The divergent interpretations of the political history of the nation, lack of social cohesion, absence of sense of belongingness as well as lack of national consensus on major national symbols and institutions, especially over the past two plus decades, are primarily attributable to all the mishaps occurring in the nation right now.
Violence and instability in Ethiopia have their own roots following the long-standing state-building deficits and unknowingly or calculatingly orchestrated sabotages, indeed.
The good thing is Ethiopians have had an eternal culture of coexistence and mutual understanding by which all grudges and rivalry sentiments have been settled since time immemorial.
The case of the elderly (Shimagile in local language Amharic, principles of AbbaGeda, which has been practiced well whenever disagreements and enmity occur among the Oromo society, Cimeeyye, who have been consulted to get people reconciled in Sidama society) and so on, are very workable examples in this regard.
When such a sacred activity is thought at a larger scale incorporating a range of citizens across the nation to have a peaceful way of life at all corners of the nation, it becomes national agendum and the required concord can be technically termed as a national reconciliation via a dialogue held in a comprehensive manner.
Needless to state, national dialogue is becoming an increasingly popular tool for conflict resolution and political transformation in the 21st century. In the past several years, national dialogue has been proposed or carried out in a diverse group of countries and circumstances.
Yes, national dialogue is of paramount importance in reviving the love and fraternity of citizens in Ethiopia once tarnished following wrong directions, circumstances, attitudes as well as helping them have a peaceful country founded on an unwavering basis.
Taking all what the country has had in its history into account, the government has now finalized preparations to create a seemly atmosphere to hold inclusive national dialogue.
Having government determination to conduct an inclusive national dialogue with a view to devising lasting solutions to the long heaped problems in the country, this writer talked to Asnake Ayana, a Civics and Ethical Education teacher and asked him about the significance of national dialog.
He said, “National Dialogue is a nationally owned political process aimed at engendering unanimity among a broad range of national stakeholders in times of profound political catastrophe, in post-war circumstances or during sweeping administrative transitions”.
“Time and again, a national dialogue have served as an important consensus-building mechanism for core political actors to address issues of common national concern,” he added.
According to Asnake, since national dialogue is a progressively popular tool for conflict resolution and political transformation, it is expected to include core principles listed below with a view to meaningfully contributing to political transformation, peace and a nation with lasting serenity.
The first one is inclusion. Here, all key interest groups among others, contending political parties, women, the youth, traditionally marginalized segments of the society, groups outcast themselves from the existing system have to be invited to participate in.
Before the process begins, an inclusive, transparent, and consultative preliminary phase has to set the foundation for a genuine national dialogue. Without a shadow of doubt, an effective national dialogue, as its name bespeaks, needs to assemble a broad set of stakeholders for a deliberative process and maximize its potential of addressing the real drivers of conflict and incongruity.
Second, transparency and public participation should prevail. Opportunities for the public have to be widely created to help them well informed about the dialogue in a very transparent and viable means. Beyond the representatives who are in the occasion, a national dialogue should also have mechanisms to include the bigger population.
This broad participation can be achieved by linking local dialogue processes to the national dialogue, as well as through public consultations, regular outreach, and media exposure. To salvage the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders and avoid perceptions of bias, suspicious and skeptical gestures, a credible operator is of the supreme prominence.
Third, as to him, addressing the root cause of every conflict has to be tabled on discussion. A national dialogue seeks to reach agreement on key issues facing a country like the issue of flag, constitution, language and the likes. The dialogue needs to take place to identify and agree upon various conflict-fueling issues such as identity, basic freedoms, institutional reform, election procedures etc. Its agenda should hold substantive conversation around the foremost objections of all key interest groups.
Fourth, clear mandate, appropriately tailored structure and procedures have to be well applied. National dialogue needs to take place outside of the existing institutions of government. A national dialogue has to have its own set of procedures and rules for making decisions, which should be transparent and carefully tailored to the composition of the group and the nature of the issues.
Because national dialogues take place within a broader transition, it does often have formal or informal relationships to transitional justice, constitution making, and election. It should also be held with clear implementation plan to come up with lasting solutions to potential problems and ensure peace.
“A national dialogue is unlikely to produce any meaningful change without a robust, respected national facilitator and buy-in from a sufficient coalition of the country’s groups. Government officials have to bear the primary responsibility for envisioning, organizing, facilitating, and financing the national dialogue.
A core point here, although international assistance can fill important gaps, assistance providers must take great care to leave the fundamental responsibilities in the hands of national specialists.”
National dialogue deserves citizens’ due attention as a tool with the potential to facilitate peaceful political transformation, but it is not a charmed shot. Even in the most successful instances, national dialogue is a step along the long and arduous path of building a peaceful country. True, it can also veer off course or produce recommendations that are never implemented.
There is no one-size-fits-all model, but we hypothesize that national dialogue will have a higher likelihood of success if it incorporates principles like enclosure, transparency and public participation, an influential agenda, a credible commissioners, appropriate and clear rules of procedure, and an implementation plan.
As far as lessons learnt from other countries are concerned, Asnake said that the widely publicized national dialogue experiences in Tunisia and Yemen have to come to the forefront as a tool for breaking political deadlock and getting the roots of complex conflicts and disputes dried.
He further elaborated that wide consultations are essential for defining achievable goals. Inclusivity and the participation of a wide range of stakeholders during negotiations are of significantly useful in accommodating divergent interests and needs.
As to him, experiences from the region include the importance of wide consultation in initiating the dialogue, creating common understanding among key stakeholders on expected outcomes, and clearly defining objectives of the process.
Behailu Abera, a journalist from the Addis Zemen (Daily Amharic newspaper) on his part said that the national dialogue has to incorporate core national issues such as the case of flag, constitution, regional aspects, language issues and the like as unraveling all these complexities helps the country attain the set targets in terms of social, economic, political and other related matters.
Most importantly, he said the inclusive dialogue help government and people come closer since a range of perplexities would be raised without limitation.
He said, “Viable political deals, civil society politicking, internationally accredited peace agreements and other relevant mechanisms are expected to be employed to address a wide variety of national issues. As inclusive and holistic national conversation has gained popularity, the term national dialogue has been used to describe an increasingly heterogeneous set of processes.”
“Drawing important lessons and taking best practices will increase the likelihood that a dialogue can achieve meaningful conflict resolution, politico-economic transformation and strengthen existing institutions,” he underscored.
In a nutshell, since inclusion, transparency and active public engagement are central to the national dialogue process; the desired outcome can be achieved through public consultations, regular outreach, promoting coexistence as well as impartial and comprehensive media coverage.
As it has been recurrently heralded by the government, a wide range of bottom-up process has to be well rife for extensive public engagement and the deliberations are expected to be widely aired in the media.
The fundamental step taken to make the national dialogue fruitful is that the outcomes must be clear from the onset. As the value of the entire process ultimately lies in the general public and all walks of life in the country, the national dialogue has to be managed properly leveling all loopholes and transparently acted upon. In so doing, all the intended purposes of the country can be met within the shortest time possible.
BY MENGESHA AMARE
The Ethiopian Herald March 25/2022
