By Red Sea Beacon
Introduction
In Ethiopia, power has rarely been proven by consent. It has been proven by display. Rulers have long confused spectacle with strength, turning violence into political theater and military hardware into a substitute for legitimacy. Authority is not earned quietly. It is staged loudly.
When Mengistu Hailemariam raised bottles of blood before cheering crowds, he was not merely threatening enemies. He was announcing a doctrine: terror itself would stand in for political authority. Today, when Abiy Ahmed parades fighter jets and boasts of air power, he is speaking the same language, only with better lighting and borrowed machines. The jets on display were not even Ethiopia’s. They were UAE aircraft flown in for an airshow. But the message was carefully choreographed: look at the sky, not at the collapsing state.
This is not leadership. It is distraction dressed as strength.
Abiy’s jet parade was not about defense. It was about performance. At a moment of insurgencies, famine, debt default, and mass displacement, he chose spectacle over accountability. Like Mengistu’s blood bottles, the jets were props in a political drama meant to intimidate critics, rally hollow nationalism, and project an image of control that reality no longer supports.
Ethiopian history has seen this theater before. After the fall of Tewodros, the short-lived warlord Wag Shum Gobeze (Tekle Giyorgis II) of Lasta tried to frighten the rising Tigrayan warlord Kahsay Mirach (Yohannes IV). He sent him a sack of taff, boasting that his army was as numerous as the grains inside. It was a gesture of pure bravado, power performed, not proven.
Yohannes IV’s reply exposed the fraud. He roasted the taff and sent the same sack back. The message was unmistakable: intimidation without substance burns easily. History remembers which man endured and which vanished. The warlord of spectacle fell. The leader who understood the limits of bravado prevailed.
Abiy Ahmed now plays the same role, a modern Oromo Shum with modern props. Fighter jets replace sacks of taff, but the political logic is identical. When legitimacy is thin, rulers reach for spectacle. When authority is questioned, they turn to intimidation. When governance fails, they perform power instead of exercising it.
This is not modern statecraft. It is feudal theater with jet engines.
From Haile Selassie’s imperial silences, to Mengistu’s ritualized terror, to Meles Zenawi’s bureaucratized coercion, and now to Abiy Ahmed’s revival of militarized spectacle, Ethiopia’s rulers have passed down the same lesson: that force is not a failure of politics, but its highest expression. Each generation dresses it differently. The damage remains the same.
For Eritreans, Ethiopians, and the wider Horn of Africa, this tradition has not produced strength. It has produced mass graves, displacement, famine, and intergenerational trauma. This essay is not about jets. It is about a political culture that mistakes performance for power, intimidation for legitimacy, and spectacle for leadership, and about the human cost of allowing that culture to continue unchallenged.
The modern political history of Ethiopia is defined by a deadly continuity: when rulers face crisis, dissent, or collapsing legitimacy, they do not turn to reform or accountability, they turn to spectacle. Violence is not merely deployed; it is performed. Coercion is transformed into theater, and theater into policy. Power is staged to intimidate, to distract, and to substitute for legitimacy. This tradition has extracted a brutal toll from Ethiopians and their neighbors, entrenching a political culture in which war becomes routine, trauma becomes generational, and instability becomes the normal condition of governance.
Mengistu Hailemariam: Blood Bottles and the Politics of Terror
Mengistu’s blood bottles remain one of the most chilling symbols of political violence in Africa’s modern history. They were not impulsive gestures but calculated acts designed to condition society psychologically. By publicly celebrating bloodshed, Mengistu transformed violence from a tragic outcome into a governing principle. During the Red Terror, killing became ritualized and visible, intended to terrorize the population into submission. Tens of thousands were murdered, families were forced to pay for the bullets that killed their children, and fear seeped into every layer of social life. Ethiopia lost not only lives but trust, solidarity, and moral boundaries. Violence became normalized as a legitimate expression of power.
For Eritreans, Mengistu’s rule meant intensified war and unprecedented brutality. Indiscriminate bombing, mass displacement, forced conscription, and starvation tactics devastated entire communities. Eritrea became a battlefield where civilians bore the heaviest cost. Ethiopian soldiers, many themselves victims of poverty and coercion, were sacrificed in endless offensives that delivered neither victory nor peace. The war destabilized neighboring countries as refugees poured into Sudan and beyond, spreading the consequences of Ethiopia’s internal violence across the region. Mengistu’s spectacle of terror did not strengthen the state; it hollowed it out and poisoned the Horn for decades.
Yet Mengistu’s violence did not emerge in a vacuum. Haile Selassie, ruling through feudal symbolism and claims of divine authority, laid the structural and psychological foundations for what followed. His annexation of Eritrea and dismantling of its federal arrangement turned a political dispute into a prolonged war of independence. Eritreans were stripped of self governance, their language suppressed, their institutions dismantled. Peaceful political expression was closed off, leaving armed struggle as the only viable path. Within Ethiopia, the emperor’s silence during devastating famines and his repression of dissent communicated a brutal message: power did not answer to suffering. Violence under Haile Selassie was less theatrical than under Mengistu, but it was deeply formative. Tens of thousands of Eritrean civilians were murdered. It taught generations that authority was distant, unaccountable, and ultimately enforced by force.
Meles Zenawi: Repression in a Technocratic Suit
Meles Zenawi inherited a country shattered by terror and war and presented himself as a rational, disciplined alternative. He rejected Mengistu’s crude theatrics, but he did not dismantle the machinery of coercion. Instead, he refined it. Under Meles, repression became institutional, bureaucratic, and justified through the language of security and development. Elections existed, institutions functioned, but the boundaries of political life were rigidly enforced. Dissent was criminalized as destabilization, and opposition was framed as existential threat and hunted and murdered.
The most devastating expression of this logic was the 1998 – 2000 Eritrea – Ethiopia war. Two governments that had once fought together against dictatorship plunged into a catastrophic conflict driven by pride, power, and unresolved authority of Meles’s weyane Party. Over a hundred thousand people died. Eritreans and Ethiopians were deported, detained, and dispossessed solely because of their identity. Families were torn apart overnight, livelihoods destroyed, and entire communities traumatized. The war poisoned relations between two societies that had shared sacrifice and history, replacing solidarity with suspicion and hatred.
The aftermath entrenched long-term damage across the region. The strategy was clear: systematically isolate and weaken Eritrea. Through illegal sanctions, fabricated accusations, and an international propaganda campaign of extraordinary scale, the Meles-led TPLF regime sought to strangle Eritrea economically and diplomatically. The lies and manufactured narratives were designed to break Eritrea’s resolve and justify its exclusion from regional and global systems. Eritrea paid an economic price, but it did not collapse. Its survival became an act of political resistance.
Inside Ethiopia, Meles used the same crisis to entrench authoritarian rule. Permanent “national security threats” became the all-purpose justification for repression, surveillance, and the criminalization of dissent. The population was governed through fear and fragmentation. Divide-and-rule was elevated to state doctrine. At the same time, systemic corruption hollowed out public institutions and drained the national treasury, even as the regime presented itself abroad as a model of stability and development.
Under Meles, Ethiopia did not merely cooperate with the machinery of extraordinary rendition, it became part of it. The regime turned the country into a black-site corridor for secret abductions, illegal transfers, and torture outsourced under the euphemism of “enhanced interrogation.” Courts were bypassed. Due process was erased. Human beings were disappeared across borders and delivered to dungeons designed for pain, not justice.
This was not counterterrorism. It was state-sanctioned criminality wrapped in the language of security.
Ethiopia’s role was transactional and cynical. In exchange for Western intelligence favor and political cover, the regime sold access to its prisons, its airspace, and its legal system. Torture became a currency. Sovereignty became a bargaining chip. The rule of law was sacrificed on the altar of foreign approval.
While prisoners were beaten and broken, TPLF elites were enriched and empowered. Millions flowed upward into patronage networks while the country’s name was dragged into the architecture of global abuse. What was marketed as partnership was, in truth, collaboration in a system of disappearance, coercion, and impunity.
This was not a deviation. It was a revelation. A regime willing to torture for outsiders will always be willing to brutalize its own people. Ethiopia under Meles did not just lose credibility. It lost its moral core, traded for dollars, intelligence praise, and protection from accountability.
The victims carry the scars. The country carries the stain.
The so-called “no war, no peace” policy was designed to punish Eritrea. In reality, it became a trap for Ethiopia itself. By freezing relations, blocking reconciliation, and normalizing permanent militarization, Meles institutionalized repression and postponed political reckoning. The system he built did not create stability. It delayed collapse.
That collapse came home to roost. The political architecture Meles constructed, centralized, coercive, corrupt, and ethnically polarized, left Ethiopia brittle. By 2018, the contradictions he had managed through force and propaganda exploded. By 2020, the consequences fell hardest on ordinary Tigrayans, who paid the price for a political system built by elites but sustained by repression.
Violence under Meles was no longer theatrical. It was bureaucratized. It became embedded in institutions, normalized in policy, and justified as necessity. Force was made to appear rational, permanent, and inevitable. That legacy did not die with him. It metastasized, and it continues to shape the wars and suffering of today.
Abiy Ahmed: From Nobel Laureate to Warlord-in-Chief
Abiy Ahmed came to power wrapped in the language of reform, reconciliation, and renewal. He was marketed to the world as a peacemaker, crowned with a Nobel Peace Prize, and celebrated as the leader who would finally break Ethiopia’s long addiction to coercion and war. For a brief moment, hope felt plausible. It did not last.
Rather than dismantling Ethiopia’s culture of violence, Abiy Ahmed has resurrected its most dangerous traditions and dressed them in modern spectacle. He did not reject militarized legitimacy; he rebranded it. His rule fuses messianic self-image, nationalist mythology, and raw militarism into a new political theater, one that treats war not as a tragic failure of politics, but as a personal stage for power.
Where Mengistu turned terror into ritual, Abiy has turned it into performance. Mengistu waved bottles filled, whether with dye or blood, as symbols of violence. Abiy boasts of real blood spilled, of communities “pulverized,” of drones reducing people to dust. The insanity is not new. It is recycled. The tradition is the same. Only the technology has changed.
But there is a deeper and more dangerous difference. Mengistu spoke in the language of collective power, “we,” the revolution, the state, even as he ruled brutally. Abiy speaks in the language of self. His violence is personalized, wrapped in narcissism, infused with a cult of leadership that centers the nation around his image, his destiny, his will.
This is not merely authoritarianism. It is theatrical brutality driven by ego. War becomes a mirror for self-glorification. Militarism becomes a substitute for legitimacy. Bloodshed becomes proof of greatness.
What Abiy has revived is not strength. It is a grotesque political inheritance: the belief that leadership is measured by how much suffering one can command and how spectacularly one can display it. In this sense, Abiy is not a break from Ethiopia’s violent past. He is its most self-absorbed incarnation.
His public boasting about fighter jets and military hardware is not defense policy. It is theater. It is intimidation as messaging. It is violence as symbolism. In a fragile, multi-ethnic state already tearing itself apart, such displays are not neutral, they are deliberate signals. Like Mengistu’s blood bottles, they communicate readiness to kill, an embrace of force as legitimacy, and the framing of political conflict as something to be crushed rather than resolved.
What makes this transformation especially grotesque is the contrast between image and reality. A Nobel laureate has become a warmonger. A global icon of “peace” has turned into a regional destabilizer. A leader once praised as a reformer now performs like a delusional braggart, intoxicated by spectacle, projecting strength while presiding over internal collapse. The language of peace has been replaced by the language of domination. The vocabulary of reform has been replaced by the aesthetics of war.
This is not leadership, it is political narcissism armed with state power.
Abiy’s rule has not brought unity. It has produced fragmentation. It has not brought stability. It has produced militarization. It has not brought reform. It has produced fear. It has not brought peace. It has produced war.
And the most dangerous illusion of all is the belief that spectacle equals strength. History in the Horn of Africa shows the opposite: leaders who rule by intimidation eventually rule over ruins. Leaders who perform power eventually expose their weakness. Leaders who replace legitimacy with violence do not build states, they hollow them out.
Abiy Ahmed’s transformation is not just personal. It is structural. He has become the latest embodiment of an old political disease: the belief that authority is proven through force, that crisis is solved through coercion, and that fear is a substitute for consent. From Nobel Peace Prize winner to war-performing strongman, his arc is not tragic irony, it is a warning. Because when leaders begin to confuse violence with leadership and spectacle with strength, they do not lead nations forward. They lead them into graves.
Different Symbols, Same Graves
Across these eras, the damage is cumulative and shared. Eritreans have repeatedly been denied peace first through imperial domination, then revolutionary war, then border conflict, and now renewed militarization. Ethiopians have been sacrificed again and again to elite struggles for power, forced to carry the human cost of leaders who equate violence with strength. The region as a whole has endured cycles of displacement, economic devastation, and intergenerational trauma, with each conflict reinforcing the next.
The comparison between Mengistu’s blood bottles and Abiy’s fighter jets is therefore not rhetorical excess. It is historical recognition. The symbols have changed, but the political logic remains the same. When leaders perform violence, they prepare societies to accept it. When they glorify force, they erode moral limits and normalize bloodshed. Ethiopia’s tragedy is not simply that it has endured violent rulers, but that it has repeatedly failed to break with the belief that violence is an acceptable language of authority.
The lesson of the Horn of Africa’s history is painfully clear. Power that relies on spectacle, intimidation, and militarized pride does not create stability; it creates graves, refugees, and broken futures. Until leadership in the region abandons the performance of violence and embraces restraint, accountability, and genuine political inclusion, history will continue to echo. And the cost of ignoring those echoes will once again be paid not by leaders, but by ordinary Eritreans, Ethiopians, and their neighbors.
In short, the history of the Horn of Africa demonstrates that violence does not erupt suddenly or accidentally. It is rehearsed, announced, and normalized long before the first shot is fired. When leaders turn power into spectacle whether through imperial silence, revolutionary terror, technocratic coercion, or modern military bravado they prepare societies psychologically for bloodshed. Mengistu’s blood bottles and Abiy Ahmed’s fighter jets are separated by decades and technology, but they belong to the same political tradition: a belief that authority is proven through force rather than earned through legitimacy.
Haile Selassie taught the region that power could ignore suffering without consequence. Mengistu taught it that terror could be celebrated. Meles Zenawi taught it that coercion could be rationalized and permanent. Abiy Ahmed has revived the most dangerous lesson of all, that violence can once again be worn proudly, spoken of openly, and framed as national strength. Each leader deepened the wounds of Eritreans, Ethiopians, and their neighbors, leaving behind trauma that outlived their rule.
The damage has been cumulative and generational. Wars fought for pride, control, and symbolism have destroyed families, displaced millions, and locked the region into a permanent state of insecurity. Each new conflict has drawn legitimacy not from justice or consent, but from the promise of domination. And each time, ordinary people have paid the price while leaders escaped accountability.
History offers no ambiguity here. Societies that accept the performance of violence eventually live with its consequences. Peace cannot grow from intimidation, and unity cannot be forged through fear. Until the Horn of Africa decisively rejects the idea that strength is measured by blood spilled or weapons displayed, the cycle will continue with different leaders, different symbols, the same graves.
The choice is no longer historical; it is moral and urgent. Either the region breaks with this legacy of war mongering leadership, or it remains trapped within it, condemned to recognize the warning signs only after they have once again become a catastrophe.
Conclusion
The history of the Horn of Africa leaves no room for illusion. Violence in this region does not arrive by accident. It is rehearsed, signaled, celebrated, and normalized long before the first bomb falls or the first body is buried. When leaders turn power into spectacle, whether through blood bottles, emergency decrees, or fighter jets, they are not preventing conflict. They are preparing society for it.
Mengistu’s blood bottles and Abiy Ahmed’s fighter jets belong to the same political lineage. They are separated by decades and technology, but united by ideology: the belief that authority is proven through force rather than earned through legitimacy. That belief has hollowed out states, brutalized populations, and locked the Horn of Africa into a cycle where war is not an exception, but a governing habit.
Haile Selassie taught that power could ignore suffering. Mengistu taught that terror could be celebrated. Meles Zenawi taught that coercion could be bureaucratized and made permanent. Abiy Ahmed has revived the most dangerous lesson of all: that militarized pride can once again be worn openly and sold as national strength. Each phase deepened the wounds. None broke the cycle.
The result is written across the region: displaced millions, shattered families, traumatized societies, and a political culture that equates fear with unity and destruction with leadership. These are not the marks of strength. They are the symptoms of a system that has confused domination for authority and violence for vision.
The choice facing the Horn of Africa is no longer theoretical. It is moral and urgent. Either the region decisively breaks with this legacy of war-mongering leadership, or it remains trapped within it, doomed to recognize the warning signs only after they have once again become catastrophe.
History has already given its verdict. Power performed through violence does not build nations. It buries them.
Discover more from Red Sea Beacon
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
