonic dynasty descends from King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, establishing divine legitimacy for imperial authority.
However, modern historiography suggests the text was likely crafted to justify the Solomonic line’s rise in the 13th century. The Kebra Nagast served as a politico-religious epic, imbuing the dynasty with divine authority and reinforcing its legitimacy.
In the modern era, political fiction has evolved, but its core role remains: shaping perceptions and legitimizing power. Leaders use narratives in speeches, media releases and symbols to influence identity and support. Scholars like Michel Foucault argues these stories act as active forces that create “regimes of truth”, shaping reality and obscuring contradictions.
In Ethiopia, the ancient myth continues to influence politics, serving as a blueprint for legitimacy, unity, and control in contemporary nation building.
The Solomonic myth was a practical political strategy used by Ethiopian rulers.
When Yekuno Amlak overthrew the Zagwe dynasty in 1270, he portrayed it as a restoration of the ancient and divinely ordained royal line, rather than a usurpation. This narrative became the foundation of Ethiopian state identity for centuries, effectively combining spiritual and temporal authority to establish a powerful ideological framework.
During Emperor Zara Yaqob’s reign (1434–1468), he promoted Marian devotion through feasts and demands for worship, using faith as a political tool. When monks called Stephanites refused to venerate him or Mary, he persecuted them violently; their leader was imprisoned and died, while others were mutilated or flogged.
Through such violence, Zara Yaqob demonstrated the coercive enforcement needed to maintain political fiction, exposing the brutal force behind supposedly divine authority.
Modern Rebranding
In the mid-20th century, Emperor Haile Selassie renamed the country from “Abyssinia” to “Ethiopia” to create a modern identity based on ancient biblical heritage. “Abyssinia” represented a Christian highland kingdom, while “Ethiopia” signified a 3,000-year history of Christian empire and pan-African identity.
The narrative was enshrined in law through the 1931 constitution, which concentrated power in the hands of the emperor. The 1955 revision further solidified this by explicitly stating his direct lineage from Menelik I, the son of the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon. This constitutional assertion turned political authority into a divine and historical mandate, legitimizing the imperial state as the natural outcome of a sacred lineage.
However, this narrative concealed a violent beginning.
The Ethiopian empire was established through conquests in the 19th and early 20th centuries, bringing together groups such as the Oromo, Somali, Tigray, and Sidama. The state enforced a singular identity based on Amharic, Orthodox Christianity, and imperial culture, suppressing the unique histories and autonomy of these groups. The Amhara have historically been a dominant group in Ethiopia, influencing the nation’s language, religion, and culture. This dominance has marginalized other ethnic groups..
This is a classic example of Timothy Snyder’s concept of the “politics of inevitability,” which views the existing order as the entirely predictable outcome of history and ignores any contradictions. Emperor Selassie’s Ethiopia employed this ideology to present imperial continuity as predetermined, concealing the violent assimilation, suppression of diversity, and economic exploitation that occurred.
Any dissent was perceived as a rejection of history itself.
The state-enforced homogenization in Ethiopia led to deep-seated resentment among the population. Grievances over land, political exclusion, cultural erasure, and economic disparity combined to form the unresolved “national question“—a fundamental debate over Ethiopia’s state structure.
Emperor Selassie’s failure to address these tensions allowed them to escalate, leading to civil wars, revolutions, and ongoing conflicts that continue to shape the country.
Internationally, the official narrative was widely embraced.
Ethiopia was celebrated as a symbol of African independence, reinforced by the victory at Adwa in 1896 and Emperor Selassie’s defiance against fascist Italy. As a founding member of the United Nations and a key Cold War ally for the West, the nation’s strategic value led foreign powers to endorse the imperial narrative, prioritizing geopolitical interests over historical accuracy or internal justice.
Thus, modern Ethiopia remains a deeply contentious symbol. For some, it represents African resilience and sovereign pride while others see it as a reminder of imperial subjugation and cultural erasure.
The Derg regime’s suppression of ethnic nationalism and the EPRDF’s implementation of ethnic federalism were responses to the unresolved tensions from Emperor Selassie’s mythmaking, albeit in different ways.
Narrative Crisis
Ethiopia is currently facing a political crisis that goes beyond a struggle for power. It is a conflict over history, identity, and the nation’s very soul. Competing visions of what Ethiopia is—and should be—have hardened into irreconcilable positions, fueling persistent instability.
The Pan-Ethiopianist Narrative promotes a united civilizational state based on a common history of empire, Orthodox heritage, and the ideal of ‘Ethiopiawinet’. It criticizes the 1995 constitution’s ethnic federalism for prioritizing ethnic identity over national unity and potentially leading to fragmentation.
On the contrary, the Ethno-Nationalist Narrative argues that throughout history, a “unified Ethiopia” has been a project dominated by the Amhara, involving conquest and erasure of other cultures. Supporters of this narrative view the 1995 constitution as a crucial step towards acknowledging Ethiopia’s diversity and granting self-determination to historically marginalized groups.
These disputes are not just academic; they are fundamental struggles for power, legitimacy, and historical accuracy. The ethnic federalism system, designed to promote coexistence, has actually entrenched division, transforming governance into a competition for territory, resources, and political power.
In the midst of deep-seated discord, Abiy emerged in 2018 as a symbol of change and unity. His message of “medemer” (synergy), love, and forgiveness promised a new national narrative that aimed to bridge ethnic divides through spiritual renewal and collective healing.
This narrative was powerfully personalized. Accounts of prophetic dreams, like his mother’s vision of him as the “7th king,” echoed the Solomonic myths that have long legitimized Ethiopian rulers. His Pentecostal faith and the Prosperity Party’s messaging framed political renewal as a divine mission, suggesting Ethiopia’s revival was blessed from above.
Abiy’s message of hope and his efforts to reconcile with neighboring Eritrea earned him global acclaim, culminating in the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize and cementing his reputation as Ethiopia’s peacemaker and reformer.
Yet, this unifying narrative turned out to be a fragile construct.
Abiy’s drive for recentralization and a unified national identity was perceived by many—particularly the Tigray People’s Liberation Front and factions within the Oromo political base—not as synergy, but as a return to imperial homogenization. It directly threatened the autonomy and self-determination safeguards embedded in the federal system.
In a polity where identity is constitutionally enshrined, the push for unity collided violently with the realities of entrenched ethnic autonomy, exposing the profound perils of his visionary rhetoric.
Violent flare-up
The eruption of the Tigray War in November 2020, alongside escalating unrest in Amhara and Oromia, exposed Ethiopia’s fragile national fabric. Instead of progressing towards a cohesive post-ethnic state, the country has become a battleground where conflicting historical and cultural narratives clash for dominance.
The conflict in Ethiopia began as ideological and narrative disputes over the country’s future but quickly escalated into one of the deadliest conflicts of the 21st century. It resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and the displacement of millions.
The federal government claimed its military actions were lawful attempts to restore constitutional order and sovereignty, while Tigrayan leaders saw it as a genocidal campaign to erase their identity and autonomy.
In Amhara, the influential Fano militia, initially aligned with federal forces, later turned against the government. They accused Prime Minister Abiy of betraying Amhara interests, particularly regarding the disputed territory of Western Tigray (Welkait-Tsegede), and launched a significant insurgency.
In Oromia, the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) intensified its long-standing insurgency, taking advantage of the security vacuum created by the Tigray conflict. The OLA framed its struggle as a quest for genuine self-determination, pointing to unmet constitutional promises and decades of Oromo marginalization.
Ethiopia’s peripheral regions, such as Somali and Afar, have been embroiled in conflict over three disputed kebeles since 2014. The ambiguity of borders under ethnic federalism exacerbates these disputes, and despite federal interventions and symbolic gestures of reconciliation, a lasting resolution remains elusive.
The conflict has highlighted that when core narratives clash, they can lead to destructive outcomes. This war has not created a common story but has exacerbated divisions, showing that military action is not enough to address a crisis rooted in political identity and historical truths.
Enduring Fictions
In Ethiopia, political myth-making endures as a key instrument of statecraft, weaving narratives of divine sanction, unbroken lineage, and historical destiny. These stories have long forged cohesion and legitimized authority, yet they simultaneously suppress pluralistic discourse and weaken institutional resilience by enforcing a singular, sacrosanct version of history.
Prime Minister Abiy’s project is driven by symbols such as the romanticization of imperial pasts, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, the pursuit of Red Sea access, and the corridor initiative. These initiatives aim to revive a sense of national greatness and establish a lasting legacy for Abiy.
However, internal conflicts, regional tensions, economic uncertainty, democratic backsliding, and human rights violations pose significant challenges to the country. The upcoming election seems tightly controlled, consolidating power while excluding many opposition parties and citizens due to insecurity, which deepens grievances and erodes the government’s legitimacy.
The clash between Abiy’s ambitious vision and the fragile state heightens the risk of renewed instability or collapse.
Today, the nation faces a critical challenge in creating a shared narrative that embraces its diverse population. This shift requires moving away from one-sided myths and towards a more inclusive and fact-based dialogue.
For in the end, the most powerful political force is often the narrative that a nation embraces. Crises arise when these chosen stories clash with reality. The tales of the past, whether mythological or political, foretells the future in ways we may not realize until it’s too late.
Query or correction? Email us
While this commentary contains the author’s opinions, Ethiopia Insight will correct factual errors.
Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
Muktar ismailia, so Called former UN staff has enjoyed western Individual right , but working hard imposing on his country people ethnic based tribalism. Whatever you get education you never change your perseption.
`a chicken dreams it’s raw`.
The medieval and the modern. It is generally understood that Abiy has a preference for the medieval image of imperial grandeur and centralized power, as expressed in this article. The other medieval part of Abiy’s political orientation became evident when Abiy put Tigray under siege using starvation a weapon, which also included atrocities and deliberate ethnic cleansing of people out of their homes. All actions intended to cause extensive harm, very much medieval in nature.
The modern part is Abiy’s risky military project, access to the sea for a naval base, but he does not own a port, and this has created tension around the Horn of Africa, particularly about Assab in Eritrea. In that regard, Isaias recently went to Cairo and Saudi Arabia it is assumed to seek help. But what is also important, it was reported a few days ago that the US Sec. of State had a phone conversation with Abiy in which the US emphasized the need for regional stability and overall peace in the HOA. This could be understood to mean the US is admonishing restraint, in which case Abiy would have to re-consider his risky military project for a port that belongs to another country.
Abiye started in good footing but he got scared when the OLF and TPLF, the architects of the current constitution and reorganization of regions opposed him. He should go back and embrace Civic nationalism within a unified Ethiopia. That was the only solution in Germany, France, Italy and most other multicultural States. It is sad he end up loosing both sides of the divide.
The Author advocate tribalism, while he benefits individual right and freedoms in western countries. This remained me iihan omar of US house Representative of the Somalia community.
Complaining, Complaining about Ethiopia avoided direct European administration and it’s rulers actively built a centralised, modern state did not make Ethiopia medival myth.
As is often the case, the kettle calling the pot black—championing a pluralistic state is the true antidote to tribalism, not its cause. The tribalist perspective refuses to envision an Ethiopia that does not revolve around a single culture or language. We must shed our imperial nostalgia and embrace a future built on equitable coexistence. Only then can we forge a united and inclusive nation.
When some one tell You the truth you don’t cost of your and others life.be humble to accept the truth. Complaining, Complaining the truth doesn’t give you positive energy.
As is often the case, the kettle calling the pot black—championing a pluralistic state is the true antidote to tribalism, not its cause. The real tribalist here is someone like you who refuses to envision an Ethiopia that does not revolve around a single culture or language. We must shed our imperial nostalgia and embrace a future built on equitable coexistence. Only then can we forge a united and inclusive nation.
be act like an individual,tribalism is a medival period lifestyle, today we are 2025 , Complaining life in western world and in home country ofcourse need a medication.