Can Ethiopia ever be at peace? Four reasons conflict keeps flaring up

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2)

Ethiopia has experienced recurrent conflicts for over five decades. This includes a long-running civil war sparked by the overthrow of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1974, renewed fighting in Tigray, and ongoing conflicts in Amhara and Oromia.

The renewed hostilities in Tigray threaten to undo a peace process that had begun with an agreement signed in Pretoria, South Africa, in 2022.

Why has peace been so difficult to sustain in Ethiopia? My research on constitutional design and conflict points to four interconnected explanations:

the foundations of the Ethiopian state remain contested
ceasefires are mistaken for political settlements
armed force continues to be a route to political power
regional rivalries reinforce internal conflicts.

The problem isn’t that Ethiopians of diverse ethnic backgrounds hate one another and can’t live together peacefully. It’s that successive political arrangements have failed to establish widely accepted rules for managing disagreements.

1. The foundations of the state remain contested

Ethiopia’s 1995 constitution emerged from a political transition that followed the overthrow of the military government in 1991. This ended nearly two decades of civil war.

The new leadership sought to address long-standing grievances over ethnic marginalisation and demands for greater autonomy. It restructured the country as a federation largely organised around ethnolinguistic communities. The constitution vested sovereignty in Ethiopia’s nations, nationalities and peoples. It guaranteed their right to self-determination, including secession.

Proponents of federalism regard this right as protection against historical domination. Opponents argue that it entrenches ethnic boundaries and encourages competition over territory and resources.

Ethnic diversity doesn’t inevitably lead to violence. And federalism isn’t inherently destabilising. It was introduced to accommodate competing national claims within a common political order.

But constitutional recognition is not the same as political reconciliation.

The problem arises when a constitution sets out rules for sharing power and governing the country without sufficient agreement among the political groups expected to follow them. Instead of providing a common framework for resolving disputes, those rules become another source of political conflict.

2. Ceasefires are mistaken for political settlements

The 2022 Pretoria agreement was about stopping hostilities, not about resolving their causes. The federal government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front agreed to end two years of war. Major political questions were left for later negotiation.

Disputed territories, regional administration, political participation and accountability for wartime abuses remain contentious.

Eritrea, a major participant in the 2020-2022 war in Tigray, did not sign the agreement. Eritrean forces are still present in parts of Tigray.

The Tigray People’s Liberation Front itself also became fragmented after the war. Divisions emerged within the leadership. Disagreements over federal relations, political authority and control of military forces developed into a struggle within the movement.

A peace agreement assumes that the parties signing it have authority over their political and military organisations to honour their commitments. But when these organisations fragment, it becomes unclear who can carry out agreements.

The Tigray leadership’s loss of legal party status in 2025 added another obstacle to political reintegration.

These developments have undermined confidence that the transition from armed conflict to constitutional politics would be honoured.

This distinction is fundamental. A cessation of hostilities can save lives immediately. But it cannot, by itself, establish a legitimate regional government, resolve territorial claims or restore trust between former enemies.

3. Armed force is a route to political power

The use of violence to acquire or retain political authority has deep roots in Ethiopia’s modern history. In 1974, the military overthrew the empire-state and established a military regime. This regime was itself overthrown in 1991 by a coalition of rebel forces led by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front.

These transitions reinforced a pattern in which political power could be won through armed struggle. When political opponents have little confidence that elections, courts or negotiations can bring change, taking up arms can appear more effective than peaceful political competition.

The continued use of force by both the state and armed groups makes this cycle difficult to break.

Abiy Ahmed became prime minister in 2018 after years of anti-government protests and divisions within the ruling coalition. Two years later, rising political tensions led to war in Tigray. Abiy’s regime has faced accusations of serious rights abuses and a lack of accountability.

This has deepened distrust. It’s made negotiated settlements harder to achieve. Under Abiy, political authority has become increasingly personalised. Military operations and extraordinary security measures have been used to confront political challenges.

Peace needs a political environment where losing an election doesn’t mean exclusion from power or exposure to coercion.

4. Regional rivalries reinforce internal conflicts

Ethiopia’s domestic conflicts are increasingly intersecting with the interests and actions of neighbouring countries. Eritrean forces fought beside Ethiopia’s army in Tigray. They remained in parts of the region after the 2022 peace deal. Now the former allies are adversaries.

There have been accusations of cross-border military intervention. This has renewed concerns that the war in Tigray could develop into a wider conflict.

Ethiopia’s ambitions to secure Red Sea access have further complicated relations with Eritrea and Somalia. Its 2024 agreement with Somaliland provoked a dispute with Mogadishu.

Ethiopia also has strained relations with Egypt over its mega dam in the Nile River. Sudan’s ongoing civil war and rival Saudi Arabia and Emirati relationships across the Red Sea add further pressures.

These external tensions can make domestic troubles harder to contain. Ethiopia has a duty to defend its boundaries and also to respect those of its neighbours.

What would lasting peace require?

These four obstacles to peace reinforce one another:

disagreements over constitutional rules fuel political tensions
armed conflict makes inclusive negotiations more difficult
peace agreements that fail to address underlying grievances leave the door open to renewed violence
competing regional interests complicate efforts to achieve lasting peace.

As a result, Ethiopia’s recurring conflicts cannot be resolved through ceasefires alone.

Lasting peace requires all Ethiopians to agree on how power is shared, and the relationship between the federal government and its regions.

But resolving Ethiopia’s internal divisions will not, on its own, settle tensions with neighbouring countries. That requires diplomacy built on respect for sovereignty, non-interference and peaceful negotiation over interests.

Ethiopia therefore faces two interconnected challenges. First, building a political system that its diverse communities can accept. Second, establishing peaceful relations with its neighbours.

Lasting peace depends on both.

Alemayehu Fentaw Weldemariam does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/15/can-ethiopia-ever-be-at-peace-four-reasons-conflict-keeps-flaring-up/