By: Habte H.
When Ethiopia announced the formation of a National Dialogue Commission, many viewed it as a hopeful sign – a rare opportunity to confront the country’s deep-rooted historical grievances and open a new chapter of reconciliation and reform. Led by Professor Mesfin Araya, a psychiatrist by training, the commission was expected to serve as a platform for Ethiopians to engage in a collective healing process after decades of political marginalization, civil war, and authoritarianism.
But this hope was short-lived. The optimism that once surrounded the commission has all but vanished. Today, the initiative is widely regarded as a failure – and not without reason. Here, I examine the top ten reasons why Ethiopia’s National Dialogue Commission is failing – not because dialogue is not needed, but because every prerequisite for a meaningful, effective national dialogue has been ignored or undermined.
- No Legitimate or Independent Convening Body
For any national dialogue to succeed, it must be led by a credible and politically neutral body. Ethiopia’s commission fails this basic test. Its members are not independent actors, and several are openly aligned with the ruling administration. Their loyalty to the Prime Minister is evident in their public statements, silence in the face of state repression, and their selective engagement strategy.
This lack of legitimacy has alienated opposition groups, civil society, and entire regions, who see the commission not as a neutral arbiter, yet another tool in the state’s propaganda machine.
- Serving the Ruler, Not the People
The original promise of the commission was clear: to serve the people of Ethiopia by providing a platform for resolving long-standing grievances and building a shared future. But it did not take long for the process to be co-opted by the authoritarian ambitions of Abiy Ahmed.
Instead of functioning as an independent body, the commission has become an instrument of the regime – used not to mediate conflict, but to consolidate power. Its actions and public engagements increasingly reflect the priorities of the ruling party, not the Ethiopian people. Dialogue, in this context, is reduced to performance – one that masks state repression and excludes dissenting voices.
- Exclusion of Critical Stakeholders – Especially the Amhara
Perhaps the most glaring failure of the commission is its lack of inclusive participation. Successful national dialogues elsewhere in the world – from Tunisia to South Africa – have stressed the importance of broad, equitable stakeholder involvement. In Ethiopia, this principle has been discarded, or wrongly been applied.
One of the most critical groups excluded from Ethiopia’s contemporary political processes – the Amhara – has once again been side-lined. During the TPLF-led constitutional ratification process, Amhara voices were marginalized. Today, amid violent conflict and political suppression in the Amhara region, the community remains excluded from what is supposed to be a national dialogue. The result? Deepening mistrust, heightened resentment, and a widening legitimacy crisis.
- How Can Dialogue Succeed Amid Continued Civil War?
A fundamental precondition for dialogue is the cessation of active conflict. Ethiopia’s ongoing war – particularly the government’s brutal military campaign in the Amhara region – makes any talk of national dialogue feel both cynical and absurd.
Dialogue cannot occur while cities are under siege, journalists are jailed, and political dissent is criminalized. Fighters and political groups must first signal their willingness to participate. Instead, the government has doubled down on militarized governance, ensuring that no space for genuine dialogue exists.
- No Safe and Neutral Environment
Effective national dialogue requires a secure, neutral, and respectful space – physically and politically. Ethiopia offers none of these. Freedom of speech is under assault. Political prisoners fill Ethiopia’s jails. Fear of retaliation keeps many from speaking openly, even in private. In such an environment, how can honest conversations about justice, history, and reconciliation take place? Without guarantees of safety and impartiality, the very foundation of dialogue is compromised.
6. Absence of Trust-Building Measures
Trust – especially in post-conflict societies – does not emerge spontaneously. It must be built through deliberate actions: prisoner releases, ceasefires, an end to censorship, and genuine outreach to opposition forces.
Ethiopia’s government has done none of this. Instead, it continues to prosecute war, imprison critics, and tighten its grip on media and civil society. The National Dialogue Commission is proceeding without any of the trust-building groundwork that is essential for success.
7. No Clear Rules of Engagement or Transparent Process
A legitimate dialogue requires structure – transparent rules of engagement, fair representation, and decision-making by consensus. But the Ethiopian commission has failed to clearly articulate how it operates, who it includes, or what its decision-making process entails.
This lack of transparency raises legitimate concerns about manipulation and top-down control. Without clear rules, there can be no fairness – and without fairness, no trust or legitimacy.
8. No Link to Real Institutional or Legal Outcomes
Dialogue should lead to real change: constitutional reforms, justice for past atrocities, and inclusive policy making. In Ethiopia, however, there is no institutional or political pathway to implement the outcomes of this so-called dialogue. There is no indication that the government intends to act on recommendations – assuming any credible ones even emerge.
This disconnect renders the process meaningless. Dialogue without the power to enact change is just empty talk.
9. Fake Public Engagement
The commission tries to give the impression of broad public engagement – holding events, releasing statements, and broadcasting discussions. But in reality, large segments of the population are excluded or disinterested. Communities under siege cannot participate. Critics are silenced or ignored. And ordinary people, sceptical of state-led initiatives, see little reason to engage in a process they neither trust nor understand.
True public engagement requires transparency, civic education, and participatory mechanisms. Ethiopia’s commission has offered none of these in any meaningful way.
10. The Illusion of Dialogue Cannot Replace Justice
At the heart of the matter is this: national dialogue cannot replace justice. It must be part of a broader process that includes truth-telling, reparations, and accountability for past and present crimes. Ethiopia’s government, however, has shown no intention of pursuing any of these goals. Its approach to dialogue is selective, performative, and ultimately in service of political survival – not national healing.
Final Thoughts
Ethiopia desperately needs a national dialogue. But what it has instead is a national distraction – a process stripped of integrity, legitimacy, and purpose. For a country facing deep divisions, historic wounds, and ongoing conflict, such a farce is not just a missed opportunity – it is a dangerous deception. If Ethiopia is ever to move forward, it must begin by reimagining dialogue not as a tool of the powerful, but as a process owned by the people. Until then, the National Dialogue Commission will remain what it is today: a failure – by design.
Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
Subscribe : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/
Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory Business Listing Toronto
Join the conversation. Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter) @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly. Subscribe to YouTube channel To share information or for submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com
“Why Ethiopia must not abandon its national dialogue “ posted on this website is partially supplementary to your article about the “National dialogue commission “ deficiencies..Is there any practical actions from public to respond .?
If there is a true National dialogue Commission, as the author of this article describes the ongoing war should have been stopped at least for awhile, Unfortunately, and sadly the government DELIBERATELY needs the war to weaken the Amharas. Those sent for Dialogue are simply like gov. Puppets. It’s sad to play fire on innocent citizens.