Decoding the Cabinet Reshuffles in Ethiopia

What’s most challenging to process about the persistent cabinet and other key political position reshuffles under Abiy Ahmed’s leadership is having to decide whether it’s normal or not. ​​Previous administrations in Ethiopia had varied approaches to managing their cabinet. During the military regime that lasted from 1974 to 1991, frequent cabinet reshuffles were the norm, often in response to political instability or the regime’s need to consolidate power. The post-military government, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), had a more stable approach to managing its cabinet, with ministers staying in their positions for longer periods unchallenged. 

Download the high resolution visual in JPEG

Download (5.7 MB)

Since coming to power in 2018, Abiy Ahmed has been in charge of one of the most diverse and challenging countries on the African continent. Abiy’s administration has been marked by several significant reforms, including the opening up of the political system, the release of political prisoners, and the normalization of relations with neighboring Eritrea. He promised to bring much-needed reforms to Ethiopia’s political system. It is often argued that his frequent cabinet reshuffles have been part of this broader effort to overhaul the country’s government and institutions. However, there are differing opinions on whether these reshuffles have been effective in achieving the government’s goals or have led to further instability.

Over the past five years, the political landscape in Ethiopia has undergone significant changes, in some cases changes that forced reshuffling. One such notable event is the fallout between the ruling Prosperity Party and TPLF, which had dominated Ethiopian politics for decades. Keria Ibrahim and Fetlework “Monjorino” Gebre-Egziabher are examples of ousted politicians in the wake of the fallout. The TPLF’s hegemony was a significant obstacle to reform and progress, and the reshuffles allowed Abiy to bring new voices whose service would not be a conflict of interest. 

Another significant event is the national elections that took place in Ethiopia. The pre and post-election periods created a markedly different political environment, and it is to be expected that new people with an electoral mandate would be added to the cabinet. Therefore, some of Abiy’s reshuffles are a necessary step in ensuring that the government reflects the will of the people and that they have a say in how the country is run.

Though these dynamic challenges to the political scene give a level of justification for the frequent reshuffles, the persistent change in key personnel exacerbates the psycho-social perception of the precariousness of peace and prosperity in the country. The reshuffles give a sense that there is a lack of stability and strategic vision in the government. Critics futher argue that the reshuffles are not always strictly necessary and that they reflect a lack of clear policy direction, which is what is leading to constant changes in personnel and policy. The constant reshuffling of cabinet ministers and other key officials has been criticized for creating uncertainty and making it difficult to implement policies and programs effectively and consistently.

To be fair, the Prime Minister has allowed several key personnel to retain their position for extended periods— some, like Billene Seyoum (Press Secretary) and Demeke Mekonen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs), have even retained the same position since being appointed nearly five years ago (Demeke Mekonen even served as Deputy PM to Abiy’s predecessor, Halemariam Dessalegn.) It can be argued that the frequent changes in personnel reflect a commitment to promoting meritocracy and ensuring that people are appointed based on their skills and abilities rather than their political connections.

On the flip side, the frequent reshuffles have raised murmurs of concern, particularly regarding ethnic representation. Ethiopia’s political (and, arguably, social) systems are steeped in ethnic federalism, which has led to an increase in the ethnic division in the country. The reshuffling may have been an attempt to balance the ethnic representation in the cabinet. While some view this as a reflection of a commitment to diversity and inclusivity in government, others see it as a politically-motivated maneuver from the populist leader to gain support from different ethnic groups. 

Be all that as it may, the government’s transparency toward the need for the reshuffles and the competence of appointees for their designated [seasonal?] roles has become increasingly non-existent. This inevitably leads to conspiracy— Are the reshuffles a way for Abiy to consolidate his power and remove potential rivals within the party? Are they a way for Abiy to maintain control over the government and prevent any opposition from emerging?

Overall, the frequent cabinet reshuffles have generated a lot of debate and controversy. Ultimately, only time will tell whether the frequent changes in personnel will help or hinder the government’s ability to implement meaningful reforms and move Ethiopia forward. In the meantime, the reshuffles continue to feed into a growing disillusionment and confusion among the people of Ethiopia who have already likely exhausted their emotional (and political?) bandwidth after suffering through multiple significant psycho-social crises.