The torch of heroism and patriotism is always passed on from generation to generation. History has witnessed several moments when some generations were crushed under the weight of oppression, silenced by tyranny, or subdued by external forces. Yet, their successors rose from the ashes of their struggles, inheriting the unyielding spirit of resistance. This is the revolutionary torch: a beacon lit by the sacrifices of a generation that refused to bow. That generation did not give in; the patriots fought bravely for their freedom.
As I see today a new generation of fighters and revolutionaries emerge, my heart is filled with boundless joy and hope. Unlike some who faltered or lost their way, this generation is a testament to resilience and determination. While invincibility is not yet recorded in their ranks, their unity and courage instill a belief that victory is within reach.
That struggle found its telling moment when today’s የአረመኔው government and its followers in the Amhara region called for a rally to stretch and flex authority. The populace is opposed to this all-out. United with patriots, they said, “No to the rally; we will not let subjugation and division be possible.”. This act of collective defiance cements the indomitable will of the Amhara people, a will that would never bend.
It would have been better if the government of Abiy Ahmed and its allies had listened to the people’s will, accepted their defeat, and tried to solve the problem amicably. But because of a lust for power, the country is being dragged into further crisis, losing all its resources and causing destruction everywhere. History is riddled with examples of how those who try to cling to power at any cost ruin a nation and its people.
One cannot help but draw comparisons to other leaders who clung to their thrones until the bitter end—leaders like Bashar al-Assad, whose reign left Syria devastated after over a decade of war, or Saddam Hussein, who was captured, humiliated and ultimately executed by the very forces he once defied. Even Hosni Mubarak, whose iron grip on Egypt finally buckled beneath the weight of popular uprising, spent the last years battling illness and shame. Both these examples are good enough to remind people that leaders who refuse to acknowledge the reality of their defeat will always be remembered for having left a legacy of suffering and dishonor.
If the Abiy Ahmed government had taken the path of humility and reconciliation, it might have saved the nation from such devastation. It could have saved itself from such a situation by acknowledging defeat and stepping aside for a peaceful transition and an honorable legacy. Instead, it has chosen a path that leads to inevitable humiliation and irreversible harm to the nation.
Yet amidst the deserts of these challenges, the torture of resistance keeps burning. The patriots and the people bear it together, united in their resolve to reclaim their dignity and rebuild their nation. This generation of fighters carries the weight of history, yet they march undeterred into a future defined by freedom and justice.
Suppose Abiy Ahmed and his clique, who preach divisive and ethnocentric ideologies, have the wisdom of introspection and guts to speak candidly; they might perhaps draw valuable lessons from history. They could have spared a minute to remember not only the dramatic falls of some of the leaders like Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, or Bashar al-Assad of Syria but also, in more recent history, the collapse of the TPLF regime and the eventual flight of Mengistu Hailemariam.
These examples herald what was expected from unbridled authoritarianism, hubris, and refusal to hear the people’s will. Gaddafi, for nearly half a century, one-man dictator over Libya, shook and crumbled-but again, not because the enemy forces finally prevailed, but during the fury of his people liberating themselves from such a grasping clutch. His violent ending in the streets of Sirte serves as a grim reminder of what happens when a leader prioritizes personal power over the well-being of the nation.
The same happened with Saddam Hussein’s ironclad rule in Iraq, which crumbled to pieces the very moment his regime buckled amidst international pressure and internal strife. Hunted, captured, and finally executed, Saddam showed in that fall how ephemeral the power of the fearful and the repressive is. In Syria, Bashar al-Assad has kept his country in an incredibly long war; millions of people have been displaced, and several lives have been lost. He clings to power, but he leaves only destruction and despair.
But closer to home, the TPLF and Mengistu Hailemariam stories are probably even more poignant. After years of an oppressive regime and divisive policies, when one single unified Ethiopian resistance brought down the once all-powerful TPLF, any regime, no matter how deep-rooted, could not survive indefinitely in any country if it alienated people and oppressed them.
Mengistu Hailemariam also reminds the people of an example. Throughout the period of Derg, he ruled with an iron fist, but then suddenly, he found flying to save his life, a fugitive who could never dream of setting foot on the motherland again. It is not just a defeat at a personal level but also symbolic of the fall of a system that never listened to and responded to the aspirations and needs of its people instead of struggling for the advancement of justice, equity, and peace.
These are patterns that Abiy Ahmed and his followers would do well to note and learn from: trying to hold onto power through violence and divide-and-rule tactics hastens rather than delays a regime’s downfall. A wise leader knows when the tide has changed and reaches out for reconciliation before it’s too late. Failure to do so guarantees defeat and the legacy of destruction, humiliation, and irreparable damage to one’s nation.
This moment of introspection and change is passing fast. History has no kind words for leaders who spurn its warnings, and Abiy Ahmed is going inexorably toward the fate awaiting all who preceded him. A choice remains: to grasp humility, step aside, and allow Ethiopia to rebuild or continue a path that will bring only further suffering and disgrace. The nation’s future is hinged on what is decided today; it is not too late to choose a better path.
Lesson from Syria
For those who wish to draw lessons from Syria, there is a need to see that country’s continued devastation as one brought about by relentless foreign intervention and internal strife. A truth starkly brought home is represented by the fact that it is Syria that continues being bombed by foreign powers, targeting neither Hafez al-Assad’s legacy nor even Bashar al-Assad himself but the people of Syria and their sovereignty. It is a consequence not just of the Assad rule but of the interaction of several foreign and domestic actors that have ruined the country.
Now, consider the role of global powers such as the United States and Israel. Their intervention in Syria does not aim at an attempt to liberate the Syrian people or restore this country but in pursuit of their strategic interests. They are not flying across the country to provide aid or stability; instead, their planes bomb cities, decimate infrastructure and deplete the nation’s resources. On the other hand, the so-called rebels-olim, many of whom were at first hailed as saviors, have often added to the anarchy. Instead of uniting in standard resistance, some factions have been fighting with each other, reducing cities to rubble and, in a few instances, turning territory over to foreign occupiers or extremists of their own. The result is an atomized country stuck in a destructive cycle of betrayal.
But Bashar al-Assad is hardly blameless himself: His government has been a prime actor in the destruction of Syria during more than 13 years of war, putting its survival above that of its people. Still, even as Assad has reduced much of the country to ruin, foreign powers supporting various factions’ intent on ousting him have contributed to the devastation, tearing down much of what remains of Syria. And so, these external forces discuss the principles of freedom and democracy, yet the behavior expressed is to weaken the structures of a sovereign state to achieve geopolitical gain.
It is not an isolated case. The stories of Saddam Hussein’s fates in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya do echo similar dynamics: at his fall, it was not his regime but the entire country that then had gone into the abyss. Scores have died since Saddam Hussein was gone. The actions during his rule were undeniably brutal; however, the intervention and its aftermath by foreign leading caused even graver destruction, leaving the State of Iraq in an unending spiral of instability.
For instance, Muammar Gaddafi’s fall in Libya was to free the country, but it only invited a disastrous meltdown of governance, infrastructure, and security. Gaddafi was no friend of his people, yet those who intervened in their name did far more harm than Gaddafi ever managed through bombarding the country and its civilians, leaving it fractious and vulnerable to unceasing conflict. It turned out that Gaddafi’s foes were not only his enemies but also the enemies of Libya itself.
These examples highlight a repeated pattern: the tyrant causes suffering to his people, while foreign interventions, claiming to remove these tyrants, cause even greater destruction. The people and the nations are left to bear the brunt of these conflicts while the intervening powers pursue their interests and then depart, leaving behind broken societies.
Syria, much like Iraq and Libya, is a sad witness to this vicious circle. The tyrants kill and oppress, but the so-called liberators-foreign powers and opportunistic factions often destroy even more. They kill the dream of sovereignty and stability, leaving the people trapped in what is an endless nightmare. To whoever may draw a lesson from these conflicts, the enemies are not just the deposed leaders but the foreign actors and the internal factions that took advantage of these crises for their self-interest. A clear lesson can be drawn from this: one should allow the people of a nation to decide about its future without any external manipulation and destruction.