Ethiopia stands at a pivotal moment in its search for peace and reconciliation. The government recently confirmed that implementation of the country’s transitional justice initiative will commence after the conclusion of the ongoing national dialogue. On paper, this sequencing may seem orderly: first talk, then act. Yet Ethiopia’s current situation demands more than neat sequencing. Transitional justice, the National Dialogue, and disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) initiatives are conceptually the right remedies for the country’s crisis, but remedies are only as good as their application. To defer justice until dialogue is completed is apt to weaken both processes and undermining the very victims these initiatives are meant to serve.
Ethiopia has witnessed, and continues to witness, some of the gravest atrocities the world has ever seen. Victims span every demographic: infants, the elderly, pregnant women, and persons with disabilities. Transitional justice is not a luxury; it is a critical necessity. It should begin immediately as a lived reality for those who have suffered. To tell victims that justice has to wait until dialogue is finished is to prolong their pain and erode their faith in the process. Their voices must be central to Ethiopia’s national healing as opposed to being sidelined until political elites conclude their deliberations.
The conceptual frameworks of transitional justice, national dialogue, and DDR are sound. They represent the right remedies for Ethiopia’s fractured society. Dialogue can build consensus on the future, DDR can dismantle the machinery of war, and transitional justice can confront the past with truth and accountability. But their value lies entirely in implementation. Without genuine commitment to ending ongoing hostilities and centering victims, these initiatives risk becoming performative mockeries. If they are used as political theater—mere gestures to appease domestic constituencies or international observers—they insult the very people they are meant to heal. Performative justice is worse than no justice at allfor it breeds cynicism and deepens wounds.
The government therefore ought to ensure that transitional justice is not deferred into irrelevance. It should be woven into the national dialogue, not postponed until after it. Truth-telling, reparations, and accountability mechanisms can enrich dialogue, grounding abstract debates in the everyday experiences of victims. Similarly, DDR programs must be evaluated independently to ensure they are dismantling armed groups effectively and reintegrating combatants responsibly. Transitional justice must learn from the successes and failures of these initiatives, adapting its design to Ethiopia’s realities rather than replicating models that may not fit.
Independent evaluation is critical. The effectiveness of the National Dialogue and DDR programs, which have been underway for years now, remains contested. Some communities feel excluded, some combatants remain armed, and some victims feel unheard. It is vital to acknowledge these shortcomings openly. Transitional justice cannot afford to repeat them. Subjecting dialogue and DDR to rigorous, independent review will go some way to assuring that transitional justice is informed by evidence, not wishful thinking. This is the only way to build processes that are credible, inclusive, and effective.
Yet even the best-designed transitional justice framework is doomed to fail while conflicts are still active. A cessation of hostilities is a prerequisite for any honest judicial process. Courts cannot function in war zones, truth commissions cannot operate amid violence, and reparations cannot reach victims while displacement continues. The government and other actors engaged in armed conflict must therefore prioritize ending ongoing hostilities. Peace is not only a moral imperative; it is a practical necessity for justice. Without it, transitional justice risks being a hollow promise, announced but never realized.
The path forward is clear. Transitional justice needs to be treated as an urgent necessity. As such it is high time to undertake immediate concrete measures aimed at integrating justice into dialogue, evaluating DDR rigorously, and ensuring that victims are at the center of every process. Above all, it is absolutely important to end ongoing conflicts to create the conditions for justice to flourish. though These steps are far from easy, they are essential. Ethiopia’s future depends on its ability to confront the past honestly, heal wounds genuinely, and build consensus inclusively. Transitional justice, national dialogue, and DDR are the right remedies, but only if they are applied with sincerity, urgency, and respect for victims.
The stakes could not be higher. Ethiopia’s credibility, stability, and moral standing depend on whether these initiatives are implemented as genuine instruments of healing or reduced to political theater. The choice is stark: performative justice that insults victims, or authentic justice that honors them. Ethiopia should choose the latter. The time to act is now, not after dialogue concludes, not after conflicts drag on, but immediately. Only then can Ethiopia begin to move beyond atrocity toward reconciliation, beyond division toward unity, and beyond despair toward hope.
