๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ โ ๐๐๐๐ง๐๐ฌ๐๐๐ฒ, ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐, ๐๐๐๐
Today marked a historic milestone at the Ethiopian National Dialogue Conference. The Strategic Group of 25, elected by the larger assembly of 250 delegates, completed its critical mission: refining, harmonizing, and synthesizing the divergent views, competing demands, and conflicting preferences that emerged from weeks of intensive deliberations.
After multiple rounds of feedbackโsome agenda groups presenting drafts three or even four timesโthe consensus document was signed by most delegates today, with a few postponing until tomorrow. This document captures both the issues on which consensus was reached and those that remain outstanding for various reasons.
What I observed unfolding was not merely procedural aggregation of divergent ideasโit was substantive and transformative. The Strategic Group undertook a grueling, time-consuming task with remarkable discipline, intellectual acuity, transparency, and a profound sense of generational responsibility. For all the hard and creative work involved, it was truly a labor of love, performed with unwavering fidelity to the mission entrusted to them by the larger body.
The Practical Wisdom of Delegation and Responsibility
The dynamics I witnessed between the Strategic Group and the larger body of 250 delegates offered a compelling demonstration of how delegation and responsibility can work together in practiceโespecially in a setting as complex and high-stakes national dialogue on longstanding issues in the Ethiopian context.
Large groups are notoriously difficult to manage when it comes to synthesis. Competing voices, groupthink, herd mentality and diminishing returns on deliberation time make it nearly impossible for a plenary of 250 to draft a coherent paragraph together, let alone a comprehensive consensus document.
It is practical and more efficient for a delegated subgroup to make the hard editorial calls: which ideas to merge, which to drop, which words and phrases to include or exclude. Delegation of power is what enables this efficiency, granting the subgroup the “license” to make choices and interim decisions for presentation to the larger group, instead of just summarizing.
Yet delegation carries risks. The classic principal-agent problem looms: agents may drift from principals’ intentionsโdeliberately, through their own preferences leaking into the supposedly “neutral” act of synthesis, or inadvertently, through the unavoidable interpretive choices that any harmonization requires.
There is also a legitimacy cost: the larger group must trust that a handful of people, chosen often by convenience rather than perfect representativeness or intellectual prowess, will not distort what was said or intended. The more power is delegated, the more the final presentation functions as a decision the plenary must accept or reject as a whole, rather than a set of options it can still shape line by line.
This is where responsibility theory offers a different, more constructive starting point. Rather than asking only who holds decision rights, it asks who is answerable for a task being done wellโand treats that answerability as separable from authority. A subgroup can be made responsible for accurately representing the room’s thinkingโcharged with listening carefully, capturing the range of views, and presenting them clearlyโwithout being given unchecked power to resolve disagreements or make binding choices on the group’s behalf. The Strategic group’s task, under this frame, is fidelity of representation, not final decision making.
This distinction matters profoundly in the Ethiopian Dialogue Conference. If the delegated authority of the group of 250 says, โThe Strategic Group is responsible for bringing back what was said in the room,” the expectation is closer to a minutes reporter. The aim will be comprehensiveness and accuracy of content than informed and balanced editorial judgment. The task becomes the preservation of a record of disagreements rather than harmonizing and smoothing out differences into a single consensus position.
Responsibility, in this sense, is a moral and procedural burdenโthe Strategic Group can be held to account for how well it discharged the dutyโbut it does not, by itself, confer the standing to make the final decision stick. That standing remains with the plenary, which retains the power to accept, revise, or reject what is brought back.
The strength of this framing is that it protects the authority of the 250-delegate group even while distributing the labor of synthesis and harmonization to the Strategic Group. Its weakness is that it can produce an unwieldy reportโa list of everything rather than a coherent positionโprecisely because the Strategic Group has been asked to represent and catalogue views, not harmonize for consensus building.
The Ethiopian Approach: Balancing Power and Accountability
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฌ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐๐ญ ๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฅ๐โ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ฑ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฐ๐ฌ, ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ค๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ข๐๐ซ๐จ-๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง. ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ฌ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ค๐๐ฉ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐’๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ. ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐-๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ.
The deliberative setup required an ongoing, interactive feedback loop between the Strategic Group and the larger body. The Strategic Group was expected to present progress, invite comments, suggestions, critiques, and feedback from the larger group based on broader, open, and transparent dialogue before finalizing actions. This created a system where delegates could not simply assert the power to decide for the larger groupโthey had to demonstrate that their decisions were based on reasons the broader group could understand, evaluate, and eventually accept.
This balance is delicate. If the 250-delegate group delegates too little power, deliberative processes suffer from deadlock and paralysis because every minor decision requires group consensus. If it delegates too much power, the process degenerates into technocracy or elite capture, breaking democratic legitimacy.
On the other hand, when delegates are given massive responsibility to harmonize and synthesize complex public issues but lack sufficient delegated power, the responsibility becomes an impossible burden. Conversely, power without matching responsibility breeds authoritarian decision-making (tyranny of the majority) within the assembly.
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ก๐ข๐๐ฏ๐๐ ๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ: ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซโ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐๐ก ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐งโ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ, ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐๐ก ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง ๐๐ง๐๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐๐ซ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ, ๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ๐จ๐ง-๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐ฉ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ก๐๐๐ค๐๐ ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐.
The Strategic Group of 25 carried out its work of harmonizing the ideas of the 250 delegates with maximum transparency and accountability. During its presentations to the larger group, the lead presenting members defended and explained their report in detail. They walked through how different ideas were analyzed and merged to reflect the views of the majority while preserving the distinct elements of minority views. They explained how they strove for inclusivity and convergence in crafting recommendations, ensuring they expressed the wishes and will of the larger group. They answered diverse and numerous questions in the 250-delegate sessions with patience and clarity.
The Strategic Group’s methodology was both rigorous and principled. They sought not to present a catalog of issues but to pull together different strands into a coherent tapestry of divergent views. They avoided reopening issues decided at the lower levels and did not introduce new issues that had not been deliberated previouslyโcreating an endless loop of new issues that would paralyze progress and prevent finality. They framed their recommendations to give clear direction on constitutional reform and the structural and process issues that must be addressed. They explained how they fine-tuned their recommendations consistent with feedback received from the larger groups, how they made careful choices of words and phrases, and how they narrowed their focus from broad ideas and proposals to actionable consensus.
The tension between delegation and responsibility surfaces most clearly at the moment of “harmonization.” Harmonization is inescapably an act of judgment: choosing which of several formulations best expresses a shared idea is already a small exercise of power, not merely responsible transcription.
A Strategic Group told only that it is “responsible for” the larger group’s ideas may, in good faith, begin making decisions that quietly require the authority of delegated powerโwithout anyone having granted it. Conversely, the Strategic Group formally delegated real decision-making power may still be evaluated, informally, as if it were merely responsible for faithful representation, and criticized when its synthesis reflects genuine editorial choices rather than a neutral transcript.
๐๐ง ๐ฆ๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฐ, ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐ซ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ค๐ข๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐, ๐ซ๐๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ง๐ญ: ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ “๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ ๐๐” ๐๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ, ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ฑ๐๐๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ๐ค๐๐. ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ซ๐ ๐จ๐๐ญ๐๐ง ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ, ๐๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง (“๐ ๐จ ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐๐ค”) ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ ๐ฎ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ญ๐ฐ๐๐๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ฐ๐จ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ญ.
The Ethiopian Dialogue Conference resolved this by being explicit about which frame was operating and letting the degree of delegated power scale with the stakes of the outcome. Where the Strategic Group’s output is deemed advisoryโa menu of options the plenary would still deliberate overโresponsibility theory was the more honest frame, and the Group was instructed to preserve disagreement rather than erase it.
Where the 250-delegate group genuinely needed the Strategic Group to produce a single consensus document because time or complexity made full deliberation impossible, delegation of power was named as such, with an explicit ratification stepโa moment where the plenary formally accepted (or amended) what had been brought backโso that the transfer of authority was visible rather than assumed.
In the Ethiopian dialogue context, the deeper insight is that pulling together ideas, harmonizing them, and presenting to the larger group is not one task but two, bundled under a single instruction: an act of representation (responsibility) and an act of decision (delegated power). Naming which oneโor how much of eachโ the Strategic Group has been asked to perform is what determines whether the plenary’s ultimate response is a ratification or an evaluation, and whether delegates experience the process as genuinely collaborative or as authority quietly exercised without acknowledgment.
The Strategic Group of 25 understood this distinction and navigated it with wisdom. Their work stands as a testament to what is possible when delegation and responsibility are balanced with transparency, accountability, and an unwavering commitment to the collective good.
The work of the Strategic Group was accepted by the larger groups with the utmost respect, appreciation, and applause. It was a daunting task given to the Strategic Group, which worked through day and night to craft a consensus document that reflects the demands, wishes, and interests of the broader membership of the agenda groups. The 250 delegates expressed deep gratitude for the Strategic Group’s faithful service, recognizing that their work was not merely administrative but deeply political and moralโa bridge between fragmented voices and a shared vision for Ethiopia’s future.
๐๐ก๐ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ ๐๐จ๐๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญโ๐ข๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ง ๐๐ฑ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฒ. ๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐’๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐๐, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐๐ซ๐๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฏ๐๐ง ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง๐๐ฒ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ’๐ฌ ๐๐๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฎ๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐, ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ’ ๐ฏ๐ข๐ ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐๐๐ฅ ๐จ๐ ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐.
What I have observed at the Dialogue Conference is a path-breaking achievement in resolving Ethiopia’s longstanding social and political problems. It proves that through patient, inclusive, and principled dialogue, even the most entrenched divisions can be bridged. The Strategic Group of 25, working with maximum transparency and accountability, has set a new standard for what national dialogue can achieveโnot just in Ethiopia, but anywhere people seek to build a shared future from diverse beginnings.
The next step is deliberation of the 500-delegate agenda group (delegates are organized into eight large thematic working groups of 500 participants each). These 500-member groups take the refined and consolidated agenda ideas from smaller previous tiers (micro-groups 10, 50 and 250 and strategic groups) to deliberate, finalize, and build broad consensus on core national agenda areas.
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!
Originally appeared on X (Twitter)
https://x.com/AlMariam1/status/2085219004910641487
๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐ โ ๐๐๐๐ง๐๐ฌ๐๐๐ฒ, ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐, ๐๐๐๐
Today marked a historic milestone at the Ethiopian National Dialogue Conference. The Strategic Group of 25, elected by the larger assembly of 250 delegates, completed its critical mission: refining, harmonizing, and synthesizing the divergent views, competing demands, and conflicting preferences that emerged from weeks of intensive deliberations.
After multiple rounds of feedbackโsome agenda groups presenting drafts three or even four timesโthe consensus document was signed by most delegates today, with a few postponing until tomorrow. This document captures both the issues on which consensus was reached and those that remain outstanding for various reasons.
What I observed unfolding was not merely procedural aggregation of divergent ideasโit was substantive and transformative. The Strategic Group undertook a grueling, time-consuming task with remarkable discipline, intellectual acuity, transparency, and a profound sense of generational responsibility. For all the hard and creative work involved, it was truly a labor of love, performed with unwavering fidelity to the mission entrusted to them by the larger body.
The Practical Wisdom of Delegation and Responsibility
The dynamics I witnessed between the Strategic Group and the larger body of 250 delegates offered a compelling demonstration of how delegation and responsibility can work together in practiceโespecially in a setting as complex and high-stakes national dialogue on longstanding issues in the Ethiopian context.
Large groups are notoriously difficult to manage when it comes to synthesis. Competing voices, groupthink, herd mentality and diminishing returns on deliberation time make it nearly impossible for a plenary of 250 to draft a coherent paragraph together, let alone a comprehensive consensus document.
It is practical and more efficient for a delegated subgroup to make the hard editorial calls: which ideas to merge, which to drop, which words and phrases to include or exclude. Delegation of power is what enables this efficiency, granting the subgroup the “license” to make choices and interim decisions for presentation to the larger group, instead of just summarizing.
Yet delegation carries risks. The classic principal-agent problem looms: agents may drift from principals’ intentionsโdeliberately, through their own preferences leaking into the supposedly “neutral” act of synthesis, or inadvertently, through the unavoidable interpretive choices that any harmonization requires.
There is also a legitimacy cost: the larger group must trust that a handful of people, chosen often by convenience rather than perfect representativeness or intellectual prowess, will not distort what was said or intended. The more power is delegated, the more the final presentation functions as a decision the plenary must accept or reject as a whole, rather than a set of options it can still shape line by line.
This is where responsibility theory offers a different, more constructive starting point. Rather than asking only who holds decision rights, it asks who is answerable for a task being done wellโand treats that answerability as separable from authority. A subgroup can be made responsible for accurately representing the room’s thinkingโcharged with listening carefully, capturing the range of views, and presenting them clearlyโwithout being given unchecked power to resolve disagreements or make binding choices on the group’s behalf. The Strategic group’s task, under this frame, is fidelity of representation, not final decision making.
This distinction matters profoundly in the Ethiopian Dialogue Conference. If the delegated authority of the group of 250 says, โThe Strategic Group is responsible for bringing back what was said in the room,” the expectation is closer to a minutes reporter. The aim will be comprehensiveness and accuracy of content than informed and balanced editorial judgment. The task becomes the preservation of a record of disagreements rather than harmonizing and smoothing out differences into a single consensus position.
Responsibility, in this sense, is a moral and procedural burdenโthe Strategic Group can be held to account for how well it discharged the dutyโbut it does not, by itself, confer the standing to make the final decision stick. That standing remains with the plenary, which retains the power to accept, revise, or reject what is brought back.
The strength of this framing is that it protects the authority of the 250-delegate group even while distributing the labor of synthesis and harmonization to the Strategic Group. Its weakness is that it can produce an unwieldy reportโa list of everything rather than a coherent positionโprecisely because the Strategic Group has been asked to represent and catalogue views, not harmonize for consensus building.
The Ethiopian Approach: Balancing Power and Accountability
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฌ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐๐ญ ๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฅ๐โ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ฑ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฐ๐ฌ, ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฅ๐ฌ, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ค๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ซ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฅ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐ฉ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ข๐๐ซ๐จ-๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง. ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ฌ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง ๐ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฐ๐จ๐ซ๐ค ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ค๐๐ฉ๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐จ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐’๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐ฑ๐ฉ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ. ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐-๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ.
The deliberative setup required an ongoing, interactive feedback loop between the Strategic Group and the larger body. The Strategic Group was expected to present progress, invite comments, suggestions, critiques, and feedback from the larger group based on broader, open, and transparent dialogue before finalizing actions. This created a system where delegates could not simply assert the power to decide for the larger groupโthey had to demonstrate that their decisions were based on reasons the broader group could understand, evaluate, and eventually accept.
This balance is delicate. If the 250-delegate group delegates too little power, deliberative processes suffer from deadlock and paralysis because every minor decision requires group consensus. If it delegates too much power, the process degenerates into technocracy or elite capture, breaking democratic legitimacy.
On the other hand, when delegates are given massive responsibility to harmonize and synthesize complex public issues but lack sufficient delegated power, the responsibility becomes an impossible burden. Conversely, power without matching responsibility breeds authoritarian decision-making (tyranny of the majority) within the assembly.
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ก๐ข๐๐ฏ๐๐ ๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ง ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ซ๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฌ๐ฒ๐ง๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ข๐ฌ: ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐จ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซโ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐๐ก ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ซ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐๐ฅ๐ฎ๐๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐งโ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฒ, ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐๐ก ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง ๐๐ง๐๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐๐ซ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ก๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ ๐ก ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐ญ, ๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ๐จ๐ง-๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฏ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐จ๐ซ๐ฉ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ ๐ฎ๐ง๐๐ก๐๐๐ค๐๐ ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐.
The Strategic Group of 25 carried out its work of harmonizing the ideas of the 250 delegates with maximum transparency and accountability. During its presentations to the larger group, the lead presenting members defended and explained their report in detail. They walked through how different ideas were analyzed and merged to reflect the views of the majority while preserving the distinct elements of minority views. They explained how they strove for inclusivity and convergence in crafting recommendations, ensuring they expressed the wishes and will of the larger group. They answered diverse and numerous questions in the 250-delegate sessions with patience and clarity.
The Strategic Group’s methodology was both rigorous and principled. They sought not to present a catalog of issues but to pull together different strands into a coherent tapestry of divergent views. They avoided reopening issues decided at the lower levels and did not introduce new issues that had not been deliberated previouslyโcreating an endless loop of new issues that would paralyze progress and prevent finality. They framed their recommendations to give clear direction on constitutional reform and the structural and process issues that must be addressed. They explained how they fine-tuned their recommendations consistent with feedback received from the larger groups, how they made careful choices of words and phrases, and how they narrowed their focus from broad ideas and proposals to actionable consensus.
The tension between delegation and responsibility surfaces most clearly at the moment of “harmonization.” Harmonization is inescapably an act of judgment: choosing which of several formulations best expresses a shared idea is already a small exercise of power, not merely responsible transcription.
A Strategic Group told only that it is “responsible for” the larger group’s ideas may, in good faith, begin making decisions that quietly require the authority of delegated powerโwithout anyone having granted it. Conversely, the Strategic Group formally delegated real decision-making power may still be evaluated, informally, as if it were merely responsible for faithful representation, and criticized when its synthesis reflects genuine editorial choices rather than a neutral transcript.
๐๐ง ๐ฆ๐ฒ ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐ฐ, ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐จ๐ง๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ฃ๐จ๐ซ ๐ซ๐๐๐ฌ๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐๐ซ๐๐ง๐๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ค๐ข๐ฉ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ ๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ ๐ ๐ฌ๐ฉ๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐, ๐ซ๐๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ซ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ข๐ง๐ญ: ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ข๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ญ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐ฅ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ข๐ง๐ฉ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ “๐๐ก๐๐ง๐ ๐๐” ๐๐ฒ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ, ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐ฅ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ซ๐๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ข๐ ๐๐ฑ๐๐๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฌ๐ค๐๐. ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ซ๐ ๐จ๐๐ญ๐๐ง ๐ซ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ, ๐๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ข๐ง๐ฌ๐ญ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง (“๐ ๐จ ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐๐ค”) ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ ๐ฎ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ญ๐ฐ๐๐๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ญ๐ฐ๐จ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ญ.
The Ethiopian Dialogue Conference resolved this by being explicit about which frame was operating and letting the degree of delegated power scale with the stakes of the outcome. Where the Strategic Group’s output is deemed advisoryโa menu of options the plenary would still deliberate overโresponsibility theory was the more honest frame, and the Group was instructed to preserve disagreement rather than erase it.
Where the 250-delegate group genuinely needed the Strategic Group to produce a single consensus document because time or complexity made full deliberation impossible, delegation of power was named as such, with an explicit ratification stepโa moment where the plenary formally accepted (or amended) what had been brought backโso that the transfer of authority was visible rather than assumed.
In the Ethiopian dialogue context, the deeper insight is that pulling together ideas, harmonizing them, and presenting to the larger group is not one task but two, bundled under a single instruction: an act of representation (responsibility) and an act of decision (delegated power). Naming which oneโor how much of eachโ the Strategic Group has been asked to perform is what determines whether the plenary’s ultimate response is a ratification or an evaluation, and whether delegates experience the process as genuinely collaborative or as authority quietly exercised without acknowledgment.
The Strategic Group of 25 understood this distinction and navigated it with wisdom. Their work stands as a testament to what is possible when delegation and responsibility are balanced with transparency, accountability, and an unwavering commitment to the collective good.
The work of the Strategic Group was accepted by the larger groups with the utmost respect, appreciation, and applause. It was a daunting task given to the Strategic Group, which worked through day and night to craft a consensus document that reflects the demands, wishes, and interests of the broader membership of the agenda groups. The 250 delegates expressed deep gratitude for the Strategic Group’s faithful service, recognizing that their work was not merely administrative but deeply political and moralโa bridge between fragmented voices and a shared vision for Ethiopia’s future.
๐๐ก๐ ๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐ซ๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ ๐๐จ๐๐ฎ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญโ๐ข๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ง ๐๐ฑ๐ญ๐ซ๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฒ. ๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐จ๐ฉ๐ข๐’๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ ๐ฏ๐จ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐ก๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐จ๐ง๐ข๐ณ๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐๐๐, ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐จ๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐ญ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐จ๐๐ซ๐๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐๐ง๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ญ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ง ๐๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฏ๐๐ง ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง๐๐ฒ. ๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ญ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐๐ซ๐จ๐ฎ๐ฉ’๐ฌ ๐๐๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฎ๐ฅ ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐, ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ง๐๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ญ๐๐ฌ’ ๐ฏ๐ข๐ ๐ข๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฌ๐ข๐ ๐ก๐ญ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐ฉ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง, ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐ ๐ฆ๐จ๐๐๐ฅ ๐จ๐ ๐ง๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ข๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ญ๐ก ๐ญ๐ก๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐จ๐ฎ๐ง๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ญ๐ข๐ฏ๐.
What I have observed at the Dialogue Conference is a path-breaking achievement in resolving Ethiopia’s longstanding social and political problems. It proves that through patient, inclusive, and principled dialogue, even the most entrenched divisions can be bridged. The Strategic Group of 25, working with maximum transparency and accountability, has set a new standard for what national dialogue can achieveโnot just in Ethiopia, but anywhere people seek to build a shared future from diverse beginnings.
The next step is deliberation of the 500-delegate agenda group (delegates are organized into eight large thematic working groups of 500 participants each). These 500-member groups take the refined and consolidated agenda ideas from smaller previous tiers (micro-groups 10, 50 and 250 and strategic groups) to deliberate, finalize, and build broad consensus on core national agenda areas.
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!
Originally appeared on X (Twitter)
https://x.com/AlMariam1/status/2085219004910641487
Share this: