By Fardousa Muse

It was early December last year 2021 when the current government of Ethiopia has publicly announced that there is a need for a nationwide political dialogue. However, based on various guidance and case studies published on national dialogues, uncertainties are threatening the success of the envisaged national dialogue. Thus, if the Ethiopian government is adamant to resolve the crisis engulfing the country through conversation, it must answer to the uncertainties surrounding the dialogue.

The politicians and elites of this country have had the chance to hold a peaceful national dialogue before the war started in November last year. PM Abiy Ahmed together with activists and politicians from the center of the country have hijacked it. In the current political context, particularly with the existence of war and killings of innocent citizens, it is difficult to settle on political agreement on the way forward towards the likelihood of a successful dialogue.

To even start, does the announced dialogue and behaviors of the government go in line with the concept of a national dialogue.  A national dialogue can be defined as “a political process aimed at generating consensus among a broad range of national stakeholders in times of deep political crisis, particularly in post-war situations, to reach political transitions”. When we examine Ethiopia’s national discussion via this prism, one of the outcomes expected from dialogue should be a consensus reached on the very future of this country. This will only be true if a convenient environment is created. The chance for the nations and nationalities to remain together will gain momentum if a cease-fire is reached and a proper road map for the dialogue is established.  

National dialogues usually give chance to excluded and underrepresented groups to have access to national politics. The Somali region and its people, as a disregarded periphery state, are hopeful that the national conversation can re-calibrate center-based politics transitioning it to a genuinely decentralized style. Based on the current offensive consuming the country, it remains challenging to overcome all national issues. Somalis, however, expect the outcome of the national conversation to at least provide appropriate means of channeling their concerns and demands to the national arenas.     

So far, commendably, the government has released political prisoners mostly from two political parties, Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC) and Balderas. This is a good gesture and a promising step taken towards an inclusive dialogue. However, the huge number of political prisoners left in jails cannot be overlooked. Somali political prisoners, for example, are not only important for national dialogue, but their release can also help to prevent the implosion of clan-based violence that Mustafe (head of Somali regional administration) has been igniting in the region. Oromo National Liberation Front (ONLF) top leaders are either in jail or under house arrest. Thousands of members of Qerroo, a peaceful Oromo youth movement, are still in jails. For the dialogue to succeed all political prisoners should have already been released.    

The government has indicated repeatedly that the TPLF and OLA will not participate in the dialogue. On the other hand, unconfirmed sources claim that Abiy and the TPLF are in secret talks. The public has been outraged by these contradicting ends. If the latter is true, there is no reason why the government should not speak with OLA as well. The regional administration of Oromia, or PP Oromia, should have initiated talks with the OLA long ago. Oromo buy-in has a critical role in the progress of this dialogue. The popularity of OLA in Ethiopia, particularly in Oromia, cannot be undermined. Lack of transparency may only give room for the public to be fed misleading information. So, the government must come out from the shadows.

The degree of inclusion of the dialogue process is necessary to genuinely achieve its objectives. Three parties, one from the Somali region (ONLF) and two from Oromia (OLF and OFC) have questioned the inclusivity of the process. They believe that the selection process of the committee of the national dialogue commission was flawed. This will not only diminish the broad representation of the nations but the credibility of its outcome. The national dialogue must be accompanied by a series of steps to attenuate tensions, to establish a level of “working trust” to engage in a meaningful dialogue. Trust-building is important throughout the process to ensure that outcomes are also implemented.

There is no reason why a political party with unwavering public support has not been consulted about who will represent Somalis in the dialogue. The ONLF did not abandon its armed struggle to become an observer in Ethiopian politics. The role of opposition parties in the dialogue process is already limited, as the committee is appointed by the PP and approved by a parliament with a PP majority of more than 98 percent. So, the best that could have been done was to show respect and get the opposing parties’ consent on who would represent the nation. This was not the case, unfortunately.

Somalis cannot be represented by a person handpicked by one party. Among the names that appeared in a shortlist published by the office of representatives included Ambassador Mohamud Dirrir. The status quo remained unchanged, the heinous behavior towards Somalis has not yet changed at the federal. Dirrir has never been able to represent the Somali cause, and he will not be able to do so in the future. I doubt the Ambassador’s behaviour has changed overnight.     

If the government attempts to control and mold the dialogue’s outcome. The speculation that the dialogue will be suspended as a showpiece to placate the international community and remove sanctions will be accurate. This appears to be a replay of the Yemen national debate, which was praised for its inclusiveness, but its recommendations were not executed, leading to a violent conflict and a severe humanitarian situation in the country. This validates that the presence of external actors is inevitably important to strike a balance between government and opposition parties. A credible, broadly accepted external actor can significantly affect the strength of the national dialogue.

By Fardousa Muse
Email: Fardousanour@gmail.com