In Ethiopia’s lurching journey toward peace, stability, and democratic consolidation, the importance of national dialogue and transitional justice cannot be overstated. As the ruling Prosperity Party (PP) publicly vows to counteract what it labels as threats from “hostile forces aiming to derail the nation’s path towards peace and prosperity”, there is a critical need to balance security concerns with genuine efforts to heal deep-seated wounds through inclusive dialogue and justice. Sustainable peace and long-term stability in Ethiopia very much hinge on national reconciliation processes grounded in honesty, accountability, and collective participation—elements that transitional justice and a broad-based dialogue can facilitate.
Over the past decade, Ethiopia has faced tumultuous internal conflicts, intercommunal tensions, and political fractures. The Tigray civil war, ongoing insurgencies in Amhara and Oromia, and conflicts in other regions have exposed profound divisions rooted in historical grievances, marginalization, and contested narratives of identity and sovereignty. These conflicts have inflicted severe human rights abuses, displaced millions, and eroded trust across ethnic and regional lines. While the government’s emphasis on security measures and crackdowns is understandable in the short term, lasting peace depends on more than military or coercive solutions. The Prosperity Party’s recent rhetoric about thwarting “hostile forces”—referring to unnamed opposition groups, external actors, and internal dissent—ostensibly aims to bolster national unity and sovereignty. Though the rhetoric is powerful and evocative, an approach that potentially suppresses dissent without addressing the root causes of grievances risks prolonging conflict, fostering resentment, and duplicating cycles of violence. Genuine peace demands a comprehensive strategy rooted in the intertwined pillars of inclusive dialogue and justice — processes that foster mutual understanding, reparation, and reconciliation.
The case for national dialogue in Ethiopia is irrefutable—broad, participatory, and transformative—is essential for healing Ethiopia’s fractured social fabric. Its importance lies not only in defusing immediate tensions but in laying the groundwork for a shared national identity based on respect, inclusion, and common purpose. Constructing an honest national narrative that recognizes past wrongs, acknowledges competing grievances, and promotes shared reconciliation is vital. Ethiopia’s history is complex, intertwined with periods of marginalization, conflict, and suppressed voices. Without acknowledging these realities openly, efforts at securing peace will remain superficial, and underlying issues will continue to simmer under the surface, threatening resurgence of violence. The National Dialogue Commission—established in December 2021—was envisioned as a platform that helps to make Ethiopia’s fractured political landscape wholesome, with potential to foster national consensus, reconciliation, and healing. Yet implementation has fallen short: various stakeholders including opposition parties and groups waging an armed struggle against the government have refused to participate, citing a lack of inclusivity and legitimacy. For dialogue to matter, it must be inclusive, transparent, and independent. Without these, the initiative risks being perceived as another political tool—one that may empower the government while further alienating opponents.
Alongside national dialogue, Ethiopia has undertaken a policy commitment to transitional justice, which aims to address abuses since 1995, foster accountability, and reconcile fractured communities. These mechanisms are meant to provide truth-seeking, redress, institutional reform, and reparations—a comprehensive approach to national healing. They help rebuild trust in state institutions by demonstrating a commitment to human rights and the rule of law. Importantly, transitional justice is not solely about punishment; it also involves creating space for forgiveness, understanding, and building a shared future based on justice. Yet its implementation has been blighted by the delay in the establishment of the mandatory Transitional Justice Institutional Coordination Mechanism stipulated in the country’s transitional justice policy as well as disagreements between proponents of transitional justice and national dialogue champions, with the latter arguing dialogue should precedes justice because it sets “the political context for justice” and the latter countering that justice cannot wait for fragile consensus.
The PP’s narrative of “hostile forces” threatens to collapse political debate into a zero-sum mentality. Genuine peace cannot be safeguarded by narrative alone; it requires trust, inclusion, and accountability. National dialogue and transitional justice are not decorative projects to appease a restive population or international partners. They are radical acts of national reimagination requiring humility, shared vulnerability, and a commitment to pluralism. If the PP truly seeks “lasting victory,” it must transform from a gatekeeper of power to a facilitator o durable and equitable peace. Otherwise, these processes will join Ethiopia’s long history of missed opportunities—and the cycle of crisis will continue.
