A Conversation in Three Acts

By Ms. Leeshan Kuratey
Investigative Journalist, Writer, and Poet

Prologue: The Satirist as Scholar

Before we enter the café, before the Ethiopian coffee is poured and the conversation ignites, we must acknowledge the architect of our lens: Sacha Baron Cohen.

Baron Cohen is no mere comedian. A graduate of Christ’s College, Cambridge, where he read History, he is a student of power, prejudice, and performance. His thesis explored the role of Jewish involvement in the American Civil Rights Movement a scholarly inquiry into solidarity, oppression, and identity. This intellectual foundation informs every character he creates. Borat is not simply vulgar; he is a mirror held up to Western liberalism, exposing its conditional tolerance. General Aladeen is not merely absurd; he is a composite sketch of authoritarian vanity, drawn from Gaddafi, Saddam, and a dozen other dictators who confused statecraft with theatre.

Baron Cohen’s genius lies in satirical anthropology. He does not mock from a distance; he embeds himself, hugs his subjects, kisses their cheeks, and watches them reveal their prejudices, their discomfort, their complicity. His characters are traps, disarming, ridiculous, invasive, designed to make the powerful forget the camera is rolling.

It is through this lens, educated, sharp, unforgiving, that we now turn to Abiy Ahmed Ali: Nobel laureate, PhD holder, former intelligence officer, moderniser of Addis Ababa, and practitioner of what we might call tactile diplomacy. If Baron Cohen’s satire is a scalpel, let us use it to dissect Ethiopia’s most visible, most photogenic, most polarising leader.

Act I: The Setting

A London café, the kind where Ethiopian intellectuals meet European analysts and the coffee costs more than it should. Two figures sit across from one another: a historian and a political satirist. They are soon joined by a third voice an Ethiopian-Canadian woman, in town for a diaspora conference, her suitcase still by the door.

The subject: Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

But they will not analyse him through the usual frameworks of political science or diplomatic protocol. Instead, they choose satire as their scalpel, and Sacha Baron Cohen as their guide. Specifically, they invoke two of his most iconic creations: Borat Sagdiyev, the hugger and personal-space invader from Kazakhstan, and General Aladeen, the dictator of Wadiya, who confused his nation with his wardrobe.

The question they pose: Is Abiy Borat, disarming the world with intimacy? Or is he Aladeen, staging Ethiopia as his personal theatre?

Or, most disturbingly, is he both?

Act II: The Hugger

Historian:
“Let us begin with the hugs. Abiy’s embrace of Prime Minister Modi in Addis, the hand-holding, the arm around the shoulder, the guided palace tours, it is profoundly Borat-esque. Not in crudeness, but in deliberate invasion of personal space. Borat hugs to unsettle, to expose. Abiy hugs to disarm, to project intimacy where protocol demands distance. It is theatre, and theatre, as we know, is politics.”

Satirist:
“Precisely. Baron Cohen’s characters, Borat, Brüno, operate by compressing social distance. They sniff, kiss, embrace, and force their subjects into positions of awkward complicity. The subject must either recoil, revealing prejudice, or reciprocate, revealing desperation. Abiy’s hugs function similarly. They collapse diplomatic formality. The photograph becomes the policy. The hug is the communiqué. It is absurd, yes, but absurdity is devastatingly effective in the age of images.”

Historian:
“Yet there is risk. In diplomacy, intimacy can be misread. What is intended as warmth may be perceived as subservience or worse, as brown-nosing. Protocol exists precisely to prevent such misinterpretation. Abiy weaponises protocol by shattering it: he drives Modi himself, hosts impromptu coffee ceremonies in the palace courtyard, clasps hands in front of cameras. It is charming, undoubtedly. But charm in diplomacy is also dangerous. It personalises what should remain institutional.”

Satirist:
“And yet, Baron Cohen would argue that breaking protocol is the point. Borat’s handshake that lingers too long, his kiss that lands too close to the lips, these are not accidents. They are designed to make the powerful forget themselves, to reveal their discomfort or their complicity. Abiy’s hugs may serve the same function: they make Modi, and the world, forget the script. In that moment of disarmed intimacy, Ethiopia is no longer a supplicant. It is a host, a friend, an equal.”

Act III: The Dictator

Satirist:
“Now let us turn to the other Baron Cohen archetype: General Aladeen. The palace receptions, the choreographed museum tours, the curated optics of Abiy as host, chauffeur, tour guide, these are Aladeen-esque. The leader is not merely head of government; he is the embodiment of the nation. He does not delegate; he performs. Every handshake is a headline. Every photograph is a policy document.”

Historian:
“Exactly. Recall Aladeen’s UN speech, where he ‘praises’ dictatorship by listing freedoms Americans take for granted, the freedom to be spied upon, the freedom to be exploited by corporations. It is satire, and the audience laughs. But Abiy’s palace pomp is not satire. It risks becoming parody. When the leader monopolises every frame, when every state visit is choreographed around his personal charisma, the line between authority and vanity blurs dangerously.”

Satirist:
“Yet we must admit: it works. The images of Abiy and Modi hugging, holding hands, touring the new Addis parks and science museums, they project Ethiopia as hospitable, modern, confident. They reset the international narrative from ‘conflict-ridden Horn of Africa’ to ‘dynamic emerging economy.’ In that sense, Abiy is both Borat and Aladeen: intimacy and grandeur, disarmament and spectacle, hug and throne.”

Act IV: The Diaspora Voice

Ethiopian-Canadian Woman:
“Gentlemen, if I may, you speak of hugs and pomp as though they exist in a vacuum. But they do not. Abiy has built roads, parks, museums. He has modernised Addis, created jobs, invested in science and technology. For the diaspora, these are not ‘optics.’ They are tangible. We see progress. We see a leader unafraid to embrace the world, literally and figuratively. Your satire is clever, but it risks dismissing achievement as mere performance.”

Historian:
“A fair point. Yet progress must be weighed against suppression, censorship, the centralisation of power. The hug may build rapport, but it cannot substitute for policy. Nor can it erase the concerns of those who see authoritarian tendencies beneath the charm.”

Satirist:
“And yet, as Borat would say: ‘Great success!’ The optics do matter. The diaspora sees the parks, the museums, the jobs. The international community sees the hugs, the handshakes, the palace pomp. Both are narratives, and in the 21st century, narratives are power. Abiy understands this. Whether you call it diplomacy or influencer marketing, the man has mastered the medium.”

Act V: The Segette Phenomenon

Historian:
“Let us introduce a third voice: Adonay, the Ethiopian TikToker, and his viral concept of ሰግጥ Segette, the exaggerated gesture, the performative dance, the clip designed for maximum diaspora consumption. Abiy’s hugs are Segette ሰግጥ. They are diplomacy as TikTok: designed for virality, for screenshots, for WhatsApp forwards among Ethiopians in Dubai, Toronto, and Washington.”

Satirist:
“Indeed. Segette ሰግጥ-ፈምስ is the Boratisation of diplomacy. It is the deliberate exaggeration of intimacy, the parody of protocol, the weaponisation of optics. Abiy is not merely hugging Modi; he is creating content. The hug is a TikTok clip. The palace pomp is an Instagram reel. The car ride through Addis is a YouTube vlog. It is diplomacy as influencer marketing, and it is devastatingly effective.”

Ethiopian-Canadian Woman:
“And why shouldn’t it be? If the world consumes politics through clips and memes, then let Ethiopia play the game. Abiy’s hugs are not brown-nosing; they are branding. They are Ethiopia’s entry into the global marketplace of images. And in that marketplace, visibility is power.”

Act VI: Costs and Benefits

Historian:
“Let us assess. The benefits: warmth, visibility, narrative reset, diaspora pride, international engagement. The costs: misinterpretation, protocol breach, security risk, accusations of vanity or subservience. The balance is delicate. Too much Borat, and one becomes absurd. Too much Dictator, and one becomes oppressive. The art lies in calibration.”

Satirist:
“Exactly. Borat disarms. Dictator commands. Abiy must calibrate between the two. Hug enough to humanise, stage enough to centralise. The danger is in excess. Brown-nosing is the accusation when intimacy outruns substance. Vanity is the accusation when pomp outruns policy.”

Ethiopian-Canadian Woman:
“But substance does exist. The jobs, the projects, the infrastructure , they are real. The optics amplify the substance. Without optics, substance is ignored. Without substance, optics are hollow. Abiy provides both. That, gentlemen, is his achievement.”

Act VII: The Verdict

Historian:
“So, is Abiy Borat or Baron Cohen? Dictator or democrat? Hugger or statesman?”

Satirist:
“He is all of them. He is Borat in intimacy, Aladeen in pomp, Baron Cohen in intellect , a Cambridge-trained satirist would recognise the performance for what it is. Abiy weaponises protocol, sometimes brilliantly, sometimes recklessly. He is theatre, and theatre, we must remember, is politics.”

Ethiopian-Canadian Woman:
“And he is a builder. A moderniser. A leader who has given the diaspora something to point to with pride. The hugs are not invasions; they are embraces. The pomp is not vanity; it is national projection. If you see only parody, you miss the substance beneath.”

Act VIII: The Spectator’s Reflection

The café empties. The Ethiopian-Canadian woman catches her flight. The historian and satirist linger over cold coffee.

Abiy Ahmed remains a paradox: Nobel laureate and former spymaster, hugger and centraliser, Borat and Aladeen. His diplomacy is intimacy and spectacle. His politics are theatre and substance.

The satire is educative: it reveals how protocol can be weaponised, despised, misused, or transcended. The analysis is political: it weighs costs against benefits. The reflection is realistic: it acknowledges both progress and peril.

In the end, Abiy is not merely a Prime Minister. He is a performer on the global stage, playing roles scripted by history, satire, and social media. Whether the world laughs, applauds, or recoils depends not only on his performance , but on whether we, the audience, are willing to see beyond the hug.

Sacha Baron Cohen once said: “Borat essentially works as a tool. The tool is to bring out the prejudices in people.” Perhaps Abiy Ahmed works as a similar tool, not to expose prejudice, but to expose assumption. The assumption that African leaders cannot be modern. The assumption that diplomacy must be cold. The assumption that intimacy equals weakness.

Whether that makes him Borat, Aladeen, or something entirely new — that, dear reader, is for history to decide.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, Ms. Leeshan Kuratey, and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any publication, organisation, or institution. This piece is a work of satirical and political commentary, intended to provoke thought and dialogue regarding contemporary Ethiopian politics and diplomacy. Any characterizations of individuals or events are presented through the lens of satire and analytical critique. References to Sacha Baron Cohen’s characters are used as literary and analytical devices and are not intended to diminish or misrepresent the achievements or policies of any individual mentioned. Readers are encouraged to engage critically with the content and form their own informed opinions.

About Post Author

Ethiopian Tribune editor

editor@ethiopiantribune.com

https://ethiopiantribune.com

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %

The legal and political obstacles he may face, and whether a constitutional shift (to a presidential system and/or the removal of ethnic federalism) is both necessary and advisable. This discussion also draws comparisons with his predecessor Meles Zenawi’s long tenure and governing methods.

Extending a Prime Minister’s Rule: Possibilities and Methods

In any political system, the possibility for a leader to extend his rule beyond what may be considered a “normal” term rests on the ability to change the constitutional or legal framework. In Ethiopia’s case, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s apparent ambition to secure power for 18 years could be facilitated by one or a combination of these strategies:

Constitutional Amendments: The current Ethiopian constitution, adopted in 1994, originally provided an unlimited term for the prime minister. However, Abiy himself pledged early on to institute term limits and champion democratic reforms. Reversing or amending those provisions to allow a prolonged term especially when converting from a parliamentary to a presidential system is a legally viable route if passed with the requisite supermajority in parliament and possibly, in some interpretations, ratified by a national referendum. This would mirror trends seen elsewhere where executive power is extended through constitutional reform.

Shifting Governance Structures: Reports have indicated that Abiy is reportedly considering a move toward a presidential system a change from Ethiopia’s current parliamentary model. In theory, a presidential system can centralize executive power and make it easier for the head of state to remain in office if term limits are modified or removed. Such a transformation might be seen as a natural evolution if the government argues that it is part of ensuring greater national unity or pursuing more decisive economic reforms. Using National Emergencies or Election Postponements: The COVID-19 pandemic previously served as a legal pretext for delaying elections and effectively extending the prime minister’s mandate without immediate, direct constitutional amendments. Future crises or emergencies could similarly be invoked to justify extended rule on the grounds of national stability or public health.

Legal Legitimacy and Challenges

Even if the technical process for constitutional amendment or systemic change is available, several legal challenges and obstacles remain manifested in the following:

Constitutional Rigor: Many of the articles that govern fundamental political rights and institutional arrangements in Ethiopia require broad consensus often two‑thirds majorities in both houses of Parliament or input from regional state councils. An amendment to change the system’s framework (especially one that curtails democratic accountability) could be challenged as unconstitutional or illegitimate if key stakeholders are excluded.

Federal and Ethnic Considerations: Ethiopia’s current model of ethnic federalism allegedly designed by TPLF led coalition to balance the country’s more than 80 ethnic groups. Any attempt to drop or dilute ethnic federalism in favor of a unitary or presidential system carries the risk of alienating several regional governments and ethnic communities. This could trigger political unrest or even armed opposition similar to how tensions erupted between the federal government and the Tigray led TPLF after opposing moves on elections.

Precedents and Democratic Backsliding: Critics point to the history of democratic backsliding observed under Abiy’s administration the suspension of elections and detention of opposition figures have drawn accusations of authoritarian consolidation. Even if amended by legal means, such changes would likely be seen as part of a broader erosion of democratic institutions rather than genuine reform.

Lessons from Meles Zenawi’s Tenure

Comparing Abiy’s potential maneuver to extend his rule with the long tenure of former Prime Minister Meles Zenawi (who ruled from 1995 until his death in 2012) offers several instructive contrasts and parallels:

Concentration of Power: Meles Zenawi, though he governed in a system that on paper did not have fixed term limits, managed to consolidate power by controlling party structures and state institutions. His model of a “developmental state” was inherently authoritarian and centralized, which allowed him to rule effectively without facing open electoral challenges. Abiy, in contrast, initially emerged as a reformist figure promising democratization and openness. However, if he follows a similar trajectory using constitutional changes to shift the system in his favor it could be seen as a return to the methods of past autocrats.

Reform vs. Consolidation: Meles’s policies were defended as necessary for Ethiopia’s rapid economic growth despite criticisms of repressive tactics. Abiy’s challenge lies in reconciling his reformist image with any moves that extend his tenure. Even if extending power appears “legitimate” under constitutional reform, doing so might alienate domestic stakeholders and international partners who expect a genuine break from the past.

Institutional Legacies: The TPLF dominated structures left by Meles have proven resilient. even when political reforms were attempted. Abiy’s administration now confronts both the legacy of past ethnic favoritism and the demands for genuine political pluralism. Any significant constitutional overhaul would not only need to overcome legal hurdles but also reshape these entrenched institutional patterns.

Is a Presidential System and Abandoning Ethnic Federalism the Way Forward?

Supporters of an extended rule might argue that transforming Ethiopia into a presidential system could enable more decisive governance and stability. However, several issues merit caution:

Checks and Balances: A presidential system without robust checks and balances can lead to significant concentration of power in the executive branch. While such centralization might allow for long-term projects and rapid decision-making, it also increases the risk of abuse and corruption.

Ethnic Tensions and Regional Autonomy: Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism was crafted albeit imperfectly to address historical inequities among ethnic groups. Abolishing or diluting this system might consolidate power at the center but could also marginalize certain groups, thereby fueling ethnic unrest. Such a move might undermine national unity rather than create a more efficient or “strong” state.

International and Domestic Legitimacy: Changing the political system to prolong one leader’s tenure could attract international criticism and reduce foreign aid if donors view the move as a backslide from democratic reforms. One could articulate the invalidity of such assertion perhaps the contemporary international values are no longer focusing using donations and grants to influence political entities in the developing nations like Ethiopia, evidently Americans and Europeans have become inward looking trying to resolve their domestic priorities. Domestically, however Ethiopian voters might view the change as illegitimate, sparking protests or even violent resistance in a country already scarred by ethnic conflict. The current armed struggle in Amhara and Oromia regions will be fueled by the assertion of PM seeking to rule beyond the current timeline, in fact it will shorten the legacy of the PM.

In sum, while a shift toward a presidential system might facilitate an 18-year tenure on paper, the costs in terms of political legitimacy, democratic accountability, and social cohesion could be considerable.

For Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed to remain in power for 18 years, he would likely need to initiate a series of constitutional amendments to remove self-imposed limits, restructure Ethiopia’s parliamentary system into a more presidential one, and potentially weaken the ethnically based federal structure. While these measures are legally possible if they adhere to the required amendment processes, they face formidable obstacles: deep-rooted ethnic divisions, the legacy of past autocrats like Meles Zenawi, institutional inertia, and potential domestic and international backlash.

In weighing the trade offs, any move toward extended rule through constitutional overhaul risks undermining the reform momentum that originally brought Abiy to power and could transform his reformist legacy into an authoritarian one. Instead, if genuine reform and national reconciliation are the goals, caution must be exercised so that the rule of law, democratic institutions, and genuine checks and balances remain robust ensuring that any transformation enhances rather than diminishes the freedoms of all Ethiopians.

Ultimately, while the legal machinery exists to extend a leader’s tenure, doing so in Ethiopia would require not only a technical constitutional revision but also careful management of ethnic and political realities that continue to challenge the nation’s stability and democratic evolution.

About Post Author

Ethiopian Tribune editor

editor@ethiopiantribune.com

https://ethiopiantribune.com

Happy

0 0 %

Sad

0 0 %

Excited

0 0 %

Sleepy

0 0 %

Angry

0 0 %

Surprise

0 0 %