SUPPORT ETHIOPIA INSIGHT .wpedon-container .wpedon-select, .wpedon-container .wpedon-input { width: 200px; min-width: 200px; max-width: 200px; } The government choreographs ceremonies with illegitimate figures, substituting public relations for genuine resolution.Ethiopia has produced many political innovations over the years. Its newest export deserves special recognition: Peace agreements that do not require the participation of actual conflict actors.In a world where mediators struggle to bring armed groups, governments, and communities to the table, Ethiopia has sidestepped the challenge by mastering an elegant formula: Negotiate with whoever is available, declare victory, and hope the violence agrees.The 4 December agreement between Amhara Regional President Arega Kebede and Captain Masresha Setie, celebrated with televised enthusiasm, follows this emerging tradition.At first glance, it resembles a conflict-resolution effort. On closer inspection, it functions more like a legally styled performance piece.The central paradox is hard to ignore. The government has signed a “peace deal” with a figure who, according to the very movement he allegedly represents, was expelled by Amhara Fano Popular Organization (AFPO) long before the ceremony.One could argue this is merely a misunderstanding. But misunderstandings do not typically generate full-scale media coverage.This is not a minor procedural slip. Under international mediation practice, parties to a binding agreement are generally expected to possess representation, authority, and constituency.Negotiating with someone who lacks all three is deliberate, not a simple oversight. And it is a strategy the federal government has deployed before.False NegotiationsThe recent signing is best understood in the context of Ethiopia’s evolving conflict-management approach.The model first revealed itself in Oromia, where the much-celebrated “peace deal” with the OLA turned out to involve individuals who neither negotiated on behalf of the armed group nor possessed political legitimacy.The result was predictable, with little change on the ground, but ample footage of handshakes.The Masresha agreement replicates this precedent. Rather than confronting the political nature of the Amhara crisis— its grievances over representation, a widening security vacuum, unresolved territorial disputes, and mass arrests—the federal government has opted for a more convenient narrative.By treating the conflict as a “regional disturbance” it shifts the burden of negotiation onto the Amhara Regional Government, an institution already overwhelmed, constrained, and structurally incapable of addressing a conflict that is national in scope.This framing is not accidental. It allows the federal government to appear engaged without undertaking the difficult work of political dialogue. This transforms mediation from a tool for dialogue into a choreographed act, where appearance outweighs achievement.Misplaced MandateUnder Ethiopia’s federal system, regional governments are vested primarily with administrative authority; they do not possess the constitutional mandate to negotiate settlements on crises whose roots extend far beyond regional borders.Yet the 4 December agreement thrusts the Amhara government into the impossible role of resolving a crisis tied to federal-level political decisions, security failures, and systemic governance gaps.It is akin to asking a municipal council to negotiate international treaties, an exercise in absurdity and legal overreach.No regional government, especially one operating under pressure, limited autonomy, and public skepticism can resolve a crisis rooted in federal policies and structural imbalances. The constitutional mismatch is glaring.Yet the public is expected to applaud a document that exceeds the legal remit of the negotiating body and collapses under the weight of its own contradictions. It is a symbolic agreement masquerading as a substantive solution.Shallow MediationThe role of external mediators adds another layer of irony. The African Union and IGAD have lent their presence and, by extension, their legitimacy without even doing the basic due diligence of verifying whether a signatory represents anyone other than himself.Such actions are deeply damaging, eroding the credibility that mediators must maintain.None of these were evident in the ceremony. Yet mediators, eager for even the faintest whiff of progress, endorsed the deal without scrutiny.The introduction of the individual-centered peace-signing model only adds to the absurdity. Individualized reintegration has its place. But elevating one expelled figure to “peace partner” status in a multi-layered armed conflict stretches the concept beyond recognition..Public SkepticismThe Ethiopian public and regional observers responded to the agreement with a mix of disbelief, dark humor, and weary resignation. Satire flooded social media.Ethiopians have watched this cycle repeat itself. Announcements of peace followed by continued conflict; ceremonies followed by silence; agreements signed in Addis Ababa that have no relationship to conditions in Amhara or Oromia.This pattern has generated a sophisticated form of skepticism, one that recognizes symbolic politics from a distance. The people know no conflict has ever been solved by negotiating with stand-ins.At its core, the Amhara conflict involves a decentralized, community-driven movement shaped by political grievances and local command structures. It is not a hierarchical organization easily “represented” by any single figure.Yet it is not unrepresentable either; authoritative interlocutors exist, individuals and structures with real constituencies.A peace process that bypasses these actors is fundamentally counterproductive. It signals that the state prefers convenience over legitimacy, performance over engagement. It entrenches distrust and prolongs instability.Beyond SymbolismThe agreement is not a step toward peace. It is a step toward maintaining the appearance of peace while evading the political commitments required to achieve it.Ethiopia does not lack constitutional frameworks, experienced mediators, or political actors capable of dialogue. What it lacks is the will to engage them honestly.A meaningful peace process requires four essentials.First, parties who actually command constituencies, not individuals selected for convenience.Second, federal recognition that the Amhara crisis is national, not merely regional.Third, mediators who verify representation rather than endorse pageantry.And fourth, an end to announcing peace where none exists.Until these conditions are met, Ethiopia will continue producing agreements that are legally styled, ceremonially executed, and practically irrelevant. They may satisfy the cameras, but they will not silence the guns. .wpedon-container .wpedon-select, .wpedon-container .wpedon-input { width: 200px; min-width: 200px; max-width: 200px; } Query or correction? Email us window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function(){if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") {sfsi_widget_set();}}); While this commentary contains the author’s opinions, Ethiopia Insight will correct factual errors.Main photo: Arega Kebede and Masresha Setie formalize a peace agreement in Addis Ababa, 4 December 2025. Source: Fana Broadcasting Corporate.Published under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.The post Political Theater Replaces Negotiation in Ethiopia appeared first on Ethiopia Insight.