Propaganda is one of the tools being used by Aby Ahmed’s government to remain in power. They use propaganda to instigate fear, injustices and intimidation to its citizens. It is unfortunate that this a way that Aby’s regime is using to ‘preserve’ its survival. With this archaic tactic being used, it is evident that the legitimacy of the government also is a façade.

When a government doesn’t work, it uses propaganda. When they can’t protect the citizens, it uses propaganda. When they can’t provide employment opportunities, it uses propaganda. Propaganda is a sign of a failed government and when you see Aby Ahmed using it, it is clear that he has already failed.

Information encourages citizens to think critically and make informed decisions. Propaganda, on the other hand, seeks to replace critical thinking with unquestioning loyalty. It is designed not merely to persuade but to control perception.

This distinction is important when discussing contemporary Ethiopian politics. Critics of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s administration argue that the government increasingly relies on political messaging that emphasizes loyalty, national unity, and official narratives while dismissing or discrediting opposing voices. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it raises important questions about the relationship between political communication, public trust, and democratic governance.

The first hidden cost of propaganda is that it weakens trust between citizens and the state.

Governments derive their legitimacy not only from elections or constitutional authority but also from public confidence. Citizens expect honesty from those entrusted with power. When political messaging consistently presents only successes while ignoring failures, people begin to question everything they hear from official institutions.

Trust is extremely difficult to build but remarkably easy to lose. Once citizens conclude that government communication is driven more by political survival than by transparency, every official statement becomes suspect. Even truthful announcements are met with skepticism because credibility has already been damaged.

This creates a dangerous cycle. Instead of rebuilding trust through openness, authorities may respond with even more propaganda, hoping that repetition will eventually convince the public. Yet history repeatedly shows that repetition cannot permanently replace credibility.

The second hidden cost is the erosion of accountability.

Healthy governments acknowledge mistakes because mistakes are inevitable. Effective leadership is not measured by perfection but by the willingness to recognize failures and correct them.

Propaganda often works in the opposite direction. It creates an image of flawless leadership. Problems become someone else’s fault. Economic hardship is blamed entirely on external actors. Political unrest is attributed solely to enemies. Institutional failures are minimized or ignored.

When governments become more concerned with protecting their image than solving problems, accountability suffers. Ministries stop asking difficult questions. Civil servants become reluctant to report failures honestly. Instead of correcting mistakes, institutions begin protecting reputations.

The result is that real problems remain unresolved while public relations campaigns continue.

Another hidden cost is the weakening of independent institutions.

A democratic society depends on institutions capable of operating without political pressure. Courts must interpret the law fairly. Journalists must investigate freely. Universities should encourage independent thinking. Civil society organizations should monitor government performance.

When propaganda dominates public life, these institutions often come under pressure to conform to the official narrative. Independent criticism may be portrayed as disloyalty rather than legitimate civic participation.

The consequence is not simply political polarization. It is institutional decline. Once institutions lose their independence, citizens have fewer peaceful avenues through which grievances can be addressed.

This increases frustration rather than reducing it.

Propaganda also has profound economic consequences.

Investors seek predictability. Businesses rely on accurate information to make decisions. International partners assess transparency before committing resources.

If official messaging consistently presents an unrealistically optimistic picture while citizens experience worsening economic conditions, confidence declines.

Markets ultimately respond to facts, not slogans.

No advertising campaign can substitute for stable institutions, sound fiscal management, functioning infrastructure, or predictable public policy.

Economic growth depends upon productivity, innovation, and investor confidence—not political messaging alone.

The labor market provides another example.

Young graduates care less about political slogans than employment opportunities. They judge governments by whether they can build meaningful careers, support families, and improve their quality of life.

A graduate without employment cannot pay rent with patriotic speeches.

An entrepreneur facing regulatory uncertainty cannot expand a business because of inspiring political rhetoric.

Citizens ultimately evaluate governments through lived experience rather than official narratives.

Another hidden cost is social division.

Political propaganda often creates simplistic categories.

Supporters become patriots.

Critics become enemies.

Independent observers become suspected conspirators.

Reality, however, is rarely that simple.

Every nation contains diverse opinions. Disagreement is not necessarily hostility. In healthy democracies, criticism serves as a mechanism for improvement rather than evidence of disloyalty.

When political discourse reduces complex national conversations into rigid camps, polarization deepens.

Families become divided.

Communities become suspicious of one another.

Political compromise becomes increasingly difficult.

Instead of strengthening national unity, propaganda can unintentionally weaken social cohesion.

Another consequence concerns freedom of information.

Information is essential for democratic decision-making.

Citizens need access to multiple perspectives before forming opinions.

If government narratives dominate public communication while independent reporting becomes increasingly constrained, society risks making decisions based upon incomplete information.

Without diverse viewpoints, policy errors become harder to identify.

Public debate becomes less informed.

Innovation declines because new ideas often emerge from disagreement rather than conformity.

History repeatedly demonstrates that societies flourish when ideas compete freely.

They stagnate when only one narrative is permitted.

Propaganda also affects those inside government.

Civil servants may become hesitant to present accurate assessments if those assessments contradict official messaging.

Political leaders then receive increasingly filtered information.

Over time, decision-makers become isolated from reality.

This phenomenon has affected governments throughout history.

Leaders begin believing their own publicity.

Policy decisions become disconnected from conditions experienced by ordinary citizens.

Eventually reality asserts itself regardless of political messaging.

Infrastructure either functions or it does not.

Inflation either rises or falls.

Security either improves or deteriorates.

No amount of communication can permanently alter measurable outcomes.

Perhaps the greatest hidden cost is psychological.

Propaganda asks citizens to distrust their own observations.

If individuals experience economic hardship but are repeatedly told conditions have never been better, confusion develops.

If insecurity persists while official messaging insists that everything is stable, people begin questioning institutions rather than their own experiences.

This disconnect contributes to cynicism.

Citizens stop believing official statements altogether.

Political participation declines.

Public debate becomes increasingly emotional because objective information becomes more difficult to establish.

Eventually society loses its shared understanding of reality.

This is extraordinarily difficult to repair.

Political philosophers have long argued that legitimacy depends not only on power but also on consent.

Consent requires informed citizens.

Informed citizens require access to truthful information.

Truth therefore becomes a cornerstone of democratic governance.

Governments certainly have the right to explain policies, defend decisions, and communicate achievements.

But communication becomes propaganda when its primary purpose shifts from informing citizens to preserving political power regardless of evidence.

The distinction matters because democratic governments ultimately depend upon public trust rather than fear.

Fear may produce temporary compliance.

Trust produces lasting stability.

History offers numerous examples of governments that relied heavily on propaganda to maintain authority.

Many survived longer than observers expected.

Very few strengthened their legitimacy through propaganda alone.

Eventually economic realities, institutional weaknesses, and public dissatisfaction became impossible to conceal.

Political communication can influence perception for a period of time.

It cannot indefinitely replace effective governance.

This brings us to an important question regarding Ethiopia’s future.

The country’s long-term stability will depend less on persuasive slogans than on institutions capable of delivering justice, economic opportunity, security, and equal treatment under the law.

Citizens ultimately judge governments by outcomes rather than narratives.

If living standards improve, institutions become stronger, and rights are protected, public confidence naturally increases.

If those conditions deteriorate, communication campaigns alone cannot restore legitimacy.

The deeper lesson extends beyond Ethiopia.

Every society must remain vigilant whenever political communication discourages critical thinking instead of encouraging it.

Healthy democracies require citizens willing to ask questions, journalists willing to investigate, institutions willing to remain independent, and leaders willing to accept scrutiny.

Propaganda may win today’s headlines.

Transparency wins tomorrow’s trust.

And trust remains the most valuable political resource any government can possess—not because it can be demanded, but because it must be earned.