Civil society voices, religious leaders, and federal mediators come together in a rare moment of unity, seeking to heal the wounds of war and reimagine the political future.
Politics - In the shifting political landscape of post-conflict Ethiopia, a critical convergence is underway, between federal initiatives, regional engagement, and civil society-driven reconciliation. The recent engagement of religious leaders, public diplomacy groups, and civic platforms signals a renewed emphasis on collective healing and national renewal. This process, still fragile and laden with historical complexity, holds the potential to move Ethiopia beyond recurring cycles of conflict and into a phase of authentic peacebuilding.
Central to this momentum is the continued effort to reconcile the Tigray region’s political trajectory with Ethiopia’s broader vision of national unity. Over the past years, the region has endured political fragmentation, armed confrontation, and widespread humanitarian crisis. Today, a cautious but determined narrative is emerging: one that seeks not to rewrite history, but to acknowledge it as a foundation for transformation.
At the heart of the federal government’s recent engagements is the prioritisation of mediation and constitutional dialogue. The notion that federal institutions must remain neutral facilitators, rather than coercive actors, is gaining traction. By centring political inclusivity and transitional justice mechanisms, the state demonstrates an understanding that sustainable peace requires more than ceasefires, it requires systemic reform.
In this context, religious leaders such as Bishmagle Adin Abotat are playing a pivotal role. Through the invocation of deeply held spiritual and moral traditions, they are advocating for a peace grounded not merely in political agreements, but in the hearts and minds of communities. Messages such as “Let peace give birth to peace” and “from the mountains we call for reconciliation” reflect the growing moral pressure to end cycles of rebellion and retaliation. These spiritual appeals are being echoed by Tigrayan civil society groups, who now see a return to stability as not only desirable but necessary for survival.
One of the clearest indicators of this shift is the engagement of the Amin Nqetsali platform, a coalition representing the voices of Tigrayan civil society, diaspora groups, and peace practitioners. Their participation in the national dialogue forum, alongside representatives from public diplomacy, traditional elders, and regional administrative officials, underscores a new recognition: that the peace process cannot be top-down alone. Community ownership, accountability, and open civic space are required for legitimacy and impact.
During recent public diplomacy sessions held in Addis Ababa, recurring themes emerged. Among them was a firm stance on the symbolic power of national emblems, particularly the flag, as well as the vital importance of shared political identity. Several participants raised concerns that confusion over national symbols could fracture the fragile peace, while others emphasised that such disagreements must be addressed transparently, within legal and constitutional frameworks. Avoiding symbolic erasure while promoting inclusive narratives of belonging is essential for long-term unity.
Religious leaders present at the gathering urged both the federal government and Tigrayan elites to honour the Pretoria Peace Agreement as a living document, not just a settlement of arms, but a framework for renewal. “We must return to the spirit of Pretoria,” one elder remarked, “not merely to meet its minimum terms, but to exceed them, morally and politically.” In that spirit, correcting the shortcomings of implementation, whether they pertain to humanitarian access, transitional justice, or the return of internally displaced persons, was strongly emphasised.
Yet, political reconciliation must also translate into economic and social restoration. The long-term vision being discussed is not limited to security guarantees but extends to political pluralism, decentralised governance, and socioeconomic revitalisation. Many believe that the path forward involves enabling Tigray’s re-entry into national political life with dignity and autonomy, while also strengthening the federal fabric that binds Ethiopia together.
This perspective demands not silence, but responsible speech; not coercion, but collaboration. As such, leaders and citizens alike are calling for a political culture grounded in dignity, dialogue, and democratic participation. The notion that “if the federal government does not act as a people’s government, peace will be elusive” was repeated by multiple speakers. They insisted that legitimacy must come not just from state power but from moral leadership and popular consent.
Ultimately, what is being pursued in Ethiopia today is not merely the avoidance of future conflict, but the rebirth of a political community, one that acknowledges historical wounds while building institutions capable of preventing their recurrence. Tigray’s place in this future cannot be peripheral; it must be central. And so, too, must be the role of civil society, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens.
The path to sustainable peace, then, lies not in the consolidation of power but in the decentralisation of hope. From the hills of Tigray to the federal halls of Addis Ababa, a new Ethiopia must be imagined, one built not on the ruins of war, but on the possibilities of reconciliation, mutual respect, and shared destiny.