Abiy Ahmed’s government is collapsing because of awarding sycophants instead of merit. People with knowledge and expertise are considered a threat to his regime and those who sing praise songs are the one considered as patriots.

The prime minister doesn’t care about the deteriorating security in Tigray, Amhara, Oromia and other parts of the country, he doesn’t want to sort issues of inflation, he doesn’t want to hear about youth unemployment, he doesn’t want to hear about the bad healthcare system, poor education system, all he wants to hear praises from those political parasites surrounding him.

This debate has become increasingly relevant in discussions surrounding Ethiopia under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Citizens argue that the country’s political trajectory reflects a system in which political loyalty is often perceived as being rewarded more than professional competence. Whether every individual appointment fits this description is open to debate, but the broader concern deserves careful examination because it raises fundamental questions about governance, economic management, and institutional resilience.

The central issue is simple.

Can a country prosper when merit is replaced by political patronage?

The answer history provides is sobering.

A nation cannot sustainably develop if those making critical decisions are selected primarily because they flatter political leadership rather than because they possess the expertise needed to solve complex national problems.

Throughout history, thriving societies have invested in capable institutions rather than personality cults. Strong governments encourage criticism because constructive criticism identifies weaknesses before they become national disasters. Weak governments, by contrast, often interpret criticism as betrayal.

One of the oldest political mistakes is confusing agreement with competence.

A person who constantly praises the government is not necessarily capable of managing an economy.

A person who applauds every policy is not automatically qualified to oversee national security.

A person who never questions leadership is unlikely to improve public institutions.

The danger emerges when governments begin surrounding themselves with individuals who tell leaders only what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear.

Many political philosophers have warned against this tendency.

A ruler who hears only praise eventually loses contact with reality.

Statistics become propaganda.

Failures become “successes.”

Public frustration becomes “foreign interference.”

Economic decline becomes “temporary adjustment.”

Meanwhile, ordinary citizens continue experiencing rising living costs, unemployment, insecurity, and declining public services.

This disconnect between official narratives and everyday reality creates a dangerous credibility gap.

The economy is usually the first victim.

Markets do not respond to political speeches.

Investors do not invest because politicians praise themselves.

Businesses do not expand because ministers hold celebratory press conferences.

Economic growth depends on confidence, predictability, competent policy, functioning institutions, and security.

When appointments are perceived to prioritize loyalty over expertise, institutional effectiveness can suffer. Experienced professionals may become reluctant to offer honest advice if disagreement is viewed as disloyalty. Over time, this weakens policy formulation and implementation.

This matters because economic management is not an exercise in political messaging.

Inflation cannot be defeated by slogans.

Currency pressures cannot be solved through public relations.

Youth unemployment cannot disappear through speeches.

Economic fundamentals require careful planning, technical expertise, and institutions capable of adapting to changing conditions.

Many Ethiopians today continue to express concern about inflation and the rising cost of living. Families face difficult decisions as essential goods become more expensive. Businesses confront higher operating costs, while young people entering the labor market struggle to find stable employment.

These are challenges that demand practical policy responses rather than political symbolism.

Security is another pillar of economic stability.

No economy flourishes where insecurity persists.

Regardless of political affiliation, prolonged conflict in regions such as Tigray, Amhara, Oromia, and elsewhere has imposed significant human and economic costs. Insecurity disrupts agriculture, trade, education, healthcare delivery, investment, and the movement of people and goods.

When insecurity becomes prolonged, entrepreneurs delay investment, tourists stay away, supply chains become more expensive, and governments divert resources toward emergency responses instead of long-term development.

A country cannot simultaneously maximize prosperity while significant portions of its economy remain disrupted by instability.

Healthcare presents another challenge.

Hospitals require funding.

Doctors require support.

Medical equipment requires investment.

Public health systems require effective administration.

Political loyalty alone cannot improve healthcare outcomes.

The same principle applies to education.

Universities do not become globally competitive because government officials praise political leadership.

Schools improve when teachers are trained, resources are available, curricula evolve, and institutions are managed effectively.

Young people do not build their future through political slogans.

They build it through quality education, employment opportunities, innovation, and economic inclusion.

Perhaps the greatest long-term consequence of patronage politics is its effect on talented citizens.

When qualified professionals believe advancement depends more on political loyalty than merit, many choose to leave public service—or the country altogether. This contributes to brain drain, reducing the state’s capacity to solve increasingly complex challenges.

No nation can afford to lose its brightest minds simply because independent thinking is discouraged.

Successful governments do not fear experts.

They recruit them.

They challenge them.

They empower them.

Leadership is not demonstrated by surrounding oneself with people who always agree.

Leadership is demonstrated by creating an environment where differing perspectives improve decision-making.

Constructive disagreement is not weakness.

It is one of the foundations of effective governance.

History offers many examples of governments that became isolated from reality because advisers competed to please the leader rather than confront uncomfortable facts. Such systems often appeared stable on the surface until accumulated economic and political pressures became impossible to ignore.

The lesson is clear.

Institutions matter more than personalities.

Competence matters more than applause.

Policy matters more than propaganda.

Citizens ultimately judge governments not by the enthusiasm of supporters at political rallies, but by whether they can afford food, find employment, educate their children, access healthcare, and live in security.

These are the standards by which history measures political leadership.

Ethiopia is a country blessed with remarkable human capital, entrepreneurial energy, cultural diversity, and strategic importance within Africa. Its future depends not only on political stability but also on strengthening institutions that reward competence, uphold accountability, and encourage open debate.

No government is strengthened by silencing criticism.

No economy is strengthened by rewarding mediocrity.

No nation becomes prosperous by confusing loyalty with ability.

The real wealth of any country is not found in the number of people praising its leaders.

It is found in the number of citizens empowered to contribute their knowledge, creativity, and expertise for the common good.

That is the economics of political loyalty.

When loyalty serves institutions, nations grow stronger.

When institutions serve loyalty alone, nations often pay a heavy price.