(By Melaku Yismaw) – Ethiopia’s prolonged political and armed conflicts have created a situation in which different opposition groups may share serious grievances against the government while holding very different visions for the country’s future. In such circumstances, defeating or removing a common political opponent is not enough. If opposition groups cannot agree on what should follow, the departure of one government could simply create the conditions for another period of instability and conflict.

For this reason, groups seeking fundamental political change should establish a clear political coalition and a credible framework for managing their differences before any major political transition. Such a coalition should not merely serve as a mechanism for coordinating opposition to a common adversary. Its more important purpose should be to establish the political principles, institutions, safeguards, and transitional arrangements that would govern the country afterward.

Avoiding Conflict Among Opposition Groups

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

Without prior agreement on how these differences will be addressed, political change could simply produce a new struggle among former allies. Ethiopia could move directly from one conflict into another.

A meaningful political coalition could reduce this danger by establishing agreed mechanisms for resolving disputes, sharing political authority, protecting communities, managing security institutions, and ensuring that no single faction can dominate the political transition.

Preventing Ethiopia from Becoming a Battlefield for Proxy Competition

Ethiopia’s strategic importance means that its internal political conflicts do not exist in isolation. Regional and international actors have significant security, economic, diplomatic, and geopolitical interests in the country and the wider Horn of Africa.

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

The current regional environment illustrates the complexity of these competing interests. Ethiopia’s relations with Sudan, Egypt, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, and other regional actors are shaped by overlapping security, territorial, economic, and strategic concerns. Ethiopia’s position regarding the Sudan conflict, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, and its relations with neighbouring states all have implications beyond its domestic politics.

These circumstances make political cohesion among Ethiopia’s opposition forces even more important. External actors will naturally seek to advance their own interests and influence political developments where opportunities arise. The critical question, therefore, is not whether outside powers will attempt to influence Ethiopia’s future, but whether Ethiopian political forces will be sufficiently united and politically coherent to negotiate with external actors while protecting the country’s national interests.

A united and politically credible opposition would be better positioned to resist attempts to exploit Ethiopia’s internal divisions and to ensure that external relationships serve Ethiopia’s long-term interests rather than deepen domestic fragmentation.

The Most Important Question Is What Comes After Political Change

The central question should not simply be:

Who can defeat or remove the current government?

The more important question is:

What political order will replace it?

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

Opposition groups should therefore seek agreement beforehand on fundamental issues, including:

• the nature and duration of an interim political arrangement;
• constitutional reform and the future structure of the state;
• fair representation of Ethiopia’s different communities and regions;
• protection of civil, political, and minority rights;
• the management and reform of security institutions;
• mechanisms for resolving territorial and political disputes;
• arrangements for credible and inclusive elections; and
• safeguards against the concentration of power in the hands of one faction.

These issues cannot be left until after a political transition. By then, competing interests may already be struggling for control, making compromise considerably more difficult.

Unity Must Be Political, Not Merely Tactical

A coalition based only on opposition to the government is unlikely to be durable. Genuine political unity requires agreement on fundamental principles and a commitment to resolving disagreements through political and institutional mechanisms rather than through coercion or renewed conflict.

This does not mean that every group must abandon its identity, regional interests, political objectives, or legitimate grievances. Rather, it means that all participating groups must agree on rules that allow them to coexist, compete politically, and resolve disputes without threatening the stability of the country.

Ethiopia’s extraordinary diversity makes such arrangements particularly important. A sustainable political coalition would need to answer difficult questions before any 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? How are constitutional disagreements resolved? And, most importantly, what safeguards prevent one faction from monopolizing political power after the transition?

These questions are not secondary matters. They are at the heart of whether political change will produce stability or simply create another phase of conflict.

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 and instability. Changing the people in power without addressing the underlying political conditions that produce conflict would leave Ethiopia vulnerable to renewed crisis. Ethiopians must learn from the worsening situation that followed the replacement of Mr. Hailemariam Desalegn by Abiy Ahmed. Changing the leadership without addressing the underlying policies and systemic problems did not bring meaningful improvement; instead, it exposed the country to even greater instability and suffering.

Opposition forces, political movements, civil society organizations, community representatives, and other stakeholders therefore have a strategic interest in developing a broad political framework before any decisive political transition. Such a framework could help prevent clashes among opposition groups, reduce opportunities for external manipulation, reassure Ethiopia’s diverse communities, and provide a foundation for legitimate and accountable governance.

Ethiopia cannot afford to replace one destructive conflict with another. Nor can it afford a political transition in which victory for one faction becomes a permanent threat to the others. The country needs a political order in which competing interests can coexist, political disagreements can be managed institutionally, and no group believes that its survival depends on controlling the entire state.

The real measure of political unity is therefore not simply the ability to defeat a common opponent. It is the ability to agree on how the country will be governed afterward.

The real test of Ethiopia’s opposition is not whether its different groups can stand together against a common adversary, but whether they can build enough trust and political agreement to live together after the political struggle is over.