Aby Ahmed rigged elections but forgot that winning the so-called elections is not winning the public trust. The whole country has turned against him and now he is realizing his days are numbered in Ethiopia. The public is tired and the regime is on the brink of collapse. This happens when a leader chooses to be an authoritarian.

This lesson is particularly relevant when discussing Ethiopia’s contemporary political landscape under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Regardless of where one stands politically, one question deserves serious consideration: can electoral success alone sustain political authority if significant segments of society lose confidence in the government?

This is not simply a question about one leader. It is a question about the nature of power itself.

Power obtained through elections is legal. Trust, however, is earned every day.

One of the greatest mistakes any political leadership can make is assuming that an electoral mandate automatically translates into permanent public support. Elections are moments in time; trust is a continuous process.

A government may secure an overwhelming parliamentary majority, yet still struggle to convince citizens that it is acting in their best interests. A government may possess constitutional authority while simultaneously facing declining public confidence. These two realities can exist together.

Political philosophers have long distinguished between legality and legitimacy. Legality refers to whether power has been acquired according to constitutional procedures. Legitimacy concerns whether citizens believe that power is being exercised fairly, competently, and for the common good.

Throughout history, many governments have remained legally in office while facing growing public dissatisfaction because citizens judged them by their daily experiences rather than electoral outcomes.

Citizens do not wake up every morning thinking about election results.

They think about the cost of food.

They think about unemployment.

They think about security.

They think about whether their children can attend school safely.

They think about inflation.

They think about healthcare.

These everyday realities shape public trust far more than political speeches.

For many Ethiopians, daily life remains difficult. Armed conflict has affected multiple regions over recent years. Inflation has reduced purchasing power. Young graduates continue to search for employment opportunities. Millions remain concerned about economic uncertainty.

Many citizens ultimately blame these challenges on the federal government

This is why elections alone cannot guarantee lasting political stability.

Trust depends on performance.

Another important principle of politics is that governments cannot govern through fear indefinitely.

Authoritarian tendencies may sometimes create an appearance of stability in the short term. Strong control over institutions, restrictions on dissent, or pressure on critics can temporarily reduce visible opposition. Yet political science suggests that suppressing criticism does not eliminate public grievances; it often drives them underground until they emerge in other ways.

Healthy democracies provide channels through which citizens can criticize leaders without threatening the stability of the state. When those channels become weaker, frustration can accumulate rather than disappear.

A confident government welcomes scrutiny because criticism can reveal problems before they become crises.

A government that treats every critic as an enemy risks isolating itself from the society it governs.

Another factor affecting trust is consistency.

Political leaders are often judged not only by what they promise but by whether they consistently follow through.

When campaign promises differ substantially from later outcomes, disappointment can grow. Citizens begin asking whether they were voting for a vision or merely responding to hope.

Hope is powerful in politics, but hope alone cannot sustain legitimacy forever.

Eventually citizens ask practical questions.

Has governance improved?

Are institutions stronger?

Is corruption being addressed?

Has security improved?

Are opportunities expanding?

If answers to these questions appear unsatisfactory to large portions of the population, confidence may decline regardless of electoral victories.

Political trust is therefore cumulative.

It grows slowly through consistent performance.

It declines gradually through repeated disappointments.

Another challenge facing Ethiopia is polarization.

The country remains home to multiple political identities, ethnic communities, regional interests, and competing historical narratives. Governing such a diverse society requires more than electoral success. It requires dialogue, compromise, and institutions that are viewed as fair by people with different perspectives.

When citizens believe that political competition has become a zero-sum contest—where one side wins everything and others feel excluded—trust in institutions may weaken.

Inclusive governance is therefore not simply an idealistic concept.

It is a practical necessity.

The most durable political systems are those in which supporters and opponents alike believe they can pursue change peacefully through institutions rather than through confrontation.

Economic performance also shapes political legitimacy.

Governments everywhere eventually discover that economic realities often outweigh political rhetoric.

Citizens are generally patient when they see progress.

Patience becomes harder to maintain when living standards stagnate or decline.

Inflation, unemployment, investment uncertainty, and declining business confidence can all reduce trust in government even if elections have been won convincingly.

No administration is judged solely by its speeches.

It is judged by the conditions under which people live.

This is particularly true for young people.

Ethiopia has one of Africa’s youngest populations. Young citizens increasingly evaluate governments through education, employment opportunities, entrepreneurship, digital freedoms, and prospects for the future.

Young generations are often less interested in historical political rivalries than in practical questions about economic opportunity and governance.

If those expectations remain unmet, frustration can grow across society.

It is also important to distinguish criticism of a government from criticism of a country.

Strong states are not built by unquestioning loyalty to leaders.

They are built by resilient institutions that can withstand criticism, adapt to changing realities, and maintain public confidence over time.

No political leader governs forever.

Institutions outlast individuals.

History consistently shows that countries become stronger when citizens trust courts, electoral bodies, legislatures, security institutions, and independent media more than they trust any single political personality.

This is one reason why public trust matters so much.

Without trust, governments spend increasing amounts of energy defending themselves instead of solving national problems.

Without trust, every policy becomes controversial.

Every reform becomes suspect.

Every announcement is questioned.

Politics becomes dominated by suspicion instead of cooperation.

Conversely, when trust exists, citizens are often willing to accept difficult reforms because they believe leaders are acting in the national interest.

That trust cannot be demanded.

It must be earned.

Ultimately, the lesson extends far beyond Ethiopia.

Every government should remember that elections provide authority, but they do not automatically create legitimacy in the eyes of every citizen.

Public trust depends on transparency, accountability, competence, respect for fundamental rights, responsiveness to criticism, and the ability to improve people’s daily lives.

Winning an election may secure a government.

Winning public trust secures a nation.

The most enduring political leaders are remembered not because they won votes alone, but because they built institutions, inspired confidence, respected the dignity of their citizens, and left behind societies that were stronger than they found them.

That remains the highest standard by which every government—regardless of ideology, popularity, or electoral success—should ultimately be judged.