August 30, 2025
The Fano Unity Crisis is now impossible to ignore. The Amhara Fano resistance has grown under Abiy Ahmed’s increasingly authoritarian rule and a sweeping state of emergency, yet its biggest threat may be internal.
Without a unified leadership, Fano risks losing credibility, strategy, and the trust of its own people. Fragmentation invites infiltration and propaganda, while ongoing crackdowns are funded as foreign loans and aid keep flowing. If unity fails, this struggle could drag on for years, with higher costs for Amhara families.
This article looks at why unity matters, what blocks it, and how to build one command that can protect civilians and speak with one voice. The path forward starts by confronting the Fano Unity Crisis.
Roots of the Fano Unity Crisis
Historical Background of the Fano Movement
The Fano movement has deep roots in the history of Ethiopia, especially within the Amhara community. Fano originally referred to local youth-led militias who protected their villages and land. These groups have been active for decades, defending against threats and voicing local concerns. During periods of national crisis, such as the Italian occupation and internal turmoil, Fano units often stepped up to defend their people.
In modern times, the Fano gained more visibility after 2018, as political change swept through Ethiopia. Disputes over land, government reforms, and fears of ethnic marginalization fueled the Fano’s resurgence. Many in the Amhara region saw Fano as a necessary force to protect their rights, especially as conflicts in places like western Tigray and Oromia grew worse. The group became both a symbol of resistance and a response to the perceived failure of federal and regional leaders to address Amhara security concerns.
Factors Leading to Fragmentation
Factors leading to fragmentation in the Fano movement have become more severe in recent years. The biggest factor is the lack of a single, unified leadership. Different regions and localities set up their own Fano units, each led by its own commanders with independent agendas. This made coordination difficult right from the start.
Another major source of division is competition between strong personalities in the movement. Rival commanders and local leaders often clashed over control, resources, or political vision. In some cases, outside actors—like elements of the federal government or opposition groups—intervened to support certain factions, deepening the discord.
Ethnic and local loyalties have also contributed. Fano groups in different parts of Amhara do not always trust each other or agree about priorities, especially as the conflict has dragged on. Communication gaps and accusations of betrayal have further weakened unity. Social media debates, diaspora influences, and rumors often make the situation worse, fueling suspicions and making it harder to rebuild trust.
Today, these divisions make it nearly impossible for Fano to present a common front or negotiate effectively with the Ethiopian government. Without significant changes, the risks of continued conflict and marginalization remain very high.
Local Command vs Centralized Leadership
Local command has been the traditional structure for most Fano groups, with fighters and commanders organized by locality or region. Units from Wollo, Gojjam, Gondar, and Shewa would often act independently, focusing on defending their own communities. This approach allowed for flexibility and fast local response, but it also meant Fano could not always coordinate effectively on larger strategic operations.
Centralized leadership could, in theory, give the movement a single voice and more strategic control. Recent news and analysis regularly highlight how the lack of a unified command has prevented Fano from developing a common political vision and military strategy. This issue is evident during joint operations or negotiations, where disagreements over tactics and leadership roles have slowed progress and exposed vulnerabilities. Some sources compare the risks of local command to a “patchwork” that can be easily penetrated or manipulated by opponents.
Attempts at Forming Unified Commands (AFANF, Fano Central Command)
Attempts to form unified structures like the Amhara Fano National Force (AFANF) and the Fano Central Command began intensifying in 2024 and 2025. The AFANF was publicly launched as an umbrella group, aiming to bring over 85 percent of Amhara Fano armed organizations together. Their organizational structure includes a General Assembly, a Central Council, and an Executive Committee.
Reports from multiple outlets show that, while these steps were celebrated, they faced opposition from veteran commanders who feared losing their local authority. A few breakthroughs, such as a coordinated announcement in May 2025, led some to hope for genuine unity on the ground. Still, practical implementation lagged behind. Obstacles included regional loyalties, personal rivalries, and skepticism about “outsider” leaders dictating orders to units that have fought alone for months or years. Yet, most agree that without some degree of central command, Fano’s ability to launch large operations or negotiate as one body remains weak.
Key Figures and Competing Leaders
Key figures have emerged from different regions and backgrounds. Eskinder Nega, a former journalist and vocal political activist, was selected by several Fano factions to serve as a national leader in 2024 and 2025. Zemene Kassie and Asres Mare are prominent in the Gojjam region, sometimes cooperating but reportedly also struggling for dominance. Mihretu (Mire) Wodajo is a leading figure for Wollo Fano, while Habte Wolde and Baye Kengaw command strong followings in Gondar. In Shewa, Meketaw Mamo is considered a central organizer.
These leaders do not always agree on strategic decisions. Some prioritize local defense, while others push for broad national action against federal or regional authorities. There are also generational, tactical, and ideological divisions, with some commanders preferring more radical or populist approaches and others emphasizing negotiation or formal alliances.
The fragmentation of leadership worsens when personal competition is added to regional rivalries. As reports warn, if key Fano figures cannot collaborate, they risk splitting the movement and endangering their cause. Still, calls for a cohesive leadership grow stronger as the crisis deepens, showing many inside Fano and the wider Amhara society want these divisions to end.
Political and Social Impact of Disunity
Loss of Strategic Coordination
Loss of strategic coordination has been a serious effect of the Fano unity crisis. When Fano groups were united, their actions were more organized against common objectives. Now, competing commands and independent operations make it hard to agree on priorities or tactics. This leads to missed opportunities and confusion during battles. Planning is weaker, supply lines are disrupted, and responses to enemy attacks are often slow. Information sharing has almost stopped between some groups, making it easier for opponents to exploit gaps. This new reality allows federal or regional security forces to target isolated Fano units effectively, reducing the movement’s impact.
Erosion of Credibility Among Amhara Communities
Erosion of credibility among Amhara communities is another troubling result of Fano’s disunity. Ordinary people once saw Fano as strong defenders of Amhara interests. Now, public trust is declining because villagers see constant disagreements and blame games between leaders. Many people feel uncertain about which Fano group, if any, truly represents their interests. Some communities are hesitant to give food or shelter, fearing involvement in the internal conflict. Disunity also feeds negative stories in local media, making it easy for enemies and critics to question Fano’s purpose and legitimacy. Without unity, even supporters start doubting whether Fano can really protect Amhara people.
Mistrust and Morale Within the Movement
Mistrust and morale within the movement have been damaged by the lack of unity. Fighters are suspicious of one another, especially when leaders accuse rivals of betrayal or corruption. Coordination meetings turn into arguments or are skipped entirely. Soldiers wonder if their sacrifices are in vain. Some experienced fighters have left the movement, feeling disappointed with their commanders. Recruitment is harder, as the young are less inspired to join a divided cause. Without unity, it is harder to motivate fighters, celebrate victories, or cope with losses. Low morale spreads quickly on the battlefield and in the camps, weakening the entire resistance. If mistrust continues, the danger of more splits and defections grows even worse.
Federal Government’s Response to Fano
The federal government’s response to Fano has been marked by a heavy-handed approach. Security forces have launched full-scale counterinsurgency campaigns against Fano in the Amhara region, as reported in official documents and by organizations like Human Rights Watch. The federal military has targeted Fano strongholds using both armed forces and regional police, leading to widespread violence and civilian harm. Reports suggest that the government’s campaign has included assaults on civilian areas, medical facilities, and alleged war crimes against residents in conflict zones.
Government rhetoric continues to frame Fano as an unlawful armed group, justifying their crackdowns as necessary for national security and stability. While “peace efforts” are occasionally discussed in government communication, these are often overshadowed by military operations and restrictions on any group seen as dissident in Amhara. Human rights organizations have repeatedly raised the alarm over abuses linked to these operations, but the administration insists that its goal is to restore order rather than target any group based on ethnicity.
Impact of International Support and Aid on the Conflict
International support and aid influence the Fano crisis but do so in complicated, sometimes problematic ways. Humanitarian aid flows into Ethiopia to address the fallout from conflict and famine, and agencies like the Red Cross and UN remain active. However, there are concerns that this aid, while neutral in intention, sometimes inadvertently supports government control by cooperating with authorities who strictly manage aid distribution.
International political support is delicate. Many Western countries, alarmed by allegations of human rights abuses, have been reluctant to take sides or provide direct military or logistical support to any party, including Fano. Civil society voices claim that the global community is “enabling” conflict by failing to hold the Ethiopian government accountable for abuses in the Amhara region.
There is no clear evidence of strong international sponsorship for Fano itself, but accusations swirl on both sides. The lack of targeted aid and clear international advocacy for the civilian victims caught between Fano and the government has caused frustration among local and diaspora communities alike.
Media and Diaspora Narratives
Media and diaspora narratives play a vital role in shaping perceptions of the Fano crisis both inside Ethiopia and globally. Ethiopian state media primarily pushes the government’s perspective, labeling Fano as instigators of chaos and frequently underreporting abuses by security forces. In contrast, opposition media and independent journalists highlight government violence, forced assimilation, and the plight of Amhara civilians.
Within the diaspora, especially among the Amhara community, discussions are polarized. Some diaspora voices passionately defend Fano, portraying the group as freedom fighters standing up for the Amhara people. Others criticize the infighting among Fano and express disappointment in the diaspora’s own inability to unite in support of a clear cause. Social media platforms amplify both perspectives, spreading fast-moving narratives, sometimes with misinformation or disinformation that further complicates on-the-ground unity.
International media coverage is often limited and sometimes lacks depth, leading to statements of frustration in Amhara advocacy networks about the world’s silence or selective reporting. As a result, the information landscape is marked by distrust, rumor, and strong opinions, which can shape morale, recruitment, and global understanding of the Fano movement’s struggle.
Calls for Negotiation and Mediation
Debates within Fano and Amhara society have become louder, with many voices urging for negotiation and mediation to bring an end to the internal crisis. Many Amhara elders, activists, and community groups are calling for dialogue as the only way out of the current fragmentation. They argue that unity, not more violence, is the key for a sustainable struggle against outside threats and for the rights of Amhara.
Recent articles and opinion pieces in media such as East African Review and The Habesha (zehabesha.com) highlight how spiritual leaders and community organizers have tried to launch peace initiatives. There have even been attempts to create mediation committees that would bring rival Fano factions to the table. The idea is to focus on shared goals—protecting Amhara people, regaining lost territories, and achieving justice—rather than letting ego and suspicion get in the way. However, these calls for negotiation are sometimes met with skepticism by militants on the ground who fear that dialogue could weaken their position or expose them to betrayal, especially given the history of failed talks with the federal government.
A Peace Council was set up to mediate between Fano forces and Ethiopian government representatives, but so far, this effort has been largely ineffective due to lack of trust, political interference, and constant fighting. The need for credible and impartial mediation is becoming more urgent as the movement remains stuck, with serious consequences for civilians. Yet, the conversation around negotiation and mediation continues, pushed by both local leaders and the Amhara diaspora who worry that endless division will destroy the cause from within.
Criticisms of Infighting and Fragmentation
Critics inside Fano and broader Amhara society have become increasingly outspoken about the damage caused by infighting and fragmentation. Leading intellectuals, diaspora organizations, and local activists warn that these internal conflicts are undermining the movement’s reputation and weakening its ability to defend Amhara communities. Harsh words have come from respected voices within the Amhara community, who say that public squabbles and accusations of betrayal on social media and in the press have demoralized fighters and civilians alike.
Media like The Habesha and Borkena report that many Amhara people are frustrated with leaders who put personal ambition above the shared struggle. Opinion columns and social media campaigns accuse rival Fano commanders of prioritizing control over certain territories or donor flows instead of working for the bigger goal. Some critics say the endless cycle of infighting is exactly what outside forces want: it distracts Fano from Ethiopian federal and regional threats and opens the door for intelligence operations and divide-and-rule tactics.
There is also fear that ongoing fragmentation will push away vital public support. As rival factions use harsh rhetoric against each other, the youth and the general population become confused and less motivated to join or aid the movement. Criticisms from diaspora communities—often louder and less forgiving—warn that fighting each other is just as dangerous as fighting the federal army. The message from these critics is simple but urgent: “United we stand, divided we fall.” If the pattern of division continues, the future of both Fano and Amhara’s resistance will be at risk.
Risks and Dangers of Continued Division
Exploitation by Opponents (Federal and Regional Actors)
Exploitation by opponents, especially the federal government and regional rival groups, is a huge risk for a divided Fano movement. When unity weakens, government forces and allied regional militias may find it easier to attack or infiltrate Fano factions. Opposing actors often use divide-and-rule strategies, encouraging factional disputes so that Fano groups fight each other instead of defending their communities. This creates confusion on the battlefield and can even lead Fano fighters to accidentally harm each other’s interests. Some reports suggest that both federal and Amhara regional leaders try to co-opt or manipulate certain Fano commanders, offering promises in exchange for loyalty, which deepens mistrust and competition among leaders of the movement.
Potential for Loss of Public Support
Potential for loss of public support is another serious danger for a fragmented Fano. Amhara communities have historically backed Fano as their protector. However, when the movement becomes divided and infighting is visible, it confuses and discourages ordinary people. Instead of appearing as strong resistance, Fano can look disorganized and self-serving. Civilians may begin to wonder whose commands to trust, or whether any current leader really represents their interests. Some communities fear being caught in the crossfire if rival groups try to control villages or resources. If this loss of confidence grows, Fano could struggle to raise new recruits, gather local donations, or even convince villages to shelter its fighters.
Vulnerability to Repressive Tactics
Vulnerability to repressive tactics increases when unity frays. Government security forces can quickly exploit disagreements within Fano, targeting isolated or weaker factions with raids, arrests, or propaganda campaigns. Discrediting rival Fano leaders, sowing rumors, or making secret deals is easier when the movement is split. Disjointed groups might be picked off one by one or pressured into surrender under the threat of harsh punishment. Moreover, the federal government may use the lack of unity as an excuse for even more aggressive crackdowns, justifying heavy-handed operations as “restoring order” rather than crushing legitimate protest. In the end, if Fano remains divided, its chances of surviving these tactics drop sharply.
The Imperative of One Leadership
The imperative of one leadership for the Fano movement is now at the center of every debate about rebuilding unity in Amhara. After months of internal disputes and battlefield losses, there is an urgent consensus: only a single, recognized leadership can guide Fano through its greatest crisis. Multiple sources highlight how fragmented commands and competing leaders have caused confusion, slowed response times, and sometimes even fueled deadly rivalries. A call from respected Amhara figures stresses that “unity is no longer a luxury but an existential necessity” (see reporting by ZeHabesha, October 2024 and Borkena July 2024).
Having one leadership means that strategies can be coordinated, messages can be unified, and resources can be shared more effectively. This reduces the risk of mixed signals to both fighters on the ground and supporters in the community or diaspora. It also allows the movement to speak with one voice in negotiations, and to present a clear vision to the Amhara population. Without collective leadership, Fano risks falling into a cycle of “divide and conquer” that benefits its enemies and weakens the overall resistance.
Calls from inside and outside the movement emphasize that key leaders should urgently set aside “ego and parochial interests.” Only a legitimate, inclusive leadership structure, trusted by local commanders and respected by the wider population, can restore the confidence necessary for the tough period ahead.
Prospects for Broader National and Democratic Movements
Prospects for broader national and democratic movements depend heavily on whether Fano can rebuild its unity and credibility. When properly organized, Fano is seen as a rallying point not just for Amhara, but for all Ethiopians who desire justice and democratic rights (see opinion pieces in The Habesha July 2024 and analysis at Lansing Institute April 2025).
A united Fano can forge alliances with other marginalized groups and political movements in Ethiopia. It can highlight issues of federal abuse, human rights violations, and the need for a fair power-sharing arrangement. For national democracy to advance, Fano must work above narrow sectarian interests and be open to broader conversations about inclusion, peace, and transitional justice. If the group continues to be seen as fractured and parochial, its prospects for shaping Ethiopia’s political future will remain dim.
According to several analyses, the present conflict and resistance have opened the way for a “new national dialogue,” but only if Fano’s leaders take concrete steps towards unity and principled cooperation with others. The path forward could include confidence-building with other opposition groups, public commitments to democracy and human rights, and practical steps to ensure accountability.
Steps Toward a Unified Amhara Resistance
Steps toward a unified Amhara resistance require deliberate action at every level of the movement. First, Fano leaders must agree on a roadmap for formalizing a central leadership structure. Recent reports (The Habesha, May 2025) mention the formation of the Amhara Fano National Force (AFANF) as a significant step toward this goal, though further work is needed to ensure all local factions participate and trust the process.
Secondly, consistent dialogue among local commanders and community representatives will help heal mistrust and prevent new splits. Public forums and open meetings, even if tense, are essential so that grievances can be addressed instead of hidden or exploited by external actors.
Third, building alliances with civil society, rights groups, and supportive diaspora communities can strengthen both morale and operational capacity. Transparency in negotiations and open communication about strategic goals are key to gaining public trust.
Other critical steps include:
- Setting up a joint communication platform to avoid mixed messaging.
- Developing clear accountability mechanisms to deal with abuses and setbacks.
- Including women, youth, and other marginalized voices in decision-making to signal a new, inclusive era for Fano.
Finally, Fano’s resistance can only succeed if it stays close to the needs of ordinary people – defending livelihoods, upholding justice, and protecting civilians. As long as the focus stays on unity, justice, and service, the dream of a strong, democratic Amhara (and Ethiopia) remains alive.