Tootfinder

It's interesting to know about some of the historical strategies for preventing revolution. There were basically two strategies to protect the institution of monarchy.
Metternich believed that brutal repression was the only answer: censor the press, monitor communication, create a coalition of kings and persecute revolutionaries wherever they could be found. Giving even an inch, he believed, would open the door to revolution.
But there was another approach: concession. By giving a little bit - create a constitution (even if it's meaningless), allow people to vote (even if the people they vote for have no power), etc - could offer a release and prevent revolution. There are still monarchies in Europe. They're no longer absolute, but they still hold a lot of power (even if people *think* of them as being decorative). They held that power by giving up a little bit at a time to slow down progress.
The fact is, they were both right.
The US has kept their regressive oligarchy stable by oscillating between the two. We are in the brutal repression phase, where concessions are stripped away and radicals are suppressed. This phase breaks up the progress made and pushes back the clock. The next phase, if the US makes it that far, if the fascists are smart enough to let go, will be concession. They will give a few inches to keep everything from collapsing. They'll give just enough room to get people back to brunch.
While they're at brunch, the next phase will be planned.
This is not really conscious, but an emergent behavior of the two party system. It's just kind of how the dichotomy of liberalism and conservatism works. Government is a fundamentally oppressive entity. The question is really, how long will we let the pendulum swing? How small of a concession will we accept, or will we demand everything now?

RE: https://dair-community.social/@ZekuZelalem/117320888712641893
There's a bit of context behind this that's worth being aware of, and I'll do my best to explain it second (or third) hand. Abiy Ahmed has been the prime minister of Ethiopia since 2019. He was quite popular initially, but has held on to power for quite a while and has been called out for authoritarian tendencies.
His party, the Prosperity Party, is a liberal party that has privatized parts of the economy and is trying to dismantle ethnic federalism. This type of "modernization" is obviously supported by neoliberal forces around the world, especially since he took over from the ethno nationalist ML TPLF.
The TPLF was also authoritarian, brutal, and anti-democratic, as one would expect from an ML organization. Part of Abiy's popularity came from opposition to the TPLF. But more recently, but his forces also carried out genocide in Tigray during that war in 2022 (after his Nobel Peace Prize).
Part of the opposition to his modernization is that ending ethnic federalism would weaken the power of older ethnic structures. This could be seen as similar in some ways to conflicts across Europe in from 1848 through to the early 1900's and in the Balkans after the fall of the Soviet Union.
The connection between ethnicity and nationality has never really stopped causing problems. Liberalism is usually connected to the domination of one ethnic group into a singular national identity. This flows from the French Revolution, through the Russian revolution, and into both the Ethnic ML exported by Communist Russia as part of their attempts to weaken European capitalism and (via both American Colonial Nationalism and the French Revolution) into the Neoliberalism promoted by the US and European powers as a counter.
Ethiopia is a multiethnic country. Unfortunately the logic of the state (liberal or communist) tends to destroy these ethnic identities through a combination of ethnic cleansing, appropriation, and (often forced) integration.
Some of the conflict here is coming out of the tension between a national identity and ethnic identity, especially in relation to Tigray and Amhara, as well as the continued pressure of economic liberalization, and centralization vs federalization.
The point is that it's actually quite a bit more complicated than it may be presented as, especially outside of the religion. European interests may align with Abiy, and present him as a "modernizing force." Addis is one of the centers of the African Union. Meanwhile, other countries have their own interests in stoking this conflict. China, Turkey, the UAE, and Iran all sell drones to the Federal government. Eretria has an interest in creating a buffer zone to keep Ethiopia from seizing a port city from them. Sudan is involved, and I don't have the local political depth to know why.
Various groups will try to point to one group or another as the "good guy/bad guy" but it's definitely not that simple. It's just kind of tragic for everyone. I hope Ethiopian people find peace and freedom.
My hope is that Ethiopia will develop something like Democratic Confederalism that resolves these conflicts and tensions without wiping out the unique identities of the peoples who make up Ethiopia.