Abiy Ahmed propaganda exposed inside GERD cult of personality

Is Abiy Ahmed building a legacy—or a narrative? Many ask how much of his rise rests on propaganda and a cult of personality. Big promises, carefully framed speeches, and the flag-waving around the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) shape a story of strength and unity. But people also search: Who really started GERD? Who deserves credit?

This article cuts through the noise. We examine:

• Staged events and public rallies that project mass approval
• The true origins of GERD, from Meles Zenawi’s vision to engineer Simegnew Bekele’s leadership and tragic death
• How media narratives turn national projects into personal branding

If you want facts over fanfare—who built what, who paid, and why the story keeps changing—keep reading. It’s time to separate nation-building from myth-making around Abiy Ahmed.

Historical Roots of Personality Cults in Ethiopian Politics

Historical roots of personality cults in Ethiopian politics run deep. Traditional Ethiopian kings, especially the emperors, were often seen as divine or semi-divine figures, with myths and legends built around their rule. For instance, leaders like Emperor Haile Selassie were often portrayed almost as godlike by followers, not just locally but even internationally as seen with the Rastafarian movement. Leaders after the monarchy, especially during times of revolution or state crisis, also encouraged strong images around themselves. As Addis Standard notes, cults of personality in Ethiopia have been destructive historically, aiding those in power but often reducing genuine democracy and healthy debate. In the late 20th and early 21st century, leaders like Mengistu Haile Mariam and Meles Zenawi further cemented this culture, building systems where loyalty to the individual, rather than to an institution, was expected. This paved the way for successors to continue this pattern.

Rise of Abiy Ahmed and the Media Narrative

Rise of Abiy Ahmed as a political icon in Ethiopia was rapid and powerful. When Abiy Ahmed became Prime Minister in 2018, the public narrative focused on his charisma and sweeping reforms. The Ethiopian and international media quickly built up his image, often comparing him to great reformers and peacemakers. Press coverage, TV specials, and massive social media campaigns helped turn him into a near-celebrity. For example, outlets like The Economist and The Guardian documented how crowds would chant his name and how the excitement around him took almost messianic levels. The government party, Prosperity Party, actively promoted this image, organizing large events and rolling out consistent public messaging. At the peak, his Nobel Peace Prize win in 2019 brought even more positive international attention, further boosting the narrative of Abiy as a unique savior figure for Ethiopia. Critics such as Ethiopia Insight and Zehabesha revealed, though, that the concerted media blitz wasn’t just organic; it was coordinated, blending facts with hero-worship elements.

Comparison with Past Ethiopian Leaders

Comparison with past Ethiopian leaders reveals both similarities and differences in how personality cults form. Like Haile Selassie and Meles Zenawi before him, Abiy Ahmed’s rise featured heavy use of state media and propaganda to shape how the public sees him. While Haile Selassie’s image relied on centuries of imperial legacy and Meles Zenawi emphasized his intellectual leadership and wartime achievements, Abiy Ahmed’s cult of personality has been much more digital and immediate, sprinkling messages across television, radio, and especially social media. Unlike Mengistu, whose regime relied on fear and strict control, Abiy’s early image centered on hope, reform, and unity. However, critics from platforms like Omna Tigray and The Guardian argue that “Abiymania” isn’t entirely new. It is the latest version of Ethiopian leaders using personal charisma and media to control public opinion, distract from policy debates, and silence opposition. Yet, the sheer scale and speed of Abiy’s image-making, coupled with new technology, have set his cult of personality apart as more dynamic and global-facing than ever before.

Staged Public Events and Ceremonies

Staged public events and ceremonies are a powerful mechanism in Abiy Ahmed’s propaganda strategy. Since coming to power, Abiy Ahmed’s government has carefully organized highly visible national events, often with elaborate ceremonies, to project an image of unity and progress. These events include mass tree-planting campaigns, award-giving ceremonies, and large-scale rallies that appear inclusive and patriotic.

Many of these staged ceremonies are broadcast live on state media, with strong visual messaging showing the Prime Minister surrounded by supporters, military officials, and even international guests. For instance, events where prominent international figures like Bill Gates receive Ethiopian honors are designed to legitimize and elevate Abiy’s status both at home and abroad. Critics, however, say these public displays are more style than substance. Reports highlight that while the government promotes a narrative of openness and progress through such ceremonies, it simultaneously restricts genuine public participation and dissent. This stage-managed approach is seen as a way to distract from domestic challenges, rally support, and frame Abiy as a dynamic leader.

Role of State-Controlled Media in Image Making

The role of state-controlled media is central to Abiy Ahmed’s image-making. Ethiopia’s main television networks, such as EBC, are government-owned, and they play an immense role in crafting public perception about the Prime Minister and his policies. State media consistently amplify Abiy’s achievements, broadcast his speeches in prime time, and report positively on his actions while downplaying or ignoring government shortcomings and opposition voices.

Since Abiy Ahmed took office, there was an initial period of media liberalization. However, this quickly reversed, with press freedoms shrinking once more. The government pressures media outlets to focus on positive stories about the administration, highlighting the Prosperity Party’s “development agenda” and downplaying corruption, conflict, or dissent.

When there are crises or controversial government measures, state media outlets either avoid the topic or present the government’s side as the only trustworthy account. They also use patriotic rhetoric, painting criticism as un-Ethiopian or a threat to national unity. Through these techniques, state-controlled media sustain the Prime Minister’s carefully managed image as a visionary reformer and guardian of the public good.

Use of Digital and Social Media for Disinformation

Use of digital and social media for disinformation is a modern propaganda tool favored by Abiy Ahmed’s government. Over the past several years, Ethiopia has witnessed organized online campaigns that spread government-friendly narratives and attack dissenting voices. There are widespread reports, including from outlets like BBC, NPR, and even academic research, of fake social media accounts, “media army” groups, and coordinated hashtag campaigns that influence online debates.

These tactics include spreading false news reports, doctored audio, and viral memes to discredit government critics or opposition groups. For example, opposing statements or leaked recordings are often quickly labeled as “fakes” by government accounts, and swarms of pro-government pages amplify this message. Disinformation also targets ethnic groups or foreign organizations seen as critical of the regime. Independent watchdogs like Reporters Without Borders have noted that this disinformation fosters mistrust, confusion, and polarization online, while creating an environment where the government’s viewpoint dominates digital spaces.

Narrative of Unity and Prosperity

The narrative of unity and prosperity is one of the most powerful themes in Abiy Ahmed’s propaganda. Since the formation of the Prosperity Party, the official story has been that Ethiopia needs to overcome old divisions and move forward together under a shared national identity. Abiy frequently speaks of “Medemer,” a concept meaning “coming together,” which is supposed to inspire solidarity across the country’s diverse communities.

In official speeches and party media, the Prosperity Party’s rise is explained as a new beginning for Ethiopia, built on the promises of unity, stability, and economic growth. Government-aligned outlets and social media accounts repeat messages that “division is Ethiopia’s biggest enemy” while prosperity comes only through supporting the party and the Prime Minister. Critics argue that beneath this optimistic language is a reality of growing polarization and repression, but for many, the unity-and-prosperity narrative still holds powerful appeal, especially when combined with visible development projects and national campaigns.

By monopolizing the national narrative, Abiy Ahmed uses this language to marginalize opposition as divisive or dangerous, making it harder for alternative viewpoints to take hold in the Ethiopian public sphere.

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) as a Propaganda Tool

Nationalist Framing of the GERD Project

Nationalist framing of the GERD project has played a major role in building support for Abiy Ahmed’s government. From the early days of its construction, the GERD has been defined as a symbol of Ethiopian pride and independence. Under Abiy Ahmed, this nationalist language has become even stronger. The government presents the dam as a battle for justice, dignity, and national self-reliance in the face of foreign pressure, especially from Egypt and Sudan. This approach unites people from different ethnic groups with a single message: the GERD is “Ethiopia’s dam,” built by Ethiopians for Ethiopians.

Authorities and state media often use words like “renaissance,” “sovereignty,” and “African independence” to discuss the dam. These terms create a sense of urgency and responsibility, aiming to rally citizens around a common cause. For many people, supporting the GERD means defending Ethiopia’s future. This patriotic message overshadows any technical, financial, or environmental concerns about the project.

Rewriting Credit: Overlooking Past Leaders’ Contributions

Rewriting credit for the GERD project is a key propaganda tool. While the initial vision and groundwork for the dam began under former Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, today’s narrative rarely mentions his role or those of his administration. Instead, Abiy Ahmed and his government often present themselves as the main driving force behind the dam’s progress and achievements.

In speeches, documentaries, and public events, the early planning, design, and mobilization led by previous administrations are downplayed or even ignored. This carefully edited history is intended to link the GERD’s success directly to Abiy, making him seem like the only leader who could deliver such a national victory. For many Ethiopians, this revised story can create confusion or resentment. However, it is an effective tactic in building a strong personality cult and consolidating political power.

The Symbolism of GERD in Official Speeches

The symbolism of GERD in official speeches is powerful and carefully crafted. Abiy Ahmed and other key leaders frequently use the dam as a metaphor for unity, strength, and renewal. The GERD is described as the “heart of the nation,” “the beating drum of unity,” or even “the promise to future generations.” These emotional messages aim to inspire pride and hope, especially at times of crisis or conflict.

Almost every major national holiday or public occasion includes references to the GERD. When milestones are reached—like filling the reservoir or connecting new turbines—speeches highlight how these achievements symbolize the resilience and ambition of the Ethiopian people. Such symbolic language is also used to silence criticism, with opponents of the project being labeled as “unpatriotic” or unsupportive of national progress.

Financial Mobilization and Public Participation Campaigns

Financial mobilization and public participation campaigns around the GERD are impressive and uniquely Ethiopian. The government encourages ordinary citizens to buy bonds, contribute portions of their salary, or donate directly to the cause. These campaigns are heavily promoted through media, public rallies, and even schools and government offices.

Contributing to the GERD is often presented as a moral duty and an act of patriotism. State institutions organize ceremonies where doctors, traders, and laborers make donations in front of television cameras. Many Ethiopians see their participation as a source of personal pride. However, there have been concerns over whether all contributions are truly voluntary, as some people have reported peer or official pressure.

Overall, these efforts help create a sense of communal ownership over the dam and anchor public support for both the project and the current leadership. By blending financial needs with nationalistic emotions, the government aims to deepen loyalty and turn the GERD into a shared success story for the whole country.

Undermining Democratic Institutions

Undermining democratic institutions became a noticeable pattern under Abiy Ahmed’s administration. At first, Abiy came to power promising sweeping reforms, open democracy, and respect for the rule of law. However, according to many analysts and reports such as The Habesha, this promise was not kept. Instead, key institutions like the judiciary and the election board were weakened or turned into tools for political control. There are increasing cases where judicial independence has been compromised, and civil liberties, once expanded, are now shrinking. Ethiopia, which had a brief period of democratic hope, is now often cited in discussions about democratic backsliding.

During the last few years, Ethiopia saw increased arrests of journalists and opposition members. Laws and regulations that would ensure transparency and checks on the executive have been ignored or changed. Critics argue that these changes have eroded the credibility of Ethiopia’s political system. Discussions on platforms like Reddit and PeaceRep also highlight how Abiy’s approach tends to centralize power and silence dissent, rather than build a stable and pluralistic democracy.

Appointment of Loyalists and Crony Networks

Appointment of loyalists and crony networks is another clear technique for consolidating power. From the start of his leadership, Abiy Ahmed restructured the cabinet and state agencies. While some early decisions, like naming women to half of cabinet roles, were praised internationally, there has been an observable trend of surrounding himself with individuals he trusts personally or who are loyal to the Prosperity Party.

Many older officials, especially those associated with rival regions or past governments, were pushed aside or dismissed. The cabinet and regional head positions were often given to loyal allies, sometimes regardless of their relevant experience. Some sources, such as the BBC and The Guardian, reported that the main goal was to ensure complete loyalty to the prime minister’s agenda. This has led to accusations of nepotism and centralization, creating a culture where decisions are made by a small circle, undermining Ethiopia’s tradition of at least some degree of federal pluralism. As reported by independent observers, this environment stifles open debate within the government and discourages the rise of alternative viewpoints.

Creation and Use of Ad Hoc Governing Bodies

Creation and use of ad hoc governing bodies is yet another method for maintaining and tightening control. Under Abiy Ahmed, Ethiopia witnessed the rise of temporary commissions and committees that bypassed the usual checks and balances. For instance, the National Reconciliation Commission and several other “special task forces” were formed to deal with crises, but often operated with little oversight and unclear mandates.

According to analyses on Ethiopia Insight and Awash Post, these ad hoc bodies act outside regular government frameworks. This approach allows the prime minister and his inner circle to address sensitive issues (like peace processes, border disputes, and ethnic unrest) quickly—but also ensures that real power remains tightly in their hands. Some observers argue that these bodies are meant more to secure control over volatile regions and key decisions, taking power away from parliament and legally established authorities.

Establishing committees and councils that answer only to the central government has helped Abiy sideline official channels and keep accountability to a minimum. In the long run, these bodies risk becoming parallel structures that weaken Ethiopia’s constitutional setup and blur the lines of democratic responsibility.

Digital Surveillance and Harassment

Digital surveillance and harassment have become powerful tools for the Abiy Ahmed government to control critics and opposition voices in Ethiopia. According to recent reports from Freedom House and Paradigm Initiative, the state closely monitors online activity, using internet and telecom platforms to keep track of activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens. The government deploys sophisticated technology to watch, intimidate, and threaten those they see as opponents.

Digital harassment is not limited to simple monitoring. Many Ethiopians experience targeted online attacks, the spread of misinformation, and even the hacking of personal accounts. This climate of fear often leads to self-censorship and discourages open discussion of sensitive political topics. Several reports confirm that arbitrary detentions and physical harassment often follow online criticism, especially for journalists and human rights defenders. In more serious cases, women activists face additional gender-based harassment and abuse. The threat is so real that many Ethiopians now avoid expressing critical opinions on social media or encrypted apps.

Targeting Civil Society and Independent Voices

Targeting civil society and independent voices is another hallmark of smart repression under Abiy Ahmed. According to Human Rights Watch and Addis Standard, proposed legal changes and new laws are being used to limit the freedoms of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civic groups. The government has recently suspended many prominent human rights organizations and introduced draft laws that could make it almost impossible for independent groups to operate freely.

Independent civil society organizations are crucial for defending human rights, transparency, and democracy. However, under Abiy Ahmed, these groups face constant pressure, including shutdowns, bureaucratic hurdles, and threats against their staff. Human rights defenders and activists have been forced to flee the country, while those who remain encounter routine intimidation. The authorities have also increased their crackdown on media outlets, shutting down independent voices and creating a chilling effect across Ethiopian society. These actions threaten the hopes many had for a more open and democratic Ethiopia.

Suppression of Political Opposition and Dissent

Suppression of political opposition and dissent remains a core tactic for maintaining control in Abiy Ahmed’s Ethiopia. Amnesty International and ACLED reports show that the government frequently uses states of emergency to detain opposition politicians and silence peaceful protesters. There are regular cases of arbitrary arrests, closure of opposition party offices, and restrictions on public gatherings. These actions make it almost impossible for genuine opposition to function or for ordinary citizens to freely assemble and share their views.

By sidelining alternative political figures and dismantling opposition groups, the government ensures that the ruling party faces little real challenge. Even though Abiy Ahmed once promised open dialogue and reform, the current reality is different. Politicians who criticize the government or stand as a threat are often imprisoned or pushed aside. With elections repeatedly postponed and dissent actively crushed, hopes for peaceful political competition continue to fade.

In short, smart repression in Ethiopia under Abiy Ahmed is modern, subtle, and deeply effective, combining legal, technological, and old-fashioned strong-arm tactics to silence critics and stamp out independent voices.

Early Optimism and the Nobel Peace Prize Aura

Early optimism surrounded Abiy Ahmed when he became Prime Minister of Ethiopia in 2018. Public perception of his leadership was filled with hope due to his promises of peace and reform. The world watched as he took bold steps, like making peace with Eritrea and freeing political prisoners. This optimism reached its height in 2019 when Abiy was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to bring peace and international cooperation, especially for ending the long-standing border conflict with Eritrea.

Inside Ethiopia, people believed real change was finally coming. Abiy’s speeches about unity, democracy, and prosperity sparked excitement among both young and old. Media outlets, both local and global, painted him as a reformer who could heal old wounds and bring the nation closer together. The Nobel Peace Prize also strengthened his image as a symbol of hope, giving Ethiopia a rare moment of positive international attention.

However, right from the start, there were some who questioned whether this optimism was too quick or too high. Critics pointed out that real, deep reforms would require much more than promises and grand gestures. Some international outlets—like CNN and DW—warned that the Nobel Peace Prize might have been awarded too soon, before real peace and reforms could actually take root in Ethiopia.

Shifts in Popular and International Sentiment

Shifts in popular and international sentiment became clear not long after the Nobel celebration. At first, public opinion inside the country stayed supportive. Many Ethiopians hoped that Abiy’s reforms would solve problems like government corruption, economic struggles, and ethnic conflict. Internationally, leaders and organizations admired his apparent bold vision.

But by 2020 and 2021, the image of Abiy Ahmed had changed a lot. The eruption of the war in Tigray shocked the world and deeply affected public sentiment. International media, which once praised his peacemaking efforts, began reporting on human rights violations, civilian suffering, and accusations of war crimes. Headlines soon shifted from “Nobel Peace Prize winner” to “leader at war with his own people.”

Within Ethiopia, doubts grew about the success of promised changes. The dream of a quick transition to democracy faded. According to the BBC and The Guardian, Abiy was now facing criticism for his government’s approach to political opposition, press freedom, and lack of progress in ethnic reconciliation. The optimism turned into skepticism and even anger among groups who felt left out or targeted by new policies.

Internationally, former supporters demanded accountability and transparency, with human rights groups calling for investigations and some calling for his Peace Prize to be revoked. The “aura” of the Nobel was replaced by the reality of conflict and crisis.

Ethnic Polarization and Unmet Expectations

Ethnic polarization has been one of the key realities challenging Abiy Ahmed’s promises. Unmet expectations are clear when looking at how his years in power have actually deepened old divisions. At first, some believed that Abiy, who comes from a mixed ethnic background, would be able to bridge Ethiopia’s many divides. Early speeches about reconciliation and national unity raised hopes for a new era—especially after decades of ethnic-based political struggles.

But the political landscape became even more polarized, as shown by growing ethnic violence and mistrust. Instead of new harmony, various communities saw increasing competition for power and resources. According to reports by media like The Habesha, Borkena and Freedom House, many feel Abiy’s approach has not created fairness or safety for all, and some say his reforms made ethnic tensions worse, not better.

The surge of ethnic violence, regional insurgencies, and population displacements further shattered the early optimism. Former supporters accused Abiy of failing to keep his promises of inclusion and peace. Honest dialogue and long-term solutions were replaced by suspicion and security crackdowns. Ethiopia’s hopes for unity and development turned into frustration, with many asking if real change under Abiy Ahmed is even possible.

In summary, public perception and the reality under Abiy Ahmed have moved from bright optimism and international praise to growing doubt, ethnic division, and difficult questions about what comes next for Ethiopia.

Escalation of Ethnic Violence and Political Assassinations

Escalation of ethnic violence after the Tigray conflict has deeply shaken Ethiopia. According to recent updates from ACLED and the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, violence has spread well beyond Tigray, engulfing regions like Oromia and Amhara. Clashes often involve armed groups and government forces, with civilian communities caught in the middle. Reports detail kidnappings, killings, and forced displacement as conflict-related abuses remain common, even after formal peace agreements.

Escalation also means frequent assassinations of local officials and prominent figures. As highlighted by various analyses, these targeted killings further fuel mistrust and fear among Ethiopia’s many ethnic groups. In some cases, political assassinations have directly triggered new waves of violence and reprisals. The decision to disband old regional security structures also aggravated tensions, leaving a vacuum that violent actors quickly filled. The cycle of violence reminds many Ethiopians that peace in Tigray has not created nationwide stability, but instead allowed other flashpoints to erupt.

Human Rights Concerns and International Backlash

Human rights concerns have remained a powerful theme during and after the Tigray conflict. Multiple sources, including Human Rights Watch and the U.S. State Department, have reported on grave abuses: extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, torture, and sexual violence. These abuses have not been limited to Tigray. The Amhara and Oromia regions have seen continued human rights violations in 2024, long after fighting officially ended.

Human rights abuses in Ethiopia have drawn strong international backlash. The United Nations and other global bodies have repeatedly called for independent investigations into alleged atrocities and accountability for those responsible. Countries and organizations have criticized the Ethiopian government for failing to protect civilians and for its slow progress on justice and reconciliation. As tragic stories continue to emerge, the conflict has damaged Ethiopia’s reputation and strained its relations with international donors, humanitarian partners, and rights groups.

Control of Narrative Around the Conflict

Control of the narrative has been a key strategy for the Ethiopian government during the Tigray conflict and its aftermath. According to reports from BBC, Al Jazeera, and Ethiopia Insight, the government has made deliberate efforts to shape public perceptions. Early in the conflict, the administration imposed communication blackouts in Tigray, restricting access to news, social media, and independent observers. This move was designed to control what information reached both Ethiopians and the outside world.

Government-aligned outlets pushed official messages describing military actions as necessary security measures. Independent reporting was often dismissed as fake news or foreign interference. Meanwhile, opposition groups and their supporters actively promoted a different narrative, emphasizing civilian suffering and atrocities. The battle for public opinion was fought across traditional and social media, with both sides accusing each other of propaganda and disinformation.

This tight grip on the narrative allowed the government to minimize public debate and delay large-scale international pressure for accountability. However, as more evidence leaked through social media and foreign press, new questions emerged. Today, both inside and outside Ethiopia, there is an ongoing struggle over whose version of the conflict will be remembered. This war over the story of Tigray continues to shape the country’s future and its ongoing quest for peace.

Erosion of Institutional Governance

Erosion of institutional governance is a major part of Abiy Ahmed’s legacy. Under his leadership, Ethiopia has seen the concentration of power in one central figure. Abiy Ahmed dissolved the historic ruling coalition, the EPRDF, and replaced it with the Prosperity Party, putting most national decisions under his direct control. This sidelined traditional power-sharing and weakened the checks and balances once provided by the old federal and party structures.

Important government institutions, like the judiciary, parliament, and civil service, have become more loyal to the Prime Minister and less independent. Many observers now describe Ethiopian governance as “big man rule,” where authority comes from the top and loyalty is rewarded over ability or public accountability. Reports from sources such as Borkena and PeaceRep show how political appointments, targeting of civil society groups, and erosion of federalism have led to diminished trust in the system. Instead of transparent, rule-bound administration, Ethiopia faces centralization of power and blurred lines between state and party. Ultimately, this has hindered policy-making and hurt Ethiopia’s move towards democracy and stable governance.

Impact on National Cohesion

Impact on national cohesion has been deeply troubling during Abiy Ahmed’s era. One of his main promises was unity, but the result has often been deeper divisions. Several sources highlight that efforts to weaken ethnic federalism, split up certain regions, and concentrate power in Addis Ababa have increased suspicion among Ethiopia’s diverse communities.

Ethnic conflicts and political violence have grown, especially after the dissolution of the EPRDF—a multiethnic governing coalition. Many activists and researchers report that Abiy’s style has sometimes played ethnic groups against each other, rather than bringing them together. Recent studies, such as those by SWP-Berlin and in the Habesha, say the government’s centralizing push has made ethnic minorities feel more excluded. Serious ethnic clashes, population displacement, and mutual distrust have therefore become hallmarks of the current period. The old dream of building a national identity has been replaced by fears of further fragmentation, making Ethiopia’s future more uncertain than before.

Prospects for Change and Democratic Recovery

Prospects for change and democratic recovery are a key issue for Ethiopia’s future. Many people hoped that Abiy Ahmed’s arrival would start a period of reform and openness. However, while there were early moves toward press freedom and political release, most recent reports describe a country that is still struggling with deep political and social challenges.

According to Freedom House, Ethiopia remains only “partly free,” with serious limits on opposition parties, press, and civil society. Flawed elections in 2021 and ongoing violence have further reduced hope in a fair democratic process. Some analysts, including Ethiopia Insight and BTI Transformation Index, argue that real recovery will require not just changing the leader, but rebuilding institutions, encouraging dialogue, and ending political violence. There are calls for inclusive national dialogue and support for civil society. Yet, as long as the political climate remains tense and power is concentrated at the top, Ethiopia faces a tough road back to real democracy. The international community and Ethiopian reformers both see the need for change, but achieving it will take time and patience—and real willingness from those in power to compromise and share authority.