When Dialogue Becomes a Façade: The Systematic Exclusion of Tigray in the National Dialogue Process

The decision by the Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission to move the Tigray agenda-gathering forum to Addis Ababa, is not just a simple decision to relocate a forum. It is a political decision with far-reaching implications for participation, content, and legitimacy. In a fragile peace following the genocidal war in Tigray, the key to any national dialogue rests with its inclusivity of those affected by the war.

Who Gets to Speak—and Who Is Left Behind

The Ethiopian National Dialogue Commission's explicit mandate is to enable national conversation and consensus-building in the midst of division in Ethiopia. Thus, inclusion is not just desirable; it is a mandate.

The relocation of the Tigray-specific forum outside of Tigray is a contradiction of the stated mandate of the commission and confirms the credibility of concerns regarding its legitimacy and inclusivity.

A meaningful dialogue on Tigray needs to involve the people who are survivors and victims of the genocidal war and the continued lack of positive peace: the survivors, women, internally displaced persons, rural populations, and civil society. However, a commission for bringing the conversation closer to the people of Tigray has relocated the conversation farther.

The humanitarian impact of the genocidal war and continued functional blockade is being felt across Tigray. This impacts the ability of the ordinary citizen to travel or participate in the dialogue process. 

Thus, the relocation of the dialogue to Addis Ababa inherently ensures that only those who have access - financially, logistically, and politically - get to participate.

The Silencing of Substantive Issues

If a dialogue process does not seriously address the obligations created by and the failures to implement the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement and when the people who are most impacted by these issues are not involved in agenda-setting, these issues fail to be addressed. 

The issues which define the reality of Tigray are not abstract issues. Rather, these issues include questions of accountability for genocide, continued displacement, failure to return the territorial integrity of Tigray to status quo ante, and political exclusion, in summary lack of implementation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, with the exception of ceasefire.

The most important question is the larger context in which this dialogue is happening. Even though large scale war has ended, Tigray remains in a state of instability and blockade. There has been renewal of clashes, drone strikes,  and functional blockade in early 2026 and as I write. 

Some of the latest reports indicate a continuation of financial restrictions, such as a lack of access to banking services. There is also cutting off of fuel from entering the region. This has worsened the humanitarian crisis, with significant impact on internally displaced persons.

In effect, what we are seeing is a blockade that affects not only the lives of people in the region but also their ability to participate in the larger nation-state. This results in the conversation being narrowed, “safer,” and less reflective of reality, weakening both its legitimacy and substance. 

Geography as a Mechanism of Exclusion

Being in Addis Ababa is also not neutral; there are political and psychological aspects to consider. For many Tigrayans, Addis Ababa is not a neutral space; it is a space of power and politics, linked to the very structures under discussion in the dialogue. This affects not only who attends, but how freely they can speak. Thus, geography is used as a filtering mechanism to determine which voices are represented and heard.

Those who are already embedded in the Federal Government networks are benefitted while excluding others from participating. It becomes a selective rather than collective representation.

When Exclusion Becomes the System

Each of these factors—who participates, what is discussed, where and when the forum is held, and the broader conditions in Tigray—can be justified or rationalized in isolation. But collectively, these factors point to a pattern.

A dialogue held outside the affected region. An unrepresentative participation. Agendas formed without those most impacted. All of this unfolding in a context of functional blockade and failure to implement the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement. At this point, exclusion is no longer incidental. It is systemic.

If one steps back and reviews the structure of this dialogue as a whole, it begins to look rather like what it should be dealing with. A dialogue that reinforces rather than overcomes hostilities. Talking about Tigray without Tigray, rather than with Tigray. A political process that should be recognized as a façade.