By Nama Nekemto
The ongoing debate surrounding the formation of a unified Fano organization and its purported necessity has become a significant point of contention among journalists and Amhara activists. Daily, the criticisms and accusations surrounding this topic escalate, now involving even Prosperity Party cadres.
Several key questions that need to be addressed:
What are the potential benefits of such a unified structure?
What are the potential risks and negative consequences of a hastened unity?
How would this impact the existing power dynamics in the region?
What are the views of various stakeholders, including local communities, government officials, and opposition groups, on this matter?
The lack of a transparent public discourse on this important issue fosters mistrust and fuels further conflict. A thorough and unbiased assessment into these critical questions is essential for promoting a more informed and peaceful public discourse.
Opinions held by journalists and activists:
Highly regarded seasoned journalist and Amhara activist known for presenting diverse perspectives from various segments of society, present their opinions on Fano unity. Their commitment to presenting not only views that align with their beliefs, but also those that challenge their perspectives. Their dedication is evident in their reporting, even when covering sensitive subjects like statements from Prosperity Party generals and the parliamentary pronouncements of Abiy Ahmed.
Recently, however, I’ve observed a pattern in some , reporting a biased approach on the unification efforts of Fano forces. Their focus seems heavily weighted towards immediate unity, without expressing concerns of potential challenges. While acknowledging the existence of legitimate criticism, I haven’t seen equivalent coverage reflecting the significant progress made towards unity and the positive outlook of many involved in the process. This imbalance in presentation may inadvertently contribute to a false narrative of division and instability within the Fano movement.
Counter productive, exaggerated criticism and the call for urgent Fano unity:
Perhaps this is due to a lack of access to alternative perspectives. Several months ago, I shared my own assessment of the unification process which presented, I felt, a more balanced view than the recent mushrooming reports in various commentators. However, I’m not confident that positive perspectives was communicated fully, or even commented upon.
My concern stems from a prevalent narrative, fueled by some commentators and journalists supporting either sides of the Fano forces. This narrative, consistently amplified through daily war reports, news analyses and interviews, falsely painting a picture of deep internal division within Fano, exaggerating existing challenges. This negativity and repetitive criticism seems counterproductive.
Who should decide when and how to unify Fano?
The voices of those on the ground – the Fano fighters and their leaders who daily risk their lives for Amhara cause – should hold more weight than the often-distant, amplified criticisms of external observers. While constructive criticism is necessary, the current level of negativity seems not only unhelpful but potentially damaging. It risks demoralizing Fano members and leaders, undermining the dream for freedom of the Amhara people. This unwise approach may also strengthen the position of their adversaries – an opportunity for Prosperity Party cadres to exploit, worsening the overall situation.
It is crucial to remember that the benefits of unity are most clearly understood by the Fano fighters and their leaders. These courageous selfless individuals, the pride of Amhara people, who in the past worked and are now working tirelessly, step-by-step, to build the Fano organization from the ground up, village by village, and are achieving remarkable results in consolidating different organizations into an only two unified structure.
We need to acknowledge these successes, balance them against the valid concerns, and foster a more nuanced and constructive conversation. This approach will be far more supportive to their ongoing efforts and to the Amhara people as a whole.
While I haven’t encountered any Amhara Fano leadership or intellectual figures explicitly opposing unity, I am concerned by the apparent absence of diverse perspectives in the public discourse. The narrative often focuses on celebrating the achievements on unity only, and while this is undoubtedly positive, it’s crucial to acknowledge and engage with a broader range of opinions on how to achieve it.
Unity vs collaboration, which comes first?
The envisioned Fano unity will surely come, but its arrival requires careful cultivation now. Currently, the most critical priority is fostering collaboration and synergy of oppression between the two Amhara Fano organizations. This collaboration shouldn’t be merely a superficial agreement, but a deep and meaningful partnership built on mutual respect, shared goals, and a clear understanding of each other’s strengths and potential contributions to the common cause.
Focusing solely on achieving immediate unity without addressing the underlying factors that may be hindering cooperation is short-sighted. A comprehensive strategy that addresses these foundational issues will pave the way for a durable and truly effective united front. The future success of the Amhara Fano depends on the strength of this collaboration, so let us prioritize this effort with unwavering dedication and commitment.