Hunger shapes elections in Ethiopia and South Sudan, your next meal could decide your vote.
Pharis Gichanga
Oct 30, 2025 - 6:59 PM
Share
In Ethiopia’s Amhara region, a mother stretches a handful of grain to feed her children, rationing each bite to make it last through the week. In South Sudan’s Jonglei state, a herder watches his cattle waste away as he waits for the next aid truck. These aren’t just humanitarian crises, they’re political ones. Across both nations, hunger is being weaponized, used to secure loyalty, silence dissent, and shape elections. Survival has become a bargaining chip, blurring the line between democracy and coercion.
Food as Power
Election campaigns in Ethiopia are often accompanied by promises of grain, fertilizers, and irrigation projects. Millions depend on aid after prolonged droughts and the Tigray conflict, leaving communities vulnerable to political manipulation. During the war, both government and rebel forces were accused of burning crops and blocking relief convoys, demonstrating how food can be used as a weapon. In the previous election cycle, it was documented that ruling-party officials used access to food aid and farmland to reward supporters and sideline opponents.
South Sudan paints an even harsher picture. Repeated floods, armed conflict, and economic collapse have left over half the population acutely food insecure. Politicians promise food trucks or subsidies during campaigns, often working with local militias or chiefs to control distribution. Citizens are often forced to trade their votes for rations, a trade-off that pits survival against political conviction.
The mechanism is simple: where state institutions are weak, control over aid translates into control over people. In Ethiopia, a US congressional hearing once revealed aid being diverted to suppress dissent, particularly in opposition strongholds. Local administrators aligned with the ruling party reportedly manipulated distribution lists, ensuring supporters received more. In South Sudan, aid agencies must coordinate with government officials or local power brokers, effectively making access to food contingent on political approval.
Ethiopia vs. South Sudan
Both countries weaponize hunger, but the approaches differ. Ethiopia’s manipulation is bureaucratic, embedded in formal state systems where regional officials and party structures control aid channels. South Sudan’s is militarized, relying on informal alliances among armed groups and local elites to mediate access to food. In Ethiopia, voters face state-coerced decisions; in South Sudan, they navigate survival under warlordism. The methods differ, but the outcome is identical: hunger erodes free choice, turning ballots into bargaining chips.
The international community bears partial responsibility. Western donors often channel food aid through government systems to maintain diplomatic relationships and ensure access. Yet this dependence inadvertently enables political capture. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, aid pipelines in Ethiopia pass through government hands, but conditional transparency is rarely enforced for fear of destabilizing cooperation.
In South Sudan, chronic underfunding exacerbates the problem. Less than half of the required humanitarian funding was met in 2024, creating a vacuum that politicians exploit with false promises of aid. The result is a dangerous form of political blackmail: communities support whoever can guarantee the next food delivery.
The human cost is staggering. In Ethiopia’s Amhara and Afar regions, families survive on minimal rations, often waiting months for promised assistance. In South Sudan, where over seven million people face hunger, humanitarian monitors have warned that worsening food insecurity can push vulnerable populations toward armed groups. Hunger is no longer just a crisis; it has become a weapon that shapes political allegiances.
Breaking the Cycle
There are solutions, but they require courage, accountability, and political will. In Ethiopia, independent oversight committees with civil society participation could ensure neutrality in aid distribution. Digital tracking systems and biometric verification, already piloted by the World Food Programme, could prevent fraud and favoritism. Donors must insist on transparency to reduce opportunities for political exploitation.
In South Sudan, peace negotiations and humanitarian frameworks must treat food security as a protected right rather than a privilege. Funding could be conditioned on verifiable reporting from neutral observers. Yet entrenched elites resist oversight, and donors often prioritize stability over reform, leaving communities dependent on local power brokers.
Despite these challenges, hope exists at the grassroots level. In parts of Ethiopia, women’s cooperatives pool resources to buy seeds collectively, breaking dependence on political handouts. In South Sudan, youth-led groups are advocating for community-based irrigation projects, creating independent food sources. These acts of defiance demonstrate a simple truth: citizens seek dignity, not dependence.
At its core, the “hunger vote” reveals how politics can distort humanity’s most basic needs. Hunger doesn’t just kill, it coerces. The test ahead is whether Ethiopia and South Sudan, with global support, can create systems where citizens choose leaders out of conviction, not desperation. Until then, democracy remains hostage to hunger.
