The long-heaped grudges, rivalries, unknowingly or calculatingly orchestrated resentments among citizens of the same country, if any, and even political, as well as historical disagreements can be dealt with via dialog and close consultation as nothing could be beyond such a plausible public session domains. It is crystal clear that in an increasingly polarized and already tense political landscape, the government needs to create a platform that truly opens the way for a negotiated political solution to break the current stalemate and for promoting peace and tranquility across the nation.
It is obvious that national dialog can be complex and delicate process, and several factors can either contribute to its success or impede its success. To make it a triumph, there are of course, key elements; one is inclusivity. True, a wide range of stakeholders should be involved, including political parties, civil society organizations, marginalized groups, and representatives from different sectors of society, and even those who reside outside of the place of origin.
Inclusivity ensures that miscellaneous perspectives are considered and enhances the authenticity of the process. Tunisia’s experience with national dialogue is often cited as a very good example, of course, as it is one of the most successful examples of peaceful democratic transition in the aftermath of the Arab Spring. It brought together a wide range of stakeholders, including political parties, civil society organizations, labor unions, business leaders, and representatives of marginalized groups such as youth and women.
National dialogues have been undertaken in Sudan, Kenya, Tunisia, Senegal, Yemen, the Central African Republic, and other conflict-affected countries in recent years to develop agreements among numerous national players and prepare the way for long-term peace and political changes.
Here, our country, Ethiopia, had better draw important lessons from this nation. Taking a neutral stance is also the substantive aspect, indeed! Yes, neutral facilitators and mediators play a crucial role in managing the dialogue process impartially, ensuring fairness, and building trust among participants. Their neutrality helps create apt environment for constructive dialogue and negotiation.
Equally and importantly, national dialogues should have clear goals, objectives, and a distinct schema. Clear objectives help focus discussions, prioritize issues, and guide decision-making. Here, all parties have to develop commitment and run peaceful resolution as all participants must demonstrate a genuine commitment to non-violence, peaceful coexistence, and the resolution of conflicts through dialogue, close talks, round table discussion and concession.
In spite of deep political divisions and tensions, stakeholders in the country under concern, i.e. Ethiopia, have to demonstrate a commitment to non-violence and compromise. They should well recognize the importance of dialogue and negotiation in finding peaceful solutions to political differences and are expected to be willing to make special consideration for the greater good of the country.
The government, political parties, the general public, even warring parties whatever their ground may be, have to be willing to engage in dialogue, seek common ground, and make indulgence to reach mutually acceptable solutions to the common national problems. Dialog actors have to be engaged in constructive dialogue, identify common ground, and reach agreements on cardinal issues which have been attracting disagreement among Ethiopians about such as the history of Ethiopia, heroes, flags, constitution, anthems, and other national symbols.
Unquestionably, mutual delight results from win-win solutions, where each party benefits and does not use a loss to the opposite. Addressing all the queries has to be framed in a way that addresses all forms of objections if citizens of the country would like to get the wounds of the nation dried for good.
Bigotry, intrigue, and political intrigue have become important elements of Ethiopia’s political elite and their leaders, resulting in irritation, disappointment, and rejection of common people across the country. In other words, political elites are more active in bridging gaps than in forming coalitions, and their vision is hazy when it comes to combining social advantages for national development goals.
The national dialogue has long been advocated in Ethiopia as a means of resolving contentious problems and laying the groundwork for national agreement.
Ethiopia has also been influenced by a lack of belonging, ethnic strife, and catastrophic economic deterioration. Meanwhile, in Ethiopian culture, fraternity, and solidarity, communication and links of solidarity between ethnic groups and their members are diminishing.
Overall, the Ethiopian National Dialogue blew a historic chance to create a new and inclusive society based on shared values and mutual respect.
More importantly, in an increasingly polarized and already tense political landscape, the government needs to create a platform that truly opens the way for a negotiated political solution to break the current impasse and for peace. To this end, a nationwide dialogue forum should be convened with the participation of political leaders, traditional and religious leaders, youth representatives, and other stakeholders.
Ethiopia’s National Dialogue Committee should also quickly develop a clear business plan and commit to implementing it. To ensure a free and fair national dialogue, the government should expedite preparations for the upcoming national dialogue, including logistical and other preparations, as well as provide other mechanisms governing the dialogue’s conduct, such as the publication of the main agenda on which the national dialogue will take place.
The national dialogues would be instrumental in bringing together all relevant national stakeholders and actors based on a broad mandate to foster nation-wide consensus with respect to key conflict issues. The National Dialogue has, thus, gained considerable importance as a platform for peaceful transformation.
It further reflects the belief that conflict resolution processes must be as inclusive as possible, involving a broad range of political actors and extending beyond a limited set of political players to include society at large. The onus of conflict resolution has therefore recently shifted from the national to international level. If a process excludes important stakeholders or is perceived to serve the short-term political goals of the government, constitutional reform proposals are unlikely to gain impetus. Thus, it has to be made inclusive and participatory.
It is well recognized that Ethiopians have indigenous cultural and traditional assets that they have long used to foster solidarity, togetherness, peace, and a sense of belonging among themselves. All religious people, mostly Christians and Muslims, have similar principles. They, for example, stand by one another in both happy and sorrowful moments. This is an opportunity that must be taken advantage of. This sort of arrangement was made possible by the federal government’s quick growth strategy. When this chance is denied, it might be a formula for simple mobilization based on religious group membership, and hence a prescription for violence. Existing discussion and encounter mechanisms should be used to promote understanding and awareness among individuals of all religions.
Religion and social cohesiveness also play a part in integrating the country’s ethnic populations and have been blamed for inter-ethnic and inter-religious trust and cohabitation. We are closely monitoring Ethiopia’s plans to begin a national dialogue process to promote talks among all stakeholders on critical national problems.
The decision-making processes within the dialogue should also be transparent, inclusive, and accountable as following such an agreeable fashion helps enhance trust among participants and ensures that the outcomes reflect the interests and concerns of all concerned.
Some are heard of saying that the national dialogue commission itself is appointed by the state since the officials are known for their close relationship with the prime minister and have been witnessed to positively support the current regime, but what matters is they are tasked to organize a platform in which all representatives of all citizens can genuinely raise their concern and give the judgment to the general public, not a matter of reflecting intimacy along this line.
The very crucial aspect that has to be well comprehended in this regard is political leaders must demonstrate a willingness to engage in dialogue, implement agreements, and prioritize peace over narrow political interests as without genuine political will and commitment from the government and key stakeholders the national dialogue could hardly be pushed into fruition.
That is why Ethiopians at every corner like in Jigjiga, Hawassa, South-west state etc. held varied public discussions so as, for the commission, to critically explore the opportunities and challenges of the process with a view to devising possible solutions to the problems.
Bear in mind that despite the major hurdles, resistance, futile attempts to overlook the significance of conducting a national dialog, the national conversation initiative is highly likely to foster situation in due course of uniting Ethiopians. Needless to state, Ethiopia will endure if leaders and elites unite to forge a new countrywide consensus and build a new political order that guarantees the honor, coexistence, fraternity, peaceful co-existence and solidarity of its people.
Yes, a national dialogue could allow rival ideologies and communities in Ethiopia to redefine their relationships and promote higher expertise on the troubles that divide and polarize. A national dialogue ought to help bridge the space between different actors and foster a subculture of communication, interface and collaboration.
In general, as a solution to the long and existing widespread political, social, economic, and historical problems Ethiopia has been facing, the national dialogue has to be well strengthened and put into practice at any cost as it has been a helpful approach for ending extensive divergence.
The initiative and commitment of the current government to the formation of national dialogue commission are crucial steps toward reducing tensions that may arise because of political disagreements and ethnic polarization. In general, the country is prepared for a national dialogue.
However, as seen by the facts presented above, Ethiopia’s approach to developing a national discourse is difficult. An open and thorough dialogue is a constructive solution to address Ethiopia’s multiple political challenges. Immediate halt of hostilities followed by complete ceasefire agreements between Federal Government and all armed groups in the regional states of Amhara and Oromia are essential.
BY MENGESHA AMARE
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD TUESDAY 12 NOVEMBER 2024
