Fractures of Trust and the Birth of Coalition
Diagnosing Ethiopia’s political fragmentation and the moral foundations of transition.
Sirak Zena
(i) Abstract
“Ethiopia’s Crucial Juncture: Elite Coalition and the Path to Democratic Transition” investigates the moral, institutional, and political imperatives that shape Ethiopia’s pursuit of democracy. It argues that the current crisis in the nation cannot be resolved merely by dismantling one regime and replacing it with another; rather, it necessitates a transformation of the foundational architecture of political legitimacy. Drawing on philosophical discourse, the framework of a caretaker government, and the ongoing development of elite coalitions, this article contends that Ethiopia’s future is contingent not solely on who governs but on how the pathway to governance is constructed.
This three-part reflection explores how the country might move from division to deliberation, and from deliberation to a democratic transition anchored not in the triumph of one group, but in a process that belongs to the people themselves.
The article urges Ethiopia’s political elites, both at home and in the diaspora, to transcend the pursuit of immediate power and establish a neutral, transparent framework that protects the people’s right to elect their leaders. The concept of unity must transition from mere rhetoric to substantive structure, and hope must evolve from sentiment into actionable strategies. In this endeavor, the coalition of elites must resist the dual temptations of triumphalism and paralysis, fostering integrity, discipline, and courage as the ethical foundations of the transition.
Ethiopia’s redemption lies not in the emergence of new rulers but in a reimagined political covenant in which legitimacy derives from the consent of the governed, establishing a republic founded on shared trust, justice, accountability, and collective renewal.
(ii) Author’s Publishing Note
This article follows my earlier reflection, “A Strategic Reflection on the Idea of a Caretaker Government in Ethiopia.”The newly formed Coalition of Elites or Forum, known as “Concerned Individuals for the Survival of the Nation and People” (CISNP), represents a commendable initiative emerging from the Ethiopian diaspora. Its establishment conveys both the desperation and resilience of a nation searching for a path out of crisis. Yet, at this early stage, the coalition’s structure, intentions, and vision remain only partly visible to the public.
The recent creation of the forum motivates the author to produce this paper, and it may serve as recommendations for the current coalition or any future alliance should the existing one face challenges.
Accordingly, this piece does not attempt to evaluate the coalition, as there is nothing to assess, but rather to offer principles and frameworks that could guide its evolution toward legitimacy and public trust. Less than a quarter of the discussion is directly about the coalition itself; the broader purpose is to clarify the foundational values, inclusiveness, integrity, procedural fairness, and democratic accountability that must anchor any transition worthy of the Ethiopian people’s aspirations.
Because of the subject’s depth and scope, this reflection is presented in three interconnected parts.
- Part One diagnoses Ethiopia’s political fragmentation and the moral challenge of trust.
- Part Two explores the ideological, theoretical, and psychological dimensions of power and perception that shape transitions.
- Part Three translates these insights into institutional frameworks, outlining practical roadmaps, moral safeguards, and structural designs for a neutral caretaker transition.
Together, these three reflections form a single argument: that Ethiopia’s future depends not on who governs, but on how the path to governance is prepared, through trust, inclusivity, and the courage to separate power from process.
Yes, the article is long, but so are the conversations that matter.
(iii) Beyond the Text: The Motive and Aim of the Article
The author offers a realistic and pragmatic perspective in this work, delivering a critical analysis of Ethiopia’s current socio-political landscape. Drawing upon observed objective reality, the author integrates historical insights with contemporary conditions. The author argues that this work, along with the companion piece “A Strategic Reflection on the Idea of a Caretaker Government in Ethiopia,” offers a viable framework for tackling current issues and does so with quiet confidence. The author’s confidence stems from the proposed framework’s potential, which, if implemented with steadfast conviction, empowers people to control their future. The main goal is to introduce A Set of Ideas that can spark conversations among academics, political figures, and coalition partners, as well as among the public, encouraging positive dialogues to improve these concepts. Should the intended audience dismiss the recommendations articulated in this work, the author is open to exploring other pragmatic alternatives for transition and advancement suggested by any group or individual. The coalition of elites( Forum) must unequivocally articulate its position to promote transparency and clarity.
1. Introduction: Ethiopia’s Crucial Juncture
The establishment of ethnic federalism in 1995 divided Ethiopia along ethnic lines, leading to ongoing conflict. Historical legacies continue to fragment the political elite, primarily among the Amhara, Oromo, and Tigray groups. Currently, conflicts persist in Oromia and Amhara, while Tigray remains unsettled following the Pretoria peace agreement. Three competing perspectives on Ethiopia’s future have emerged: defense of ethnic federalism, a civic nationalist approach advocating governance without ethnic identity, and separatist demands for complete independence. In this polarized atmosphere, domestic political parties are weakened or crushed, and individual political elites in exile struggle to build cohesion.
A failed state is characterized by chronic internal violence, loss of control over borders and territories, and a government unable to provide essential services or maintain infrastructure. By these measures, Ethiopia increasingly exhibits traits of state failure, including breakdowns in law and order, entrenched corruption, economic decline, widespread poverty, and a lack of political stability and legitimate governance. State fragility is assessed through the persistent inability to deliver civil peace and security, uphold the rule of law, facilitate political participation, and provide effective services.
The current Ethiopian regime is unable to govern effectively. Its fragility is evident in dire economic conditions, internal contradictions, and the potential for popular uprising. Ongoing insecurity, loss of territorial control, violent unrest, discontent within military sectors, and erosion of public trust reveal a government incapable of restoring order or legitimacy. Efforts to extend governance through entities such as the National Dialogue Commission aim to attract international attention and facilitate the prime minister’s transition to the presidency through constitutional manipulation, thereby further increasing distrust.
The state increasingly fails to meet the fundamental criteria of sovereignty, while the ruling elite clings to power through coercion rather than consensus. It is disheartening to observe a juvenile autocratic leader consciously scripting and executing chaos in several regions and dimensions of Ethiopia. The autocratic regime prioritizes power above all else, showing disregard for people, truth, justice, and democracy. Its foundation lies in dishonesty, apathy, secrecy, callousness, vulnerability, blame-shifting, and impunity. Furthermore, the regime is inimical to peace both domestically and with neighboring entities.
Hannah Arendt asserts that “all political institutions are manifestations of power; they petrify and decay as soon as the living power of the people ceases to uphold them” (Arendt, H., 1970). Arendt’s assertion resonates with the Ethiopian autocratic regime, which has lost the trust and backing of the people, revealing signs of internal deterioration and a desperate struggle to maintain power.
Against this backdrop of state fragility, a coalition of elites has formed, framing itself in terms of the nation’s and its people’s survival. Its existence serves as both a warning that Ethiopia’s current trajectory is unsustainable and a commitment to expand its base for national survival and democratic renewal.
This coalition reflects both the desperation and creativity of the Ethiopian political imagination in the face of elite paralysis. While its formation is commendable, its long-term viability will depend on inclusiveness, transparency, and clarity regarding the relationship between means and ends. Without this grounding, the coalition risks reproducing the fragmentation it seeks to overcome.
To evaluate whether this coalition can transcend Ethiopia’s cycles of mistrust and fragmentation, it is essential to consider its immediate promise and potential pitfalls.
This reflection does not stop at principles alone; it also examines the delicate balance between the impression of triumph and paralysis that elites may encounter, highlighting the critical challenges the coalition must confront to transition from a symbolic presence to substantive preparation.
2. The Promise and Limits of an Extra-Party Coalition
The emergence of CISNP represents a significant development within Ethiopia’s political landscape. Unlike formal political parties that possess defined programs and constituencies, this coalition of elites unites individuals operating outside established party structures to engage in deliberation and coordination.
Limited information is available regarding the comprehensive composition of the group. Certain members have historical affiliations with parties that have since been disbanded and are now functioning independently from exile. The degree of association with domestic political entities remains ambiguous for some individuals. Conversely, a subset of members lacks party affiliations. However, it has made substantial contributions to societal discourse, including from intellectuals, professionals, prominent figures in ethnic or civic spheres, and lesser-known individuals.
The decision to unite reflects both Ethiopia’s political paralysis and the determination of elites to take action when institutional avenues are obstructed.
A. The Promise of a Non-Party Coalition
- Breaking the Deadlock of Parties: Ethiopian political parties, weakened by repression and fragmented by ideological differences, have struggled to form a unified opposition. This coalition circumvents institutional deadlock by creating an alternative platform for elites to deliberate and coordinate their efforts. It signifies that political initiative need not be monopolized by registered parties.
- A Claim to Moral and Civic Authority: Because the coalition is not structured around electoral ambitions, it can present itself as a civic-minded initiative, motivated by the survival of the nation rather than by the pursuit of power, thereby lending credibility to its members’ assertions. In a political culture where parties are frequently perceived as self-serving or ethnically driven, this framing may resonate with citizens seeking a credible voice.
- Flexibility in Strategy: Absent rigid party manifestos, the coalition can maintain flexibility, experimenting with various forms of dialogue, reaching across divides, and adjusting its agenda to evolving realities. This adaptability is a strength in a context of rapidly changing opportunities and threats.
- Diaspora Leverage: The coalition’s diaspora base offers both protection from repression and access to resources, media, and international networks. Historically, Ethiopian diasporas have influenced U.S. and European policy, mobilized funding, and shaped public discourse. If channeled constructively, this leverage can enhance the coalition’s impact within Ethiopia.
B. The Pitfalls of Non-Party Coalition
- Legitimacy Deficit: Despite its potential, the coalition faces a fundamental legitimacy challenge: who has authorized it to represent Ethiopians? Lacking constituencies, its claim to representation remains tenuous. Citizens within Ethiopia, particularly those living under authoritarian repression, may question whether exiled elites can genuinely represent their interests.
- Risk of Fragmentation: The diaspora political space is crowded with groups and initiatives. Unless the coalition intentionally builds bridges with others, it risks duplicating efforts and becoming “just another diaspora platform.” Fragmentation reinforces the regime’s narrative that the opposition is incapable of uniting.
- Controversial Figures and Historical Baggage: Some members carry burdens from past political histories, whether through association with failed parties, previous regimes, or divisive rhetoric. Without acknowledgment or accountability, these histories may undermine the coalition’s credibility. In a society scarred by cycles of betrayal, suspicion persists.
- Limits of Domestic Influence: Operating primarily from the diaspora, the coalition’s capacity to mobilize within Ethiopia is restricted. Declarations alone will not dismantle authoritarianism; without partnerships with domestic actors, such as political parties, armed groups, civil society organizations, religious leaders, and youth movements, the coalition risks being perceived as distant and ineffective.
- Risk of Replicating Elite Politics: Although established as an alternative to party politics, the coalition could inadvertently reproduce the same pitfalls: centralization of decision-making, opacity, and personal rivalries. If it fails to embody the inclusiveness and transparency it advocates, it will appear no different from the elites it critiques.
C. Conceptual Insight
The coalition exemplifies a paradox inherent to transitional politics: substantial political action is often necessary despite the absence of formal popular authority and the presence of a repressive dictatorship in Ethiopia, which is aptly likened to a two-headed hydra composed of a civilian and a politicized military component. As Hannah Arendt reminds us, politics begins wherever individuals convene to deliberate and collaborate (Arendt, 1958). By this criterion, the coalition is inherently political; it has established a fragile “space of appearance” wherein novel possibilities may be explored. However, the extent of its Novelty remains to be observed.
Nevertheless, imagination and goodwill alone do not equate to legitimacy. Political philosophers have long cautioned that authority must rest on the collective will of the people, rather than on imposition or coercion. This principle resonates in Ethiopia’s fragmented political landscape today. The coalition is at a pivotal juncture: it may either exemplify a new culture of transparency, humility, and civic duty, eliciting both hope and skepticism, or fall into the pattern of perpetuating Ethiopia’s heritage of exclusive, elite negotiations.
Consequently, the coalition’s credibility will depend not only on its capacity to resist authoritarian rule but also on its ability to establish a neutral caretaker structure that prioritizes safeguarding the process over consolidating power, thereby allowing Ethiopians themselves to determine their future.
3. The Fragile Context: A Nation at the Edge
The coalition of elites under the banner CISNP does not present a unified ideological program. Instead, it mirrors Ethiopia’s broader divisions, bringing together figures who hold sharply different visions for the country’s future. This heterogeneity is both its strength, demonstrating the possibility of dialogue across divides, and its weakness, making consensus difficult even within the platform itself.
Broadly speaking, three visions shape the Ethiopian debate: maintaining ethnic federalism, replacing it with a civic state, or pursuing separatist independence.
A. Ethnic Federalism: Autonomy as Survival
For various groups, ethnic federalism is not a temporary arrangement but a safeguard of existence. The 1995 constitution gave nations and nationalities both self-rule and the explicit right to secede. Supporters of federalism argue that it protects Ethiopia’s diversity and prevents domination by any single group. For elites aligned with this vision, autonomy is synonymous with survival.
However, federalism has also entrenched division. In Ethiopia, it is characterized by ‘coercive federalism’, a type of federal system in which the federal government exercises significant control over the country. It institutionalizes ethnic identity as the basis of politics, leaving the state perpetually vulnerable to fragmentation. For members of the coalition who favor reform rather than reject federalism, the challenge is how to maintain protections for diversity without fueling centrifugal forces.
B. Civic Nationalism: Beyond Ethnicity
Others in the coalition argue that Ethiopia’s survival depends on transcending ethnic divisions altogether. For civic nationalists, citizenship, not ethnicity, should be the foundation of political life. They view federalism not as protection but as a trap that condemns the state to endless fragmentation.
Civic nationalism envisions a republic founded on equal rights, shared institutions, respect for ethnic rights, and a unified national identity. Its appeal lies in its promise of unity and fairness. However, civic elites within the coalition must contend with the suspicion that their project masks an attempt to revive past centralization, erasing the hard-won recognition of Ethiopia’s diverse nations and self-administration.
C. Separatism: Exit as the Only Future
The most radical current within the coalition comes from those sympathetic to separatist aspirations. For many in Tigray, the idea of independence remains strong even after the Pretoria agreement. Some Oromo elites also view independence as the only way to escape cycles of “domination”.
Separatist elites within the coalition insist that self-determination is a legitimate demand under both Ethiopian constitutional law and international norms. Nevertheless, their presence underscores the difficulty of finding common ground: separatism threatens to unravel Ethiopia itself, raising fears of domino effects and regional instability.
D. The Coalition’s Mediating Role
By bringing together federalists, civic nationalists, and separatists under one platform, the coalition is both fragile and symbolically powerful. It is delicate because disagreements over the state’s very identity can paralyze decision-making. It is powerful because the act of sitting together demonstrates that dialogue across existential divides is still possible.
The coalition cannot impose a solution to these disputes. Its potential contribution lies in creating procedural guarantees that ensure disagreements are resolved through democratic means rather than violence. For example, it can promote mechanisms such as referendums and constitutional conventions.
The coalition’s variety exemplifies Isaiah Berlin’s assertion that specific values are irreconcilable; unity and autonomy, along with cohesion and diversity, will eventually clash (Berlin, 1990). The coalition’s task is not to resolve these contradictions, but to manage them through fair and democratic procedures, such as referenda and constitutional conventions, where rules, rather than weapons, can contain disputes. Its deeper value lies in symbolizing that even irreconcilable visions can coexist within a single platform, so long as the structure is credible and inclusive.
For such diversity to become an asset rather than a liability, the coalition must demonstrate inclusiveness, cultivate legitimacy, and build durable structures.
Separation often reveals deeper-rooted issues beyond surface disagreements. True reconciliation demands moving beyond superficial conflicts to address the underlying problems that led to the desire for separation. It requires understanding the reasons behind the divide and avoiding assumptions and dehumanization. By acknowledging historical and current grievances and showing a willingness to seek common ground, genuine reconciliation becomes possible.
The coalition sometimes resembles a political riddle: federalists who want to preserve the union on ethnic terms, civic nationalists who wish to maintain the union without ethnic considerations, and separatists who seek no union at all, all united, for now, in a single platform. It is as if three passengers boarded the same bus: one insisting it stay on the current road, another arguing it should change direction, and the third demanding to get off at the very next stop. The irony is that, in struggling together to oust the driver, they may discover they are more committed to keeping the bus itself than they first admitted. Suspicion may remain, but even a paradoxical company can reveal unexpected commitments to unity.
It is the wish of many that these collaborative endeavors, focused on ensuring the survival of our nation and its people, transcend mere rhetoric. Through their actions, they empower the people beyond the regime’s constraints, promote togetherness, and lay the foundation for a progress-driven democratic political landscape determined by the people’s will.
4. Principles of Coalition Building
The coalition of elites may represent a bold step, but its survival and influence depend on three interlinked qualities: inclusiveness, legitimacy, and institutional design. These challenges are especially acute in Ethiopia, where mistrust is pervasive, the regime refuses to engage opposition groups, and citizens fear that every initiative is simply another elite bargain.
A. The Imperative of Inclusiveness
Ethiopia’s history is one of exclusion. Successive governments, from imperial rulers to the Derg to the EPRDF and the current regime, have claimed to speak for the nation while silencing dissent and neutralizing opposition groups using the state’s own legal and security machinery. Even in the diaspora, fragmentation has mirrored these divides, with groups organizing along ethnic or ideological lines rather than creating broad coalitions.
For the coalition to distinguish itself, it must commit to radical inclusiveness:
- Horizontal Inclusiveness: Its current diversity, federalists, civic nationalists, separatists, is significant, but not enough. It must expand to include other diaspora groups, surviving parties, civil society organizations, and voices from regions often neglected in elite debates (Somali, Afar, Sidama, Gambella, etc.).
- Vertical Inclusiveness: Equally vital is building bridges with citizens inside Ethiopia. The regime will not allow open participation, but creative mechanisms, such as digital consultations, secure messaging with grassroots organizers, and liaisons with religious leaders and community figures, can amplify local voices.
Equally important is outreach to domestic political parties, armed groups in Oromia and Amhara, and sympathetic actors within the military and security apparatus, whose perspectives carry weight in shaping Ethiopia’s immediate future. By incorporating these voices, the coalition demonstrates that it is not a detached diaspora project but a structure responsive to those living under authoritarianism. Without such vertical inclusiveness, the coalition risks being dismissed as out of touch with the very people it claims to represent.
Implementing vertical inclusiveness under an authoritarian regime presents practical risks. Secure digital consultations can expose grassroots organizers to surveillance and retaliation. Safeguards such as encrypted platforms, anonymized participation, and the use of diaspora–grassroots intermediaries are essential. These measures would enable the coalition to hear voices from within Ethiopia while protecting participants, making inclusiveness meaningful rather than symbolic.
To truly make a significant impact, the coalition must transcend its current status as an exclusive enclave of elites. It is imperative that the coalition proactively expand its reach by collaborating with various diaspora initiatives, civic organizations, youth and women’s groups, and emerging leaders within Ethiopia. Failure to do so will leave its legitimacy vulnerable, potentially paving the way for rival factions to emerge, fracturing the people’s unity, diluting the movement’s strength, and inadvertently bolstering the regime.
Inclusiveness is therefore not only a moral imperative but also a practical necessity: only by widening participation can the coalition claim the authority to shape Ethiopia’s transitional roadmap and earn the trust of Ethiopians across divides.
B. Legitimacy: More Than Self-Appointment
Inclusiveness strengthens legitimacy, but legitimacy requires more than that. In Ethiopia’s fractured political landscape, self-appointment raises suspicions. The coalition must show that it is not an exclusive circle but a credible convening platform.
Legitimacy rests on three pillars:
● Representation: The coalition must widen its membership to reflect Ethiopia’s full diversity, not only ethnically but also ideologically, generationally, and socially (youth, women, workers).
● Procedures: Transparency in decision-making is essential. If decisions appear to be made behind closed doors, cynicism will deepen. Regular communiqués, published minutes, and rotating leadership can demonstrate fairness.
● Results: The effectiveness of actions is closely intertwined with their legitimacy. This legitimacy is achieved through a strategic roadmap that enables people to elect their government freely, without manipulation, coercion, or imposition, and to accept the outcomes and endorse the collective will willingly. Suppose the coalition presents a well-defined plan for a smooth transition, emphasizing the rejection of power negotiations and advocating for the establishment of a neutral caretaker government as a transitional mechanism. In that case, it will underscore its value to the people. Conversely, if the coalition issues only pronouncements lacking coherent, pragmatic, and contextually appropriate transitional blueprints for Ethiopian reality and instead engages in power bargaining, it will diminish into irrelevance.
C. Institutional Design: Building Durability
Without careful design, the coalition could collapse under the weight of Ethiopia’s divisions. Institutions are needed not only to coordinate members but also to embody values of inclusiveness and transparency.
Possible design features include:
● Rotating Leadership: Prevents domination by individuals or factions.
● Advisory Committees: Drawn from scholars, civic leaders, and professionals to guide debates on federalism, transitional justice, constitutional amendment, and economics.
● Consensus Mechanisms: To manage irreconcilable visions within the coalition, specific consensus mechanisms are necessary. One option is the “consensus-minus-one” approach (Lijphart, 1977), which allows decisions to move forward with agreement from all but one bloc. This prevents domination by ensuring no single faction is excluded, while also avoiding paralysis through absolute unanimity. Alternatively, supermajority thresholds (e.g., two-thirds support) could be applied to safeguard against narrow decisions on matters of fundamental importance. Such mechanisms make dialogue credible by assuring participants that outcomes reflect broad agreement without requiring impossible unanimity.
● Linkages to Domestic Actors: Establish channels, however limited, for contributions from domestic parties, civil society, youth organizations, and religious entities in Ethiopia. It is essential to engage with those who are forced to conform within the ruling party (PP) and the military. To guarantee the protection of individuals within the nation, extraordinary security measures must be implemented.
● Public Reporting: Regular, accessible updates on debates and disagreements to build trust with citizens.
D. Why Does This Matter in Ethiopia?
The Ethiopian regime shows no willingness to engage opposition actors, and its fall will not automatically yield inclusive politics. If elites remain divided, the resulting vacuum will be filled by whoever is militarily strongest or politically most opportunistic. A coalition that models inclusiveness, legitimacy, and strong design can help prevent that vacuum from turning into authoritarian relapse.
This is where the case for a caretaker government becomes essential. Given the depth of mistrust and the absence of consensus on Ethiopia’s future, no single party or group can credibly govern alone after regime change. Only a neutral and temporary caretaker arrangement can provide the breathing space for Ethiopians to deliberate on their future through democratic means. The coalition, if credible, can serve as the entity that facilitates and promotes such a transition, as one of its members stated, “power is the last consideration for us at this time.”
However, even the best-designed institutions mean little without trust, both within the coalition and among the Ethiopian people.
5. The Problem of Trust
Trust as the First Institution of Transition
Trust, a scarce commodity in Ethiopian politics, serves as the cornerstone upon which sustainable political initiatives must be built. Prolonged periods of authoritarian governance and the ethnicization of the political sphere have fostered a pervasive culture of suspicion. In this environment, political parties exhibit mutual distrust, citizens harbor skepticism towards elites, and even allies within opposition movements critically evaluate one another’s motives. For the coalition of elites operating under the banner CISNP, cultivating trust is the foremost challenge.
Internal Trust: The coalition’s diversity, comprising federalists, civic nationalists, separatists, and individuals from both traditional and non-traditional political backgrounds, represents both a source of strength and a potential vulnerability. To foster internal cohesion, establishing transparent governance mechanisms, including codes of conduct, open deliberation, and rotating leadership, is essential. Such measures can mitigate domination and enhance accountability while reinforcing the perception that participation is not a zero-sum endeavor. Financial transparency is particularly critical, as past allegations of undisclosed funding have undermined diaspora initiatives. As Aristotle argued, political friendship (philia politikē) rests on mutual recognition of shared responsibilities rather than personal affiliations. Without internal cohesion, the coalition risks becoming a mirror of the fragmentation it seeks to overcome.
External Trust: Securing the trust of citizens within Ethiopia presents an even more formidable challenge. Diaspora elites often seem detached, and proclamations made from abroad frequently fail to resonate with those enduring repression and poverty. To bridge this disconnect, the coalition must demonstrate a commitment to listening as attentively as it communicates. Mechanisms such as secure digital consultations, collaborations with civic and religious leaders, and the incorporation of youth and women’s perspectives are vital. Without such vertical inclusiveness, the coalition risks being perceived as yet another distant circle of elites. A coalition disconnected from the people it aims to represent is merely an echo chamber of exile.
Acknowledgment and Apology: Honesty and accountability are paramount, particularly for coalition members with contentious pasts or those who have employed divisive rhetoric. Openly acknowledging previous missteps and committing to transparency could exemplify the humility often lacking in Ethiopia’s political culture. While formal transitional justice mechanisms will be critical following regime change, the coalition must not defer addressing its internal challenges.
Members with controversial histories may need to publicly disclose their past actions, issue formal apologies, or undergo internal vetting processes. Such proactive measures, though not erasing suspicion, would signify a commitment to accountability even in the absence of formal institutions. Genuine transformation necessitates visible, dialogical, and transparent actions, including acknowledgment and apology for past divisive rhetoric. This approach underscores the critical importance of ongoing accountability and the development of new civic identities. In Ethiopia’s political arena, humility is not weakness; it is the bedrock of credibility and trust.
Historical Caution: The French proverb “Chat échaudé craint l’eau froide” (“a scalded cat fears cold water”) underscores the necessity of learning from painful experiences. Ethiopians, scarred by cycles of authoritarianism and betrayal, approach political promises with profound skepticism. Unless expatriate elites and domestic actors convincingly demonstrate a departure from historical patterns of power grabs and elite collusion, mistrust will persist within Ethiopia’s political landscape. The ghosts of past betrayals haunt every promise of change in Ethiopia.
Trust across Political Divides: This challenge is compounded by divergent fears among various factions. Federalists fear central domination; civic nationalists worry about fragmentation; separatists are apprehensive about enforced unity. These concerns are rooted in historical realities rather than mere paranoia. While the coalition cannot extinguish these fears, it can offer assurances that disagreements will be resolved through equitable procedures rather than coercion. In this context, the concept of a neutral caretaker government becomes crucial, providing a framework in which all factions can negotiate Ethiopia’s future without apprehension of domination. Bridging ideological chasms is not just coalition-building; it is nation-saving.
Transitional Justice and the Burden of History: The coalition must also confront the historical burden it carries through a commitment to transitional justice. The atrocities in Tigray, repression in Oromia, and violence in Amhara and Benishangul have left indelible scars that cannot be overlooked. By committing to mechanisms that facilitate dialogue between victims and perpetrators, the coalition can illustrate that trust is cultivated not from perfection but from the courage to confront historical realities. It must assure the public that these mechanisms will be enacted upon the conclusion of the caretaker phase. Confronting the past is not about revenge; it is about reclaiming the future.
The Paradox of Political Promises: As Hannah Arendt observed, trust in politics is fundamentally rooted in the creation and fulfillment of promises, which form the basis for enduring cooperation (Arendt, 1958). In Ethiopia, where experiences of betrayal have eroded this foundational trust, the coalition’s sustainability hinges not on mere declarations but on demonstrating that political promises can be credible. Trust, inherently fragile and complex to rebuild, must be nurtured through deliberate actions characterized by transparency, humility, fairness, and the establishment of neutral caretaker mechanisms. In Ethiopia, political promises are the currency of hope; their fulfillment, the measure of change.
Navigating Suspicion and Legitimacy: The coalition must navigate the paradox of earning trust while enduring suspicion, as articulated by one prominent member: “Have suspicion, but listen to what we say.” If Ethiopians harbor only suspicion without engagement, no coalition can attain legitimacy. Conversely, if they listen without skepticism, leaders will not be held accountable. The coalition’s challenge is to transform fragile trust into enduring credibility by first acknowledging past divisive rhetoric and then substantiating intentions through concrete actions that prioritize process over power. The path to trust in Ethiopian politics is paved with endured suspicion and proven integrity.
The Fragility of Trust: Trust is inherently fragile, easily compromised, and difficult to rebuild. It cannot be imposed simply through good intentions; instead, it must be cultivated through intentional actions. Within this coalition, trust will emerge from a commitment to transparency, humility, fairness, and the establishment of neutral caretaker mechanisms. If successful, it may reverse Ethiopia’s culture of suspicion; if it fails, it will reinforce the perception that no initiative is trustworthy. Trust in Ethiopia is not given; it is earned through consistent action and unwavering commitment.
Personal Sacrifice and Public Trust: Another notable coalition member, an exiled politician deprived of all his assets, stated, “What alternative do the Ethiopian people have other than this coalition? If they do not trust me, whom can they trust?” He urged the public to extend the benefit of the doubt to the political elites leading this initiative. His remarks reflect both courage and sorrow, embodying the perspective of an individual who has sacrificed significantly in the pursuit of change through nonviolent resistance.
However, these statements highlight the precarious nature of political trust in Ethiopia. Trust cannot be inherited through sacrifice or demanded as a moral obligation; it must be cultivated through transparency and consistent action. In Ethiopia’s political landscape, sacrifice may earn respect, but accountability and being candid earn trust.
From Fragile Trust to Lasting Credibility: The coalition must transform this fragile trust into enduring credibility by first acknowledging and apologizing for its members’ prior divisive comments. Moreover, they must validate their goals not through mere statements but through tangible actions that demonstrate a commitment to the process over power, thereby restoring trust in a situation where it has historically been eroded. The journey from suspicion to trust is Ethiopia’s true path to democratic transformation.
Suspicion and Hidden Motives: While some may perceive the coalition of elites as a constructive initiative, it is overshadowed by pervasive suspicion among various individuals and factions. Allegations of concealed agendas among certain members, shaped by their historical rhetoric and divisive past positions, raise significant questions regarding the coalition’s credibility. While some accusations may lack direct evidence, the historical context and previously articulated sentiments cannot be disregarded. This suspicion reflects deeper societal fissures and historical traumas.
Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre argued that when politics devolves into an arena where actors mask their private ambitions behind the rhetoric of common purpose, it converts political practice into a competition for external goods rather than a pursuit of genuine collective benefit (MacIntyre, 1984). In this context, reasoned argument is supplanted by manipulation, suspicion, and cynicism, depriving society of the opportunity to pursue the common good. If coalition members obscure personal ambitions with nationalistic rhetoric, the initiative risks becoming devoid of substance, fostering public cynicism, and undermining trust.
For elites with contentious histories, political atonement becomes imperative. This necessitates acknowledging harmful rhetoric and committing to reconciliation. In the absence of such gestures, mistrust solidifies, and the platform risks becoming yet another reminder of Ethiopia’s fragmented political culture. Political atonement encompasses repentance, forgiveness, and the reestablishment of social and political ties.
Only through radical transparency, credible commitments, and confronting past mistakes can hidden motives be dispelled. Otherwise, suspicion will persist as the coalition’s greatest adversary, not because of external critics, but because of unaddressed silence. The coalition must recognize that overcoming this burden of suspicion is not merely a political strategy but a moral imperative, essential for establishing the foundation of trust necessary for a genuine democratic transition.
Trust-building in Ethiopia’s fractured political landscape requires a multifaceted approach that addresses internal coalition dynamics, public credibility, cross-factional reassurances, and historical reconciliation. By focusing on transparency, accountability, inclusive dialogue, and a commitment to fair procedures, the coalition can lay the groundwork for a new political culture where trust, though challenging to earn, becomes the foundation for democratic transition and governance. In Ethiopia’s political landscape, transparency is not just a virtue; it is a necessity for survival.
The coalition must convert that fragile faith into enduring credibility by having its members openly admit and apologize for their past divisive rhetoric, and by demonstrating, through actions rather than words, that it seeks not power but process, restoring trust where history has fractured it. Trust, however, cannot remain an internal virtue; it must be made visible and sustained through transparent communication and accountable conduct.
Trust, once earned, must also be defended. In a fractured political landscape, credibility can be built through integrity yet destroyed through manipulation. The next challenge, therefore, lies not in private conviction but in public communication, how truth itself is framed, shared, and contested.
Transitional Reflection: From Fracture to Perception
Ethiopia’s challenges are not solely institutional but also moral; once trust is eroded, it is among the most difficult currencies to restore. However, trust alone is insufficient to facilitate transformation unless it is complemented by clarity of thought and disciplined perception. As Ethiopia navigates the precarious boundary between despair and renewal, the next challenge lies in understanding how ideas, narratives, and ideologies shape the very nature of power. The following part will address this intangible battleground, where language shapes realities and perception serves as both a tool and a pathway toward liberation.
To understand the coalition’s potential and its limits, the following section, Part Two, examines the ideological, historical, and psychological terrain in which political trust is made or broken.
N.B. The list of all references cited in this part can be found in Part Three.
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
Borkena Ethiopian News Youtube Channel
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.