Ethiopia’s national dialogue was meant to heal the nation, but divisions are deepening

Ethiopia's Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed at a past African Union summit. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY Ethiopia launched a national dialogue process in 2022 to address deep political divisions and help steer the country towards stability. In theory, such dialogues can help societies move beyond war, rebuild trust and agree on new political rules. This has happened in countries such as Kenya, Tunisia and Yemen. Ethiopia’s process involved setting up a national dialogue commission. It stated it wanted to build national consensus, strengthen nation building and support democratic transition. The working mandate of the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission has been extended twice. First for six months in February 2025 and then for eight months in February 2026. However, the dialogue is not on the right track. I have researched Ethiopia’s political landscape and peace efforts for nearly a decade, and in a recent paper, I examined why the dialogue process is facing a crisis. I found that Ethiopia’s national dialogue is struggling due to legitimacy deficits, limited inclusion and weak process design. Four years after the process launched, it has produced limited tangible outcomes. National dialogues are most effective when they are broadly inclusive, trusted by key actors and conducted in a relatively stable political environment. Ethiopia’s current context raises doubts on all three fronts. The process has excluded influential political and armed actors. Opposition groups and civil society actors have also raised concerns about the commission’s independence from the ruling party. Ongoing conflicts further undermine the conditions needed for sustained negotiation. These issues risk undermining the dialogue before it delivers meaningful results. This matters because national dialogue was meant to resolve Ethiopia’s political disputes peacefully. If it fails, the country risks missing a chance to manage conflict without violence. Inclusivity Inclusiveness is a defining feature of successful national dialogues. Key political forces, including armed groups, must see the process as a legitimate forum for negotiation. In Ethiopia, several influential actors are absent. Armed groups such as the Oromo Liberation Army, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front and the Amhara Fano have not been part of the process. Yet these groups are central to ongoing conflicts in Oromia, Tigray and Amhara regions. Holding a national dialogue while major armed confrontations continue – and without the participation of those directly involved – raises practical and political concerns. Some opposition parties and civil society groups have also complained of inadequate consultation during the preparatory phase. Exclusion weakens ownership. Without ownership, implementation becomes unlikely. Trust A national dialogue is usually convened during political crises or transitions. Its purpose is to bring together political forces, civil societies and non-state armed groups to negotiate fundamental questions about the state. Ethiopia’s political tensions are rooted in unresolved questions about state structure, identity, historical narratives, the constitution and the balance between unity and self-determination. A genuine dialogue could provide a platform to address these foundational disputes. However, the way the process has been designed and implemented has generated resistance. One of the most contested issues has been the selection of commissioners. The 11 members of the commission were appointed by parliament. Critics argue that the ruling party, which holds a majority of seats, dominated the process. Several opposition parties questioned the way the commission was set up. When major political actors doubt the neutrality of conveners, the credibility of the entire process suffers. In divided societies, even the perception of bias can discourage participation. In Ethiopia’s case, some opposition leaders have described the dialogue as a government-driven project rather than a nationally owned process. That perception alone is a serious obstacle. There is also deep societal mistrust. Public confidence in political institutions – including parliament, courts and security institutions – has declined in recent years. Dialogue requires a minimum level of trust before it can change anything. Instability National dialogues can occur during fragile transitions. But they rarely succeed in the middle of active and expanding armed conflicts. Ethiopia continues to experience violence in multiple regions. In Tigray and parts of Amhara and Oromia, insecurity limits even basic state functions. Under such conditions, it’s difficult to set an agenda and get broad participation. Ethiopia’s position in the Horn of Africa adds another layer of complexity. Tensions linked to its Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and shifting alliances involving Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia have heightened regional rivalries. Gulf States have also expanded their influence in the region. Egypt-Ethiopia hostilities are playing out in the Horn – the risk of new proxy wars is high

National dialogues are domestically driven. However, external geopolitical competition can shape internal dynamics through diplomatic pressure, economic leverage or security alignments. A fragile domestic process becomes even more vulnerable in such an environment. Experiences with national dialogues from Sudan, South Sudan and Kenya offer mixed lessons for Ethiopia. In Sudan, dialogue initiatives lacked genuine political openness and failed to create an environment for talks. In South Sudan, there were questions about government interference, and key opposition actors weren’t included. Kenya’s 2008 dialogue, by contrast, succeeded in halting violence and led to constitutional reform. This was largely because it included major political rivals and was supported by mediation that was accepted. The core lesson is consistent: inclusion, neutrality and timing matter. Is a reset necessary? Some Ethiopian scholars and political actors argue for pausing and rethinking the dialogue. In my view, a reset should involve: re-examining how commissioners are selected to ensure the process is seen as fair

expanding engagement with opposition parties and civil society

exploring ways to include or at least negotiate with influential armed groups

taking parallel steps to reduce violence and build confidence.

A national dialogue is not a magic solution. It cannot, on its own, resolve deep ideological disagreements. But it can help manage them if the process is widely seen as legitimate. If Ethiopia’s dialogue continues without addressing concerns over trust, inclusion and ongoing conflict, it risks becoming another missed opportunity in the country’s long political transition. The stakes are high. A credible process could help stabilise the political landscape. A flawed one may deepen scepticism and polarisation.

Dereje Melese Liyew does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.