By Eyob Asfaw Gemechu
It has been two years since the commission for national dialogue started its operation publicly. Though the commission was publicizing that it has been engaging on ground work preparation for the actual dialogue; nevertheless, its performance couldn’t escape public criticism. Alas, much of the criticism overshadowed by lack of inclusion and deficit of credibility; nonetheless, this piece will snapshot on some of the outstanding opinion regarding the existing national dialogue. What prospects it holds and pointing the possibility of salvaging the dialogue should counterweight than a reckless rejection of the dialogue per se. To exposit my take on the national dialogue, I want to borrow from what a colleague of mine used a model to explain in his text book of general psychology. As for him, the cyclic model of personality development being compose from integration, disintegration and reintegration to eventually determine the body make up. Undoubtedly, the discourse on the dialogue led metaphysical concepts such as existence of nationalism; possibility of variants of federalism; the reality, causes and effects of historical narratives are subjected for conviction of individual citizenry. In resonance, in pursuant to the mode of personality development, I found the explanation to serve as a framework of explaining the nature of the prospects of the national dialogue; perhaps it will be explained at later stage of this piece after briefly expositing on the discourse on the dialogue.
Notwithstanding its indisputable role for sustainable development, the various reports of Ethiopia underscored as national dialogue is aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 16 (SDG 16). In spite of the historical significance of the current national dialogue in Ethiopia, several political pundits alleges the project entirely ought to be decentered from the government rather to be led or co-led by civil society actors. The key argument is that, by virtue of the nature of national dialogue undertaken elsewhere demands decentering the ownership of the national dialogue beyond the public sector, particularly the executive branch of the government. By and large, the approach of Whole of Society holds the prospect to be activated for the national dialogue which is key for achieving SDG 16 in Ethiopia; nonetheless it is uneasiness to buy the votes of multiple stakeholders and decentering the ownership. In corollary, Tegbrau Yared argued that the National Dialogue commission was an offshoot of the’ Multi-stakeholder Initiative for National Dialogue-Ethiopia (MIND-Ethiopia). Furthermore, he argued that convening national dialogue in a tense political environment would be difficult; rather the ambition should be managed as the dialogue will turn out to institutional agonism. In corollary, I- the author of this piece would like to argue that the proceedings of the dialogue is started in such a moment where the people found in different corners of the country are losing political appetite. No one seems dare to care when someone received the short message alert per every cellphone was popped up but went unnoticed on the reverse. Nonetheless, the city bus in Addis Ababa plastered with sticker banner showcasing in Amharic; ‘Let us save the country (Ethiopia) through dialogue!’
Be that as it may, let us turn to what can be integrated through, disintegrated from and reintegrate to Ethiopia, as we reiterated above, employing dialogue. From the vantage point of ‘integration’, the dialogue will integrate the commitment to the state building with all the flags, icons, memory and historical narratives. From the prism of disintegration, all the wounds contributed for ethnic hatred vitrioled to violence and war ; also erosion of social fabric will be rectified. Added to that the regional dynamics in the horn of Africa as an external stimulus disintegrates the endogenous body politic of Ethiopia. At last, from the viewpoint of ‘reintegration’, the national dialogue may help to broaden the sponsorship base of Ethiopian identit[y](-ies) which presumably some pundits are accusing the chief sponsorship of Ethiopian national/multi-national identity is secluded by very few. Or else, reintegration of an emergent identity aided by new foundation introducing a launching pad for negotiating identity in the middle of diverse society. Perhaps, the model of ‘-integration-disintegration-reintegration’ can be either concurrent or separate ideal resultants of the national dialogue if the normative requirements are fulfilled.
Against the abovementioned background, the citizens’ preparedness went in the different direction of the proceedings of the national dialogue. In one of the days the agenda setting forum was taking place in Addis Ababa, however, I heard the news of Sheger FM on which opinions of teachers and traders are transmitted. To our surprise, the teacher shared his opinion that: ‘the national dialogue has to do something to tame how the teacher is struggling with the tide of the cost of living’. On the other hand, the trader was sharing his opinion that: ‘ this dialogue shouldn’t be missed as the private sector is struggling with the ever rising tax issues’. Hilariously, nether the teachers’ expectation nor the traders assumption are correct to meet what a national dialogue can be bring for the Ethiopian body politic at large. Undoubtedly, their erroneous understanding shows how citizens are the grass root level are diverged from the sign post of the national dialogue in which it is primarily assumed to save the country first before one’s welfare and professional security.
In sum, our coverage over the national dialogue shows that yet it is on the eve of convening in the middle of political apathy and the lamentation on non-inclusion and deficit of credibility. Be that as it may, if the ownership of facilitating the dialogue decentered to the wider public it will have the possibility either to integrate, disintegrate and reintegrate the Ethiopian identit[-y](-ies) for better than worse.
Eyob Asfaw (eyob.asfaw@aau.edu.et ) is staff of Addis Ababa University and currently a PhD student of Sustainable Development at CSD, AAU. His interest includes governance, sustainable development, peace and inclusion.
