Why Ethiopia’s Major Political and Regional Forces Must Unite to Prevent Fragmentation and Build a Democratic Future
By Girma Kebede
London, United Kingdom
Ethiopia’s Strategic Choice
Ethiopia is facing a national political crisis whose consequences extend beyond any single region, organisation or armed confrontation. Years of conflict, political instability, economic pressure, humanitarian suffering and institutional erosion have deepened mistrust among communities and weakened confidence in the state. Violence in Amhara, Oromia, Tigray, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambella and elsewhere cannot be treated only as separate regional problems. They are connected to unresolved national questions concerning political representation, constitutional order, security, federalism, territorial disputes and the distribution of state power.
The central challenge is therefore not simply who prevails in a particular conflict. It is whether Ethiopia can establish a political framework capable of managing its profound differences without recurring violence. That requires a strategic shift: Ethiopia’s major political, regional and civic forces must move from fragmented competition toward a broad national political alliance built around clearly defined common interests and minimum principles.
Such an alliance should bring together Amhara Fano and other Amhara political actors, Tigrayan political forces, Oromo political and civic movements committed to democratic pluralism, and representatives of Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz, Southern Ethiopia and other constituencies. Its purpose should not be to establish the dominance of one group over another. Its purpose should be to create the political conditions in which no group needs to fear exclusion, dispossession or permanent political subordination.
Why Alliance Is a Strategic Necessity
Political fragmentation benefits no constituency in the long term. When major forces remain divided, each is more vulnerable to isolation, coercion and political marginalisation. Fragmentation also makes it easier for political disputes to be securitised and for competing communities to be presented as collective enemies. A broad alliance changes that strategic calculation. It creates a political platform large enough to represent Ethiopia’s diversity while establishing common ground among forces that may disagree on history, identity, federalism or the distribution of power. It does not require ideological uniformity. It requires agreement on the rules by which political differences will be managed.
The case for alliance rests on several practical considerations:
• Collective political leverage. Major constituencies acting separately have limited capacity to shape a national settlement. Acting together creates a broader constituency for negotiated political change.
• Mutual security. No community can secure lasting protection by assuming that another community’s defeat will guarantee its own future. Reciprocal guarantees are more durable than temporary victories.
• Prevention of a power vacuum. If the existing political order changes without a credible alternative framework, instability may intensify. A broad alliance can prepare the institutional and political foundations for an orderly transition.
• Protection against political exclusion. A shared commitment to equal citizenship reduces the risk that state institutions become instruments of permanent dominance by any political or regional bloc.
• A pathway from conflict to politics. Alliance creates a mechanism through which armed and political competition can progressively be replaced by negotiation, institutions and legitimate democratic competition.
The National Interest Must Override Permanent Fragmentation
Ethiopia’s political forces have legitimate differences, including disagreements over identity, historical experience, federalism, regional autonomy and the structure of the state. Those differences cannot be resolved by pretending they do not exist. They can, however, be placed within a political framework that makes peaceful competition possible.
The strategic principle should be clear: no ethnic group, political movement or regional elite should monopolise the Ethiopian state. Oromo identity and political aspirations must have legitimate space within national politics, just as Amhara, Tigrayan, Somali, Afar, Gambellan, Benishangul-Gumuz, Sidama, Southern Ethiopian and other communities must be able to participate without fear of exclusion.
The objective is therefore not an alliance against Oromos, Amhara, Tigrayans or any other nationality. It is an alliance against political exclusion, authoritarianism, institutional capture and the normalisation of violence as the primary means of resolving political disputes. This distinction is fundamental. A successful alliance must be national in purpose, inclusive in membership and democratic in its political commitments.
The Human Cost Makes a Political Settlement Imperative
Ethiopia’s recent history demonstrates the cost of attempting to resolve fundamental political disputes primarily through force. The war in Tigray was accompanied by extensive allegations and documentation of killings, sexual violence, displacement, destruction of civilian property and obstruction of humanitarian assistance. Amhara communities have also experienced serious violence, displacement and killings in Oromia and elsewhere. Across the country, civilians have borne the consequences of political and armed confrontation.
These experiences should not be ranked according to ethnicity. Ethiopian lives must carry equal value. Allegations of serious international crimes require credible, independent investigation, and responsibility should be attributed to individuals rather than entire communities. The broader lesson is strategic: military confrontation may alter the balance of power, but it does not resolve the underlying political questions. Without a negotiated settlement, the same disputes can re-emerge under new circumstances. Ethiopia therefore needs a political mechanism capable of converting competing grievances into negotiated interests and political agreements.
From Understanding to a Functional Alliance
1. Equal citizenship: equal protection and political rights regardless of ethnicity, language, religion or region.
2. Civilian protection: rejection of attacks on civilians, collective punishment and deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure.
3. Political inclusion: meaningful participation of major national, regional and civic constituencies in determining Ethiopia’s political future.
4. Individual accountability: independent investigation of serious violations and accountability based on individual responsibility.
5. Institutional independence: protection of the judiciary, legislature, electoral institutions and independent media from political capture.
6. Constitutional dialogue: negotiated consideration of legitimate disputes concerning federalism, regional autonomy, security and the distribution of political power. 7. Democratic transition: a clear pathway toward credible elections and legitimate civilian government.
The third stage should be the development of a transitional framework. The alliance should be prepared not only to oppose an existing political order but also to define what follows it. This is essential. Political change without institutional preparation can create a vacuum in which competing forces again resort to coercion.
The Role of the Major Political Constituencies
The success of a national alliance depends on the participation of Ethiopia’s major political constituencies and the protection of smaller communities. Amhara political forces, including Fano, have an important role because of the scale of the security and political crisis in Amhara and its implications for the national balance of power. Their strategic objective should extend beyond regional security toward a national political framework that protects Amhara interests while guaranteeing the rights of other Ethiopians.
Tigrayan political forces also have a significant role. Their experience of war, displacement and political upheaval provides important perspectives on security, federalism, accountability and national reconciliation. Their participation would demonstrate that Ethiopia’s future cannot be built on permanent victory by one side. Oromo political and civic forces committed to democratic pluralism are indispensable to any national settlement. Ethiopia does not need reduced Oromo participation; it needs political participation within institutions that guarantee equal rights and prevent any political project from becoming a vehicle for permanent ethnic dominance. The participation of Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz, Southern Ethiopia and other smaller or less powerful constituencies is equally important. A settlement negotiated only among the largest forces would reproduce the exclusion it seeks to overcome. A national alliance must therefore provide meaningful representation rather than simply seek endorsement after decisions have already been made.
Trust Is the First Political Infrastructure
The principal obstacle to alliance is not the absence of common interests. It is mistrust. Ethiopia’s political history has left communities with deep memories of violence, displacement, exclusion and discrimination. A serious alliance cannot demand that these experiences be forgotten. It must create mechanisms through which competing narratives can be acknowledged without allowing historical grievances to become permanent justification for future conflict.
Trust must therefore be built through reciprocal commitments, transparency, dialogue and accountability. Each participating constituency needs credible assurances that its security and political rights will not depend on which group controls the central state. This requires a fundamental change in political thinking: from asking who will control the state to asking how the state can belong equally to all citizens. That is the strategic foundation of durable political cooperation.
Preparing for the Day After
The greatest danger is to focus exclusively on changing the current political order without preparing for the political and institutional consequences of transition. A credible transitional framework should have a limited and clearly defined mandate: protect civilians, restore public security, maintain essential services, restore independent institutions, expand political freedoms, establish credible accountability mechanisms, address constitutional questions through dialogue and prepare the country for legitimate elections. Security institutions must ultimately be accountable to civilian authority. Armed movements and political organisations cannot remain permanent competitors for control of the state. The strategic destination must be a system in which political power is obtained and transferred through legitimate institutions rather than through force. For this reason, alliance-building is not merely an opposition strategy. It is a state-building strategy.
A National Alliance Is the Alternative to Another Cycle
Ethiopia cannot afford another political cycle in which one force defeats another only to inherit the same unresolved national crisis. Military victories can change political circumstances, but they do not by themselves settle questions of identity, constitutional order, justice, representation or legitimacy. A broad national alliance offers a different strategic path. It can transform fragmented political pressure into coordinated political engagement; convert mutual insecurity into reciprocal guarantees; and replace the logic of winner-takes-all competition with a framework for negotiated coexistence. The alliance should therefore be judged not by whether its members agree on every issue, but by whether they can agree on the rules that make disagreement survivable. That is the real test of political maturity. Ethiopia’s diverse communities do not need to become politically identical. They need a national framework in which their differences can coexist without making violence inevitable.
Conclusion: The Strategic Imperative of Alliance
Ethiopia is at a crossroads. The country can continue along a path of fragmented conflict, repeated confrontation and unstable political settlements, or its major political and civic forces can begin constructing a common national framework. The case for alliance is not based on the assumption that Ethiopia’s political differences can be eliminated. It is based on the opposite recognition: those differences are too deep and too consequential to be managed indefinitely through isolation, coercion or armed competition.
A broad national political alliance can provide the political weight, mutual guarantees and institutional preparation required for a credible transition. It can create channels between adversaries, reduce the risk of miscalculation, protect civilians, establish common democratic principles and prepare the foundations of legitimate government. The essential commitment is simple: no community should have to choose between political submission and armed resistance, and no political movement should assume that controlling the state gives it the right to exclude others. Ethiopia’s future depends on building a state in which political power is not the possession of one group, region or movement, but a responsibility exercised under law on behalf of all citizens.
The strategic choice is therefore clear: fragmentation or cooperation, recurring confrontation or negotiated politics, another cycle of victory and grievance or a serious national effort to build a shared political future.
The time for a broad national political alliance is now.
Editor’s Note: Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
Join our Telegram Channel: t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
To submit a press release, send the 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.