Ethiopia’s National Dialogue needs time and an interim report
An interim report may help the National Dialogue regain credibility, seize early wins and justify its need for additional time.
Many agree that Ethiopia’s ongoing National Dialogue is a much-needed initiative, if not long overdue. Launched in 2022 to tackle core national questions, the process has, however, stalled. Insecurity, conflict and distrust have hampered participation, leading major armed and opposition parties to withdraw.
On 18 February 2025, Parliament extended the National Dialogue Commission’s (NDC) mandate to January 2026. With roughly four months left, the Commission must either conclude its work or seek another extension.
Yet, recent developments signal a process that is still gathering inputs rather than winding down. In an effort to collect agendas from the Tigray region, the NDC held outreach meetings with stakeholders in Mekelle on 1 August 2025. The Commission is also inviting contributions from the Ethiopian diaspora, mostly online, with in-person sessions in locations such as Pretoria, Washington, DC, Toronto, London and Stockholm.
The Commission remains in the agenda-collection phase, including participant selection for the grand dialogue. Few expect a credible end-to-end process within the remaining time, especially as a national plenary (a meeting of representatives) could take several months. Additional time may be needed to organise side dialogues. Internal sources suggest these dialogues could address issues that require deliberation between specific regions or stakeholder groups.
Trying to conclude the dialogue within the remaining months would rush the process and risk half-baked outcomes that may falter during implementation. At the same time, the NDC must show that, after nearly three years without moving beyond the agenda-collection stage, the process still reflects the constituency’s hopes and expectations. An interim report – due soon – offers the most credible way to do this.
|
Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission sequence of activities
Source: Author
|
The case for an interim report is not just procedural; it is common sense. National dialogues spanning months, with regional, national or specialised meetings, often produce different types of interim deliverables, as seen in Yemen, South Sudan, Nigeria, Kenya and Tunisia. Comparative experiences may provide only limited guidance since mandates, goals and contexts differ across processes. Nonetheless, the Ethiopian context makes the need for an interim report especially acute.
First, a central concern relates to the inclusivity and representativeness of the National Dialogue, prompting some commentators to call for a pause until conflicts are settled and opposition parties can rejoin. Yet, the National Dialogue seems determined to proceed despite a credibility deficit.
In dialogue processes, however, credibility is judged not only by the eventual outcome but also by meaningful interim actions. An evidence-based interim report would show responsiveness to criticism and shift the narrative from a protracted, unrepresentative exercise to a process capable of delivering tangible results.
Interim reports can also serve as tools for transparency and confidence building, which is why, in terms of timing, the NDC should not delay them until agenda collections conclude. Issuing an interim report soon – based on analysis of the 1600+ agenda items collected – would strengthen the remaining agenda collection and prevent scepticism from deepening.
Second, there is a pragmatic reason to proceed with an interim report. On some portfolios, the evidentiary and normative foundations are already mature. Transitional justice is the clearest example.
Trying to conclude Ethiopia’s dialogue within the remaining months would rush the process and risk half-baked outcomes
After the Pretoria agreement, which called for a nationally owned but internationally compatible justice process, the Ministry of Justice convened a Transitional Justice Working Group of Experts. In 2023, it held about 80 public consultations nationwide, reinforced by independent national perception surveys on peace and justice.
Those inputs were distilled into a policy adopted by the Council of Ministers in April 2024, followed by an implementation roadmap prepared by the Ministry. This is not a blank slate: the system has consulted, drafted and committed, with a draft of implementing legislation revised and ready for public consultations. An interim report from the dialogue could therefore highlight a short list of ‘do now’ measures that reinforce, rather than replace, the state’s existing policy commitments.
The constitutional baseline removes further ambiguity. Article 28 bars limitation periods and amnesties for gross human rights violations. Whatever political accommodations a dialogue may explore, these prohibitions are non-derogable. An interim report that restates this baseline and distinguishes between what can be pragmatically sequenced and what cannot be bargained away would provide clarity to victims and policymakers alike.
Yet, publishing an interim report will draw criticism. Some will argue that interim outputs risk pre-empting final consensus or hardening positions. That risk is real only if the report blurs the line between mature and contested issues.
An interim report would show responsiveness to criticism and shift the narrative from a protracted, unrepresentative exercise
The interim report could synthesise ‘what is already clear enough to act on’ while signalling ‘what remains under debate’. And should be anchored in the existing legal order and adopted policies. This will not prejudge the dialogue’s endgame. On the contrary, it buys legitimacy for the long work ahead by demonstrating good faith now.
Others will argue, particularly in relation to transitional justice, that issuing recommendations duplicates the Ministry of Justice’s remit and is superfluous since the process – were it not allegedly paused to accommodate the National Dialogue – was already operational.
Be that as it may, the dialogue’s comparative advantage is to connect prior transitional justice consultations and adopted policies to the broader political process – clarifying sequencing, identifying low-regret steps and conferring inclusive legitimacy on early actions.
A clear public bridge between dialogue and justice would reset expectations and, crucially, embed transitional justice in a whole-of-government approach rather than confining it to the Ministry’s programme.
Additionally, rumours that transitional justice has been suspended until the dialogue concludes could already be undermining both processes. In that regard, a timely interim report could help protect and restore momentum to each initiative and provide ways of linking the two processes.
Rumours that transitional justice has been suspended until the dialogue concludes could undermine both processes
Nonetheless, the interim report must not be a self-serving tool designed only to buy time; it should aim to maximise buy-in and the impact of the recommendations it contains. To achieve this, the NDC should do two things.
Firstly, its interim report should be transparent and actionable. That means publishing the report’s sources, which may include explicitly referencing the Working Group’s consultation record (as far as transitional justice is concerned) and the Commission’s own agenda-collection exercises.
It also means explaining the consensus behind the choices and why particular recommendations are flagged for immediate action by the executive or Parliament.
Secondly, publishing a report should not be a mere nominal exercise, and the NDC should commit to a clear communications cadence. After the report, regular public updates are essential to specify which recommendations have progressed, which remain pending and why. Regular, predictable communication maintains engagement and reduces cynicism.
Overall, considering the context and its unfinished business, the choice before the NDC is stark and urgent: issue an interim report, revive the dialogue’s credibility and secure early wins by setting out what Ethiopia is ready to do now.
Future bargains will still demand patience and courage, but the country can show that a national conversation can move the needle before the last page is written.
Exclusive rights to re-publish ISS Today articles have been given to Daily Maverick in South Africa and Premium Times in Nigeria. For media based outside South Africa and Nigeria that want to re-publish articles, or for queries about our re-publishing policy, email us.
