Filsan Abdullahi Ahmed is a former Minister of Women, Children, and Youth. She was appointed to the position on March 12, 2020, becoming the youngest member of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s (PhD) cabinet and the first Somali Ethiopian to hold such a senior post in the federal government position before she resigned in September 2021.
Recognized as the first Ethiopian woman to establish a media house, Filsan is currently the Director of the Horn Peace Institute, an organization dedicated to peace advocacy in Ethiopia and the broader Horn of Africa. She noted that the Institute operates through collaborative efforts involving Ethiopians and individuals from other countries in the region.
According to Filsan, the Institute was established to promote Ethiopian identity and cultural heritage while addressing the challenges of hate speech, ethnic divisions, and tribalism, which she believes have undermined the country’s traditions of collaboration and unity.
She emphasized that the Institute prioritizes Ethiopian interests while also working to safeguard the concerns of other Horn of Africa nations, particularly those affected by ongoing conflicts and instability.
The Reporter’s Yonas Amare caught up with Filsan to discuss her career in the cabinet and her subsequent resignation, the broader national responsibility for ongoing crises, the role of the political elites, and citizens’ responsibilities. EXCERPTS:
The Reporter: Let’s revisit the time of your resignation as Minister. What led you to make that decision?
Filsan Abdullahi Ahmed: I am sure many people are aware of the real reason, but I have not provided a detailed explanation. Before discussing my resignation from the ministerial position, I should first explain how I became a Minister. Before taking office, I was widely recognized as a peace advocate, actively engaged in peace processes. When the Prime Minister appointed me as a cabinet member, the intention was for me to continue working on peace-related issues. As a young woman, my appointment was also meant to inspire others to contribute to peacebuilding and to introduce new faces into Ethiopian politics, bringing fresh perspectives and renewed energy.
At the time, I recall there were positive changes. As I mentioned, my role was primarily as a peace advocate. However, when the war broke out, I refused to take sides or be part of it. My only expertise is in peace, not war. I know how to promote peace, not how to preach about conflict. At my age, and with many young people looking up to me as a role model, advocating for war would have gone against my conscience. Therefore, I made a decision I could live with—I chose to resign. During my tenure as Minister, I remained committed to peace and refused to be part of war propaganda. I also openly highlighted the consequences of war and called on the government to acknowledge its damage it would bring and work towards peace.
My decision led to disagreements, which created gaps between myself and others in leadership. Within those widening gaps, I could only operate within the limits of what I was able to manage. These were the primary reasons for my resignation.
Didn’t your resignation come immediately after the outbreak of the war in Tigray?
Although I did not resign immediately after the war in Tigray began, I called for peace from the outset, without any bias. As Minister of Women, Children, and Youth, it was my responsibility to raise awareness about the risks faced by women, particularly the threat of sexual violence. Beyond speaking out about the issue of rape, I also proposed solutions, emphasizing that the government held the power to address the problem and bring about the necessary resolution.
Even after voicing my concerns about sexual violence in Tigray, I remained in my position for another ten months, working to contribute to a solution. As the conflict spread to other regions, I continued to call for action to prevent the same atrocities from occurring elsewhere. It is important to highlight that my Ministry operated solely in the interest of the people, without any external agenda. I am grateful to my former colleagues who stood with me and opposed the attacks on women and youth at the time. Ultimately, I acted in accordance with my conscience, hoping that my decision would serve as a lesson for the future. Therefore, if something isn’t working for you and isn’t giving you peace, it’s appropriate to temporarily distance yourself and step aside.
Since the war in Tigray, there has been a lot of unrest and crisis. Human rights violations and many problems have occurred. As someone who has observed the situation and followed it closely, who do you think is responsible for all these problems?
No single individual can be solely held responsible for the crises we are witnessing, many of which are still ongoing. As a nation, we all share accountability and must take responsibility for our actions. We are accountable as citizens, and we are accountable as politicians. This country belongs to all of us, and it is crucial that everyone reflects on their role in shaping its current state. What actions did we take when the crisis was unfolding? Were we among those who called for an end to the war? Did we raise our voices in protest? Even if we did, I believe we have all made mistakes. Have we truly made an effort to explain the need for peace to others and persuade them to stand with us?
I recognize that the absence of meaningful dialogue is one of our country’s fundamental problems. But I also question whether we have taken the time to reflect calmly and encourage others to do the same. The challenges we face today did not emerge overnight or within the past six years—they have been accumulating for decades, gradually worsening. Take, for example, the Somali region, Ogaden area. For the past 30 years, it has been a site of conflict and struggle. Even now, we must ask ourselves: have the wounds inflicted by that conflict truly healed?
Today, the Somali region is considered one of the most stable in the country, but this stability was achieved because the people chose peace. Having endured war, they now understand its cost and have made a conscious decision to reject it. The Somali people also refrained from participating in the Tigray war because they knew the suffering that conflict brings. Unlike politicians, the people remained uninvolved in the war. Just as the Somali region experienced decades of conflict, other regions have faced similar struggles over the years. Even now, war continues in various parts of the country.
How different regions respond to conflicts in other areas is crucial to understanding our national crisis. The 30-year conflict in Ogaden is now repeating itself across the country. The way we perceive and react to these conflicts has deepened our divisions along regional and ethnic lines. It is time to look back and critically assess how our actions have contributed to this crisis.
Some argue that instead of building a peaceful country through dialogue, political elites in Ethiopia create animosity, leading to the crisis we are now in. How do you view the idea that the political elite should bear the majority of the responsibility?
I agree with that. The Ethiopian people have always been hospitable and welcoming. Through my work, I have traveled extensively and seen this firsthand. Everywhere I have been, Ethiopians have shown kindness and generosity, welcoming others without questioning their origins. However, the divisive mindset of the elite has now spread to the broader population. The people should not have allowed this to happen. That is why I say we all bear responsibility for the challenges facing our country. The people should have resisted being drawn into this crisis. When they saw the danger, they should have stepped back and said, “Enough.”
Every community has its own political elite, but people should have refused to follow them blindly. They should have said, “Do not lead us to destruction.” Simply echoing their words and following without question makes us all complicit in the problem. Even now, after experiencing the consequences of division and conflict, we must make a collective effort to repair the damage. Change must start within each of us. I firmly believe that the crisis will not be resolved unless we engage in deep self-reflection and take responsibility for initiating change within ourselves.
Hate speech is not limited to spoken or written words—it encompasses many other forms of expression. Can you start by defining hate speech and explaining what it includes?
The crises our country faces today stem from issues that fall under the broader concept of hate speech. If I speak negatively about your background, upbringing, or identity, it creates division and makes it impossible for you to accept me. The more I continue to attack you, the more you will feel the need to defend yourself. In Ethiopia, hate speech often manifests in discussions about ethnicity, the national flag, the anthem, and differing perceptions of being Ethiopian as well.
You mean rejection of diversity?
Yes, it begins with a rejection of diversity. Everyone has their own identity and seeks to move forward based on that alone. However, I believe we all come from the same shared space—you from one place, and I from another—but what unites us is our common home, Ethiopia. True unity becomes impossible if we do not respect this equally and participate in it together. If you reject what is mine, attack it with hatred, and celebrate its destruction, understanding cannot be achieved.
This growing division has worsened over time, and today, we see widespread hate speech campaigns in the media. In an era where social media amplifies these narratives, we cannot talk about peace without actively confronting this challenge as a nation. To truly achieve peace, we must address the root causes of our divisions. We need to discuss what conditions are necessary for peace, and we must be willing to apologize to one another. At the very least, ethnic hatred in speech must come to an end. If we can achieve that, the path to peace will open wide.
As citizens of the same nation, why have we struggled to embrace our differences and coexist peacefully? What has prevented us from building a shared identity rooted in common values that reflect all of us?
That is an important question, and I still hold the political elite responsible. Power should not come at the cost of bloodshed or by turning people against one another. A political seat is just one—it cannot accommodate everyone. Therefore, it is the responsibility of all political elites to pursue power in a civilized manner, without harming others or undermining their identities. They should compete based on ideas, not division. The root of our current crisis lies in the pursuit of power through ethnic-based politics. Ethnic-based movements have led us to this point, and we must find a way out of this cycle.
Consider the United States, where multiple states exist, each with its own flag. Yet, the American flag remains a shared, untouchable national symbol. Every state upholds both its unique identity and a common national bond. In contrast, in Ethiopia, we have not embraced a strong, unifying national symbol. Instead, political strategies and party manifestos have been designed to divide rather than unite.
For example, I grew up in Addis Ababa, but my family and I are originally from the Somali region. If I were to establish a political platform, would I align myself with the people of Addis Ababa, or would I advocate solely for the Somali region? If my political foundation were based only on the Somali region, it would mean that my concerns are limited to one community rather than addressing issues that affect all Ethiopians. This kind of politics fosters division.
I firmly believe that politicians must move beyond ethnic-based politics and organize under a national Ethiopian identity. We cannot build a united Ethiopia if we confine our politics within ethnic boundaries—identifying as Somali, Gurage, Afar, Oromo, Tigrayan, Amhara, or any other group. Instead, we need a political approach that represents everyone and fights for a shared national future. Power should not be pursued by mobilizing people for division, only to abandon them later. It is unacceptable to sacrifice lives for the sake of political ambition.
A National Dialogue Commission has been established to address the root causes of conflict in our country, and it has made progress. Given the importance of this process, do you see potential for collaboration between the Commission and the initiative you have introduced to combat hate speech? Can they work together toward a common goal?
Dialogue is invaluable. However, while the National Dialogue initially raised hopes for resolving Ethiopia’s challenges, I cannot say that hope remains as strong today. When the process began and discussions were encouraged, I—like many others—was optimistic. I do not believe that weapons can resolve our problems. War is not a solution; it only brings destruction, suffering, displacement, and loss for all Ethiopians. Both sides in any conflict must recognize this reality. Only when we collectively accept this truth can we move toward peace.
For that to happen, we need a bridge that connects us. Reconciliation requires both sides to meet halfway. If pride and ego dominate on both sides, there must be a mechanism to break down those psychological barriers and bring people together.
The National Dialogue should serve as that connector—a platform where politicians, elites, political parties, and various groups with different perspectives can come together to engage in meaningful discussions. However, if this platform does not build equal trust among all stakeholders, only a limited group will engage with it, while others remain skeptical or disengaged. Participation in the process depends on a shared belief that it is credible and capable of addressing the country’s issues.
I continue to emphasize that the National Dialogue, as a bridge for reconciliation, must be strengthened. It should be inclusive and widely accepted by all. Every political force should have the space to contribute ideas, offer criticisms, and provide constructive input. Unfortunately, in our country, criticism is often misinterpreted. Yet, political criticism is essential—it provides opportunities for reflection and course correction. Even now, the National Dialogue process can be adjusted and improved to ensure broader participation and legitimacy.
Beyond participation, what key elements are lacking in the process and other aspects? Many countries have conducted national dialogues in the past—how does Ethiopia’s approach compare, and what are we missing?
Many criticize our National Dialogue Commission for lacking inclusivity and having an inadequate approach. However, the process cannot succeed if one political force boycotts it simply because it did not unfold as they had envisioned. Dialogue is a shared process, and for it to work, all parties must be willing to compromise. Each side must exercise restraint, set aside certain demands, and embrace a conciliatory path to achieve a common solution.
Is the disagreement primarily due to the overall format and content of the dialogue? Is the push for a format and content more aligned with direct political negotiations the root of the disagreement, or is there another underlying issue?
Yes, that is one issue, but beyond that, the question of impartiality is also a major point of contention. From the appointment of commissioners onward, all political forces want to have a role and a voice in the process. For dialogue and reconciliation to be effective, participants must believe that the appointed mediators or arbitrators are neutral and unbiased.
Currently, the National Dialogue Commission faces criticism regarding its inclusivity. Many political groups have distanced themselves, arguing that the process is neither inclusive nor impartial. Some may have withdrawn under pressure, while others may have done so independently. However, efforts should have been made to prevent such disengagement. The key question is: what has been done to bring them back into the process?
Allowing those who have left to remain excluded while proceeding only with those who remain undermines the purpose of national dialogue. Since the goal is to address national issues, it is essential to make every possible effort—however difficult—to encourage broad participation and restore trust. Simply moving forward with those who stay while ignoring those who have left is not a sustainable approach. This is what needs to be corrected.
Could your project be integrated with the National Dialogue Commission’s efforts? Have you taken any steps toward collaboration?
We have not engaged in discussions or formed a close collaboration with the National Dialogue Commission. While the National Dialogue serves as a platform for national discussions, our work is focused on peacebuilding. Our primary goal is to raise awareness about the impact of hate speech and highlight its role as a key driver of conflict and instability.
We are actively working with various Ethiopian political leaders, including opposition figures both within the country and abroad. Additionally, we are engaging with the government, which has shown support for our efforts. As part of our initiative, we are facilitating discussions with politicians from outside Ethiopia, ensuring that all voices are heard. Dialogue is essential, and every possible avenue for discussion must remain open. However, this year, we are also preparing to host a major international forum in Ethiopia, further advancing our mission to foster dialogue and promote peace.
Let’s discuss the impact of the Pretoria Agreement. While it may have contributed to the ongoing conflict in the Amhara region, it has also brought relative peace to Tigray. However, political divisions in Tigray appear to be deepening rather than easing. Can we say that these divisions have undermined the peace gained? What has the Pretoria Agreement truly meant for the people? Share your perspective on this issue.
It deeply saddens me to witness the current situation. This feeling is shared not only by me but by everyone who sees what is happening in the region. The people of Tigray, and the region itself, are in no position to endure another devastating war. They lack not only the physical resources but, more importantly, the moral strength to face another conflict. The suffering from the recent war is still fresh, and historically, Tigray has borne the brunt of Ethiopia’s wars. The people deserve peace and stability. But who decides this? Ultimately, it must be the people themselves. They must learn from past experiences and resist being led into conflict by political elites.
What Tigray needs today is a stable and constructive political environment that prioritizes recovery from the devastating effects of war—where people have suffered and women have been subjected to horrific violence. Have we seen any significant rehabilitation efforts in the region? What about reconciliation with the rest of the country? These should be the primary issues of discussion, rather than the ongoing political disputes among leaders. The focus must be on rebuilding lives and fostering unity.
Even discussing the possibility of another war in Tigray is distressing. My advice to the two competing political factions in the region is simple: they must recognize the significant role they have played in Ethiopian politics for decades. No one is in a better position than them to reflect on their actions and reconsider their approach. If they genuinely care about the people of Tigray, they must prioritize their well-being. It is in their hands to steer the region towards healing and progress. However, it is disheartening to see an experienced party like the TPLF exposing itself so openly to internal strife. The people of Tigray deserve a chance to recover—economically, politically, and socially. Let them heal.
What responsibilities do the government and the nation as a whole have in addressing this issue? What role should each of us play?
We must create opportunities for negotiation. Without sitting down for dialogue, we limit ourselves from exploring possible solutions. It is essential to think critically, listen attentively, and make informed decisions in advance. These should be our primary objectives to pave the way for a better future.
