By Abrar Fitwi
During the two-year war, the Tigrayan diaspora accomplished what many considered impossible. Through persistence and unprecedented coordination, they compelled the United Nations Security Council to convene on Tigray nearly a dozen times. This was not the achievement of size or wealth but of cohesion, demonstrating that when Tigrayans act collectively, even the world’s most powerful institutions must respond.
Today, however, that cohesion has fractured. Political elites are divided, and the consensus that once underpinned Tigray’s resilience is eroding. The costs of this fragmentation are severe: the inability to reclaim occupied territories, the loss of control over valuable resources, the stagnation of reconstruction and rehabilitation, the weakening of Tigray’s negotiating leverage and, perhaps most alarming, the failure to contain street violence in Mekelle,
The Strategic Value of Unity
It is often said that unity is strength, but for small nations and communities, it is survival. Historically, Tigray’s strength, at home and abroad, has derived from its capacity to compensate for numerical disadvantage through collective discipline and shared purpose. Unity enabled the diaspora to exert influence in international forums, and unity lent legitimacy to Tigray’s wartime resistance.
The erosion of that unity is therefore not symbolic, it is existential. It undermines Tigray’s bargaining power, weakens its external representation, and risks deepening the despair of a population already enduring displacement, hunger, and insecurity. Fragmentation magnifies vulnerability.
Pathways to Restoring Cohesion
Unity does not require unanimity. Competing visions and political pluralism are inevitable, even healthy, in post-conflict contexts. The challenge is to channel these differences into structured dialogue rather than destructive rivalry.
Political actors debate whether the way forward should be called reconciliation, dialogue, or a pact. But what matters most is not the label we attach to the process but the purpose it serves. Whether one calls it reconciliation, dialogue, compact, or accord is secondary. The priority is that Tigrayan political actors commit to sitting together, reaching consensus on vital national interests, most critically, security and governance, and establishing the rules of the game for political competition. Terms can be debated endlessly; outcomes cannot.
Reconciliation or Dialogue
International precedents are instructive. In Tunisia, a National Dialogue in 2013 averted descent into violence. In Kenya, the National Accord of 2008 provided a framework for coexistence and reform. In Northern Ireland, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement institutionalized power-sharing among historic adversaries. In each case, structured mechanisms—dialogues, pacts, or accords—bound leaders to minimum common agendas while preserving space for ongoing debate. I see three points stand out for Tigray that support this framing.
First, Tigray’s fractures are primarily political, not societal. Ordinary citizens remain united by shared suffering and aspirations. It is political actors who remain at odds over strategy, governance, and power-sharing. Widely known for his pioneering work in conflict transformation, Lederach, J.P. (1997) defines reconciliation as a process of social healing in deeply divided communities. For this reason, the term “reconciliation”, often associated with healing social rifts, may be misplaced.
Second, globally, reconciliation processes typically emerge after the downfall of abusive regimes, often to prevent cycles of revenge: In South Africa, reconciliation followed the collapse of apartheid and transfer of power. In Rwanda, it came only after the genocidal government was militarily defeated. In Liberia and Sierra Leone truth commissions began after civil wars and regime change. In almost every case, reconciliation was not initiated by incumbents that still secure in power. It came after defeat or forced compromise. This makes its application to Tigray’s current situation questionable.
Third, Reconciliation should not be rhetoric, nor a precondition for dialogue. Properly understood, it is an outcome, the result of dialogue and consensus, not its starting point.
Some proponents of ‘reconciliation” define reconciliation as agreement on Tigray’s past or a shared interpretation of history. Yet such agreement is only possible after genuine dialogue. Even if everyone insists on using the word reconciliation, if leaders fail to reach consensus on Tigray’s past, present, or future, can that truly be called reconciliation? On the other hand, if political elites agree on fair rules of the game, a level playing field for free and fair elections, institutional independence, and security forces loyal to the constitution rather than factions, then Tigray can be said to have reconciled with its people and with itself. In this sense, reconciliation is not the beginning of the journey; it is the destination.
Thus, what is required from Tigray’s perspective appear to be a National Dialogue or Political Consensus among Tigrayan political elite. Such a framework would:
Define vital interests and core principles on territorial integrity, security, and governance;
Shield the region from external actors’ ability to exploit internal rivalries;
Reconstitute the credibility of Tigray’s voice in federal and international arenas.
This is not about erasing differences but about institutionalizing them in ways that preserve collective strength.
A Warning to Political Actors
The window for structured dialogue will not remain open indefinitely. Political actors who resist such forums may perceive short-term advantage in preserving dominance, yet this is a strategic miscalculation. Comparative experience shows that when institutional avenues for negotiation are foreclosed, grievances inevitably migrate to the streets. Such dynamics rarely strengthen incumbents; rather, they erode the very forces most reluctant to compromise.
A political dialogue is therefore not only a collective necessity for Tigray but also a rational strategy of self-preservation for those hesitant to embrace it. Political leaders must listen, for history will not forgive those who let pride or rivalry destroy the one strength that has always carried Tigray through adversity.
Conclusion
Unity remains Tigray’s most vital strategic asset. To lose it would be to forfeit the very quality that has sustained survival against overwhelming odds. A serious political dialogue, however imperfect, can restore coherence and allow Tigray to reclaim agency over its destiny.
Tigrayans must therefore avoid being trapped in unnecessary debates over terminology. While reconciliation has meaning in contexts of social division or post-defeat transitions, Tigray’s situation calls instead for a National Dialogue, Accord, or Compact—frameworks that emphasize political agreement rather than social healing. True reconciliation will come only after elites commit to a shared future under fair and credible institutions.
If the incumbent signals readiness for dialogue or a compact, even while rejecting reconciliation, that opportunity should not be squandered. What matters is not the label but the substance: sitting together, defining vital national interests, and forging a pact that secures Tigray’s survival and future.
___________________________
Abrar Fitwi (PhD) is a tenured associate professor of Finance at Saint Mary’s College, Indiana. Over the past five years, he has been engaged in political discourse on Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, with a particular focus on Tigrayan affairs.
