Addis Abeba — Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed's tenure reveals a political project that is not merely developmental but profoundly performative and epistemological. His emergence has done one thing remarkably noticed by any ordinary Ethiopian citizen: it has created a stark, deliberate theatre of exposure. Beyond the visible infrastructures and political maneuvers, his most potent act has been to excavate and stage a confrontation with a specific form of mediocrity, a mode of being defined by what philosophers might call instrumental reason reduced to its basest form: thinking that originates in and is circumscribed by the stomach (homo economicus at its most visceral) and which seeks opportunity through unprincipled praxis.
This is not an incidental outcome but a core tactical demonstration, for which he was meticulously prepared. His application of Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power translated and contextualized in his pre-premiership work, "Erkab Ena Menber" ("Cushion and Throne"), provides the strategic blueprint. The title itself is a profound philosophical binary. The "Cushion" (Erkab) symbolizes the seductive comfort of complacency, rent-seeking, and unearned privilege--the domain of the mediocre. The "Throne" (Menber) represents sovereign authority, won through mastery of Greene's principles: cultivating dramatic presence, commanding through action rather than debate, isolating rivals, and leveraging spectacle.
Thus, Abiy's project can be read as a Greene sovereign performance against a Hegelian "master-servant" dynamic gone stagnant. He accommodates to engage the "mediocre" on their own terms of transactional stomach-thinking. Instead, he stages a politics of visibility, where their mechanisms are revealed as petty and ineffective against a leader who operates on a meta-level of power aesthetics and strategic timelessness (as curated by Greene). The lecture on "Who is an Intellectual?" is a key scene in this theatre, an attempt to define a new epistemic class loyal not to stomach or tribe, but to the sovereign's vision of knowledge and progress, thereby philosophically displacing the old guard.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
In essence, Abiy Ahmed is applying a Machiavellian-Greene framework to execute what Michel Foucault might call an "epistemic break" within Ethiopia's political habitus. He uses the laws of power not just to rule but to pedagogically expose a prevailing culture of mediocrity. Also, seeking to replace it with a new rationality where authority is performative, intellectual loyalty is curated, and power is an art form laid bare in his early, prescriptive text. The ultimate philosophical question becomes: Does this surgical, Greene-inspired performance create a foundation for durable political community, or merely a more sophisticated and unstable theatre of sovereign will?
Having established the broader context, the op-ed proceeds to examine three interrelated and critical dimensions, drawing on PM Abiy Ahmed's lecture delivered on 2nd January 2026 in commemoration of the 75th anniversary of Addis Ababa University (AAU). First, I will examine the conceptual strengths and rhetorical merits of the lecture itself. Second, it reflects on the expectations attached to seventy-five years of institutional existence at AAU, particularly with regard to its record of knowledge production and intellectual leadership. Third, it evaluates the substance and significance of the question-and-answer session, with attention to its epistemic and pedagogical weight.
Performative Epistemology: Question of intellectual, its omissions
The lecture, titled "Who Is an Intellectual?", represents an ambitious attempt to situate Ethiopia's intellectual landscape within broader African and global contexts. The Prime Minister sought to offer a comparative reading of intellectual traditions, highlighting both local specificities and universal patterns. However, despite the breadth of the discussion, the presentation revealed a notable methodological limitation.
Over the course of the hour-long lecture, no explicit references were provided regarding the sources, empirical bases, or theoretical frameworks underpinning the claims advanced. The absence of citation or attribution weakens the academic integrity of the argument, particularly within a university setting where scholarly rigor is foundational. As Ken Hyland, a well-known researcher and author in academic discourse, has argued, attribution is central to academic discourse because it acknowledges the collective and cumulative nature of knowledge production and situates ideas within an identifiable intellectual genealogy.
Over the course of the hour-long lecture, no explicit references were provided regarding the sources, empirical bases, or theoretical frameworks underpinning the claims advanced."
The question of intellectualism has, in fact, been extensively theorized across disciplines and historical contexts. Influential contributions by scholars such as Antonio Gramsci, Karl Mannheim, Michel Foucault, Noam Chomsky, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak have variously conceptualized intellectuals as organic actors, ideological mediators, critics of power, or subaltern interlocutors.
Particularly noteworthy is Frantz Fanon, a quintessential "organic intellectual" in the Gramscian sense, whose seminal work The Wretched of the Earth was explicitly devoted to articulating the consciousness, agency, and emancipatory pathways of colonized peoples. Fanon reconceptualized intellectual labor as a deeply political, transformative, and, at times, revolutionary practice embedded within material struggles.
The omission of such foundational intellectual traditions from the lecture points to a broader academic gap. While the presentation succeeded in provoking reflection and public engagement, it fell short of meeting the standards of scholarly rigor and philosophical depth expected of a lecture delivered within a premier academic institution.
This absence is not merely a technical oversight but raises critical questions about the relationship between political authority and academic knowledge. The responsibilities of universities as autonomous spaces for critical inquiry rather than platforms for unreferenced intellectual generalization.
Moreover, a troubling aspect of the lecture was its implicit marginalization of earlier Ethiopian intellectual and cultural traditions. The failure to adequately acknowledge foundational figures in Ethiopian philosophy, literature, music, and the arts sets an unproductive precedent and departs from established academic norms. Intellectual inquiry, particularly within a university context, is cumulative by nature; it advances through critical engagement with, rather than erasure of, prior contributions.
In this regard, the absence of meaningful recognition of figures such as Zera Yacob, Gebrehiwot Baykedagn, Saint Yared, and Kebede Mikael is especially consequential. Each represents a cornerstone within their respective fields: philosophical rationalism, political thought and modernization, sacred music and aesthetic theory, and modern Ethiopian literary criticism.
To overlook these intellectual legacies risks creating a conceptual vacuum, weakening both historical continuity and the integrity of contemporary scholarship. A philosophically sound and academically relevant discourse must therefore situate present debates within these enduring indigenous and intellectual traditions, rather than treating them as peripheral or expendable.
AAU at 75: Knowledge production, memory, and institutional reckoning
A critical expectation that remained largely unaddressed was a reflective evaluation of Addis Ababa University's seventy-five-year trajectory, particularly its contribution to knowledge production and national development. Undoubtedly, AAU has functioned as a form of intellectual and cultural soft power, shaping societal imagination, elite formation, and patterns of productivity across generations. Its role in cultivating public discourse and influencing Ethiopia's political economy has been substantial and historically significant.
Nevertheless, no academic institution is exempt from critical scrutiny. Questions concerning the quality of education, research output, global competitiveness, and institutional autonomy warrant sober and evidence-based assessment. AAU's current global ranking, situated approximately within the 700-900 range, is itself an empirical indicator that invites reflection rather than complacency. This standing, while not diminishing the university's historical importance, signals structural challenges in research capacity, funding, governance, and international integration.
More concerning is the broader systemic implication: if the country's flagship university faces such constraints, it compels serious inquiry into the academic health and global positioning of the remaining public universities. From a philosophical and policy perspective, this moment calls for an honest reckoning, one that moves beyond celebratory narratives toward a strategic reimagining of higher education as a driver of national transformation in an increasingly knowledge-driven global order.
Unasked Questions: Classroom in crisis, politics of deference
The question-and-answer segment was, in many respects, the most revealing component of the exercise, as it inadvertently illuminated the current condition of Ethiopia's intellectual life. It exposed both the latent potential and the evident constraints shaping public reasoning in the country. One could summarize the moment as philosophy from the podium but crisis in the classroom.
The session reflected a surge in intellectual aspiration, yet it also revealed a reluctance to engage critically and strategically with power. A more rigorous interrogation probing assumptions, challenging policy trajectories, and articulating long-term national dilemmas might have elevated the exchange beyond a largely deferential posture.
Notably, the intervention of the Minister of Education illustrated the structural tension between institutional responsibility and political loyalty. His difficulty in articulating a coherent question, seemingly shaped by the imperative to align with executive authority, stood in contrast to the Prime Minister's clarity and decisiveness.
While the Prime Minister's assertion that major educational reform initiatives are driven primarily by the ruling party's vision rather than ministerial ownership may absolve the Minister from direct public accountability, it simultaneously underscores a deeper institutional paradox. On one hand, responsibility is centralized; on the other, such centralization risks diminishing institutional autonomy and professional authority. What emerges is a dual effect: political exoneration coupled with symbolic institutional diminishment.
Equally noteworthy are the substantive questions that remain unasked. While Ethiopia's creation of a Ministry of Peace is a commendable and distinctive institutional step, it raises a fundamental inquiry: Why does peace remain persistently elusive despite this formal commitment? Furthermore, it is essential to examine why, across government establishments, the rule of law and the promotion of peaceful coexistence are consistently prioritized as primary strategic objectives, yet tangible and sustainable peace continues to be a formidable challenge.
A critical issue requiring further inquiry is the current lack of a clear framework for alternative educational modalities. This gap directly impacts over five million children who are currently excluded from formal schooling in conflict-affected regions like Amhara and other areas of heightened fragility. Addressing this policy silence is essential to safeguarding educational continuity and the future prospects of these young citizens.
Questions that could be legitimate concerning political tolerance, the incarceration of opposition figures, journalists, and digital content creators, and the viability of future elections without robust and competitive opposition parties were largely avoided. These issues go to the heart of democratic legitimacy and cannot be relegated to the margins of intellectual discourse.
Within this broader landscape, only a limited number of interventions, most notably that of Getachew Reda, approached the level of analytical rigor and critical engagement befitting an intellectual forum."
Legitimate and necessary questions may also be raised within the broader framework of transitional justice, particularly regarding how Ethiopia interprets and accounts for the events of the past eight years. Equally important are inquiries into the overarching objectives, normative foundations, and practical evolution of the national dialogue process, as well as the extent and nature of the government's role in facilitating a genuinely inclusive, credible, and restorative pathway toward reconciliation and sustainable peace.
People-centric development vs. displacement could be the economic rationale question behind flagship projects such as riverside and corridor developments, which warrants serious scrutiny. Questions regarding return on investment, transparency, accountability, and the potential exacerbation of institutional corruption remain unresolved.
Equally pressing is the perceived disjunction between development rhetoric and people-centered outcomes, particularly in contexts where displacement and social disruption appear to accompany large-scale urban interventions. The idea invokes Amartya Sen's capability approach, which defines development as freedom, not merely infrastructure.
A central theoretical inquiry that warrants careful examination concerns the philosophical foundations of Medemer. In Yemedemer Mengest, the concept is presented as a guiding political ethos, yet it lacks a clear conceptual demarcation that would allow it to be situated as either an autonomous theoretical framework or a coherent derivative within established traditions. The text suggests that Medemer draws elements from both the "developmental state paradigm" and "socialist thought," but it remains analytically unclear how these traditions are reconciled within a unified philosophical architecture.
Without explicit clarification, the concept risks resembling what political theorists describe as a "Medemer as spaghetti bowl" of ideas, an assemblage of partially integrated doctrines rather than a systematically articulated principle. Such conceptual ambiguity raises concerns about theoretical coherence and the danger of ideological strabismus, where multiple normative commitments coexist without a clearly defined epistemic or ethical anchor.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Given that an estimated 68.7% of Ethiopia's population continues to live below the poverty line, how does the Prosperity Party (PP) conceptualize and justify its nomenclature and vision of "prosperity" in the current socio-economic context? The name of your PP is not presumptuous? Empirical studies by Getie (2020), Teklehaymanot and Dercon, Abebe, and Cirella (2023), among others, underscore the persistence of structural poverty and uneven development.
Against this backdrop, the assertion that Ethiopia is on a trajectory toward becoming one of Africa's most prosperous nations, and indeed a leading country globally, calls for rigorous substantiation. Such claims must be anchored in transparent econometric models, clearly articulated assumptions, and comparative regional analysis.
What empirical foundations, strategic policy frameworks, and measurable economic indicators support the assertion that Ethiopia will become one of the most prosperous nations in Africa and a leading global actor within the next decade? Current macroeconomic indicators complicate this narrative. While neighboring countries such as Djibouti and Kenya exhibit significantly higher GDP per capita figures, approximately $3,500-3,550 and $2,100-2,200, respectively, compared to Ethiopia's estimated $1,100-1,300.
It would be enlightening for the Prime Minister to clarify the underlying assumptions and material foundations of this projected transformation. Is the anticipated prosperity premised on spiritual renewal, extraordinary financial inflows, enhanced geostrategic positioning, the discovery or exploitation of rare earth and strategic minerals, newly leveraged economic endowments, or a calibrated combination of these factors? A transparent articulation of the causal pathways is essential for grounding national aspirations in analytically coherent and empirically verifiable premises.
These disparities raise important questions about productivity, structural transformation, and the distributional consequences of growth. In a context marked by economic precarity and social vulnerability, aspirational political discourse, however well-intentioned, risks being perceived as detached from lived realities unless it is grounded in verifiable data and measurable outcomes.
Within this broader landscape, only a limited number of interventions, most notably that of Getachew Reda, approached the level of analytical rigor and critical engagement befitting an intellectual forum. His contribution stood out precisely because it transcended affirmation and ventured into reflective critique. Taken together, the Q&A session thus functioned less as a deliberative space and more as a diagnostic mirror, revealing both the promise and the fragility of Ethiopia's contemporary intellectual and institutional life.
This critique is not an argument against optimism or visionary leadership per se. Rather, it is a call for sustained and intellectually honest dialogue, one that aligns political philosophy with empirical evidence and normative aspiration with material conditions. A continuous conversation is indeed essential, but its credibility depends on its fidelity to facts, methodological rigor, and an unflinching engagement with on-the-ground realities. AS
Editor's Note: Seife Tadelle Kidane, PhD, serves as Director of the Centre for Governance and Intra-Africa Trade Studies (CGIATS) and is an Associate Researcher at the Institute for Pan-African Thought and Conversation (IPATC), University of Johannesburg. He can be reached at seifetadelle@gmail.com
