O-Dispatch #12: Ethiopia’s Manufactured Dialogue: Unity Without Consent

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (10 minutes)

Ethiopia stands at a political crossroads. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed claims to promote the National Dialogue as a path to peace, replacing war with the “supremacy of ideas” (ENA, 2025).  But behind this rhetoric lies a stark reality: the dialogue process is neither inclusive nor democratic. It is part of a broader campaign to dismantle Ethiopia’s multi-national federal system and concentrate power in a presidential model that centralizes authority and marginalizes dissent. Rather than healing fractures that the state is suffering from, this agenda risks repeating the very patterns of domination that fractured the country in the first place.

Citizenship Without Consent Is Just Coercion

Ethiopia’s 1995 Constitution introduced multi-national federalism to acknowledge the country’s cultural plurality after decades of centralized repression. Article 39 enshrined the right of nations, nationalities, and peoples to self-determination, including secession (FDRE Constitution, 1995). It was not merely symbolic—it was a structural attempt to rebuild trust between the state and its historically marginalized groups.

Today, this constitutional arrangement is under attack. Proposals are circulating to replace identity-based federalism with regional zones based on geography or economic logic (The Reporter, 2025). Though framed as administrative reform, these proposals erase the foundational recognition of Ethiopia’s ethnic diversity and ignore the historical grievances that necessitated federalism in the first place.

The "Layered Identity" Trap

To legitimize this shift, Prime Minister Abiy has introduced the concept of “layered identities,” in which ethnic or national affiliations are to be secondary to a broader Ethiopian supra- national identity, primarily rooted in the history of the highland Abyssinian empire. This concept presents a façade of inclusivity but, in practice, imposes a hierarchy.

The message is unmistakable: you cannot be culturally distinct so long as you submit politically. While ethnic identity may be tolerated in the private realm, political expression and autonomy are systematically constrained. This echoes past regimes that criminalized local languages, erased indigenous names, and denied meaningful political agency.

Identity, in this context, is political. And forcing people to choose between their heritage and their citizenship is not a formula for unity, it’s a blueprint for resentment and resistance.

A Dialogue That Excludes Is Not a Dialogue

The National Dialogue, as currently designed, excludes key stakeholders, most notably the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), and significant civil society actors (Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2024). Instead of creating space for genuine debate, the process has been orchestrated to entrench the ruling party’s vision.

Military operations continue in Oromia and Amhara. Journalists are detained. Political dissent is repressed (SWP, 2024). These realities render the notion of open dialogue hollow. You cannot negotiate peace while waging war. You cannot build trust while silencing opposition.

From Dialogue to Domination & The International Community Role

According to the Heinrich Böll Stiftung’s July 2024 report, the National Dialogue Commission was formed through a deeply flawed process. Out of 632 nominees, only 11 commissioners were appointed, through procedures viewed as opaque and partisan (Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2024).

Rather than acting as an impartial body, the commission is being used to push for sweeping constitutional changes. Chief among them is a shift toward a presidential system that would erase federal autonomy and consolidate executive power in Finfinnee (Addis Ababa).

The German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) warns that international donors risk enabling authoritarian consolidation under the guise of democratic reform (SWP, 2024). Support from the UNDP, EU, Germany, Norway, and others must be conditional on restructuring the dialogue into a truly inclusive, transparent, and participatory process.

Without these safeguards, international support serves not peace but power consolidation.

Why Multi-National Federalism Still Matters

Critics of multi-national federalism argue that it has fractured Ethiopia. But the real issue is the state’s failure to implement it fully. Where autonomy was promised, centralism followed. Where identity was recognized, it was politically constrained.

Multi-national federalism is not a historical anomaly. In fact, several multi-national states have achieved stability through decentralized governance. Switzerland sustains unity through linguistic and cultural autonomy. Belgium has maintained peace by balancing Flemish and Walloon interests through federal structures. Canada continues to navigate French-Canadian identity through strong provincial self-rule. Even the fragile federation of Açaba shows that negotiated diversity is more durable than enforced uniformity (Glenny, 2012, The Fall of Yugoslavia: The Third Balkan War. Penguin).

Presidentialism and Federalism: A Volatile Mix

Multi-national or Ethnic federations and presidential systems are structurally at odds. Federalism decentralizes power to culturally distinct regions, giving local communities the tools to govern themselves. Presidentialism, by contrast, centralizes executive power in one office, often weakening regional checks.

When combined, these systems tend to clash: the center demands control, while the periphery demands autonomy. This structural tension breeds mistrust and, in states with weak institutions, fuels instability.

There are no successful, developed countries today that combine a strong presidential system with formal multi-national or ethnic federalism. The few that have tried either drifted into authoritarianism or fragmented under pressure. Parliamentary systems with strong regional autonomy, such as those in Switzerland and Canada, have proven far more effective at managing multi-national diversity within a unified state.

Unity Without Justice Is Just Another Form of Control

The government’s rhetoric of unity cannot substitute for justice. Ethiopia’s history is littered with failed attempts to impose national identity at the expense of local dignity. Unity that demands silence is not unity, it is domination.

Real peace begins with power-sharing, recognition, and autonomy. A dialogue that denies these principles is not a path forward. It’s a repeat of past mistakes, repackaged in technocratic language.

What a Legitimate Dialogue Requires

If Ethiopia is to chart a peaceful, democratic future, the national dialogue must start with first principles.

All stakeholders must be included, armed groups, opposition parties, civil society, and communities that have historically been silenced. Groups like the Oromo Liberation Army and others cannot be excluded from the table and then expected to accept decisions made in their absence.

The commission overseeing the process must not be imposed by political elites. Its formation must result from broad, consultative engagement that reflects the diversity of Ethiopia’s political landscape.

Finally, the dialogue’s agenda, structure, and scope must be co-designed by all parties. This is the only way to build legitimacy. Anything less is a public performance dressed up as national consensus.

The Path Forward: Consent, Not Coercion

The international community must recognize that form without substance is not progress. Support must be tied to genuine inclusion, real transparency, and structural reforms, not hollow gestures.

If Ethiopia is to survive and thrive, unity must be earned through equity, not enforced through erasure. Diversity must be embraced, not managed out of existence. And constitutional rights must be honored, not quietly rewritten.

Ethiopia’s future hinges on consent, not coercion. The only way forward is through real dialogue, self-determination, and real democratic power-sharing if the various units wish to form a union.