The call for a National Dialogue (ND) in Ethiopia has yet to be answered by the recently established Commission for National Dialogue. Despite the overwhelming support of 287 votes in favor, 13 against, and one abstention in the House of People’s Representatives (HPR) on December 29, 2019.
Aimed at fostering national consensus and preserving the country’s integrity, the Commission was promised by the government as a means to address contentious issues. However, considering the active hostilities at the time, the government declared that the National Dialogue Commission would not engage with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) or the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), both of which resorted to armed conflict, leading to their designation as terrorist organizations. Nevertheless, the decision to lift these restrictions later is expected to strengthen engagement from all parties involved. The effective implementation of the CoHA signed with TPLF and a willingness to overcome differences and re-negotiate with OLA once again are the only sensible paths forward. A complete commitment to overseeing these issues is crucial if the country is to restore order and pave the way for understanding and consensus.
Revisiting the need for national dialogue:
The demand for ND in Ethiopia is an extension of past political structures that have stifled attempts to foster a national consensus on mutual interests. Previous governments have downplayed the urgency of such engagement, despite continuous calls from political parties, academia, and civil society for national reconciliation and consensus agendas. These appeals were disregarded, as the country’s constitution and federal form of government were deemed sufficient to address the need for reconciliation and unity.
Moreover, proposed initiatives lacked clarity on the agenda and relevant stakeholders, while the absence of a civil society initiative further hindered progress. Consequently, the call for national reconciliation and consensus remained a mere suggestion until now.
Renewed momentum and commitment:
Under the leadership of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD), the idea of national dialogue has gained momentum. Since assuming power, the government has established various institutions to address reconciliation and consensus issues. Notably, Parliament passed a proclamation in February 2019 to institutionalize such initiatives, although concerns about its effectiveness persist.
Building on this momentum, the Prime Minister emphasized during his widely attended swearing-in ceremony that the National Dialogue would be all-inclusive, involving not only political elites but all sections of society. The dialogue aims to bridge political differences by facilitating open discussions led by Ethiopians themselves, seeking national solutions for national problems. In line with this commitment, the HPR paved the way for the establishment of the Commission for National Dialogue.
The promise of national dialogue:
For Ethiopia, ND represents an opportunity to confront past challenges, redefine Ethiopian identity, and envision a more inclusive nation that embraces diversity and equality. A well-executed ND process can be a valuable tool for transitioning the country from conflict to peace and stability. In order to achieve this, the process should focus on conflict transformation, helping Ethiopia navigate current and emerging political and security uncertainties.
Unlocking the potential of national dialogue:
ND holds the potential to transcend the limitations of elite decision-making, allowing for broader debates on the country’s trajectory. When properly implemented, it can facilitate meaningful conversations about the root causes of conflict in Ethiopia and offer holistic approaches to address these issues.
The importance of national dialogue:
The demand for ND is particularly crucial in Ethiopia’s politically diverse landscape, where contrasting viewpoints have often led to a fragmented political culture. The country has experienced heightened polarization of nationalist politics since 2018, resulting in competing and diverse socio-economic and political ideologies. Consequently, political agendas encompassing nation-building, the constitution, state-society relations, history, the federal structure, and the party system have become contentious issues.
Additionally, the rise of ethno-nationalist political narratives in Ethiopia has exacerbated ethnic polarization, inter-communal intolerance, and violence. Experts argue that the political landscape has been dominated by opposing forces, both centripetal and centrifugal, representing diverse socio-economic and political ideologies. Compounding the issue, the country’s elites lack consensus on critical issues, resulting in a winner-takes-all mentality that hinders progress.
Despite the inherent contradictions stemming from Ethiopia’s diversity in political, economic, and social aspects, there has been a lack of national agreement on how to address these fault lines. Prior to 2018, successive governments dismissed the need for a National Dialogue, citing inappropriate timing and other urgent challenges. Moreover, Ethiopians were not consulted on the type of state and society they aspired to have. Temporary crisis management measures were employed to appease and silence political opposition, but these failed to address the underlying problems and instead exacerbated the complexity and violence.
Ensuring the country’s stability requires leaders and elites to come together and forge a new national consensus, building a political order that upholds the dignity, coexistence, and solidarity of its people. Given Ethiopia’s deep-rooted political and cultural tensions, a national dialogue is seen as a crucial platform for meaningful conversations about the drivers of conflict and comprehensive ways to address them.
Considering the contestations and disagreements prevalent in various areas of the country, it is undeniable that Ethiopia needs to commit to inclusive and constructive dialogue to reconcile competing visions for its future. Overlooking this imperative may have adverse consequences not only within the country but also beyond its borders, potentially affecting the entire Horn of Africa region. Thus, the proposed National Dialogue serves as a vital avenue to reconcile opposing visions and steer the country’s political reforms back on track in an inclusive manner.
Concepts/Processes for National Dialogue
National Dialogues have proven to be critical tools for resolving political crises and establishing foundations for sustainable peace and smooth political transitions. They help prevent political deadlocks, avert destructive conflicts, and facilitate peaceful transitions in contexts of violent conflict, post-war situations, or fundamental societal transformations.
The primary goal is to promote peace, unity, reconciliation, and a shared sense of identity by reaching a new social contract among interest groups and communities in the country. The scope includes political reforms, constitution-making, and peacebuilding, among other wide-ranging mandates. In recent times, National Dialogues have gained recognition as essential instruments for peaceful transformations, playing a vital role in achieving common consensus and national stability by addressing political, social, and economic controversies in a civilized manner.
National Dialogues have the potential to address the root causes of conflicts. Key distinguishing features of NDs include their focus on the process rather than just the outcome, their broad and inclusive participation across different layers of society, and their national organization and facilitation with external actors primarily providing support functions.
Nevertheless, achieving sustainable solutions often requires employing context-specific methods and processes.
The success of an ND should be evaluated not only based on tangible outcomes but also by considering the overall process. While NDs can facilitate peaceful political transformations, it is important to note that they should not be used solely as tools to pacify mounting political pressures or appease local stakeholders and international partners.
National Dialogues are self-organized and self-facilitated processes, but they are not immune to the influence of external elements, conditions, and actors. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to NDs, as each process should be tailored to the specific needs and objectives of the country based on its own experiences. Experiences from countries that have conducted NDs can be shared to inform and guide the process.
An effective ND is characterized by inclusivity, convening a broad range of stakeholders for a deliberative process. It should establish clear procedures and decision-making rules that are transparent and tailored to the composition of the group and the nature of the issues at hand. However, a dialogue that involves all major interest groups risks losing legitimacy if there are insufficient opportunities for the public to remain informed and contribute to the dialogue.
To ensure NDs effectiveness, certain guiding principles should be incorporated.
Firstly, NDs should be inclusive, involving a broad range of stakeholders in a deliberative process. This inclusivity means inviting all key interest groups, including women, youth, and traditionally excluded groups. By doing so, the dialogue can address the underlying causes of conflict and increase its potential for success.
Before the ND process begins, a transparent and consultative preparatory phase should take place. This phase serves as the foundation for a genuine dialogue by promoting inclusivity and setting the agenda. However, it’s important to note that the recent decision of the Ethiopian government to exclude major armed stakeholders, such as the TPLF and OLA, may raise concerns about the representativeness of the process.
While their exclusion may be seen as a means to move forward from a violent past, the experience of neighboring countries suggests that their inclusion could contribute to the success of the ND.
Transparency and public participation are essential elements of NDs. In addition to the delegates present in the dialogue room, mechanisms should be in place to include the broader population. This can be achieved through local dialogue processes linked to the broader ND, as well as public consultations, regular outreach, and media coverage. While efforts have been made in Ethiopia to engage the public in the selection of Commissioners for the ND Commission, the low representation of women among the elected commissioners raises concerns about gender parity and the overall representativeness of the process.
Furthermore, a credible convener is crucial to ensure the participation of diverse stakeholder groups and to avoid perceptions of bias. The convener can be an individual, a group, or an organization that is widely accepted by all sides involved in the conflict.
Once the ND process begins, the agenda should reflect the underlying causes of the conflict. It should focus on substantive conversations regarding the major grievances of all key interest groups, while avoiding getting mired in excessive details. The process should have a clear mandate and appropriately tailored structures, rules, and procedures. Mechanisms to address deadlock situations and ensure the implementation of outcomes should also be incorporated.
In the final stage, NDs should result in an agreed-upon plan for implementing the recommendations through constitutional amendments, new laws, policies, or other programs. As outlined by the United Nations, national dialogues typically involve principal national elites, including the government, opposition parties (armed or unarmed), and occasionally the military. Proper strategic planning, careful sequencing of activities, and integration of local, regional, and international efforts are essential for the success of NDs.
The primary focus in Ethiopia should be on seeking a peaceful end to the ongoing armed conflicts in the Amhara and Tigray regions by non-state actors, as holding genuine dialogue becomes challenging in such circumstances. The responsibility falls on the Federal authorities to build trust, create conditions for a comprehensive dialogue, and foster confidence among the parties involved. Ceasefire talks may need to be initiated to facilitate this process. The success of the dialogue depends not only on the participants but also on the facilitators who guide the process.
National Dialogues typically consist of three phases, with the preparatory phase being crucial in shaping the subsequent steps. Sufficient time, even a longer duration, should be allocated to the preparatory phase to ensure the agreement on key parameters of the dialogue, including its mandate, agenda, participant selection, convener, and decision-making procedures.
Achieving inclusivity while maintaining the effectiveness of the dialogue can be challenging. It is important to engage participants who reflect the social makeup of society and are directly related to the issues to be addressed.
The failures of the dialogues in Sudan, South Sudan, and Kenya highlight the importance of adequately involving key political parties, armed groups, religious and business communities, and civil society organizations.
The Process phase officially starts the dialogue process, where agendas for discussion are sequenced gradually. Transparency and inclusivity are crucial during this phase, with an emphasis on setting up a trusted convener and establishing an inclusive agenda. Planning for implementation should be considered during this phase or even earlier, as the proper execution of tangible outcomes is as important as the dialogue itself.
The implementation phase is dedicated to executing the decisions made during the dialogue, and its success depends on the commitment to and quality of the agreed-upon outcomes. Challenges may arise during this phase, and careful planning and follow-through are necessary.
The experiences of Sudan, where none of the nearly 1000 recommendations were implemented, raise questions about the purpose and effectiveness of the dialogue process.
The support of external actors in facilitating and aiding the national dialogue process is crucial for its effectiveness. However, it is important to ensure that the national dialogue is backed by sincere intentions from national leaders. While international assistance can fill important gaps, the fundamental responsibilities of the dialogue should remain in the hands of national authorities. Local ownership is essential for the success of the process.
In terms of the issues that should be addressed in a national dialogue, the short-term goals should focus on restoring peace and security throughout the country. This includes ending ongoing conflicts and establishing sustainable ceasefires. Efforts should be made to immediately silence the guns, and a negotiated settlement should pave the way for negotiations and mediation. Regional actors can provide vital support in this regard.
The long-term goals of the national dialogue should go beyond the recent conflicts and address long-standing disagreements and contestations within the country. This can be achieved through proper sequencing of activities in the process. Issues such as constitutional amendments, agreements on the state-building process, and contentions over national identity, history, and the national flag can be addressed by identifying priorities and sequencing agendas accordingly.
In conclusion, the implementation of a national dialogue in the country has the potential to ease polarized politics and establish a national consensus on fundamental issues. However, caution should be exercised to address challenges such as partiality, inclusion of all stakeholders, and effective representation of all sections of society. Short-term goals related to ending hostilities should be pursued, and regional actors should provide support.
While the ongoing armed conflicts pose challenges to holding a genuine dialogue, efforts should focus on seeking a peaceful end to the conflicts. Federal authorities have a primary responsibility in building trust and confidence among the parties involved. The success of the dialogue depends on the inclusivity of stakeholders, careful planning in the preparatory and process phases, and effective implementation of agreed-upon outcomes.
Above all, Ethiopian ownership of the process, political will from participants, and determination to ensure implementation will be critical to the success of the dialogue process. With effective utilization of this period, the country can achieve a national consensus and address deep fault lines for peace and stability.
(Eden Tafesework holds a PhD in International Law and is a senior researcher analyzing socio-economic and political concerns in the Horn of Africa and the wider East Africa region.)
Contributed by Eden Tafesework (PhD)
