The Risk of ሽምግልና Without Political Clarity

Mediation Is Necessary, But Not Neutral

The ongoing ሽምግልና efforts in Mekelle, initiated by concerned Tigrayans seeking to unlock the prevailing political deadlock, represent a significant attempt to foster dialogue and stability in Tigray. If this effort aims to resolve the governance crisis through pragmatic restructuring, ensuring a balanced political framework that acknowledges existing realities while upholding Tigray’s core interests, then it deserves recognition.

This is not an argument against mediation. Tigray needs dialogue, internal repair, and mechanisms that prevent political disagreement from becoming permanent paralysis. But while I appreciate the genuine intentions of the mediators, any effort toward reconciliation must be approached with care and diligence. Mediation should clarify responsibility, not dissolve it. It should restore functional governance, not launder political ambiguity. Above all, it must not inadvertently serve the interests of third parties seeking to weaken Tigray’s political agency.

The Core Proposal

In my previous article, Tigray’s Path to Peace: Navigating the Political Deadlock, I proposed a realistic approach to resolving the TIRA crisis. The core of the proposal was simple: individuals from the breakaway faction, who have politically and functionally severed ties with TPLF, should retain their roles in the TIRA not as representatives of the TPLF, but as representatives of the political forces they now align with, whether that means the Prosperity Party, an independent political stance, or another clearly defined platform.

This approach allows governance to continue while preserving clarity. It does not deny anyone a political role. It simply prevents one group from claiming the name, legacy, and mandate of an organization whose congress and broader membership have rejected their line. In that sense, the purpose is not exclusion. It is political honesty.

Accountability and Reconciliation

Given the unfolding circumstances, there is a legitimate concern that mediation could unintentionally blur the line between accountability and reconciliation. Through Abiy Ahmed’s tactics, the federal government has repeatedly tried to frame TPLF as the obstacle to peace while presenting itself as a neutral stabilizing actor. Some messaging from the breakaway faction has echoed this framing, whether intentionally or not.

Abiy’s recent warnings against war should therefore be read carefully. They may sound like appeals for peace, but they also function politically: they position TPLF as reckless while obscuring the federal government’s own role in delaying Pretoria implementation, leaving territorial questions unresolved, and exploiting Tigray’s internal divisions. Public events in Addis Ababa presented as Tigrayan endorsement of his peace message should also be assessed cautiously, especially where the representativeness of those gatherings is unclear.

For mediation to be meaningful and constructive, it must distinguish between actors committed to Tigray’s self-determination and actors whose conduct has aligned, intentionally or not, with external strategies that have undermined Tigray’s survival. Any reconciliation effort should prioritize accountability, genuine political realignment, and the long-term interests of Tigray over superficial unity.

Can Irreconcilable Ideologies Be Merged into One?

The answer is no. If mediation becomes an effort to force incompatible political lines back into one organizational shell, it will not solve the governance crisis. It will deepen it. Tigray does not need symbolic reunification that confuses the public, weakens accountability, and leaves unresolved political contradictions untouched.

A true mediation would recognize that unity cannot be built by erasing political responsibility. Any political resolution must be grounded in a clear separation of roles. Those who have abandoned TPLF’s ideological foundation should not be forced back into its ranks. Instead, they can be acknowledged as independent political actors and assigned roles accordingly. If mediation has legitimacy, it should focus on a functional political framework, not an artificial ideological merger.

Recognizing the Political Context

Though this mediation is initiated and led by Tigrayans, it operates within a broader political landscape shaped by the federal government’s strategy. Recent indications from Prosperity Party figures, including Abraham Belay, suggest that the federal government seeks to manage IDP resettlement in ways that may shift blame onto TPLF while avoiding the core issue: the restoration of Tigray’s legal borders and the reversal of displacement.

PP’s inclusion of Ashetew Demile, the administrator of occupied Western Tigray, in its central committee further signals a dangerous political direction. It suggests an effort to normalize the occupation and treat Western Tigray as a settled administrative reality. Any mediation inside Tigray must therefore be alert to the larger environment in which it is taking place.

A Reality Check for Mediation

For mediation to serve Tigray’s interests, it must confront these realities:

• The return of displaced Tigrayans must be tied to restoring Tigray’s legal borders.
• Any process legitimizing forced demographic changes in Western Tigray should be rejected.
• Tigray’s right to self-rule cannot be compromised under the guise of peace.
• Reconciliation must clarify political responsibility rather than dissolve it into vague unity.

The Misplaced Excitement Around እርቂ

Many people are understandably excited about the possibility of reconciliation. That desire should be respected. Tigray has suffered enough, and its people need healing, not endless political fragmentation. But emotional enthusiasm cannot substitute for political clarity.

Mediation should not be reduced to merely reuniting individuals or factions. It must address the fundamental political and territorial issues that define Tigray’s future. Reconciliation should not be only about bringing people back together; it should resolve the deeper contradictions that led to the division in the first place. If the mediation effort ignores those structural problems and produces only symbolic unity, it risks delaying a necessary reckoning over Tigray’s governance, territorial integrity, and self-determination.

The Looming Threat: Abiy’s Next Moves

Abiy Ahmed is unlikely to remain passive as long as TPLF remains a major obstacle to his consolidation of power. With TPLF ignoring the ultimatum issued by the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE), the federal government may escalate pressure through legal maneuvers, increased intervention, or renewed efforts to fuel internal divisions within Tigray.

A manufactured political or legal confrontation remains possible. Abiy’s propaganda machine may frame TPLF as the main hurdle to peace while positioning himself as a stabilizing force. The ongoing mediation efforts could also be weaponized in this narrative. If they fail, he may use them as evidence of TPLF’s alleged incompetence in governance. If they weaken TPLF’s institutional position, he may quietly encourage them. If they strengthen Tigray’s political agency, federal interference is likely to intensify.

The real test is whether this mediation remains a Tigrayan-led effort centered on political agency, accountability, and territorial restoration, or whether it becomes another front for external manipulation. If it fails to address the fundamental structural and ideological contradictions at play, then it is not a step toward peace. It becomes a political trap, and Tigray must recognize it as such.