By Mesay Solomon
In a politically charged yet cautiously hopeful atmosphere, representatives of civil society organisations from the war-torn Tigray Regional State held a pivotal meeting with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD) this week in Addis Ababa. The encounter, described by officials as a “constructive dialogue,” marks a significant, albeit overdue, moment in the post-conflict reconciliation process, nearly two years after the cessation of hostilities agreement was signed in Pretoria.
The meeting was convened against the backdrop of a fragile peace and a lingering sense of unease in the region, where hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons (IDPs) remain in limbo, and the humanitarian situation is still far from resolved. With the spectre of political marginalisation looming, civil society leaders from Tigray took the opportunity to press the federal government for tangible commitments towards an inclusive recovery, national dialogue, and the full implementation of the ceasefire accord.
According to a brief communique from the Prime Minister’s Office, discussions primarily centred on the plight of IDPs, the slow progress of reconstruction efforts, and the broader question of Tigray’s political and economic reintegration into the federal system. Civil society representatives expressed deep concern about the disjointed pace of peacebuilding and called for the creation of formalised platforms where the voices of Tigrayans, particularly civilians and grassroots actors, can be heard and considered in shaping the nation’s future.
“The people of Tigray must not be spoken for,” one representative reportedly said. “We must be allowed to speak for ourselves, in Parliament, in peace forums, and in national consultations.”
Calls were also made for a comprehensive national dialogue, one that does not reduce the Tigray crisis to a singular event but acknowledges the systemic failures and grievances that led to the war, including long-standing issues of federalism, representation, and the balance of power between the centre and the regions.
Despite the Pretoria Agreement’s historic promise to silence the guns, the path to lasting peace remains fraught with complexity. Key elements of the deal, including disarmament, reintegration of ex-combatants, and the return of IDPs, have either stalled or seen uneven implementation. While large-scale combat operations have ceased, the sense of normalcy remains elusive for many Tigrayans, who continue to face insecurity, economic hardship, and institutional exclusion.
Civil society actors, widely credited with supporting humanitarian coordination in the region, have grown increasingly vocal about what they describe as a “peace without justice”, a settlement that restores quiet but not dignity.
“There is a danger in treating peace as a procedural matter,” warned one analyst familiar with the Tigray reconciliation process. “Without restorative justice, inclusive dialogue, and political enfranchisement, resentment will simmer beneath the surface.”
Indeed, questions linger over the full integration of the interim Tigray administration into federal processes, the lack of clarity around accountability for wartime atrocities, and the fate of border areas still under contestation.
In his remarks during the meeting, Prime Minister Abiy reiterated his government’s commitment to a peaceful and cooperative transition in Tigray, promising closer engagement with both the interim administration and civil society institutions.
“Recovery is not only a matter of physical reconstruction,” Abiy was quoted as saying. “It is also about rebuilding trust, between people, between institutions, and between regions and the federal government.”
He assured the delegates that his administration would prioritise issues of return, rehabilitation, and reconciliation. More importantly, he underscored the role of consultation and mediation as the cornerstone of conflict resolution, a notable shift from the top-down approaches that have characterised the post-war settlement thus far.
However, critics argue that words alone are no longer sufficient. Civil society leaders have urged the government to demonstrate commitment through concrete actions: the release of abducted civilians, the demilitarisation of disputed zones, the transparent flow of humanitarian aid, and the establishment of independent transitional justice mechanisms.
The Tigray conflict, one of Africa’s most brutal civil wars in recent history, has irreversibly altered the political landscape. As the country teeters between recovery and relapse, many observers believe that a broader political reckoning is necessary, one that reimagines the federal compact and addresses the deep fractures exposed by the war.
For civil society organisations in Tigray, this reckoning must include the active participation of affected communities in national decision-making, not merely as stakeholders but as architects of the country’s future.
The recent meeting with Prime Minister Abiy is a symbolic first step, but it remains to be seen whether it will be followed by institutionalised mechanisms of inclusion. What Tigray’s civil society is demanding — and what the broader Ethiopian polity may require, is not simply reconciliation, but reconstitution: a new political imagination grounded in equity, representation, and trust.
The road to genuine post-conflict recovery is long and uncertain. Yet the meeting has opened a sliver of possibility, the kind that can only be sustained through dialogue, transparency, and a deliberate effort to heal the scars of war. In a nation as diverse and decentralised as Ethiopia, sustainable peace will require more than negotiated silence. It will demand democratic voice.
Whether the government can meet this demand remains one of the defining political questions of the coming years. For now, the Tigrayan civil society representatives have made their case: peace must be heard, not just declared. And the rest of Ethiopia, and the world, will be watching.