History Repeating Itself? Amhara’s Role in Ethiopia’s National Dialogue

By Amanuel Agajjie Wasihun

The notion that “history will repeat itself” for the Amhara in Ethiopia is a deep-seated fear rooted in decades of complex and often contentious politics. This one that is held by many is that the current national dialogue is an unjust and discriminatory process that mirrors the process of constitution-making in the 1990s. While this is a valid perspective and one that is central to understanding complaints of the bulk of the Amhara population, a general analysis must involve more critical and informed understanding, one willing to consider other positions, more history, and the complex political realities on the ground.

The core concern, as voiced by much of the Amhara population, is that their people are again represented by unelected surrogates rather than their own genuine leaders. This argument relies on the bitter memory of the post-1991 transition when some Amharas had felt that the constitution was drafted by representatives that did not represent their interest but were actually part of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). This was not an unjustified attitude; the politics of the period were highly centralized and bore a clear structure of power which marginalized large sections, including sections of the Amhara political leadership. The result was a constitution based on ethnic federalism, which, although embraced by some as an escape from Ethiopia’s multicultural diversity, was viewed by others as a tool of disunion and possible future cause of war.

Nevertheless, there is critical examination to be done in that the story of history is not one dimensional. The TPLF and allies would insist that their political vision was a necessary response to decades of Amhara-dominated, centralized political rule in the imperial and Derg regimes. They believed it to be the only way by which the rights and self-determination of Ethiopia’s numerous nationalities could be attained. Secondly, not all Amhara opposed the political transformation of the 1990s. Some Amhara politicians and intellectuals later supported the new federal structure, seeing it as a temporary step toward a more equitable and secure Ethiopia. The claim of purely “unrepresentative” representatives, even though a statement of prevailing mood of alienation, may not fully reflect political realignments of the time.

It is now directing the gaze of history to the National Dialogue Commission that is in operation today. There is cynicism towards the commission, particularly as it attempts to operate amidst the brewing war in the Amhara region. The argument is that a dialogue cannot hold under war circumstances and that the commission is merely a tool of the ruling Prosperity Party to put up a facade of democracy. This response highlights a significant democratic deficit: the inability of a government to have an actual conversation that is national when a large part of its citizens feels alienated and is, in fact, dealing with a conflict.

But a complete picture should consider the government’s perspective as well. Prosperity Party and their allies believe that national dialogue is a necessary move towards closing the country’s deep-running cleavages and is an open good-faith effort to have all stakeholders in one room. They would most likely contend that waiting for complete peace before embarking on dialogue is an unrealistic and maybe even endless wait. To them, some of the solutions to the conflict are the dialogue itself and not to be left for later when the conflict is resolved. The government may also point to the fact that the commission has been mandated by law and comprises individuals who come from varied backgrounds and present it as a valid and unprejudiced body.

The political playbook: Strategies and a way forward

The perception that history is repeating itself for the Amhara people is more than a feeling; it is one that stems from a belief of deliberate political strategies put in place by successive Ethiopian governments. More scrutiny of such strategies reveals an element of domination, and an understanding of this pattern is the first step to devising an effective response.

The strategy employed by the TPLF and Prosperity Party alike, although differing in their application, remains the same: to guide and dominate the Amhara people’s political voice. The TPLF government was widely blamed for co-optation and political fragmentation through the creation of “puppet” parties claiming to represent the Amhara people. These groups, such as the Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM), were considered by the majority to be little more than a regional branch of the ruling coalition. They were used to create the facade of ethnic representation while ensuring genuine, autonomous Amhara political voices were silenced or displaced. Both governments have also relied on the powerful narrative that they need to lead in order to stabilize Ethiopia. Any opposition or independent political mobilization is framed as a danger to national security, unity, or “constitutional order” in an effort to delegitimize opposition forces. The best method, however, has been the manipulation of the justice and electoral systems so that any independent parties cannot even dream of competing and the official “representatives” of the Amhara nation are those who are acceptable to the ruling party, rather than those who won through a free and fair election.

Against this strategic backdrop, the question of how to work with the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission is made more difficult. Boycotting the commission in its entirety, while a robust protest measure, could lead to a return to the past where important national documents are approved without any Amhara presence, as was the case with the constitution. Another approach, therefore, must be used, one that is mutually encompassing of both internal resistance and activism from outside. The first and most crucial step is to ask for reform of the dialogue commission itself, to insist that it is actually independent and transparent. If participation is the way forward, it must be with a clear, coordinated, and unbending strategy. Instead of solitary, uncoordinated efforts, Amhara representatives and elites must sit around a pre-agreed agenda of non-negotiables. These could include an immediate end to hostilities in the Amhara region as a requirement for fruitful negotiation, the unqualified release of all political prisoners, and adherence to serious constitutional reform to overcome the underlying causes of wars for decades. The future is not a question of a simple choice between joining and staying out. It is a measured bid to dismantle the outdated political script by demanding a true, autonomous process. If that does not come, then participation must become a method of collective political resistance with the goal of exposing the commission’s vulnerabilities and carrying the fundamental demands for justice, safety, and actual representation for the Amhara people.

Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com  

Support  Borkena  : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/

Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena

Like borkena on Facebook

To submit Press Release, send submission to info@borkena.com

Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory  

Join the conversation. Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter)  @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly.