While it constitutes a practical and theoretical concern for a much longer time, after the Cold War, Conflict Resolution became simultaneously more important and more complex. The explosion of conflicts largely suppressed over the previous decades, unleashed by ingrained social controversies, forced reinvention upon the discipline. Practical demands for greater inclusion and transparency in the handling of peace processes multiplied, which explains why today hardly ever a negotiation that does not consider popular needs will have great chances of being seen as legitimate. While specialists start to tackle ways to promote inclusion without, at the same time, hoarding the negotiation table with too many different points of view, it is becoming increasingly clearer that an inclusive peace is also a durable peace. This research aims to contemplate this discussion through a less usual lens - the one of political representation. Instead of thinking about inclusion as an instrument to achieve representativeness, we will evaluate the role of political representation in allowing (or not) for inclusion. It argues, thus, that it is necessary to reflect on inclusion through representation, not the other way around. In order to do that, it will build a theoretical bridge between the fields of Conflict Resolution and Political Science. Ultimately, the political representation put forth by negotiation tables may help explain the emergence of inclusion and exclusion patterns during peace processes.