Conducting a national dialogue in countries where reconciliation is impeded by divergent interest groups is the task of Tantalus. The potential success of a national dialogue in a highly volatile political environment may be affected by thorny issues. To achieve success in the endeavor of the National Dialogue Commission, the ruling and opposition parties in Ethiopia must resolve their differing notions of national dialogue before the process begins to end.
The competing issues generated by political parties and the schemes formulated by the national dialogue should be clearly presented. The ruling and the contending parties in Ethiopian have to reckon with past political mistakes that have lead to political, economic and social disasters. Their determination to accomplish political goals through a dominant partisan politics, including ethnic, tribal, and clannish ones has, in the past, achieved nothing but hate. A feeling of being oppressed and dominated has become embedded in the Ethiopian political space. Similarly, the ruling party and opposition parties seem to have visions of national dialogue which are utterly opposed. This makes the role of the National Dialogue Commission a difficult one.
Both the ruling and opposition parties expressed their support for dialogue, which is a good political gesture. The dialogue process, however, has to be reasonable, logical and relational, but not necessarily expected to achieve consensus over the fundamental national issues. The mission of the National Dialogue Commission may be devised towards minimizing rather than eliminating differences. This may require an all-inclusive plan to bring armed groups into the dialogue for creating an environment to support the process.
In the process, the Commission may strengthen institutions that promote dialogue. In this process, there is no need to interfere with the efforts of the Commission to invite and include all relevant stakeholders. In this regard, the Commission may design a strategy to improve stakeholders’ relations and improve on political splits about procedural matters. Experts observed that divergent positions by political parties are more about the process than disagreements over issues.
A sustained dialogue might help in laying the basis for reconciliation among the diverse groups in Ethiopia. However, experts think that it is not likely for such a dialogue to resolve the political divisions on all the fundamental issues in Ethiopia. They also think that one can hope for a consensus to be reached on democratic solution to political issues. Also, the vast nature of the task of the Commission may require the extension of its term to address all the political issues.
The Commission may redesign and implement a multicultural communication strategy to share the goal, objectives and programs of the dialogue in line with public expectations. It may have to clarify that the dialogue process is not only designed to reach consensus but to identify and resolve conflicts. In this regard, facilitators have to be selected and tutored on sensitivity to the culture and history of ethnic, tribal and clannish as well as religious communities. The political parties in Ethiopia should reconsider their politicking to reconcile their conflicts peacefully before negotiating with the ruling party and other groups.
Generally speaking, a national dialogue has emerged in Africa, including Ethiopia, as an instrument for minimizing differences in post-conflict and brutally divided societies. African governments initially rejected calls for national dialogue simply because it was deemed that the opposition parties would use it to advance their call for a “transitional government.” However, this stance is changed lately and a national dialogue is finally established.
In Ethiopia, the legitimacy of the Commission and the inclusivity of the process have led to the completion of preparatory work. This has been followed by the “dialogue” stage, which has focused on debates in contemporary theories of democracy. Experts have examined the competing conceptual frameworks and political actors across the Ethiopian political arena. During the debates questions have been raised on fundamental political issues. These questions focused on: how the ruling and opposition parties and other stakeholders think of national dialogue; how they envision the conduct of dialogue in a divided society, such as that of Ethiopia; and the need to reconcile the procedural approach with the political reality of the country.
Intergroup dialogues at grassroots level have not yet been applied as the Commission seemed to stick to the procedural approach. Experts, however, argued that all stakeholders must transform issues of conflict into issues of political disagreement. This approach may raise expectations by declaring openly that the process is aimed at forging “national consensus.”
t is believed that all stakeholders appreciate the significance of participating in a national dialogue. They may be able to appreciate if their competing ideas contribute to a consensus. Experts believe that competing concepts could further deepen the political difference if they fail to reconcile their approaches. As usual, stakeholders and national elites have questioned the neutrality of the Commissioners and are critical about the independence of the Commission. They have, however, done little about the issues they have raised regarding the process and outcome of the national dialogue.
Reconsidering the concept and initiation of national dialogue, it is a fairly recent political issue in African politics. What is a novelty is that the subject has reemerged as a tool of conflict resolution in severely divided societies. After the cold-war era the resurgence of ethnic politics “exposed” the limits of representative democracy and the classical liberal political order. The opponents of liberal and individualistic political ideas have challenged the “politics of difference.” Hence, the political scientists introduced concepts of politics of recognition and multicultural citizenship.
The politics of reconciliation and conflict management are now being consolidated to find solutions in divided societies. The modernization and advancement of literature as a means of mass communication contributed to making the Ethiopian public more aware of critical developments. However, the proliferation of radio, TV, Internet and other commercial mass media lowered the quality of public debate. The domination of party politics and the mass media as the sole conduit for discourse on matters of public policy in Ethiopia made the public a “passive” consumer. This development and the resultant intrusive nature of the political parties into the public domain contributed to the eventual collapse of public discourse at grassroots level.
To encourage public discourse, the concerned political parties have to express the need for facilitation to lead the process. All parties must appreciate that conflict is a fact of social life and struggle among contenders is not avoidable. National dialogue, in these circumstances, should be considered as a means to transform violence into minor differences and ultimately to democracy.
Dialogue is the only battleground on which differences are fought out politely. The Commission, the ruling and opposition parties should reconcile their concept of dialogue. Also stakeholders should be ready for a sustained and polite dialogue. Given the severity of the political divide in Ethiopia and its potential for endless violence, all the concerned political entities should ensure that the process of dialogue is respectful and result oriented.
The Ethiopian political challenges are animated by the so-called collective memories and communal tensions. Experts believe that these are predicated on competing identities. Consequently, the chances of resolving differences on fundamental national issues through national dialogue become idealistic, unless competing identities are diluted.
Reaching a consensus on political issues through dialogue is a formidable challenge. Thus, the concerned parties should prepare themselves for moderating their expectation from the dialogue. It is imperative to use the opportunity of dialogue as a moment of reckoning with the past. It helps to lay the foundation for an all-rounded reconciliation among Ethiopians, including political elites. It results in understanding the concerns of other entities while managing political differences.
The ruling and opposition parties should, therefore, take the opportunity to: jointly manage adamant identity conflicts between ethnic groups; create a consensus between elites on democracy as the sole principle of resolving political differences; avoid resolving any differences among political parties without prior settlement of inter-communal tensions and conflicts. These functions of the Ethiopian political parties are predicated on paying respect to the goal, objectives, mandate and program of the Commission. At the same time the Commission should avoid a dogmatic approach, if there is any, to assert legitimacy, credibility and authority.
Experts advocate for the exercise of the authority of the Commission. It has to use its powers legitimately and judiciously to secure peace, law and order. It should protect the civic and political rights of citizens in view of its mission. These experts also propose that the Ethiopian government may amend the proclamation if the need arises. In so doing, it may give the Commission the mandate to “ensure” the implementation of the outcomes of the national dialogue process.
It is also suggested that the Commission may conduct a “horizontal, sustained, intense and relational” dialogue among conflicting communities at grassroots level. It may also conduct a deliberative dialogue among political elites at both local and national levels about issues to be mutually agreed upon. Experts have also suggested that it may redesign its own existing rules and procedures on reporting of issues on the media. It is also proposed that the Commission may work actively with the ruling and opposition parties to bring conflicting political issues to a peaceful resolution.
Several suggestions have been made to create a national advisory council that comprises gender, political, ethnic and religious representatives. This council may provide advice on social issues. It has also been suggested to mandate either the Commission or another independent organ to ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission. It is suggested that the media should avoid antagonistic communication and concentrate on discussing peace and stability in the country.
Moreover, it is proposed that the national dialogue becomes a “national preoccupation.” The media should be in a position to manage public expectations about the objectives and outcomes of the dialogue. In other words, the local media should ensure that local communities are informed about the dialogue initiative and they participate in the process. The media has to focus on reporting the reviving significance of the national dialogue. It may focus on theEthiopian Diaspora community for applying pressure on all conflicting parties to ensure that the negotiation processes strengthen the national dialogue process. Both the Diaspora and local communities may fully shore up the National Dialogue Commission with inspirations and initiatives without endangering its independence.
BY GETACHEW MINAS
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD TUESDAY 7 NOVEMBER 2023
