Daily Archives: August 2, 2026
Beyond the Title: A Social Worker’s Journey of Service and Liberation
By Dhabessa Wakjira
Introduction: More Than a Profession
There are moments in life when a career becomes a calling—when the work you do ceases to be simply a job and transforms into an expression of who you are. For me, that moment came when I realised that being a Social Worker is not just about earning a degree or holding a title. It is a profound commitment to serve with compassion, to advocate for justice, and to stand beside those who need support the most.
I am Dhabessa Wakjira, and I am proud to be a Social Worker in the making.
The Heart of Social Work
What does it truly mean to be a Social Worker? It means waking up each day with a purpose that extends beyond personal gain. It means choosing to be a voice for the voiceless, a shield for the vulnerable, and a bridge for those who feel isolated from the world around them.
Social Work is rooted in the belief that every person matters—regardless of their background, their struggles, or their circumstances. It is a profession that:
- Gives hope to the vulnerable and marginalised
- Empowers individuals and families to find their strength
- Protects children’s rights and ensures their safety
- Strengthens communities from within
- Reminds people that they are seen, heard, and valued
Every life touched, every voice heard, every child protected, and every family empowered is a step toward a better society. These are not just words on a page—they are the daily realities of those who choose this path.
Who I Am
Allow me to reintroduce myself.
My name is Dhabessa Wakjira, and I carry my identity with pride. I am an Oromo, and I am a Social Worker. These two truths are not separate—they are woven together into the fabric of who I am and what I stand for.
In my work and in my life, I choose:
- Empathy over judgment — Understanding that every person carries a story I have not lived
- Service over status — Recognising that true worth lies not in titles but in impact
- Impact over recognition — Knowing that the change I help create matters more than the credit I receive
These are not abstract ideals. They are the compass that guides my daily actions.
What I Do
As a Social Worker, I am called to:
- Empower — Helping individuals and communities discover their own strength and capacity for change
- Protect — Safeguarding the rights and well-being of children, families, and vulnerable groups
- Support — Walking alongside people in their times of greatest need
- Educate — Sharing knowledge that equips others to advocate for themselves
- Mobilise — Bringing communities together to address shared challenges
- Care — Offering compassion and humanity in every interaction
- Organise — Creating systems and structures that uplift rather than oppress
- Collaborate — Building partnerships that amplify the impact of service
- Serve — Placing the needs of others at the centre of my work
Each of these actions is a deliberate choice—a commitment to creating positive change, one person, one family, and one community at a time.
The Intersection of Identity and Purpose
There is a phrase that I carry close to my heart: “Oromo Freedom Fighter isn’t just what I do—it’s who I am.”
For me, this is not a contradiction to my work as a Social Worker—it is an extension of it. The fight for Oromo liberation and the fight for social justice are intertwined. When I advocate for the rights of children, families, and communities, I am also contributing to the broader struggle for freedom, dignity, and self-determination.
Social Work is, at its core, about addressing the systems and structures that perpetuate inequality and suffering. It is about recognising that individual struggles are often rooted in larger historical and political realities. To be an Oromo Social Worker is to understand that the path to healing requires not only individual support but also collective liberation.
The Journey Ahead
I am still a Social Worker in the making—and that is a truth I embrace. Every day brings new lessons, new challenges, and new opportunities to grow. I am learning to hold space for the pain of others while also tending to my own. I am learning to navigate systems that are often broken while never losing sight of the humanity they are meant to serve.
I am learning that change is slow, and that patience is a form of strength. I am learning that even when progress feels invisible, every act of compassion plants a seed that will one day bloom.
A Call to the World
To anyone who reads this, I offer this reflection: Social Work is not a profession reserved for the few. It is a way of being that we can all embody—in our families, in our neighbourhoods, in our daily encounters with strangers. You do not need a degree to choose kindness. You do not need a title to stand up for what is right.
But for those who do choose this path—who answer the call to serve—know that you are part of something greater than yourself. You are part of a legacy of compassion, resistance, and hope that stretches across generations and continents.
Conclusion: Here’s to Change
Here’s to creating positive change, one person, one family, and one community at a time. 💜
Here’s to the vulnerable who teach us resilience. Here’s to the families who trust us with their stories. Here’s to the children whose futures we are fighting to protect. Here’s to the Oromo people and to all peoples who continue to struggle for freedom and dignity.
I am Dhabessa Wakjira. I am a Social Worker in the making. I am an Oromo Freedom Fighter. And I believe—with every fibre of my being—that a more just world is possible.
“The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.” — Mahatma Gandhi
Aerial Offensive: ENDF Deploys Drones to Strike TPLF Convoys Near Shererina
By Oromia News Agency
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA — In a significant escalation of military operations, the Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) have reportedly deployed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and combat drones to strike convoys belonging to the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) Army 70. The strikes, which occurred near the town of Shererina, targeted the unit after it attacked government positions in the area.
The aerial operation represents a notable intensification of Ethiopia’s use of drone technology in its ongoing conflict with Tigrayan forces. According to reports, the strikes also targeted trucks transporting ammunition, inflicting heavy damage on the extremist forces .
The Strategic Deployment of Drone Warfare
The use of combat drones and UAVs by the ENDF marks a significant shift in the military tactics employed in the conflict. Unmanned aerial vehicles offer several strategic advantages over traditional air power—they are more precise, reduce the risk to pilots, and can operate in challenging terrain with sustained surveillance capabilities.
The reported targeting of ammunition convoys is particularly significant. Supply lines are the lifeblood of any military operation, and disrupting them can severely degrade an adversary’s ability to sustain combat operations. By striking ammunition trucks, the ENDF is attempting to weaken the TPLF’s logistical capacity and limit its ability to resupply its forces for future offensives.
The strikes near Shererina are also strategically important due to the location’s proximity to key transportation routes. Shererina is situated near the border between the Amhara and Tigray regions, an area that has seen significant military activity throughout the conflict. Control over these routes is essential for moving troops, equipment, and supplies, making them high-value targets for both sides.
The Context of Escalation
This latest aerial operation comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions in northern Ethiopia. The conflict between the Ethiopian government and TPLF forces has seen numerous cycles of violence, ceasefires, and renewed fighting. The use of drones by the ENDF is not new—there have been previous reports of drone strikes against TPLF positions since the conflict began in late 2020—but the scale and precision of the reported strikes indicate a growing reliance on this technology.
The decision to deploy combat drones also reflects Ethiopia’s expanding military capabilities. In recent years, the Ethiopian government has sought to diversify its sources of military equipment and technology, including through partnerships with countries such as Turkey, China, and the United Arab Emirates. Turkey’s Bayraktar drones, in particular, have been widely used in conflicts in Libya, Syria, and Nagorno-Karabakh, and their presence in Ethiopia has been reported by multiple sources.
A Pattern of Escalation
This reported attack aligns with a broader pattern of increasing military activity near Ethiopia’s borders, with regional actors testing their capabilities and resolving grievances in ways that could raise the stakes for all of Ethiopia’s conflicts . Recent months have seen a rise in airstrikes near Ethiopian territory, including SAF drone strikes on RSF fighters in Kurmuk and SSPDF strikes on SPLA-IO forces in Akobo .
The risks associated with this escalation are becoming harder to ignore. Ethiopia is already managing pressure from northern tensions and the risk of renewed TPLF/TDF conflict. Escalation along the Sudan or South Sudan borders would further stretch the ENDF, weaken response capacity elsewhere, and create openings for domestic armed groups such as OLA and Fano . For local communities, the primary risks are sudden movement restrictions, cross-border fire, refugee inflows, militia incursions, and disrupted humanitarian access .
The Human Cost
While military analysts often focus on the strategic implications of such strikes, the human cost is equally significant. The conflict in northern Ethiopia has already resulted in tens of thousands of deaths, displaced millions of people, and created a humanitarian crisis of immense proportions. Each new escalation brings with it the risk of further civilian casualties and displacement.
The precise impact of the reported drone strikes on local populations near Shererina remains unclear. However, the use of aerial bombardment in populated areas raises serious concerns about civilian safety. Both the Ethiopian government and the TPLF have been accused of human rights abuses during the conflict, and international observers have called for independent investigations into alleged violations.
A Broader Regional Context
The conflict in Tigray does not occur in isolation. It is part of a broader pattern of instability in the Horn of Africa, a region characterised by ethnic tensions, political rivalries, and competition for resources. The involvement of external actors, including the UAE and Turkey, has further complicated the situation.
Moreover, the ENDF’s operations in Tigray have broader implications for Ethiopia’s federal structure and ethnic politics. The conflict has exacerbated tensions between Ethiopia’s various ethnic groups and raised questions about the viability of the country’s federal system. The reported drone strikes near Shererina are not just a military operation; they are a reflection of deeper political and ethnic fault lines that continue to divide the country.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent
The reported deployment of UAVs and combat drones by the ENDF to strike TPLF convoys near Shererina marks a significant moment in the conflict. It signals the Ethiopian government’s determination to use advanced military technology to pursue its objectives, even as it expands the conflict’s reach and intensifies its violence.
However, the use of drones also carries risks. It may provoke retaliatory actions from the TPLF, further escalate the conflict, and draw in external actors who have vested interests in the region. It may also accelerate the militarisation of the region, making a peaceful resolution increasingly difficult.
As the conflict continues, the international community faces a growing imperative to engage in diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions and bring an end to the violence. The people of Ethiopia, particularly those in Tigray and other affected regions, have already suffered too much.
This is a developing story. More details are expected to emerge as the situation unfolds.
#Ethiopia #ENDF #TPLF #Drones #Warfare #HumanitarianCrisis #Tigray
A Response from Within: Correcting the Narrative on Ethiopia’s National Dialogue
A four-year participant challenges the critique that the National Dialogue began with the “wrong first question,” offering a detailed defence of the process and an invitation for critics to join the table.
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA — In the ongoing public debate over Ethiopia’s National Dialogue, one critique has stood out: that the process began with the wrong question, focusing on divisions rather than shared aspirations. Mr Kebour Ghenna articulated this view in a widely discussed reflection, arguing that the Dialogue should have begun by asking, “What future do Ethiopians wish to build together?” rather than “What divides Ethiopians?”
Now, a direct participant in the Dialogue has responded. Mr Zenayeneh Girma, who has served for four years as a representative of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in the National Dialogue process, has offered a corrective perspective—one grounded in direct participation rather than external observation.
“The evidence contradicts your central claim that the Dialogue began with the ‘wrong first question,'” Zenayeneh wrote, respectfully challenging Kebour’s thesis.
A Painstaking Process
Zenayeneh begins by correcting what he describes as a factual error. The National Dialogue did not begin by collecting grievances alone. It began by collecting issues from across the country—over 10,000 specific concerns raised in consultations across all woredas .
These were systematically aggregated into 2,000 themes, then distilled into 8 major national agenda pillars . These pillars cover nation-building and identity; state structure and form of government; the status of federal cities; religious affairs; institution building and the rule of law; social and economic issues; corruption and good governance; and peacebuilding and national reconciliation .
“This was not a hurried exercise but a painstaking process designed to ensure every voice—no matter how remote or marginalised—was heard,” Zenayeneh states.
He challenges Kebour’s suggestion that only divisions were documented. “In every consultation, participants were asked what future they desired for their communities and Ethiopia collectively. The 8 pillars emerged not from ‘what divides us’ but from what Ethiopians chose to discuss as urgent national questions—including the most difficult and deadlocked ones.”
Unprecedented Inclusivity
Zenayeneh argues that the Ethiopian process is unprecedented in its inclusivity. For the first time in the country’s history, Ethiopians from all regions, ethnicities, religions, and political affiliations—including diaspora communities—were brought together to question issues once considered “untouchable”: the flag, federalism, the status of Addis Ababa, the constitutional order, corruption, and institutional reform .
“This is not ‘organising disagreement.’ This is building a foundation for consensus,” he writes.
A Call for Participation, Not Observation
One of Zenayeneh’s most pointed observations is directed at the role of intellectuals who critique the process from outside. “You critique from outside while refusing to enter,” he writes, directly addressing Kebour.
As a prominent intellectual, Zenayeneh notes, Kebour could have contributed expertise to advisory panels. Instead, he has consistently critiqued from a distance. “Observing by ‘sitting outside’ and then writing based on hearsay is an easy task. Building a process that engages 4,000+ communities across a vast, diverse country is not.”
Zenayeneh acknowledges that some opposition figures remain outside the process—some by choice, others by circumstance. But the Commission has extended invitations repeatedly. “A dialogue that waits for everyone to agree to participate may wait forever. The process must move forward while continuing outreach.”
What History Will Remember
Zenayeneh concludes with a prediction about what history will actually remember: a moment when Ethiopians—for the first time—sat together across all divides and spoke honestly about their deepest political questions. It will remember a Commission that organised not just grievances but aspirations, not just complaints but solutions.
“The Dialogue is not perfect. But perfection is not the standard—participation is. And by that measure, Ethiopia has achieved something unprecedented.”
His message to intellectuals and critics is clear: “Instead of theorising from outside, consider contributing your expertise. The nation needs thinkers like you inside the room—not just observers outside it.”
Conclusion
Zenayeneh’s response offers a powerful counter-narrative to critiques of Ethiopia’s National Dialogue. It defends the process as painstaking, inclusive, and historic. It acknowledges imperfections while arguing that participation—not perfection—is the standard by which the Dialogue should be judged.
“Thank you for keeping the debate alive,” Zenayeneh writes. “But please, let us not allow perfect to become the enemy of progress.”
This feature news is based on the response of Mr Zenayeneh Girma to Kebour Ghenna, published on July 31, 2026.
The Wrong First Question: A Reflection on Ethiopia’s National Dialogue
In the search for national unity, beginning with grievances may have been the fundamental error
By Kebour Ghenna*
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA — After three years of consultations across Ethiopia and among the diaspora, the National Dialogue has finally reached the stage of discussing the country’s most difficult political questions. The national flag. Its symbols. The future constitutional order. Whether Ethiopia should retain a parliamentary system or adopt a presidential one. Who should exercise authority over Addis Ababa. Federalism. Identity. History. Power.
These are undoubtedly important questions. They are also precisely the questions on which Ethiopians disagree most profoundly. That is why one cannot help wondering whether the Dialogue began with the wrong first question.
Instead of asking, “What future do Ethiopians wish to build together?” the process appears to have begun by asking, “What divides Ethiopians?”
The Philosophy of Disagreement
There is an old observation in political philosophy that nations are not held together by constitutions, flags, or institutions alone. They survive because people continue choosing a common future despite their disagreements. That choice must come before constitutional design—not after it. Unfortunately, the Dialogue appears to have reversed that order.
The philosophy behind the Dialogue seems straightforward: identify every important national dispute, bring representatives together, discuss each issue, and eventually consensus will emerge.
It is an attractive theory. History, however, is less optimistic. People rarely discover unity by beginning with their deepest disagreements. More often, they become better at defending them. A discussion that begins with competing historical narratives usually ends with more refined historical narratives. A discussion that begins with competing constitutional visions usually ends with better-articulated constitutional disagreements. The participants leave having understood one another better—but they do not necessarily trust one another more. Listening is not the same as nation-building.
The Missing Conversation
Perhaps the first phase of the Dialogue should not have collected grievances. Perhaps it should have collected aspirations.
Imagine asking every Ethiopian, regardless of ethnicity, political affiliation, or ideology, only three questions:
- Why should Ethiopia continue to exist as one country?
- What future can we build together that none of us can build separately?
- What am I prepared to sacrifice—not demand—for that common future?
Notice what disappears. The flag disappears. Addis Ababa disappears. Federalism disappears. Not because they are unimportant—but because they become second-order questions. The conversation shifts from ownership to purpose, from rights to responsibilities, from yesterday to tomorrow. Only after establishing a shared destination should a nation begin arguing about the road that leads there.
The Problem of Absence
There is another difficulty. A dialogue derives legitimacy not simply from those who participate but also from those whose participation is indispensable. Many prominent opposition figures remain outside the process. Some are imprisoned. Some are in exile. Others are engaged in armed insurgency. Many influential intellectuals and political actors who advocate fundamentally different visions of Ethiopia’s future do not regard the Dialogue as their own.
Whether one agrees with their positions is almost beside the point. A national dialogue cannot ultimately become national if significant sections of the political nation remain unconvinced by it. Peace is rarely negotiated among those who already agree. It is negotiated among those who fundamentally distrust one another. The harder the conversation, the more important it becomes that every consequential voice sees itself inside the room rather than outside it.
A Nation Is More Than an Agenda
One sometimes has the impression that the Dialogue is attempting to build a nation by assembling an agenda. But nations are not built that way. An agenda is a list of problems. A nation is a shared act of imagination. People do not remain together because every disagreement has been resolved. No nation has ever achieved that. They remain together because they eventually conclude that their common future is more valuable than their separate grievances. That is a political decision before it is a constitutional one.
What History Will Remember
History will not remember how many consultations were conducted, nor how many agenda items were collected, nor how many reports were produced. It will remember only one thing: Did the Dialogue strengthen Ethiopia’s sense of common nationhood? Or did it simply organise Ethiopia’s disagreements more effectively?
There is a profound difference. If Ethiopians leave the Dialogue asking, “Which of our disputes remain unresolved?” the Commission will have organised an impressive national debate. If they leave asking, “What future can we now build together?” it will have done something infinitely more important. It will have begun rebuilding a nation.
That, perhaps, was the question with which the Dialogue should have begun.
“Nations are not held together by constitutions, flags or institutions alone. They survive because people continue choosing a common future despite their disagreements. That choice must come before constitutional design. Not after it.”
*The above feature is based on the reflection of Kebour Ghenna who continued to contribute to Ethiopia’s public discourse.
Advocacy for Oromia 