A Statement of Rejection: Why Ethiopia’s National Dialogue Must Be  Opposed

Amhara Diaspora Global Forum Board of Directors
Statement

Ethiopia’s National Dialogue, formalized through the Ethiopian National Dialogue  Commission and culminating in the conference that opened on 15 July 2026, stands as  a profound failure of process, principle, and purpose. Far from offering a path to  national consensus or lasting peace, it is a carefully managed exercise whose  formation, conduct, and design expose it as non-inclusive, partisan, and disingenuous.  It is being conducted under the shadow of ongoing war and insecurity, and it functions  less as genuine reconciliation than as a mechanism to shield the ruling Prosperity  Party and prolong the political dominance of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. For these  reasons, it must be rejected by all who seek a credible resolution to Ethiopia’s deep  crises. 

The process was flawed from its inception. Established by parliamentary  proclamation in late 2021 under a government already deeply embroiled in conflict,  the Commission’s formation lacked the independence and broad legitimacy required  for a national dialogue of this magnitude. Selection of commissioners and the  subsequent agenda-gathering exercises, while presented as bottom-up and extensive,  occurred within a political environment controlled by the Prosperity Party.  Independent analyses have repeatedly noted that the process has been mired in  accusations of exclusion and government domination, producing minimal  transformative results after years of activity. What was billed as an independent  platform has instead operated under the structural influence of the ruling party,  rendering claims of neutrality hollow. 

Non-inclusiveness is not a minor shortcoming; it is the dialogue’s defining defect.  Major stakeholders remain excluded or marginalized. Full and meaningful  participation from Amhara and Tigray has been obstructed by political and logistical  barriers, with consultations relocated or limited. Armed groups active in war-affected  regions, key opposition parties (including significant Oromo and other federalist  voices), and independent civic actors have either boycotted or been kept at the  margins, citing the Commission’s lack of independence and the government’s failure  to create conditions for genuine engagement. When the most consequential political  and armed actors refuse or are unable to participate on equal terms, the exercise ceases to be national. It becomes a selective conversation among those already aligned  with, or tolerated by, the center of power. Inclusivity reduced to the presence of  compliant or secondary voices is not inclusivity at all—it is theater. 

This is not accidental. The dialogue has been orchestrated, managed, and manipulated  by the ruling Prosperity Party. From the Commission’s establishment through the  framing of agendas and the selection of participants, the process has remained  tethered to executive and party interests. Critics have described it as a mechanism  designed to legitimize pre-determined outcomes, exclude genuine opposition, and  shield the executive from accountability. The governing party’s outsized influence has  been evident in the reluctance of major opposition forces to engage and in the  persistent perception that participating groups often lean toward alignment with the  status quo. A dialogue that cannot free itself from the shadow of the ruling party  cannot claim the moral or political authority to speak for the Ethiopian people. 

Compounding these failures is the reality that the entire process unfolds under the  shadow of war. Armed conflict and insecurity continue in multiple regions. Large  areas remain contested or beyond effective federal control. Tensions in Tigray persist  years after the Pretoria Agreement, while violence and instability in Amhara, Oromia,  and elsewhere continue to claim lives and displace communities. Conducting a  “national dialogue” while significant portions of the country experience active or  latent warfare is not courageous statecraft; it is an evasion. Dialogue conducted amid  unresolved military campaigns and humanitarian crises cannot produce authentic  consensus. It risks becoming a public-relations exercise that papers over violence  rather than ending it. 

The deeper purpose appears political rather than reconciliatory. The dialogue is  structured in ways that protect and potentially lengthen the term and authority of the  current leadership. By presenting an appearance of broad consultation without  ceding real power or opening the political field to unconstrained competition, it buys  time and legitimacy for the incumbent order. In a context where elections have  already been heavily shaped by the ruling party’s dominance, and where the political  space remains constrained, the dialogue serves as a managed alternative to genuine  power-sharing or transitional arrangements. It is designed to manage discontent  rather than resolve the structural questions of governance, federalism, identity, and  accountability that continue to tear at the country’s fabric. 

Finally, the establishment of the process itself was disingenuous. It lacked clear  neutrality from the governing party from the outset. The Prosperity Party and the  government that created the Commission are now widely viewed—by large segments  of the opposition, by communities in conflict zones, and by independent observers— as unreliable and dishonest interlocutors. Years of unfulfilled promises on reform,  selective enforcement of agreements, and the prioritization of political survival over  inclusive settlement have eroded trust to the point that many Ethiopians no longer  believe official claims of good faith. A dialogue whose architects are perceived as the  primary obstacles to genuine inclusion cannot restore that trust; it only deepens  cynicism.

Ethiopia does not need another managed performance of consultation. It needs a  process that places all major stakeholders—political, regional, armed actors willing  to renounce violence, and civic voices—on equal footing under neutral facilitation,  free from the control of any single party. The current National Dialogue fails that test  on every critical measure: formation, inclusiveness, independence, timing, and intent.  Continuing to invest hope in it only prolongs the national crisis. The Ethiopian people  deserve better than a dialogue conducted in the shadow of war, orchestrated by those  who stand to benefit most from its limitations, and designed to preserve power rather  than share it. This process must be recognized for what it is and firmly rejected. End. 

__

Disclaimer: Content in the Press Release category is provided by third parties and published as received, without editorial modifications. Borkena.com, one of the leading Ethiopian news portals based in Toronto, assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Borkena.com

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

Borkena Ethiopian News Youtube Channel

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.