Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission Faces Legitimacy Crisis

In North America, communities worry diaspora forums could divide people and export polarization while crises inside Ethiopia continue. Critics say the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission is too close to power, and key actors have rejected participation. The risk is clear: a staged process that sidelines victims, censors debate, and deepens mistrust. This article examines the claims, the boycotts, and what responsible diaspora engagement should look like before endorsing A Comprehensive Call for Ethiopians and the Ethiopian Diaspora in North America.

Historical Context and Driving Forces Behind the National Dialogue

Legacy of Political Exclusion and Marginalization

Legacy of political exclusion and marginalization has haunted Ethiopia for generations. Since the formation of the Ethiopian state, certain groups have repeatedly faced exclusion from political processes, resource sharing, and meaningful representation. These injustices grew worse during imperial and Derg eras, and also under the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) regime. Many communities were denied a voice regarding key questions about identity, land, and power. Grievances rooted in this history have fueled mistrust, recurring conflicts, and calls for change. The national dialogue was introduced as an attempt to address these old injustices and open a new chapter. Still, many Ethiopians remain concerned whether the dialogue truly includes those who were previously left out.

Rise of Pluralism and Divergent Identities

Rise of pluralism and divergent identities has significantly shaped Ethiopia’s present political landscape. Ethiopia is widely recognized for its ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity, but over time, these differences have created a deep sense of competing perspectives and interests. With the shift towards more pluralistic politics after 1991, many groups started demanding recognition and autonomy, which made consensus even harder. The national dialogue aims to bring all these divergent identities together to foster unity. However, tensions among groups often escalate into open disagreements or even violence. Many citizens hope the national dialogue will help manage Ethiopia’s diversity, but there is skepticism about whether it can truly reconcile such major differences.

Role of Ethnic Federalism

Role of ethnic federalism remains one of the most debated issues in Ethiopian politics. The system, formalized in the 1995 constitution, divided the country into regions mostly along ethnic lines. Supporters say it empowered minorities and gave them constitutional rights. But critics argue that ethnic federalism has deepened divisions, increased competition for power, and even led to conflict and displacement. Instead of solving historic grievances, some believe it made national unity harder to achieve. The national dialogue is supposed to create a space to discuss whether this system should continue, be reformed, or replaced. Still, the deep-rooted mistrust around federalism makes this a tense topic in every major conversation about Ethiopia’s future.

Previous Dialogue Attempts and Lessons Learned

Previous dialogue attempts and lessons learned show the need for caution and new thinking. Ethiopia’s history is marked by failed reconciliation efforts and top-down peace processes. From national conferences during regime changes to local peace talks between communities, dialogues in the past often lacked inclusiveness and transparency. Many times, they were controlled by ruling elites or dominated by military actors, leaving out civil society and opposition voices. Each failed attempt increased public frustration and skepticism. Lessons from these efforts highlight the importance of genuine inclusivity, public trust, and transparent procedures. As current national dialogue unfolds, many experts and communities point to these lessons, warning that history may repeat itself if old mistakes are repeated.

Motivations for Establishment

The formation of the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission was mainly motivated by the deepening political crisis and divisions across the country. Ethiopia has experienced years of conflict, ethnic tensions, and growing mistrust between the government and many groups. The government said the National Dialogue was a way to build national consensus and address fundamental disagreements about the country’s future. According to the official statements, the purpose was to tackle problems that threaten Ethiopia’s unity and stability. However, some experts and observers have argued that there are also political motives: the authorities needed to show an attempt at peacebuilding to both the Ethiopian public and the international community, especially after the Tigray conflict and other regional unrest. There are real hopes for transformation, but also strong concerns about whether the Commission was created to produce genuine change or just to manage public opinion and international expectations.

Leadership and Membership Composition

The leadership and membership composition of the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission has been a source of much debate and skepticism. The Commission is made up of 11 members, selected after a public nomination process narrowed from 632 potential nominees to just 42, and finally approved by the national parliament. The head of the Commission is Professor Mesfin Araya, a respected mental health professional. Other commissioners include academics, professionals, and a few civil society representatives. However, critics point out that the selection process was controlled by the ruling Prosperity Party, raising concerns about diversity and real representation. Another issue is gender: out of all the finalists, only a handful of women were included. Parliament’s role in choosing the Commission’s members also means that opposition groups and critics were mostly left out, leading to worries about whether the body can be truly neutral or effective.

Mandate and Stated Objectives

The Commission’s official mandate is to facilitate an inclusive, transparent national dialogue that helps build consensus on the most contentious issues affecting Ethiopian society. Its main objectives, according to the law and public documents, include engaging with all sections of society, collecting and debating key agendas, and developing recommendations that support unity, stability, and peace. More specifically, the Commission is tasked with:

• Building trust between communities and the government.
• Creating a platform for open discussion about Ethiopia’s political and social issues.
• Generating resolutions to longstanding conflicts and divisions.

The Commission is supposed to be guided by values such as inclusivity, neutrality, and credibility. But criticism remains—many feel that without clear processes and with limited inclusion of critics or opposition, the actual impact will be limited.

Public Launch and Initial Consultations

The public launch of the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission was greeted with a mix of hope and skepticism. The launch included announcements in Addis Ababa and outreach to Ethiopians in the diaspora, with the Chief Commissioner promising to collect the public’s agendas for discussion. The first phase of consultations involved regional meetings and agenda collection, with efforts to reach out to communities like the Amhara Region and abroad. “Voices in the National Dialogue,” including community members and observers, were invited to participate in regional consultations and agenda-setting. Still, many civil society leaders and citizens noted that the process sometimes felt rushed, lacking real access or influence for populations most affected by conflict. There is an urgent concern that initial consultations may not reflect the complexity or the true diversity of Ethiopian society. Only time will show if these beginnings will lead to more genuine, inclusive national discussions.

Initial Optimism Among Stakeholders

Initial optimism around the Ethiopian National Dialogue was high among many stakeholders. When the process was first announced, there was widespread hope that longstanding grievances, polarization, and violent conflict could finally be tackled through peaceful means. Civil society groups, elders, youth representatives, and some political parties expressed the belief that an inclusive and open dialogue could help Ethiopia break the cycle of repeated crises and rebuild mutual trust. For many Ethiopians, the promise of a space where all voices could be heard gave hope for a better, more unified future, despite the country’s deeply entrenched political and ethnic divisions.

However, this optimism was cautious and layered with concern. Many stakeholders worried from the start whether the process would be truly inclusive, transparent, and independent from government influence. Still, the hopes for resolving disunity and fostering national consensus were clearly present, especially in the first months, as discussions and consultations began across different regions and communities.

Aspirations for Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation

Aspirations for truth, justice, and reconciliation have been at the heart of the push for a national dialogue in Ethiopia. Many Ethiopians see the dialogue as a possible path to address the deep wounds caused by decades of authoritarian rule, repeated cycles of violence, and ethnic-based grievances. There is a widespread wish that the process can include truth-telling, proper investigation into past abuses, and acknowledgment of historic wrongs.

Many citizens and advocacy groups hope the national dialogue will bring about accountability and genuine justice for victims of conflict and human rights violations. The aim is not just to punish, but to bring about a reconciliation process where forgiveness, truth-telling, and learning from history become possible. Only by facing the realities of the past do many believe Ethiopia can find a peaceful way forward. This aspiration for transparency and healing remains a core expectation, even as skepticism about the process grows.

Significance for Civil Society and Grassroots Mobilization

Significance for civil society and grassroots mobilization is a key element of the national dialogue’s promise. The hope is that, by giving civil society groups, community leaders, and ordinary citizens a real platform, the dialogue will encourage active participation in shaping the future of the country. Many Ethiopians hope to see the voices of youth, women, marginalized groups, and regional representatives heard and respected, instead of being overshadowed by elite or central government interests.

Successful dialogue could empower communities and rebuild trust in institutions, as well as promote democratic values and peaceful engagement at the local level. Grassroots mobilization is seen as crucial for lasting peace. There is also a widespread belief that an inclusive process could create a sense of genuine ownership among the people—making decisions more legitimate and long-lasting.

Potential for Regional and International Impact

Potential for regional and international impact is also an important part of the hopes and expectations surrounding Ethiopia’s national dialogue. As one of Africa’s most populous and influential countries, Ethiopia’s stability and political trajectory have effects far beyond its borders. An effective national dialogue could serve as a model for resolving conflicts and managing diversity in other African nations facing similar challenges.

International observers, aid organizations, and neighboring states have watched Ethiopia’s process closely, understanding that positive outcomes could strengthen peace not only within the country but also across the broader Horn of Africa region. A successful dialogue might draw increased global support and set a positive example for inclusive, participatory problem-solving in divided societies. Still, the risk of failure also raises concerns about deepening divides and negative spillovers beyond Ethiopia’s borders.

Legitimacy Crisis and Critiques

Exclusion of Key Political and Armed Groups

Exclusion of key political and armed groups from Ethiopia’s National Dialogue has created a serious legitimacy crisis. Influential opposition parties, Tigrayan actors, and armed groups like the Oromo Liberation Front have not been given a genuine seat at the table. Many of these groups claim they were not consulted or actively shut out, either during the setup of the Dialogue Commission or in the initial selection of participants. International organizations and local political experts warn that this lack of inclusivity could deepen the country’s instability, as vast segments of the population remain unrepresented (source). The Dialogue’s credibility is now questioned wherever the absence of these key voices is felt, making consensus almost impossible.

Perceived Alignment with the Ruling Party

Perceived alignment with the ruling Prosperity Party adds to the legitimacy crisis. Many critics, both inside and outside of Ethiopia, argue that most groups allowed to participate are closely tied to the ruling party’s interests. Some reports say these groups lend “an appearance of inclusivity,” but, in reality, usually support government talking points (Clingendael Institute PDF). Independent politicians and civil society groups feel the process is engineered to mute dissent and reinforce existing power structures, instead of resolving root political problems.

Questions of Leadership Neutrality

Questions of leadership neutrality trouble the Dialogue Commission. The composition of the commission, as well as the selection of facilitators, has raised red flags over bias. Wide sections of the public, civil society, and opposition claim the leadership lacks neutrality, echoing concerns over appointments lacking diversity and true independence (borkena.com). Public communications from the Commission often emphasize impartiality, but critics say these claims are not backed by transparent action, and the decision-making power remains concentrated among those who have government ties.

Lack of Broad Representation and Inclusivity

Lack of broad representation and inclusivity is cited by almost every observer and opposition participant. Various civil society organizations, along with academic and international policy experts, note an overwhelming absence of voices from minorities, regional representatives, women, youth, and the rural poor. The Dialogue Commission is said to lack mechanisms to listen to or involve these groups meaningfully (addisstandard.com). Without their participation, the outcomes are not likely to gain legitimacy or trust among Ethiopia’s deeply divided population.

Criticism from Opposition and Regional Actors

Criticism from opposition and regional actors has been strong and coordinated. Oppositional caucuses have publicly accused the Commission of “political bias” and “failure to ensure inclusivity” (Addis Standard). Regional authorities, such as political leaders in Tigray, have outright rejected the dialogue as currently formed. Amhara and Oromo groups, among others, have also criticized the leadership for failing to build confidence or address historical grievances. This broad skepticism fuels a cycle of mistrust that threatens the very basis of any lasting national consensus.

In summary, these legitimacy challenges make it hard for many Ethiopians to view the National Dialogue process as genuine or promising, leaving the vision of broad-based unity and reconciliation out of reach—at least for now.

Ongoing Civil Conflict and Violence

Ongoing civil conflict and violence in Ethiopia remain the most serious obstacles to creating a successful national dialogue. As recent reports show, conflict still rages in regions like Oromia, Amhara, and previously in Tigray. Intense battles and violence against civilians continue at alarming rates, with hundreds of deaths recorded in only a single month in 2024. These violent situations force millions into displacement and make organizing peace talks nearly impossible. Armed groups still challenge state authority, and hasty government responses often escalate local disputes. The atmosphere of insecurity means many communities are simply too afraid to speak freely or take part in open discussions. The country remains fragmented by fears, distrust, and trauma. Until these conflicts are truly addressed, people cannot safely participate in a genuine national dialogue.

Suppression of Free Speech and Dissent

Suppression of free speech and dissent is a major shortcoming in Ethiopia’s national dialogue process. Government crackdowns on critics and opposition voices have increased, with laws that limit freedom of expression and “state of emergency” declarations being used to silence activists, journalists, and rival officials. The internet is often shut down during sensitive periods, making communication and mobilization for dialogue even harder. Civil society groups say these restrictions prevent honest conversation and make people scared to raise tough questions or offer alternative viewpoints. When the government arrests people for peaceful protests or critical social media posts, it sends a message: dissent will not be tolerated. This has a chilling effect on the entire process, because a real dialogue needs open debate and the ability to challenge those in power.

Lack of Trust-Building Initiatives

Lack of trust-building initiatives ruins any hope for meaningful progress in Ethiopia’s talks. Trust is the heart of dialogue, but decades of broken promises and repeated violence have left deep wounds. Communities complain that they are asked to trust officials who have not addressed their suffering or delivered justice for wrongs committed in the past. According to research, the national dialogue has not prioritized confidence-building steps like apologies, local listening sessions, or guarantees of safety for those participating. Without real gestures to show goodwill, most groups see the process as another failed political show. Local leaders and elders, who could help build trust, are too often sidelined. In the end, distrust outweighs hope.

Absence of Transparency and Clear Processes

Absence of transparency and clear processes is a critical weakness of the Ethiopian National Dialogue. Many people simply do not know what decisions are being made, who is participating, or how their input will shape outcomes. Civil society organizations have repeatedly called for the Dialogue Commission to release more information and to involve the public in overseeing the discussion. When processes are hidden or vague, rumors and suspicions grow. If meetings happen behind closed doors and the decision-making remains exclusive, it is difficult for marginalized groups and local communities to have faith in the fairness of the national dialogue. Without clear plans, rules, and communication, there is little accountability.

Failure to Engage Marginalized Communities

Failure to engage marginalized communities means that huge parts of Ethiopia’s population feel excluded from the national conversation. Reports highlight that ethnic minorities, remote regions, people with disabilities, and historically oppressed groups often have no voice in the process. Instead, powerful groups try to steer the talks toward their own agendas, ignoring the suffering or needs of others. For example, opposition voices and youth activists have complained about being left out, as have groups with histories of disadvantage such as the Awacho, Ch’inasha, and others. When the process ignores the most vulnerable, it cannot hope to solve Ethiopia’s real issues or build lasting peace. True national dialogue requires the inclusion of all voices—especially those who have been left out the most.

Public Engagement and Perceptions

Perceived Superficiality of Participation Mechanisms

Perceived superficiality of participation mechanisms is a major concern in the Ethiopian National Dialogue. Many people see the platforms for public input as symbolic rather than effective. Consultations are often conducted with little time for real discussion, feedback, or reflection. Instead of encouraging open debate, these forums sometimes feel more like box-ticking exercises.

Critics argue that organizers select participants who are unlikely to challenge the status quo. This leaves out key voices from marginalized communities and opposition groups. Some dialogues take place in controlled settings, discouraging people from speaking freely. Many citizens worry the outcomes are already decided, and their views will not impact important decisions. This growing suspicion weakens trust in the process and reduces genuine engagement.

Disconnect Between Public Input and Decision-Making

Disconnect between public input and decision-making has created frustration among Ethiopians who want to contribute to national reconciliation. People report that after attending town hall meetings or focus group discussions, they rarely see evidence that their ideas are reflected in official documents or action plans. The transparency of how public opinions are gathered, processed, and included is not clear.

This gap is especially alarming for youth and civil society groups who stepped forward with hopes of shaping a better future. The perception that the state or commission leadership only listens when it is convenient discourages meaningful participation. Many believe that the dominant political actors ignore grassroots voices in favor of their preferred agendas. As a result, hope for real change fades, and resentment grows across communities.

Alienation and Mistrust Among Diverse Ethnic Groups

Alienation and mistrust among diverse ethnic groups has become even more pronounced during the national dialogue process. Ethiopia’s rich tapestry of languages, histories, and identities is a source of pride, but also a challenge for inclusion. Ethnic minorities and some regional groups feel sidelined by mechanisms that prioritize majority narratives. Even when invited to participate, some communities see the process as a formality rather than a real opportunity to address their grievances.

Stories of exclusion travel quickly in Ethiopia’s digital age, fueling further suspicion and sometimes even protest. People who already feel marginalized see the national dialogue as just another top-down exercise, rather than a sincere attempt at unity. The sense that their identities and concerns are not respected increases mistrust not only towards the dialogue commission, but towards the broader political system as well.

If the process fails to build genuine trust and involvement among Ethiopia’s many communities, it risks deepening existing divides rather than healing them.

Socio-Economic Disparities and Poverty

Socio-economic disparities and poverty remain deeply concerning issues in Ethiopia, especially in 2024. Poverty has worsened significantly since the last official estimate from 2016, and reports now suggest that about 72% of the population is multidimensionally poor, compared to 68% in 2019. People in rural areas have been hit hardest. There are large gaps between regions and between urban and rural populations, fueled by land inequality and a lack of access to essential services.

Income inequality is on the rise too — a 1% increase in household income inequality leads to a 0.44% increase in poverty. The cost of living keeps rising, with essentials such as food, fuel, and housing becoming much harder for ordinary families to afford. Many vulnerable communities are especially at risk, facing severe food insecurity. These disparities threaten not only the stability of families, but also the prospects for peace, as feelings of marginalization increase. Even though Ethiopia has one of Africa’s largest economies, these statistics reveal that most of its people do not see the benefits in their daily lives.

Reliance on Humanitarian Aid

Reliance on humanitarian aid in Ethiopia is at a critical level in 2024. According to the latest figures, more than 21 million people need some form of humanitarian assistance this year, and refugees in the country almost completely depend on outside help for survival. Funding for aid programs is running well below what is needed — for instance, only about 13% of the 2024 Humanitarian Response Plan was funded by mid-year, leaving huge gaps in food, medical care, and shelter.

The country is facing multiple intertwined crises, including drought, floods, and ongoing conflict. The government and aid agencies estimate that at least $3.2 billion is needed to cover the most urgent needs, but international support is struggling to keep up. This long-standing dependence on aid shows no signs of improvement, and has built a sense of dependency rather than self-reliance. Humanitarian groups have called for more consistent support, warning that without urgent funding, millions could face starvation or life-threatening disease outbreaks.

Impact of Ongoing Conflict on Civilian Life

The impact of ongoing conflict on civilian life in Ethiopia is devastating and widespread. Armed violence, especially in regions like Tigray and Amhara, has resulted in systematic abuses, displacement of millions, and the destruction of essential infrastructure like hospitals and schools. Human rights organizations report ongoing atrocities by both state actors and militias, including attacks on civilians and ethnic violence.

Everyday life is marked by uncertainty and danger. Families have been forced to flee their homes, many becoming internally displaced people (IDPs) with no stable shelter or access to food. Healthcare services have been severely disrupted; some clinics are closed entirely, and those that are open don’t have enough supplies or staff. Children are missing school or experiencing trauma. Meanwhile, climate shocks such as droughts and floods add yet another layer of misery for conflict-affected communities.

The combination of conflict and disaster has left Ethiopia facing one of Africa’s most serious humanitarian and human rights crises. Without urgent and coordinated action, these problems will only deepen, making recovery nearly impossible for millions of Ethiopians.

Comparative Analysis of Dialogue Processes

International Support and Cautions

International support for the Ethiopian national dialogue has been apparent, with major powers and organizations like the United Nations, African Union, and European Union making statements or pledging resources. These actors often stress the importance of inclusivity, transparency, and true independence. International partners also warn that dialogue efforts must not be a way to avoid addressing deep injustices or to entrench existing political power. Support is often provided in the form of technical advice, funding, or capacity building, but it comes with caution: that national dialogue must not become a box-ticking exercise.

Comparing this to processes in other countries, global experience shows that international engagement alone cannot guarantee success. For example, in South Sudan and Yemen, international involvement was helpful only when local actors were genuinely committed to compromise. The main lesson for Ethiopia is that international support is valuable but must be matched by local political will and credible, broad-based participation.

Lessons from Successful National Dialogues Elsewhere

Successful national dialogues in places like Tunisia, South Africa, and Colombia offer strong lessons for Ethiopia. One of the key lessons is the need for genuine inclusion. In Tunisia, the Quartet Dialogue brought together labor unions, businesses, and human rights groups, ensuring that all voices were heard and respected. In South Africa, involving both government and opposition forces, as well as key minorities, helped create legitimacy.

Another lesson from elsewhere is the importance of clear procedures and agreed-upon rules. In Colombia, for example, structured processes and trusted mediators helped keep negotiations on track even when disagreements arose. Transparency also played a vital role, as did clear mechanisms to integrate dialogue outcomes into policy and law.

If Ethiopia’s National Dialogue Commission wants to replicate these successes, it should broaden participation, maintain transparent processes, and guarantee that results have real political weight—otherwise, dialogue may fail to resolve underlying tensions.

Recommendations from Civil Society and Scholars

Civil society groups and academic experts inside and outside Ethiopia make several urgent recommendations. First, they call for a more inclusive approach, arguing that dialogue must represent all key political, ethnic, and social groups—including those currently excluded. Second, they stress the importance of a neutral convening body. The Commission should distance itself from any perception of government bias to earn greater trust.

Third, recommendations emphasize the need for robust public engagement efforts. This includes not only publicizing dialogue outcomes but also creating pathways for ordinary people—especially the youth, women, and marginalized communities—to contribute meaningfully.

Fourth, civil society and scholars frequently point to the need for transparency at every stage. This means regular updates, open channels for criticism, and an accessible public record of proceedings and agreements.

Finally, they urge the government and dialogue facilitators to prepare for setbacks but remain resilient. Building trust takes time, and some failures are inevitable. Learning from international best practices, remaining open to criticism, and making real changes based on dialogue outcomes are all key for future success.

Future Scenarios and Recommendations

Possible Outcomes of the Current Approach

Possible outcomes of the current approach to the Ethiopian National Dialogue are deeply uncertain. If the process continues as it is, with limited inclusion of key stakeholders and little trust from marginalized groups, the dialogue could produce only surface-level agreements. In this case, the government might achieve limited elite consensus, but broader public legitimacy will be weak. Some best-case scenarios include modest progress toward conflict resolution and improved cooperation among the ruling elite. However, many analysts warn that unless the approach changes, the process risks deepening divisions, with some conflicts shrinking while other, larger crises grow. Failure to make the dialogue meaningful could lead to more instability or a return to violence in fragile regions.

Risks of Continued Delegitimization

Risks of continued delegitimization are very real and concerning. Critical voices warn that excluding major opposition and armed groups, and the perception that the process is heavily influenced by the ruling party, are damaging the Commission’s legitimacy. Widespread skepticism is growing not only among those excluded, but even among some members of civil society and the public. If the dialogue is further delegitimized, future efforts for peace and reconciliation may lose public support completely. Distrust of the process can spill over into open resistance, civil unrest, and hardened ethnic divides. Ethiopia could see a sharp decline in hopes for national unity if this course is not corrected soon.

Calls for Genuine Reform and Inclusive Dialogue

Calls for genuine reform and inclusive dialogue are increasing. Stakeholders inside and outside Ethiopia, including international partners, are urging the Commission to change course before trust is lost forever. They insist on the importance of broad and meaningful participation, from opposition parties to grassroots movements and historically marginalized communities. Recommendations include establishing clear guidelines for openness, being transparent about the process, and accepting the involvement of independent facilitators. To be effective, the National Dialogue must represent all major interests, not only those of government-aligned groups.

Strategies for Building Broad-Based Trust

Strategies for building broad-based trust need to be concrete and immediate. Trust cannot be rebuilt by rhetoric alone; instead, the Commission should:

• Engage openly, regularly, and honestly with all stakeholders.
• Allow independent monitors to observe and report on the dialogue process.
• Provide platforms for public feedback and show that this input shapes decision-making.
• Implement confidence-building measures, such as temporary ceasefires in conflict zones or releasing non-violent political prisoners.
• Work closely with civic, religious, and traditional leaders, giving them a real role in guiding the process.

These steps can slowly reduce suspicion and show that the National Dialogue is more than a formality.

The Need for an Independent and Neutral Convening Body

The need for an independent and neutral convening body is one of the strongest recommendations from observers and experts. As long as the process is managed by actors seen as aligned with the ruling party, its legitimacy will remain fragile. An independent body—possibly with significant support from respected local figures, regional organizations like the African Union, or trusted international partners—can help restore fairness and balance. Neutral facilitators create space for honest compromise, reduce fears of manipulation, and build the credibility that is essential for long-term peace.

Long-Term Vision for National Unity and Reconciliation

Long-term vision for national unity and reconciliation is essential for a stable Ethiopia. The dialogue’s true success will be measured not just in declarations, but in how well it addresses historical grievances, fosters mutual respect among Ethiopia’s diverse peoples, and guarantees justice and inclusion at all levels. True reconciliation means policies that protect minority rights, share power more equally, and encourage collective nation-building rather than division. If the government, opposition, and public commit honestly to these goals, there is still hope that the process can help rebuild Ethiopia’s social fabric and future prosperity.

This future is only possible if immediate, meaningful changes are made to the current approach. Ethiopia stands at a crossroads—either embrace genuine dialogue or risk deepening its crisis for years to come.