In the study of human conflict, there is a temptation to prioritize the material: disputes over land, resources, or political control. But these conflicts are almost always animated by something deeper, less tangible, and far more powerful: narrative. Narratives are not merely stories; they are the fundamental social and psychological frameworks through which we understand our place in the world. They define identity, history, justice, and fear. They tell us who “we” are, who “they” are, what we are owed, and what we must resist.

A functioning political system relies on a shared “master narrative” – a common story of national purpose and destiny inclusive enough to bind diverse groups together. When this master narrative fractures, or when it is violently exposed as a story of domination for some and suppression for others, politics degrades into a zero-sum conflict over truth itself. Competing narratives, each claiming a monopoly on history and victimhood, rise to fill the void, transforming political opponents into existential enemies.

The persistent and devastating political crises engulfing Ethiopia are a tragic illustration of this process. The country’s internal conflicts are the devastating outcome of a deeply entrenched “war of narratives.” Specifically, the unresolved clash between a 20th century pan-Ethiopian nationalist narrative and a constellation of competing ethno-nationalist narratives has created a fragmented political landscape. This clash was formalized and supercharged by the 1995 system of ethnic federalism, creating a political feedback loop where politicized history makes a shared national project nearly impossible.

Ethiopia’s Two Contending Master Narratives

At the heart of Ethiopia’s “narrative war” are two fundamentally irreconcilable stories about the nation’s very existence. This is not a simple disagreement over facts, but a profound conflict over the soul of the country, rooted in “disagreement among elites on how to narrativize Ethiopian history.”

The “Pan-Ethiopianist” (Centripetal) Narrative

This story, which dominated the 20th century under imperial and then Derg rule, presents Ethiopia as a singular, ancient, and unified civilization. Its core idea traces a continuous 3,000-year history of an independent Ethiopian state, an island of resilient culture and unique identity. This narrative is built around powerful symbols of national unity, with the victory at Adwa in 1896 as its crowning achievement, and its heroes being the unifying emperors, particularly Emperor Menelik II (who forged the modern borders) and Emperor Haile Selassie. The protagonist of this story is the “Ethiopian,” a citizen whose national identity, or Ethiopiawinet, is intended to supersede all other ethnic affiliations. From this perspective, the central grievance is that the 1995 Constitution, crafted by the TPLF-led EPRDF, is the “original sin.” This ethnic federalism is viewed as a “divide and rule” strategy that explicitly “messaged to Ethiopians that their primary loyalty is to their ‘Nation, Nationality, and People,’ not to Ethiopia.” This narrative frames ethno-nationalism as mere “tribalism” and the primary driver of the state’s decay and fragmentation, with Article 39 (the right to secession) hanging over the nation “like a guillotine.”

The “Ethno-Nationalist” (Centrifugal) Narrative

This story, which fuelled the insurgencies that toppled the Derg and became the state’s official ideology in 1995, presents a radically different history. The core idea is that the “pan-Ethiopianist” story is a “fabricated” and “politicized statehood narrative,” and is not a story of unity, but a self-serving myth created by a historically dominant elite to legitimize a century of imperial conquest, cultural suppression, and political marginalization. The protagonists are not emperors, but the “nations, nationalities, and peoples” themselves. Its heroes are the respective ethnic leaders and liberation fronts who fought against the “historical injustice” and suppression of their languages, cultures, and political rights. Therefore, the primary identity is not “Ethiopian” but Oromo, Tigrayan, Somali, Sidama, and so forth. For this narrative, the 1995 Constitution is a foundational covenant that finally recognized the country’s diversity and guaranteed group rights. The core grievance remains the “past historical injustice” of the “imperial” state, meaning any attempt to recentralize the state or promote a unified “Ethiopian” identity is seen as a dangerous regression to this oppressive past, a complete erasure of their hard-won autonomy.

The ethnic federalist system was a decisive victory for this narrative. However, by institutionalizing ethnic identity as the primary political building block of the state, it did not resolve the narrative war; it simply drew new, official battle lines. It “transformed political competition into a zero-sum ethnic census,” creating regional “echo chambers” where “ethnic entrepreneurs” could “systematically erode the social fabric of tolerance” by framing neighboring groups as “historical oppressors or existential threats.”

The Narrative-to-Violence Pipeline

The devastating 2020-2022 Tigray War and the subsequent insurgencies in the Oromia and Amhara regions are all violent eruptions of these two mutually exclusive realities, demonstrating a consistent narrative-to-violence pipeline. The conflict across Ethiopia is fundamentally driven by a zero-sum competition over whose historical narrative – of unity or of subjugation – will define the future state.

In the Tigray War, this dynamic was total. The Federal Government, adopting the Pan-Ethiopianist Narrative, framed the conflict as a “law enforcement operation” to preserve national unity against a “treasonous” TPLF. Conversely, the TPLF, rooted firmly in the Ethno-Nationalist Narrative, framed the conflict as a “genocidal war” and an “invasion” designed to crush their autonomy and exterminate the Tigrayan people. This existential framing justified maximum military resistance and ensured the conflict became a total war over group survival. Because both sides achieved internal consensus by selling an existential, zero-sum story, no room was left for shared facts or a political solution, making the bloodshed the inevitable outcome.

The 2022 Pretoria Agreement ended the fighting in Tigray, but the narrative war merely shifted fronts, proving that the destructive logic of ethnic conflict had been successfully institutionalized across the federation.

The Amhara Insurgency (driven by Fano) is a direct, radicalized continuation of the Pan-Ethiopianist Narrative (although some of them recently started to subscribe for the Amhara first narrative), but one that perceives the Federal Government itself as having betrayed the cause of national unity. Their narrative claims that the government, through perceived deference to Oromo ethno-nationalist forces and by failing to solidify control over historically contested areas like Wolkait and Raya, is fundamentally undermining the Ethiopian state and threatening the Amhara identity. The “grievance narrative” here frames Amharas not as historical oppressors, but as the ultimate defenders of the historic state, now facing internal marginalization and potential erasure. Violence is thus framed as a patriotic defense of the nation’s integrity against internal disintegration.

Similarly, the protracted conflict in Oromia (involving elements like the Oromo Liberation Army/OLA) is fuelled by the radicalized Ethno-Nationalist Narrative. The central grievance is the belief that the promises of the 1995 constitution – genuine self-determination and an end to historical marginalization – have not been delivered. The Oromo nationalist narrative insists that the Prosperity Party, despite its Oromo leadership, has merely resurrected the “centralist, oppressive imperial structure” in a new guise. Here, the “liberation narrative” is used to justify continued insurgency, framing the conflict as the final, necessary stage of the fight for true self-governance against an eternally oppressive Ethiopian state structure.

The result is a devastating scenario where the “us and them” discourse, once institutionalized, has spread like a poison. On all three fronts – Tigray, Amhara, and Oromia – “ethnic entrepreneurs” weaponize historical grievances, use fragmented media to create airtight “echo chambers,” and rely on the narrative of existential threat to justify violence. This cycle ensures a permanent “feedback loop of ethnic conflict,” where violence is not a failure of policy but a confirmation of the deep-seated, opposing narratives of injustice and survival.

Escaping the Narrative Trap and the Need for a Shared Grand Narrative

The Ethiopian crisis is a profound illustration of narrative’s power. The country is paralyzed and trapped in a cycle of violence because its primary political actors, and increasingly its populations, are operating from mutually exclusive, weaponized historical “truths.”

There is no simple “law enforcement” or “policy” solution to a narrative problem. The “war of narratives” must be addressed directly, but this is the most difficult task of all. A simple return to the old “pan-Ethiopian” narrative is impossible; it would ignore the genuine grievances and “past historical injustices” that fuelled ethno-nationalism in the first place. Yet, a continued doubling-down on the current “zero-sum” ethnic federalism has proven to be not a “divide and rule” strategy, but a “divide and ruin” one.

The fundamental political vacuum at the heart of the Ethiopian state is the absence of a shared grand narrative – a unifying story that can provide a common identity, a sense of shared destiny, and a basis for political solidarity that transcends ethnic loyalties. Without such a narrative, the state is merely a container for competing groups, and politics remains a perpetual battle for group survival.

The only path forward, however narrow, is the conscious creation of a new national narrative. This cannot be another “fabricated” story imposed from the top down. It must be built, painstakingly, from the ground up, through a process that first, initiates a genuine national dialogue that is not just a negotiation between armed elites, but a national truth and reconciliation process. This process must acknowledge the differing “truths” and historical grievances without weaponizing them. It must validate the “victimhood” of all sides without validating the “demonization” of any. This is the raw material from which a new, honest story can be built. Second, the process must de-link history from a zero-sum political present. The goal must be to build a shared future that is not held hostage by a competing past. This means reforming the “antagonistic” media and educational systems that perpetuate “us and them” discourses. These systems must be repurposed to foster a sense of shared citizenship and articulate the new grand narrative – one that finds value in diversity but grounds its primary identity in a common, forward-looking Ethiopian project.

Until Ethiopians can begin the difficult work of co-authoring this new, inclusive grand narrative, they will continue to be destroyed by the competing, and destructive, stories of their past.

Contributed by Yonas Tesfa Sisay