Addis Abeba — The Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission (NDC) has intensified its agenda-gathering consultation forums, with the Sidama and Central Ethiopia regions hosting the latest rounds. The Commission, which began its operations in 2022, has completed the participant identification phase and is currently conducting the agenda-gathering process in 10 regional states and two city administrations, with the exception of the Amhara and Tigray regions, where it is awaiting significant improvements in security conditions.
The Commission expects to conclude the agenda-gathering consultation forums by the end of September 2024 and to begin the actual dialogue phase in the upcoming Ethiopian year.
So far, the process has faced severe criticism regarding key principles of the national dialogue, particularly the legitimacy of the commission and the inclusivity of the process. The Ethiopian Islamic Affairs Supreme Council and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church, both of which have expressed concerns about insufficient representation, are among the critics. Armed groups primarily active in the conflict-ridden regions of Oromia and Amhara, as well as the Caucus of Opposition Parties--an umbrella organization of eleven opposition parties in Ethiopia--have also boycotted the process, claiming that the NDC has not lived up to its stated goal of facilitating an "inclusive" national dialogue.
Why National Dialogue in Ethiopia?
Girma Gadisa, a human rights lawyer and researcher on transitional justice and national dialogue, argues that Ethiopia, as a multinational country with a history of prolonged and devastating conflicts, has often faced challenges in silencing the guns, partly due to a longstanding culture of resolving political differences through violence rather than negotiation.
"Post-conflict periods in Ethiopia have been marked by 'victor's justice' rather than restorative justice and reconciliation. In addition, the implementation of the current federal structure, designed to accommodate ethnolinguistic diversity, has polarized ethnic relations, and the state-building process remains highly contentious, with opposing perspectives," he illustrated.
The ongoing conflicts have exposed these vulnerabilities, and the lack of a unified national vision poses a significant strategic threat to Ethiopia's national security. Mengistu Aseffa, head of programs, CARD
To build a consolidated democracy and egalitarian society, prevent the recurrence of conflict, and lay the foundation for a peaceful resolution of political differences, Ethiopia needs a platform where diverse groups can come together to converse and chart a way forward, Girma stated. National dialogue provides such a platform and, if used properly, can serve as a crucial tool to identify the root causes of conflict and instability in Ethiopia, he added.
"In short, Ethiopia's contested past, current political instability, and lack of consensus on its shared vision for the future necessitate a nationwide conversation among political actors and society," the lawyer noted.
Mengistu Assefa, head of programs at the Center for Advancement of Rights and Democracy (CARD), a non-profit civil society organization, said that Ethiopia's political history is marred by a legacy of conflict and an entrenched authoritarian political culture, where legal frameworks and institutions are weak in mediating deep-rooted contentions.
"The ongoing conflicts have exposed these vulnerabilities, and the lack of a unified national vision poses a significant strategic threat to Ethiopia's national security," Mengistu stated, emphasizing the need for a genuine national dialogue.
Mengistu argued that a credible national dialogue is essential for addressing the root causes of Ethiopia's divisions and fostering a shared vision of nationhood that is inclusive and sustainable. Through a well-structured and inclusive dialogue process, Ethiopia can begin to reconcile its differences, build stronger institutions, and pave the way for lasting peace and stability, he asserted.
Can Ethiopia's national dialogue deliver?
Last month, the Center for Advancement of Rights and Democracy (CARD) issued a report raising concerns about the legitimacy, transparency, and inclusivity of the process. The report highlighted significant issues encountered since the formation of the NDC, including limited stakeholder consultations during the formulation of the founding proclamation, unclear criteria for selecting commissioners, and a failure to continuously enhance the process's popular legitimacy.
Mengistu said that apart from a widespread legitimacy deficit due to a lack of participatory and transparent processes, the design of the national dialogue is vulnerable to government influence, potentially overshadowing the voices of marginalized groups such as women, persons with disabilities, and elders. He expressed concerns that the current process is unlikely to deliver on its promises of achieving national consensus and strengthening state legitimacy, given its shortcomings.
...given the current political instability, security challenges, boycotts by opposition parties, and the non-involvement of armed groups, the national dialogue is unlikely to achieve its objectives. Girma Gadisa, human rights lawyer
National dialogue is fundamentally a political process designed to address political issues, stated Girma. Therefore, the meaningful participation of all political parties, particularly in framing its goals, is critical to the success of the dialogue.
"Inclusivity is central to a national dialogue process, influencing the ownership of the outcome. However, the rejection of the national dialogue process by some opposition parties and the non-involvement of armed groups raise questions about inclusivity," Girma asserted.
Girma commends the government's willingness to undertake a national dialogue in a political landscape that has not traditionally been conducive to dialogue, as political differences have often been addressed through war or repression. However, given the current political instability, security challenges, boycotts by opposition parties, and the non-involvement of armed groups, the national dialogue is unlikely to achieve its objectives, he argued.
"A dialogue conducted without addressing these gaps would lack credibility, and its implementation might be challenging. Moreover, the outcome may fail to include issues considered key by actors not involved in the process," Girma contended.
Yonas Adaye (PhD), one of the eleven commissioners of the National Dialogue Commission, discussed the legitimacy of the National Dialogue in an interview with Addis Standard. He acknowledged concerns from various stakeholders but emphasized the commission's commitment to principles of transparency, inclusivity, and impartial facilitation. He underscored the dedication to fostering grassroots participation by engaging a diverse range of stakeholders, including religious leaders, youth representatives, political parties, educators, displaced individuals, elders, women's representatives, people with disabilities, and civil society organizations.
"The legitimacy of the Ethiopian National Dialogue is manifested by its engagement with communities across 1,400 districts and collaboration with over 50 political parties," the commissioner stated, adding that four out of a coalition of ten political parties, known as the Caucus, who initially rejected the dialogue process are now actively participating in it. The four parties include the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) and the Afar People's Party, according to Commissioner Yonas.
Ethiopia's National Dialogue has the potential to positively impact the political landscape by laying a solid foundation for the future. Yonas Adaye (PhD), commissioner, ENDC
Furthermore, the commissioner highlighted ongoing efforts to ensure the participation of armed groups involved in the militarized conflicts in the Oromia and Amhara regions in the national dialogue through the International Committee of the Red Cross and other partners. However, although these actors are not directly participating in the dialogue, their values and ideas are represented by the communities they advocate for, Commissioner Yonas underscored.
"While achieving 100 percent participation from all stakeholders is unrealistic, lessons can be drawn from successful national dialogues in Tunisia and South Africa. In Tunisia, key players like the General Union of Tunisian Workers and the Islamist Ennahda Party chose not to participate, yet the dialogue was still deemed successful. Similarly, in South Africa, some right-wing political groups and factions within the former ruling party rejected the dialogue, but it ultimately succeeded. Ethiopia's National Dialogue has the potential to positively impact the political landscape by laying a solid foundation for the future," Yonas argued.
He defended the dialogue commission's commitment to uphold its principles of inclusivity and credibility, highlighting an instance where the commission disqualified a participant selection process in the Sidama region after regional party cadres attempted to select their supporters as participants in the national dialogue.
Salvaging the national dialogue
While it may be late, it is not too late to address the concerns and deficits of Ethiopia's national dialogue process, Mengistu stated. The process requires significant revitalization and may even need to be paused temporarily to make the necessary adjustments, he recommended.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Girma concurred, highlighting the need to prioritize silencing the guns through ceasefire agreements, as instabilities in parts of the country hinder the smooth functioning and effectiveness of the national dialogue.
"Critics often focus on the government's failure to reach ceasefire agreements, but it is essential to acknowledge the complexity of negotiating with armed groups characterized by fragmented leadership. One way to involve armed groups in the national dialogue could be by addressing some of the agendas they have proposed in peace talks or through media outlets. Additionally, genuine efforts should be made to reengage opposition political parties that rejected the national dialogue," Girma asserted.
"Political will is at the heart of effective national dialogue. This applies not only to the ruling party but also to opposition parties and armed groups. Opposition parties and armed groups that are unwilling to make political compromises make it difficult for the government and the commission to engage with them. A spirit of give and take should be reinstated as the rule of the game. After all, context specificity, inclusivity, accommodation of diverse perspectives, and adaptability are among the main features that set national dialogue institutions apart from other conventional state structures."
Girma noted that there is public fatigue with the proliferation of transition-related institutions that have had little practical impact, citing the recent dissolution of the Reconciliation Commission and the Administrative Boundary and Identity Issues Commission without significant accomplishments as an example. The success or failure of the national dialogue process will have far-reaching implications for future transitional justice institutions and shape public perceptions of these efforts, he stated.
Yet Ethiopia's multifaceted sociopolitical predicaments demand multidimensional and holistic interventions, he accentuated. The national dialogue process should not be seen as a panacea for all political issues but as a tool that can produce effective resolutions when implemented in synergy with other political processes. It is crucial, for example, to consider how the national dialogue fits into the ongoing transitional justice process to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure the outcomes of one process feed into the others.
