๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ โ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐, ๐๐๐๐
In the theory and practice of international relations, dialogue diplomacy (DP) is the careful use of structured conversation, active listening, and peaceful negotiation to resolve differences, build trust, and manage competing interests without force.
It is based on the common sense idea that when people or institutions speak honestly, listen closely, and look for common ground, they can reduce tension, clear up misunderstandings, and find shared solutions. Put simply, DP is not just about talking and exchanging ideas; it is about turning communication into cooperation and cooperation into lasting and mutually beneficial results.
What I observed today at the Ethiopian National Dialogue Conference may be described as a distinctly Ethiopian form of dialogue diplomacy. The strategic Groups of 25, selected from the larger Groups of 250, were engaged in the demanding but essential work of transforming earlier discussions, expert presentations, and competing ideas into carefully drafted recommendations.
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ฆ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. ๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ-๐ฌ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฏ๐ข๐ง๐ : ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ, ๐ก๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฆ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ.
In that sense, I witnessed the art of formulating recommendations in an Ethiopian context โ a process that combines deliberation, negotiation, precision, compromise, and exercise of collective imagination. It is a process that goes beyond opinion-sharing. It requires participants to organize complexity, reconcile differences, and produce recommendatory language that can command widespread legitimacy among divergent and competing groups in the broader society.
Collective recommendation formulation, or multi-stakeholder recommendation-making, is a specialized deliberative process involving preference elicitation, issue aggregation, and consensus optimization. Put simply, it is the art of converting opposing and contrasting individual viewpoints into a unified collective output.
In the Ethiopian National Dialogue context, delegates from diverse parts of the country came with their distinct experiences, expectations, political convictions, communal priorities, narrative of grievances and policy preferences. The task for the delegates is not to erase those differences, but to organize them into a shared framework that can provide a foundation for mutual understanding and ultimately command broad public confidence in the dialogue process.
๐๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฌ๐ค๐ฌ. ๐
๐ข๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ฌ. ๐๐๐๐จ๐ง๐, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐ ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐. ๐๐ก๐ข๐ซ๐, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ. ๐
๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ๐ก, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐ ๐๐จ๐ก๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค.
This is not an easy task. Recommendation-making in a national dialogue is not a mechanical exercise in editing. It is a deeply political, interpretive, and contentious and taxing exercise. Delegates must weigh not only what they prefer, but what is acceptable, implementable, balanced, and legitimate in the eyes of the wider Ethiopian public.
At the earlier stages of deliberation at the Conference, many recommendations emerged across the agenda groups. In one group, the chair noted that more than 132 recommendations had been presented. Such a large number is unsurprising. Delegates come with their own ideas, expectations, and priorities, and naturally seek to see them reflected in the final text. Every recommendation begins as an expression of perspective, and every perspective reflects a particular lived reality and expectations.
Yet the purpose of the dialogue is not to preserve every individual formulation intact. The purpose is to produce recommendations that are inclusive, coherent, and usable. As the delegates proceeded in their deliberations, they are reminded that they are not only representing themselves; they are carrying the responsibility of the larger Group of 250 and the hopes and dreams of 130 million of their compatriots. Their obligation is to return recommendations that reflect the breadth of views in the room while also integrating and moderating divergent positions for a common national purpose.
๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐๐ง๐ข๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐. ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐๐ฒ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ฆ๐ ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐. ๐๐ก๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐, ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐, ๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ. ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซโ๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐, ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ฐ๐๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐จ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ. ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐, ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ. ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ง ๐๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง.
It is at this stage that the fascinating craftsmanship of the delegates becomes most apparent. They move into the fine-grained work of drafting and interpretation. They examine the general import of each recommendation, debate the meaning of key words and phrases, and compare proposed language with existing legal, political, and social practices. They probe the intent of the recommendation from constitutional, legal, and policy perspectives. They also consider implementation, feasibility, unintended consequences, and future needs.
This is an important feature of serious dialogue. Good recommendations are not merely agreeable in principle; they must also be precise in language and realistic in application. A recommendation that sounds attractive but cannot be implemented is of limited value. Likewise, a recommendation that is too vague may generate confusion, conflict, or inconsistent interpretation. The delegates therefore perform a crucial preparatory service by testing language and formulations before they present their collective recommendations to the plenary group of 500 delegates.
In this sense, the process resembles legislative drafting, constitutional interpretation, and policy design all at once. It requires analytical rigor, patience, and intellectual acuity, agility and humility. Delegates must be willing to revise their language, refine their assumptions, and accept that the strongest recommendation is often not the one that is most forcefully expressed, but the one that is most carefully reasoned.
As discussions in the Groups of 25 continued, the number of options for consideration were often reduced to two or three possible formulations. These may reflect genuine differences in principle, or they may reflect the need for greater clarity and specificity. At this point, the goal is not simply to choose a winner. The goal is to discover whether the competing formulations can be reconciled into a more balanced and inclusive recommendation.
๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ๐ค ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ: ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ข๐ซ? ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ ๐ฎ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ? ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฏ๐? ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ง๐ฒ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐? ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐ง๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฌ, ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ ๐ ๐ฌ๐ก๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐? ๐๐๐ง ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ? ๐๐๐ง ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ ๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ข๐จ๐ง?
These are not merely stylistic questions. They go to the heart of the legitimacy of the Dialogue Conference. Recommendations that are perceived as punitive, exclusionary, or one-sided will struggle to gain acceptance. By contrast, recommendations framed in constructive and forward-looking language are more likely to be embraced, defended, and implemented. This is why the members of the Groups of 25 work so hard, so long and carefully to move from broad ideas to practical formulations. They are not only shaping text; they are shaping public confidence and trust.
A particularly effective tool the Group of 25 used in this process is the application of SWOT analysis โ examining the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with each recommendation. This framework helps structure discussion, organize thinking, and accelerate decision-making. It allows delegates to move beyond abstract preference and ask a practical question: what will this recommendation actually achieve, what risks does it pose, and what opportunities does it create?
One of the most striking features of the recommendation-crafting process in the group of 25 is the seriousness with which the delegates participate. Some take detailed notes, while others listen with intense concentration. What is remarkable is the level of sustained attention across the room. Every delegate appears intellectually present, engaged, and alert to the significance of the task before them.
I observed closely to gauge the level of focus in the various meeting rooms, both in the larger meetings and with the Group of 25, whether delegates appeared tired, distracted, bored, or disengaged. Yet, to the last delegate, the overwhelming impression was one of attention and intellectual discipline and curiosity. That kind of sustained engagement is itself a sign of the quality of the dialogue and recommendation formulation process. It suggests that participants understand the gravity of the responsibility they carry and the importance of producing recommendations that are not merely politically acceptable, but nationally meaningful, legitimate and acceptable by the majority of the Ethiopian people.
The demeanor of the members of the Group of 25 was exemplary. Their discussions were serious but not rigid, respectful but not passive, and analytical but not detached. Humor and proverbial sayings were woven into the conversation, helping to soften difficult moments without undermining the seriousness of the task. That balance โ between rigor and humanity โ is one of the hallmarks of effective dialogue.
I was also called upon to provide expert analysis and opinion on a range of constitutional, legal, and policy issues. Many of the questions were highly technical and required careful attention to canons of constitutional interpretation, principles of statutory construction, legislative drafting techniques, and the practical ramifications of alternative drafting choices.
This part of the process is especially important because national dialogue does not end at the level of aspiration. Aspirations must eventually be translated into texts, institutions, and implementation pathways. That translation requires technical competence. A recommendation that touches on constitutional design, legal reform, or institutional restructuring must be drafted with care, because language in such contexts has consequences. Words determine authority, responsibility, inclusion, exclusion, rights, obligations, and enforceability.
Expert input therefore serves a constructive and enabling function. It does not replace the wisdom of the delegates. Rather, it helps them turn wisdom into workable language. It clarifies what is possible, identifies drafting risks, and ensures that recommendations are both principled and practical. In a dialogue process of this kind, expert analysis is not an outside imposition; it is a support structure for collective judgment.
What is taking place at the Ethiopian National Dialogue Conference is more than a procedural exercise. It is a model of how a deeply divided society can begin to reason its way toward common purpose. The process demonstrates that national reconciliation is not achieved by slogans, but by careful listening, structured debate, and disciplined drafting. It shows that even in a context of historical grievance and political complexity, people can sit together, exchange views, test language, and search for common ground.
This matters because Ethiopiaโs future depends not only on the content of recommendations, but on the method used to generate them. A recommendation born of inclusive deliberation is more likely to command legitimacy than one imposed from above. A recommendation refined through reasoned argument is more likely to endure than one shaped by impulse. And a recommendation built through mutual respect is more likely to heal divisions than one that deepens them.
The process also offers an important practical lesson: peace is not only negotiated at the level of grand declarations. It is also built in the small but decisive acts of drafting, listening, revising, and agreeing on language. In that sense, the Groups of 25 are doing nation-building work. They are helping to construct not only recommendations, but the habits of political cooperation and tradition of dialogue that a durable social contract requires.
What I observed at the Dialogue Conference gives me reasons for optimism. The Conference is not merely producing documents; it is cultivating a culture of responsibility. Delegates are learning how to disagree without being disagreeable, come to an agreement for mutual benefit, how to refine proposals without abandoning principle, and how to think in terms of national rather than narrow ethnic, sectoral or communal advantage. To me, that is a profound political achievement.
If sustained, this approach can help Ethiopia develop a more mature model of constitutional and political reform โ one grounded in dialogue rather than imposition, in persuasion rather than coercion, and in shared ownership rather than unilateral decision-making. The significance of the process lies not only in the recommendations it produces, but in the civic discipline it encourages.
๐๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐, ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฆ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ง ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐ญ. ๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ๐จ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ฐ๐๐ฅ. ๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ง ๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ฑ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง.
๐๐ก๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง-๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ ๐จ๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ก ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐จ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฅ. ๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ, ๐จ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐. ๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ซ ๐๐ฑ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฆ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค โ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ, ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐, ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐.
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐, ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐๐๐ง๐๐. ๐๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐, ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐๐๐ค ๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ฌ, ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐จ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฅ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐.
๐๐ฒ ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐ญ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐.
๐๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐!
โค๏ธETHIOPIA
Originally appeared on X (Twitter)
https://x.com/AlMariam1/status/2084837431438647742
๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ โ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐, ๐๐๐๐
In the theory and practice of international relations, dialogue diplomacy (DP) is the careful use of structured conversation, active listening, and peaceful negotiation to resolve differences, build trust, and manage competing interests without force.
It is based on the common sense idea that when people or institutions speak honestly, listen closely, and look for common ground, they can reduce tension, clear up misunderstandings, and find shared solutions. Put simply, DP is not just about talking and exchanging ideas; it is about turning communication into cooperation and cooperation into lasting and mutually beneficial results.
What I observed today at the Ethiopian National Dialogue Conference may be described as a distinctly Ethiopian form of dialogue diplomacy. The strategic Groups of 25, selected from the larger Groups of 250, were engaged in the demanding but essential work of transforming earlier discussions, expert presentations, and competing ideas into carefully drafted recommendations.
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ฆ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง. ๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ-๐ฌ๐จ๐ฅ๐ฏ๐ข๐ง๐ : ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ, ๐ก๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฆ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ.
In that sense, I witnessed the art of formulating recommendations in an Ethiopian context โ a process that combines deliberation, negotiation, precision, compromise, and exercise of collective imagination. It is a process that goes beyond opinion-sharing. It requires participants to organize complexity, reconcile differences, and produce recommendatory language that can command widespread legitimacy among divergent and competing groups in the broader society.
Collective recommendation formulation, or multi-stakeholder recommendation-making, is a specialized deliberative process involving preference elicitation, issue aggregation, and consensus optimization. Put simply, it is the art of converting opposing and contrasting individual viewpoints into a unified collective output.
In the Ethiopian National Dialogue context, delegates from diverse parts of the country came with their distinct experiences, expectations, political convictions, communal priorities, narrative of grievances and policy preferences. The task for the delegates is not to erase those differences, but to organize them into a shared framework that can provide a foundation for mutual understanding and ultimately command broad public confidence in the dialogue process.
๐๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฌ๐ค๐ฌ. ๐ ๐ข๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ก๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ฌ. ๐๐๐๐จ๐ง๐, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐ ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐. ๐๐ก๐ข๐ซ๐, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ. ๐ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ๐ก, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐ ๐๐จ๐ก๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค.
This is not an easy task. Recommendation-making in a national dialogue is not a mechanical exercise in editing. It is a deeply political, interpretive, and contentious and taxing exercise. Delegates must weigh not only what they prefer, but what is acceptable, implementable, balanced, and legitimate in the eyes of the wider Ethiopian public.
At the earlier stages of deliberation at the Conference, many recommendations emerged across the agenda groups. In one group, the chair noted that more than 132 recommendations had been presented. Such a large number is unsurprising. Delegates come with their own ideas, expectations, and priorities, and naturally seek to see them reflected in the final text. Every recommendation begins as an expression of perspective, and every perspective reflects a particular lived reality and expectations.
Yet the purpose of the dialogue is not to preserve every individual formulation intact. The purpose is to produce recommendations that are inclusive, coherent, and usable. As the delegates proceeded in their deliberations, they are reminded that they are not only representing themselves; they are carrying the responsibility of the larger Group of 250 and the hopes and dreams of 130 million of their compatriots. Their obligation is to return recommendations that reflect the breadth of views in the room while also integrating and moderating divergent positions for a common national purpose.
๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ ๐๐ง๐ข๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ฅ๐. ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐๐ฒ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ฆ๐ ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐. ๐๐ก๐จ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐, ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐, ๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐ข๐ฌ๐๐, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐จ๐ฉ๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ. ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐จ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซโ๐ฌ ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐, ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ฐ๐๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐จ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ. ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐, ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ. ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ง ๐๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง.
It is at this stage that the fascinating craftsmanship of the delegates becomes most apparent. They move into the fine-grained work of drafting and interpretation. They examine the general import of each recommendation, debate the meaning of key words and phrases, and compare proposed language with existing legal, political, and social practices. They probe the intent of the recommendation from constitutional, legal, and policy perspectives. They also consider implementation, feasibility, unintended consequences, and future needs.
This is an important feature of serious dialogue. Good recommendations are not merely agreeable in principle; they must also be precise in language and realistic in application. A recommendation that sounds attractive but cannot be implemented is of limited value. Likewise, a recommendation that is too vague may generate confusion, conflict, or inconsistent interpretation. The delegates therefore perform a crucial preparatory service by testing language and formulations before they present their collective recommendations to the plenary group of 500 delegates.
In this sense, the process resembles legislative drafting, constitutional interpretation, and policy design all at once. It requires analytical rigor, patience, and intellectual acuity, agility and humility. Delegates must be willing to revise their language, refine their assumptions, and accept that the strongest recommendation is often not the one that is most forcefully expressed, but the one that is most carefully reasoned.
As discussions in the Groups of 25 continued, the number of options for consideration were often reduced to two or three possible formulations. These may reflect genuine differences in principle, or they may reflect the need for greater clarity and specificity. At this point, the goal is not simply to choose a winner. The goal is to discover whether the competing formulations can be reconciled into a more balanced and inclusive recommendation.
๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ๐ค ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ช๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ: ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ข๐ซ? ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ ๐ฎ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ? ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฏ๐? ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฅ๐๐๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ง๐ฒ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ก๐ข๐ง๐? ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ง๐ง๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฌ, ๐จ๐ซ ๐๐จ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ ๐ ๐ฌ๐ก๐๐ซ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ก ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐? ๐๐๐ง ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฒ? ๐๐๐ง ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ ๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ๐จ๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ก๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ข๐จ๐ง?
These are not merely stylistic questions. They go to the heart of the legitimacy of the Dialogue Conference. Recommendations that are perceived as punitive, exclusionary, or one-sided will struggle to gain acceptance. By contrast, recommendations framed in constructive and forward-looking language are more likely to be embraced, defended, and implemented. This is why the members of the Groups of 25 work so hard, so long and carefully to move from broad ideas to practical formulations. They are not only shaping text; they are shaping public confidence and trust.
A particularly effective tool the Group of 25 used in this process is the application of SWOT analysis โ examining the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with each recommendation. This framework helps structure discussion, organize thinking, and accelerate decision-making. It allows delegates to move beyond abstract preference and ask a practical question: what will this recommendation actually achieve, what risks does it pose, and what opportunities does it create?
One of the most striking features of the recommendation-crafting process in the group of 25 is the seriousness with which the delegates participate. Some take detailed notes, while others listen with intense concentration. What is remarkable is the level of sustained attention across the room. Every delegate appears intellectually present, engaged, and alert to the significance of the task before them.
I observed closely to gauge the level of focus in the various meeting rooms, both in the larger meetings and with the Group of 25, whether delegates appeared tired, distracted, bored, or disengaged. Yet, to the last delegate, the overwhelming impression was one of attention and intellectual discipline and curiosity. That kind of sustained engagement is itself a sign of the quality of the dialogue and recommendation formulation process. It suggests that participants understand the gravity of the responsibility they carry and the importance of producing recommendations that are not merely politically acceptable, but nationally meaningful, legitimate and acceptable by the majority of the Ethiopian people.
The demeanor of the members of the Group of 25 was exemplary. Their discussions were serious but not rigid, respectful but not passive, and analytical but not detached. Humor and proverbial sayings were woven into the conversation, helping to soften difficult moments without undermining the seriousness of the task. That balance โ between rigor and humanity โ is one of the hallmarks of effective dialogue.
I was also called upon to provide expert analysis and opinion on a range of constitutional, legal, and policy issues. Many of the questions were highly technical and required careful attention to canons of constitutional interpretation, principles of statutory construction, legislative drafting techniques, and the practical ramifications of alternative drafting choices.
This part of the process is especially important because national dialogue does not end at the level of aspiration. Aspirations must eventually be translated into texts, institutions, and implementation pathways. That translation requires technical competence. A recommendation that touches on constitutional design, legal reform, or institutional restructuring must be drafted with care, because language in such contexts has consequences. Words determine authority, responsibility, inclusion, exclusion, rights, obligations, and enforceability.
Expert input therefore serves a constructive and enabling function. It does not replace the wisdom of the delegates. Rather, it helps them turn wisdom into workable language. It clarifies what is possible, identifies drafting risks, and ensures that recommendations are both principled and practical. In a dialogue process of this kind, expert analysis is not an outside imposition; it is a support structure for collective judgment.
What is taking place at the Ethiopian National Dialogue Conference is more than a procedural exercise. It is a model of how a deeply divided society can begin to reason its way toward common purpose. The process demonstrates that national reconciliation is not achieved by slogans, but by careful listening, structured debate, and disciplined drafting. It shows that even in a context of historical grievance and political complexity, people can sit together, exchange views, test language, and search for common ground.
This matters because Ethiopiaโs future depends not only on the content of recommendations, but on the method used to generate them. A recommendation born of inclusive deliberation is more likely to command legitimacy than one imposed from above. A recommendation refined through reasoned argument is more likely to endure than one shaped by impulse. And a recommendation built through mutual respect is more likely to heal divisions than one that deepens them.
The process also offers an important practical lesson: peace is not only negotiated at the level of grand declarations. It is also built in the small but decisive acts of drafting, listening, revising, and agreeing on language. In that sense, the Groups of 25 are doing nation-building work. They are helping to construct not only recommendations, but the habits of political cooperation and tradition of dialogue that a durable social contract requires.
What I observed at the Dialogue Conference gives me reasons for optimism. The Conference is not merely producing documents; it is cultivating a culture of responsibility. Delegates are learning how to disagree without being disagreeable, come to an agreement for mutual benefit, how to refine proposals without abandoning principle, and how to think in terms of national rather than narrow ethnic, sectoral or communal advantage. To me, that is a profound political achievement.
If sustained, this approach can help Ethiopia develop a more mature model of constitutional and political reform โ one grounded in dialogue rather than imposition, in persuasion rather than coercion, and in shared ownership rather than unilateral decision-making. The significance of the process lies not only in the recommendations it produces, but in the civic discipline it encourages.
๐๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐, ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฆ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ง ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ฉ๐ญ. ๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ๐จ ๐๐ ๐ ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ฐ๐๐ฅ. ๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ง ๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ฑ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง.
๐๐ก๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง-๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ ๐จ๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ๐๐๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ก ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐จ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฅ. ๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐๐๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ, ๐จ๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ง๐๐ฌ๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ ๐. ๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ซ ๐๐ฑ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฆ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค โ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ, ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐ฅ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐, ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐๐ข๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐.
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐, ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ก๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ข๐๐๐ง๐๐. ๐๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐, ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฌ๐๐๐ค ๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฎ๐๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ฌ, ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ก๐จ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฅ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐.
๐๐ฒ ๐ก๐ข๐ ๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐ญ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐.
๐๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐!
โค๏ธETHIOPIA
Originally appeared on X (Twitter)
https://x.com/AlMariam1/status/2084837431438647742
Share this: