The “national inclusive dialogue” to tackle Ethiopia’s age-old structural problems

 The most worrying aspect of the situation is that the cornerstone of Ethiopian politics remains unchanged: Any power center aims to become hegemonic, and then to increasingly assert its hegemony. In both cases, the use of raw force is still the highway to reach these goals. Armed conflict is therefore unavoidable.

What is happening now could be the premise of the nth remake of a common Ethiopian historical episode: after the death of a ‘Big Man,’ different armed contenders fight until one clear winner emerges. Before, this confrontation was a raw power struggle. Today, the confrontation is also a path the contenders embark upon to ultimately decide between opposing political visions.

The most revealing display of this continuity has been the conflict between the Tigray and federal governments. By putting preconditions for dialogue that the other side obviously would not accept, they essentially chose war, and indeed prepared for it.

Now, Abiy offers little other than his intention to crush the “criminal clique.” The TPLF requests that Tigray’s government is restored and say they will fight until “the invaders will surrender”, which implies the departure of ENDF along with Eritrean and Amhara forces— in other words, Abiy’s capitulation.

For years, the call for a “national inclusive dialogue” to tackle Ethiopia’s age-old structural problems has been presented as the panacea to overcoming the crisis. This was unrealistic, illegitimate, and damaging.

Unrealistic, because if this dialogue was possible, it would have been put in place during the euphoric 2018 spring. The visions at stake are too antagonistic to reach a middle way. In any case, this would need compromises. But who would make the unavoidable concessions when each participant could claim its vision is predominant without any objective measurement?

Illegitimate, because this “dialogue” would be essentially in the hands of the political leaderships and frontrunners of the civil society. But the fate of the country cannot be fixed by a small circle through a “grand elite bargain.”

Damaging, because there is a significant opportunity cost to the international community misallocating its energies by pursuing this unrealistic objective.

In line with Ethiopian history, a victory of one of the armed camps could temporarily stabilize Ethiopia under an authoritarian regime, but any sustainable and in-depth solution requires negotiations. National negotiations should start very modestly with how to proceed, a “process-focused dialogue”. Step-by-step, the ultimate goal of the first main phase should be to organize credible elections, which is not the case with the upcoming polls.