Yonas Biru, PhD
It has been over 20 months since Fano took the Amhara tribal land by storm. Its swooping early success led some in its leadership and its broader support ecosystem to believe that it could take over Addis Ababa within weeks. Contrary to the euphoric expectations, Fano is yet to seize and maintain a midsize town in its own region, much less to take over the levers of power in the nation’s capital. The question why it failed to live up to expectations imposes itself on us. A closer examination of current realities reveals fault lines that go through the following four contours.
- The lack of a consensus-driven agenda, focused on political strategic priorities, a blueprint for a robust roadmap toward a targeted end-goal, and a scenario planning to prepare for expected and unexpected turn of events are Fano’s most serious and consequential shortcomings. Whether the goal is Amhara focused or a healthy blend of Amhara and national priorities, Fano cannot succeed without an articulated, consensused and effectively pursued political agenda.
- The second hindrance is the absence of an inclusive and political architecture that honors the autonomy of various regional Fano enterprises with an agreed upon framework for a strategic alliance.
- Another impediment is the absence of a robust alignment across Fano’s political, military and public relations cannons to ensure optimal power delivery with all cylinders firing in synergy.
- Last but not least is a dysfunctional intellectual class in the diaspora that stole the movement’s soul and siphoned off its spirit thereby weighing on and slowing down its momentum. This has strained the relationship between the Fano establishment and the diaspora, with detrimental consequences to the movement.
Bad as the state of the Fano universe may be, there is still room to bend the trajectory toward a successful outcome. But unaddressed tension between the hope that Fano still conveys and the palpable despair that its shortcomings foster can be disastrous. The purpose of this article is to provide a diagnosis of the tension, propose corrective actions and reimagine Fano’s brighter future.
But first thing is first. In the interest of full disclosure, let me start with a cautionary note, a health-warning if you will. Esteemed Amhara intellectuals running the gamut from Professor Girma Berhanu to Professor Habtamu Tegegn and the Amhara activist colony encompassing the spectrum from Engineer Yilkal Getnet to Habtamu Ayalew believe my political views are hazardous to the Fano movement.
Engineer Yilkal sees me as “either sick or detractor of the Fano movement.” Professor Girma Berhanu went as far as threatening me in public with a lawsuit for harboring a “criminal” anti-Amhara political opinion. Professor Habtamu Tegegn’s “International Fano Coordinating Committee” elevated my supposed crime to a level of high treason and recommended stripping me of my Ethiopian citizenship and revoking my passport.
The Committee reserved its more draconian wrath to Dr. Gedu Andargachew and Lidetu Ayalew whom it condemned with seven-generation punishment. The draconian Fano fatwa is the state of the Amhara political space. Fano must navigate the treacherous path that is crowded by extremist souls who have reduced the Fano agenda from Amhara ክልል (region) to መንደር (village)
Reflecting on the Past and Reimagining the Future
It is incontrovertible that Fano has not met its leaders’ expectations of storming Bahir Dar and Addis Ababa in short orders. Twenty months later, the path to such victory is not obvious, if it exists at all.
What is also incontrovertible is that Fano has registered phenomenal military milestones in rural areas and in small towns across the breadth of the Amhara tribal land. It has successfully repelled repeated government offensives. The size of its all-volunteer fighters has swollen, rivaling in number the government’s salaried military forces. This is documented in a recent report by the New Humanitarian, an independent, non-profit newsroom stationed in Geneva, Switzerland.
The report revealed “at least 30% of the Fano soldiers the New Humanitarian spoke to were former Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) or Amhara regional forces.” The fact that salaried military forces desert their service and join a volunteer freedom movement speaks volume about the state of Fano’s military standing. But without a robust strategic agenda and clear path for victory, the likely outcome is a stalemate. If there is victory, it is likely to be a pyrrhic one that leaves behind a devastating toll on the Amhara tribal land. There is already enormous cost on the economy and the educational system, not to mention the growing humanitarian disaster.
The problem resides in the political realm. The often-flaring power conflict is not only driven by power-hungry individual but also by adversarial historical conflicts across Gojam, Gonder, Wello and Shewa. When there is conflict between Gonder and Gojam or Wello and Shewa political classes, their constitutionally sanctioned Amhara political classification does little to pacify their region-based stealth and not so stealth conflicts.
The lingering conflict following Dr. Ambachew’s murder was marinated and drenched in sour if not acidic regional hostilities. The same is the case with the political calculus that led Professor Habtamu’s group to sanction a seven-generation punishment against Dr. Gedu.
The campaign against Dr. Gedu was triggered by a leaked video of a closed meeting in which he made recommendations to strengthen the Fano movement. His detractors fear his involvement can shift the center of gravity of the movement away from Gojam Fano that the Good Professor and his group represent. It is an open secret that Gojam Fano is also a target of politically motivated attack by other Fano groups.
All Fano groups and their support groups at home and in the diaspora know the movement’s region-based tug of wars. And yet the subject is treated as a taboo. This is a delicate issue that requires thoughtful consideration and proactive efforts to address it. Ignoring it altogether is a recipe for an unmitigated disaster.
Unfortunately, the issue is eclipsed by a misguided focus on establishing a unity in leadership with the aim of having a political architecture under a centralized command.
The belief is that it is only after the leadership structure is sorted out that a consensus political strategy can be pursued. Consequently, competition to control the leavers of power and oversee the political and military command architecture became a continual bone of contention.
The Fano problem is not a sequencing problem. Developing a consensus political agenda and strategy (unity in purpose) and establishing a leadership architecture (establishing unity in leadership) can be perused simultaneously. If the two cannot be achieved simultaneously, priority must be accorded to creating a consensus political agenda to solidify unity in purpose.
The absence of consensus-based unity in purpose makes it nearly impossible to foster unity in leadership. In contrast, a consensus-based unity in purpose can sustain the Fano movement even if there is no unity in leadership, provided open hostilities are avoided and different Fano groups operate in their respective lanes. This is a second-best solution.
Pursuing the first best solution of establishing a unified political and military command center in a moment of crisis is a fool’s errand. Fano leaders must realize that they are not on a crossroad. They are in a crossfire between a self-destructive political malpractice and a government led by a psychopathic Prime Minister that is bent on annihilating them.
Whether Fano will achieve its dual objective of protecting Amhara from existential threat and bringing about a transformative national democratic governance depends on its success in implementing a three-step process.
First is establishing unity of purpose in overcoming an existential threat. This is what we observed in the early stages of Fano’s spontaneous uprising. We saw unity of purpose as each group of Fano defended the other. አማራ በአማራነቱ መደራጀቱ ግድ ይል ነበር. The political and social fundamentals and dynamics were conducive for such an endeavor.
The second step is creating unity in purpose in pursuit of a transformative national democratic change. In this case, Amhara’s social and political fundamentals and dynamics neither require nor lend themselves to unity of purpose in power contention. When it comes to pursuing unity of purpose for political power contention the political power dynamic between Gojam, Gonder, Shewa and Wello is more likely to spark and feed conflicts rather than seed and germinate unity.
The Amhara intellectual class failed to shift Fano’s thought paradigm as it progressed from protecting itself from existential threat to a political power-contending enterprise. The most viable to manage a political power contention process is through a democratic consensus-building. This requires a robust and inclusive dialogue involving key stakeholders.
There are two primary reasons behind Fano’s failure to develop political unity through a consensus political manifesto. On the one hand, there are people within the Fano enterprise who see political dialogues and debates as distraction from the war effort.
On the other hand, there are extremist forces with vested interest in standing in the way of developing a political consensus. The latter was the case with Shaleka Dawit when he was with Eskinder. Their goal was unseating the Prime Minster, dissolving the Parliament, and overhauling the Constitution. They knew this would not win the support of a large segment of the people of Ethiopia. Rather than defending their position on the merits and winning the confidence and support of the people, they tried to achieve their goal through chicanery and force.
A consensus-based political agenda with a concomitant strategy, roadmap, and scenario planning is critical to pave the way for unity in leadership for three reasons. First, it will deny power thirsty leaders the opportunity to hide their personal agenda behind falsely constructed “political differences.”
Second, a consensus building process fosters dialogue that is critical to construct a critical mass around a common agenda. The process gravitates toward moderation and common ground and in so doing empowers moderate forces who seek to find areas of agreement.
Third, extremist forces on the right and left of the political spectrum get marginalized as moderation, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence become the staple of the dialogue, sucking the oxygen out of their shenanigan. This shifts the paradigm of power politics from the use of force to reflection and choice through consensus.
The third stage is establishing a unity of Purpose to form a national coalition of democratic forces. The predominant political opinion in this regard is Amhara will form a broad-based coalition after it takes power. This is wrongheaded for two reasons. First, at best the road to success is shorter if a broad coalition is formed. At worst, success is unlikely without a national coalition. Second, if Amhara does not see the value in listening to and seeking input from other tribal homelands before victory, how can it be trusted to form a democratic coalition after it grabbed the levers of power?
Above all, it is important to realize that Amhara may have the right to make political decisions regarding its tribal homeland. But it cannot and should not unilaterally decide on national matters such as removing the government. If it believes overthrowing the government is necessary, it needs to secure buy-in from other communities outside of the Amhara tribal land.
To say that Amhara intellectuals deprived the Fano of the opportunity to emerge as a nucleus for national coalition building is an understatement. The perception that Amhara want to dictate their views on others is widely held. This is the time to break this perception.
Tension Between the Fano Enterprise and the Amhara Diaspora
If properly managed and organized, the diaspora can be a critical part of the Fano movement on many levels: providing financial support, developing a nuanced political strategy, charting a flexible roadmap, and building a robust international public relations ecosystem.
The tendency to point fingers at each other and the failure to address the tension between the two is the failure of not only the diaspora but also of the Fano enterprise. Two press releases that the Amhara Unity Council (“የአማራ ፋኖ አንድነት ምክር ቤት”) issued in December 2023 reveals both the finger pointing rivalry and the tension between them. The rehetoric-laden and at times bravado-filled press releases wrote off the diaspora and rejected its contribution in developing political strategy and architecting a road map.
On its part, the diaspora used its financial base to make itself king maker, if not puppet master. The Fano enterprise that sees the diaspora as an ATM machine and the diaspora that uses its financial support to control the Fano enterprise need to be addressed.
In 2020, TPLF supporters were able to mobilize $10 million to help buy weapons and communication equipment. The Tigryan diaspora was also effective in international public relations supported by hired high-power lobbying firms. Government drones that killed Tigrayan civilians got international condemnation from Washington to London and Brussels – the world’s political power centers.
Without undermining the breadth of destruction that befell the people of Tigray, one can say government drones that kill tens of Amhara civilians are rarely mentioned much less condemned by the global power centers. This is not because the international community favors Tigryans. It is because the Tigryan diaspora is effective compared to the good for nothing Amhara diaspora. The idiotic #NoMore cacophony on the streets of Washington, London and Brussels was the epitome and pinnacle of its good for nothingness.
Candid stock-taking, accountability through genuine dialogue, and path-correcting strategy are badly needed with utmost urgency.
The Need for Strategic Alliance Between Fano’s Military and Political Spheres
The Fano ecosystem both at home and in the diaspora is focused on military engagements in every nook and cranny of its homeland, paying little to no attention to the need for a strategic political engagement. What has escaped them is that military strength is a necessary condition for political victory, not a sufficient one.
The danger with the current situation is that the movement can reach a tipping point on the military front, while critical political variables fall behind both in terms of establishing political consensus and building a robust leadership architecture. The military tipping point may be precipitated by the collapse of the Abiy government, owing to economic meltdown. It may also be triggered by mass desertion of Amhara militia and special force in protest of escalating government atrocities against civilians.
Under these circumstances misalignment between political and military strategies and operations can potentially lead to serious consequences. Chief among them is the risk of civil war between Amhara and Oromo. Even worse, the threat of warlordism within Fano forces cannot be ruled out.
Unfortunately, military confrontations between different factions of Fano haves already manifested themselves in some areas. Though they were contained, and grave tragedy has been avoided, there is no reason to assume such conflicts will not flare up again. The conflicts arise from unresolved differences in political views mentioned above.
Unresolved differences serve as fodder for power struggle and stand in the way of creating a consensus political agenda. Once again, it is long past time to have a candid dialogue that is not restricted by the Ethiopian culture of nicety that sanctions avoiding ክብረ ነክነት at the steep cost of feeding and fattening systemic failure. Let us retire and expunge the ultra-parochial and highly suffocating culture of ክብረ ነክነት and candidly discuss the problem.
A Failed Effort to Form United Platform for the Diaspora Fano Ecosystem
In July, there was a good beginning to unify the Amhara diaspora. A zoom conference was called by Geletaw Zeleke and Chaired by Professor Alemante Gebre-Selassie. The keynote speaker was Dr. Aklog Birara. Professor Teshome Abebe, Dr. Negussie Nega, Professor Berhanu Abegaz, and Neamin Zeleke were among some of the active participants. I believe no less than 30 people attended the meeting.
In my opinion, the meeting failed to meet the absolute minimum threshold to form a common platform. A notable problem was elbow throwing between support groups of two regional Fanos.
Also notable was the meeting’s failure to rein in three different groups who were preparing Fano manifestos independently and establish a unified manifesto drafting group. What is the point of creating a unified Fano platform if three independent Amhara groups who are part of the platform are not interested in developing a consensus manifesto?
I removed myself from the platform and decided not to attend the second meeting. More importantly, a particular group associated to a prominent Fano faction withdrew itself after the first meeting and formed its own platform. One of the participates who attended two or three subsequent meetings of the supposedly united platform told me “እሱማ ከስሟል.” Unfortunately, እሱማ ከስሟል is the shorthand for all efforts to unite the Amhara political elite. My fingers are itching to write “It is the Culture Stupid” and explain it. But this is no time for digression. So back to the issue at hand.
Currently, there are a plethora of diaspora Fano groups independently writing political manifesto, without any effort to work together to develop a consensus document. I will address only two of them: (i) Shaleka Dawit’s Amhara Popular Front 2.0; (ii) Professor Demissie Alemayehu’s secretive group.
Shaleka Dawit’s Amhara Popular Front 2.0
It is to be remembered that Shaleka Dawit was the author, architect and engineer of Amhara Popular Front 1.0, along with Eskinder Nega. Their strategy was to use the diaspora as a leverage to hijack the Fano movement at home. The Shaleka-Eskinder duo that had no presence in the battle fields was undertaking a public relations coup while the Fanos with fire power were paying a steep price in lives and limbs on the war front.
The Shaleka mobilized over a million dollars from the diaspora to help finance the Fano movement. Subsequently, he required Fano leaders on the war front to pledge allegiance to Eskinder in exchange for getting a share of the diaspora funds.
To this effect, the Shaleka launched a social media campaign to front Eskinder as a national leader. In an orchestrated interview with Jeff Pearce, Shaleka Dawit suggested “there is no Amhara leader that equals Eskinder.”
The Shaleka was angling himself not only as a kingmaker but also as the Custodian and Trustee of the Eskinder kingdom. Accordingly, he rejected the need for a consensus political manifesto, choosing to dictate the Fano agenda rather than building consensus. It is also to be remembered that he was insisting on having one military and political command under Eskinder.
Today, he has parted ways with Eskinder. He now advocates for a political manifesto, stating it is indispensable for the Fano movement. He also believes a central Fano command is not necessary. In a sardonic twist of irony, he pulled the rug from under Eskinder’s throne that he himself crafted, crowned and enthroned as a near royal command architecture.
In a typical Ethiopian intellectual culture of politics, no explanation was given for the drastic shift in his political positions. No accountability for his misguided and quite frankly idiotic “no need for political manifesto” position.
What is even worse is that he has not learned from his past mistakes. His Amhara Popular Front 2.0 is constructed with his hand-picked followers, making it clear that those who have opposing views have no place in the new kingdom he is trying to build. Somebody needs to tell him to bow out of politics. Fano has not fully recovered from the damage he caused with Eskinder.
Professor Demise Alemayehu’s Discreet Operation
On November 20, 2023, Professor Berhanu Girma shared a six-page Amharic document over the social media platform. The draft titled “የዐማራው ኅብረት: የኅልውና ትግሉ ድል መሰረት ነው” discussed the Concerned Amharas group’s failed attempt to unite the diaspora Fano colony. Conspicuously, the document failed to identify who are the people behind the Concerned Amhara Group.
The document that Professor Girma shared was signed by eight individuals who took part in drafting it. The group was led by Professor Demissie Alemayehu. At the time, Team Demissie was part of the diaspora cheerleading squad of Eskinder the Great. The ታላቁ እስክንድር’s spell was artfully sprinkled in the document with such accoladic references as
“በታዋቂው ታጋይ እስክንድር ነጋ አመራር” and “APF ብዙዎች በሚያከብሩት እና በሚያምኑበት አቶ እስክንድር ነጋ አመራር መመስረቱ: በተለይም በዳያስፖራው በኩል ተስፋ አሳድሯል.”
In the meantime, the document casted the International Fano Coordinating Committee (“የአለም አቀፍ የፋኖ አስተባባሪ ኮሚቴ”) and the Fano Unity Council (“የአማራ ፋኖ አንድነት ምክር ቤት”) in a negative light with disdainful jabs in the following lines:
“ቀደም ሲል ተቋቁመው የዐማራውን ትግል ሲመሩ የነበሩ እና አሁን ለደረሰበት ደረጃ በጎ አስተዋፅዖ ያበረከቱ ድርጅቶች እና መሪዎች፣ የትግሉን የዕድገት ደረጃ እና ፈታኝ ሁኔታ ከግምት ባለማስገባት፣ እንደቀድሞው እነርሱ ብቻ ሊመሩት የሚገባ እንደሆነ በማሰብ፣ ሌሎች አዳዲስ አደረጃጀቶችንም ሆነ አስተሳሰቦችን ለማስተናገድ ወይም በውስጣቸው አስፈላጊውን የአሠራር ለውጥ ለማካሄድ ያላቸው የአቅም እና የፍላጎት ውሱንነት ጎልቶ ይታያል።”
To put it generously, any statement that insinuates that the Amhara Popular Front (led by Eskinder, Shaleka Dawit and Lij Tedla Melaku) reflects “አዳዲስ አደረጃጀቶች [and] አስተሳሰቦች” is dark comedy of Kafkaesque genre. It is hard to square Team Demissie’s narrative with Shalek’s public statements that “ኢትዮጵያ የአማራ ነች… ኢትዮጵያን እዚህ ያደረሳት አማራ ነው” and “ኢትዮጵያ የሚያስፈልጋት አማራ አማራ የሚሸት መንግስት ነው.”
Lij Tedla (Shalek’s second in matters of international diplomacy) was not shy to defend the narrative, stating: “ኢትዮጵያን የገነባት እና እዚህ ያደረሳት አማራ ነው ሲባል ይህ ትክክል ነው እውነት ነው”። The good Lij’s statements were edited and curated within his aspirational agenda of restoring “the Ethiopian Monarchy and the Solomonic Crown in a Constitutional Monarchy Framework.”
It did not take Team Demissie long to distance itself from the Dawit-Eskinder kingdom. Today, Professor Demissie has established a new ሸንጎ of a sort to draft a Fano manifesto. His group refused to form a coalition with other groups to collaborate. The manifesto that the good Professor’s group prepared is a consolidation of different manifestos drafted by independent individuals and groups, including those by yours truly.
One would think that at least the people whose drafts Team Demissie used as foundational background documents would be given the opportunity to comment on the consolidated draft. One would also presume a political manifesto that articulates a political strategy for over 40 million people will be shared and discussed with key Amhara stakeholders. This did not happen. Currently, they are closely guarding the manifesto like Coca Cola’s secret sauce.
I am informed “the final draft” has been sent to all Fano leaders. It is only after Fano “feedback to endorse or at least no strong opposition is received” that they will release the manifesto for public discussion, if they release it at all.
This is a supremely flawed process. It makes no sense to seek endorsement from Fano and later share the final draft to Amhara stakeholders for discussion. Anyone who knows anything about manifesto production knows the drafting and ratification of a political manifesto is a consensus-based process. Therefore, it makes no sense to share an already Fano endorsed document to the broader Amhara stakeholders.
What will happen if the consensus that emerges from the public dialogue substantially differs from the Fano endorsed document? Are they going to redraft it and send it to Fano? The process is not only flawed but it is also difficult to avoid the conclusion that it was a deliberate decision to circumvent engaging Amhara stakeholders in a meaningful manner.
Concluding Remarks
It is encouraging that Amhara intellectuals who have been silent (if not vocally against) the need for political manifesto now see the need for it. The question is: Why are various groups clamoring to make themselves the James Madison of the Fano revolution? Unlike James Madison (“the Father of the US Constitution”) who was a consensus builder, the plethora of the self-anointed manifesto drafters are exclusionist.
How can Professor Demissie’s group that was touting Eskinder’s group and undermining his adversaries be regarded as a credible consensus builder across the Fano space? Similarly, how can Shaleka Dawit who was a peddler and puppet master for Eskinder’s Fano kingdom be considered as a consensus builder across the Fano space.
There is only one way out. Fanos must respectfully tell the various manifesto drafting groups to build a consensus document through a transparent and inclusive process. The various groups with manifesto drafts should establish a neutral committee consisting of reputable experts without past or current attachment to any Fano faction and let them synthesize existing drafts and produce a consensus draft for discussion and ratification by key stakeholders.
Ideally, the Manifesto will be a comprehensive document that will address the four fault lines I noted above and any other issues of significance the committee sees fit. The good thing is that the various manifestos in circulation have addressed most of the issues. A consensus based comprehensive manifesto will be the beginning of the reimagining, rebranding and reinvigorating process that will shift Fano’s trajectory toward a successful outcome.
If writing this makes me a “traitor” (as Professor Habtamu claimed) or a “detractor of the Fano movement” (as Engineer Yilkal alleges), I will gladly wear the label as a badge of honor. ካጠፋሁ ይቅርታ:: የፓስፖርቴን እና የዜግነቴን ጉዳይ ግን አደራ::
የአማራ ህዝብ የህልውና ታጋይ የሆነው፥ ለፍትህ ለርትዕ እና ለነፃነት የቆመው፥ የሀገር ዋልታ እና ማገር የሆነው አማራ ፋኖው፥ የከረዩ ጎሳን የገዳ አባቶች በግፍ በጨፈጨፉት እና አርቲስት ሃጫሉ ሁንዴሳን በገደሉት አረመኔዎች ድርጊት ስሙ አይጠፋም pic.twitter.com/Akt7fKpN7x
— የበራራው ራስ ዳምጤ (@RasDamte) November 21, 2024
🚨Let alone harming innocent individuals, #Fano has consistently shown remarkable humanity, even toward @AbiyAhmedAli’s brutal army, which invades the region to massacre and destroy. Some even criticize Fano for being too compassionate toward captured soldiers, sarcastically… pic.twitter.com/LxvAiuKJ77
— AmharaQuest (@AmharaQuest) November 21, 2024
— ፋ ኖ ደብተራው (@Gimmy07533588) November 21, 2024
I always appreciate your bold criticism on Ethiopian Politics even if I see your repetitive condemning “no more” slogan to show your sympathy to Uncle Sam.
When we check Diaspora Amhara organization strength we have to see in the grassroot level. If we take North America as an example How does each city cell organized? How do they functions? Are the members diversified from all Amhara or they are from the some village who call everybody uncle and cousin?
The organ health and strength comes from each cell unbreakable tendency. At last what matter quality of the grassroot which bring later the best transparent cumulative organization at the center..
Well, Sir. the reason you do always write long opinion articles is; to gaslight your bias view and hatred toward Amharas. You are like that man called Aba Farda who writes anti Amhara articles at Borkena. You are part of the hidden enemies of Amharas who pretends to care for Amaras and yet their hatred is astronomical. We know you you are an Oromo like shemelese abdisa who hates Amharas. Those intellectuals who criticize you are right. nobody pays attention to your nonsense long writing except people who support your ideology which is Orromumma supermacy and genocide over others.