Reconciling these views requires looking past the rhetoric of life-and-death struggles to see the structural shifts in Ethiopian governance. When groups like the TPLF frame conflict as a fight for survival, they tap into genuine communal fears. These fears often stem from shifts in how the state manages ethnic identity and resource allocation. However, these existential narratives frequently serve as shields. They allow political elites to mobilize large populations by framing political competition as a struggle against annihilation.
To move forward, Ethiopia needs more than just a ceasefire. It needs a political system that separates communal safety from factional dominance. Currently, many actors benefit from high-stakes polarization. When every policy debate becomes a struggle for survival, compromise feels like treason. This dynamic protects the interests of those wanting to regain the hegemony they held during the EPRDF era.
Addressing this requires transparent mechanisms for grievance redressal. If local communities feel their rights are protected by law rather than by armed militias, the utility of the 'existential threat' narrative fades. Stability depends on decoupling the survival of a specific political elite from the survival of the ethnic group itself. Only then can the state function as a neutral referee rather than a prize to be won.
