Ethiopia’s prolonged political and armed conflicts have created a situation in which different opposition groups may share deep grievances against the government while holding very different visions for the country’s future. In such circumstances, defeating a common political opponent is not enough. If the groups that oppose the government cannot agree among themselves on what comes next, the removal of one government could simply open the door to another period of instability and conflict.

For this reason, any groups seeking fundamental political change should first establish a clear political coalition and a framework for resolving their differences. The purpose of such a coalition should not merely be to coordinate against a common adversary, but to establish the political principles, institutions, and safeguards that would govern the country afterward.

Avoiding conflict among the opposition

One of the greatest dangers of a fragmented opposition is that groups that cooperate against a common government may become rivals once the balance of power changes. Different organizations may have competing territorial claims, political agendas, ethnic constituencies, or visions for Ethiopia’s federal and constitutional order.

Without prior agreement on how these disagreements will be managed, a change of government could produce a new struggle among the former allies. The country could move directly from one conflict into another.

A political coalition can reduce this danger by establishing agreed mechanisms for resolving disputes, sharing political authority, protecting communities, and managing security institutions during a transition.

Preventing Ethiopia from becoming a battlefield for proxy competition

Ethiopia’s strategic importance means that its internal conflicts do not exist in isolation. Regional and international actors have their own security, economic, and geopolitical interests in the country.

When domestic political forces are deeply divided, outside powers can find opportunities to support different factions in pursuit of their own interests. One group may receive political, financial, or military assistance from one external actor while another group receives support from a rival. Over time, a domestic conflict can therefore become entangled with broader regional rivalries.

A united and politically coherent opposition would be better positioned to defend Ethiopia’s national interests and resist attempts by external actors to turn internal divisions into a proxy struggle.

The most important question is what comes after political change

The central question should not simply be: Who can defeat the government?

The more important question is: What political order will replace it?

If there is no credible answer to that question, even a dramatic political transition may fail to produce peace. Institutions could collapse, competing groups could struggle for control, civilians could face renewed insecurity, and the country could experience another cycle of fragmentation.

Therefore, opposition groups should seek agreement beforehand on fundamental issues such as an interim political arrangement, constitutional reform, representation of different communities, the protection of civil and political rights, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Unity must be political, not merely tactical

A coalition based only on a shared opposition to the government is unlikely to be durable. Genuine unity requires agreement on basic political principles and a commitment to settle disagreements through political mechanisms rather than force.

This does not mean that every group must abandon its identity, regional interests, or political objectives. It means that the groups must establish rules for coexistence and competition. Ethiopia’s diversity makes such arrangements particularly important.

A successful coalition would therefore need to answer difficult questions before a major political transition: Who governs during the transition? How are different regions and communities represented? How are security institutions managed? How are disputed territories and political claims addressed? How are elections organized? And, most importantly, what prevents one faction from monopolizing power after the transition?

Ethiopia needs a political settlement, not simply a change of rulers

The ultimate objective should be a political settlement capable of preventing another cycle of violence. Changing the people in power without changing the conditions that produce conflict would leave Ethiopia vulnerable to renewed instability.

The opposition forces, political movements, civil society, and other stakeholders therefore have a strategic interest in building a broad political framework before any decisive confrontation. Such a framework could help prevent internal clashes, reduce opportunities for foreign manipulation, reassure Ethiopia’s diverse communities, and provide a foundation for legitimate governance.

Ethiopia cannot afford to replace one destructive conflict with another. The country needs a political order in which competing interests can coexist without each group believing that its survival depends on controlling the entire state.

The real measure of political unity is therefore not the ability to defeat a common opponent, but the ability to agree on how to live together after the conflict ends.