The landslide victory for Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed's Prosperity Party in Ethiopia's general election has triggered an urgent review of British aid strategy, amid growing fears of renewed civil conflict. With the Prime Minister's party securing more than 90% of parliamentary seats, opponents and international observers have questioned the credibility of a vote held under a state of emergency and a partial internet blackout.
For the British taxpayer, the implications are immediate. The UK is one of Ethiopia's largest bilateral donors, providing £330 million in aid last year alone. Much of that money goes to basic services: schools, hospitals, and agricultural projects in the rural highlands. But the election result, with its echoes of past authoritarian rule, has raised serious questions about whether that money is propping up a government sliding back into repression.
Ethiopia is a country on a knife-edge. The war in Tigray may have officially ended, but the scars remain. More than two million people are displaced, and the economy is shattered. In the capital Addis Ababa, the cost of basic goods has soared. A loaf of bread costs double what it did a year ago. The working poor, who make up the bulk of the city's population, are feeling the squeeze. Wages have not kept pace, and strikes over pay and conditions are becoming more common in the industrial zones.
The British government's aid review will need to weigh these realities against the political one. The Foreign Office has expressed “deep concern” over reports of electoral irregularities and the detention of opposition figures. Yet the alternative cutting off aid could have devastating consequences for the millions who rely on it.
This is a classic dilemma for British foreign policy under the current government. The aid budget has already been slashed from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income. The Department for International Development has been folded into the Foreign Office. The new mantra is “aid for trade” and “strategic partnerships”. But in Ethiopia, trade is a distant dream. The country is on the brink of a debt crisis, and its currency is plunging.
The prosperity party’s win is also a blow to the opposition. They say the election was a farce. In the northern region of Amhara, where ethnic violence has flared, turnout was low. In Tigray, voting was delayed indefinitely. The result, they argue, will only embolden the government to crack down harder.
For British officials, the next move is fraught with risk. A complete withdrawal of aid would withdraw support from the most vulnerable. But continuing business as usual would be a tacit endorsement of a deeply flawed process. The likely outcome is a middle path: a shift away from direct budget support towards humanitarian aid delivered through NGOs. That would mean less money for roads and schools, and more for emergency food and shelter.
The human cost of this review will be felt not in the corridors of Whitehall, but in the dusty villages of the Ethiopian highlands. A mother unable to feed her children. A farmer without seeds for the next planting season. A child pulled out of school. These are the real consequences of a political crisis half a world away.
The Prime Minister's party has promised a new era of peace and prosperity. But as the election results are announced, the omens are not good. For the sake of the ordinary Ethiopians who just want a decent life, the British government must tread carefully.
