The Ethiopian government’s National Dialogue has been promoted by state-controlled and government-affiliated media as a landmark initiative aimed at healing a deeply divided nation. While this narrative may persuade some international observers unfamiliar with Ethiopia’s political realities, many Ethiopians—both at home and across the diaspora—view the process very differently. To them, it is not a genuine effort at national reconciliation but a carefully orchestrated political exercise intended to reinforce the legitimacy of the ruling party.

At the center of the controversy is the National Dialogue Commission itself. The commissioners were appointed by the government, and critics contend that several are publicly known for their close ties to the ruling establishment. A process designed to foster national consensus must be led by an institution that enjoys broad public trust and is widely regarded as independent and impartial. Without that confidence, the credibility of the dialogue is compromised from the outset.

The selection of participants has also drawn widespread criticism. Rather than allowing communities to choose their own representatives through an open and transparent process, critics argue that local government officials managed the selection while ruling party cadres closely supervised the proceedings. This characterization is accurate and the dialogue cannot credibly claim to represent the independent voices of Ethiopia’s diverse communities.

The local meetings held to nominate representatives have also come under intense criticism. According to critics, these gatherings were organized, controlled, and facilitated by local government authorities, leaving little room for genuine public debate or independent participation. Rather than providing an open forum for citizens to shape the national agenda, the process is alleged to have promoted official narratives while sidelining alternative political perspectives.

Critics further argue that the political environment in which the dialogue is taking place is fundamentally incompatible with free and open participation. They point to the imprisonment of opposition politicians, members of parliament, journalists, and other public figures critical of the government, while others have fled the country, citing fears of arrest or persecution. In such circumstances, they contend, many of the voices most capable of challenging the government’s positions are either absent from the process or unable to participate freely, raising serious questions about whether the dialogue can genuinely reflect the diversity of political opinion in Ethiopia.

Similar concerns have been raised about consultations with the Ethiopian diaspora. In several European countries, critics report that meetings were organized with minimal public notice and that the dates and venues were communicated only to a small circle of government supporters. Many Ethiopians living abroad therefore had no meaningful opportunity to participate. A national dialogue that excludes large segments of one of Africa’s most active and politically engaged diaspora communities inevitably faces questions about its inclusiveness and legitimacy.

The timing of the dialogue has further intensified skepticism. Ethiopia continues to experience armed conflict in the Amhara and Oromia regions, the country’s two largest regional states. The ongoing violence has resulted in significant loss of life, widespread displacement, and a severe humanitarian crisis. In these circumstances, many observers question whether a meaningful national dialogue can succeed while major political actors, armed groups, and communities most affected by the conflicts remain outside the process.

History demonstrates that successful national dialogues are founded on legitimacy, inclusiveness, transparency, and political neutrality. They succeed when all participants believe they are engaging as equal partners in shaping their country’s future, not merely endorsing decisions already made by those in power. Without these essential conditions, a dialogue risks becoming a political exercise in image management rather than a genuine mechanism for conflict resolution.

There is little disagreement that Ethiopia urgently needs an inclusive national conversation. Decades of political polarization, ethnic tensions, governance challenges, and recurring violence require a credible platform where all stakeholders can participate freely. Such a process should include opposition political parties, civil society organizations, religious leaders, traditional elders, women’s and youth representatives, conflict-affected communities, members of the diaspora, and, where feasible, armed actors prepared to pursue peaceful political solutions.

A dialogue that excludes influential political voices and significant sections of society is unlikely to produce lasting peace or national consensus. It may create the appearance of consultation, but appearances alone cannot resolve Ethiopia’s profound political crisis. Durable peace will require an independent and broadly trusted process, transparent procedures, and the meaningful participation of all sectors of Ethiopian society, including those who fundamentally disagree with the government.

The aspiration for a genuine national dialogue remains both necessary and urgent. Whether the current process can fulfill that aspiration depends not on its title or official promotion, but on whether it earns the confidence of the Ethiopian people through independence, inclusiveness, and genuine political openness.