By MekuriaÂ
I have long been a supporter of Eskinder Nega, defending him against accusations that I believed were unjustified. I have written several articles published on Borkena in his defence, as well as in defence of Fano leaders who have faced relentless criticism, personal attacks, and attempts at discrediting them. Eskinder has been subjected to campaigns of vilification by individuals and media outlets, including Asaye Derbie of Teles Media, Mullugeta Anberbir of Ethio 251 media, Girma Kassa of Wamera media, Roha and Free Press. I have often believed that these attacks were motivated less by a genuine concern for the Amhara struggle than by disagreements over political positions and competition for influence.
My support for Eskinder, however, has never meant that I must agree with every position he takes. Supporting a political figure should not require abandoning independent judgment. Indeed, the willingness to question someone one has defended for years is itself an expression of political maturity. It is in that spirit that I believe Eskinder has missed an important reality concerning the present circumstances of the Amhara struggle. No doubt it is worrying to Eskinder to lean theTPLFs claim to Wolkayit and Raya at a time political and ethnic confrontation is not needed at a time Abiy is detrimental to both Tigryans and Amharas whom these two organization claim to represent to lead to liberation.
There is no doubt that Eskinder and other Fano leaders are right to be concerned about the TPLF and the persistent claims by Tigrayan elites to Wolkait and Raya. Such claims are particularly troubling at a time when further political and ethnic confrontation is the last thing Ethiopia needs. Abiy Ahmed’s government has been detrimental to both Tigrayans and Amharas—the very communities that the TPLF and Fano claim to represent and lead towards liberation. Escalating territorial disputes and ethnic tensions risk deepening divisions and undermining the shared pursuit of freedom, peace, and justice.
But, as the saying goes, first things first. The immediate priority should be to address the destructive policies of Abiy Ahmed’s government and the suffering they have inflicted on both communities. Territorial disputes and competing historical claims cannot simply be ignored, but neither should they overshadow the urgent need to confront the common challenges facing the people of Tigray and Amhara. The struggle for liberation must not become another source of division among those who claim to seek freedom for their respective communities.
Political disagreement is not a betrayal
Eskinder’s disagreements with some current Fano leaders have often been presented by his critics as evidence that he is working against the movement. I have never found that argument convincing. Differences of opinion are normal in a democratic political movement. They are not, by themselves, evidence of disloyalty, treachery, or an intention to undermine the struggle.
A movement that claims to represent the aspirations of a people must accommodate debate, competing perspectives, and different approaches to political decision-making. No individual leader, regardless of popularity or sacrifice, should have a monopoly on political wisdom. Nor should disagreement with a particular leader automatically become grounds for expulsion from the political community.
On this question, Eskinder has consistently defended a principle worth protecting: political disagreements should be resolved through discussion rather than intimidation, personal attacks, or attempts to silence dissent. Despite the hostility directed at him, he has generally maintained that the contradictions within the Fano movement should not be allowed to destroy the movement itself. In my view, that position has been correct.
The Amhara struggle cannot afford to become a contest in which every disagreement produces another enemy. Its strength must come from the ability to unite people who share a common objective, even when they disagree over leadership, strategy, or the political arrangements that should follow the present conflict.
However, defending democratic principles does not mean that every political judgment is necessarily correct. A person may be right about the importance of internal democracy and still misjudge the strategic realities confronting the movement. It is precisely this distinction that matters when examining Eskinder’s recent position on possible cooperation with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) and the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA).
The strategic question: Can yesterday’s enemies become temporary allies?
Eskinder has expressed reservations about forming an alliance with the TPLF and the OLA. His concerns are understandable. Both organisations have histories of political confrontation with Amhara interests, and many Amharas regard their past actions, political narratives, and positions on Ethiopia’s ethnic federal system as deeply damaging to the Amhara people.
The grievances behind this mistrust cannot simply be dismissed. Historical experience matters. Political organisations do not erase their records merely by expressing a willingness to cooperate with former adversaries. Any proposed alliance must therefore be approached with caution, clear objectives, and an honest assessment of the interests of the Amhara people.
Nevertheless, recognising past hostility is not the same as concluding that cooperation is impossible under all circumstances. Political strategy must account not only for what an adversary has done in the past but also for the balance of power, the immediate threats facing a movement, and the practical options available to it.
This is where, in my opinion, Eskinder’s analysis falls short.
The Amhara people and Fano are confronting an extraordinarily powerful state apparatus. The federal government under Abiy Ahmed has access to the country’s military institutions, heavy weapons, armoured vehicles, drones, financial resources, and administrative structures. Fano, by comparison, operates under far more difficult conditions and faces significant constraints in equipment, logistics, financing, and access to external support.
The conflict is therefore not simply a disagreement between political organisations with comparable resources. It is a confrontation characterised by a substantial imbalance of power. For many Amharas, the consequences include displacement, insecurity, loss of livelihoods, and the killing and abduction of civilians. These realities make the search for political and diplomatic support an urgent question rather than an abstract debate about historical loyalties.
The central issue is not whether the TPLF and the OLA have previously acted against Amhara interests. The issue is whether the Amhara movement can afford to confront the federal government while simultaneously ruling out every possible channel of cooperation with other forces that oppose it.
My answer is that it cannot afford to dismiss such possibilities without a serious strategic assessment.
The danger of fighting every adversary at once
A political movement operating under severe military pressure must distinguish between its immediate and long-term challenges. It must identify which threats require urgent attention, which contradictions can be managed through political means, and which disagreements can be deferred until circumstances become more favourable.
This does not mean abandoning principles or placing blind trust in former enemies. It means understanding that political survival sometimes requires limited cooperation between forces that disagree profoundly on other questions.
The Ethiopian political landscape provides ample reason to recognise this possibility. Organisations that have fought one another can sometimes enter into temporary arrangements when they face a common threat or believe that cooperation serves their immediate interests. Such arrangements do not necessarily eliminate their historical grievances or guarantee lasting friendship. They reflect the reality that political interests can change with circumstances.
For Fano, the question should therefore be whether a limited understanding with the TPLF or the OLA could reduce the pressure it faces, open political channels, or help create conditions in which the Amhara people can pursue their aspirations with greater security and political freedom.
Any such arrangement would require serious safeguards. It should not compromise the political rights of the Amhara people, legitimize past abuses, or require Fano to surrender its independent decision-making. Nor should it be based on unrealistic expectations that former adversaries have suddenly become trustworthy partners. Cooperation would have to be conditional, transparent in its objectives, and subject to clear limits.
But rejecting cooperation before examining these possibilities would be equally short-sighted.
Consider the alternative. If Fano treats the federal government, the TPLF, and the OLA as simultaneous enemies without exploring whether any of these relationships can be managed politically, it risks deepening its isolation. Such a position could leave the movement facing multiple sources of opposition while receiving little meaningful diplomatic, financial, or political support from outside.
That is not a sound strategy for a movement operating under such difficult circumstances.
The question is not whether the TPLF or the OLA could become future adversaries again. They could. The question is whether it makes sense to face every potential adversary at the same time when the immediate balance of power is so unfavourable.
In my judgment, it is better to explore a carefully defined political understanding with former adversaries than to insist on permanent hostility toward all of them while confronting a much more powerful state. This is a strategic argument, not an endorsement of the political histories or objectives of the TPLF or the OLA.
History teaches that political relationships are not permanent
History repeatedly demonstrates that political enemies can become temporary partners when their interests converge. Such partnerships are rarely founded on complete trust or ideological agreement. They emerge because political actors recognise that their immediate circumstances demand a different approach.
The lesson is straightforward: political relationships should be assessed in light of present realities, not solely through the grievances of the past.
For the Amhara movement, this distinction is particularly important. The suffering of the Amhara people cannot be reversed by historical arguments alone. Nor can the movement protect its constituency simply by declaring that certain organisations are permanent enemies. It must develop a strategy capable of addressing the threats that exist now while preserving its ability to defend Amhara interests in the future.
A temporary political understanding does not have to become a permanent alliance. It can be limited to specific objectives, defined by clear conditions, and abandoned if the other party violates its commitments. The purpose would be to reduce immediate dangers and improve the political position of the Amhara people, not to erase history or excuse past conduct.
Sisay (Amoraw), for instance, has advanced reasoning similar to the argument Eskinder makes in defending his position on these questions. Such arguments deserve consideration. However, the merits of a political strategy must ultimately be judged by whether it responds adequately to the actual balance of power and the immediate needs of the people it claims to represent.
Political consistency is valuable, but consistency should not become rigidity. A leader who refuses to reconsider a strategy when circumstances change risks turning a legitimate principle into a political liability.
Eskinder and his supporters must reconsider their priorities
Eskinder and his supporters should recognise that the present circumstances require more than a defence of historical positions. The question is whether their approach contributes to reducing the suffering of the Amhara people and improving the movement’s ability to pursue its political objectives.
I am not suggesting that Eskinder should abandon his convictions or endorse an alliance without examining its consequences. Rather, he should acknowledge that the strategic environment has changed and that the Amhara movement needs every reasonable political opening available to it.
At a time when the movement faces substantial military pressure and limited external assistance, the priority should be to prevent further fragmentation. Political disagreements over potential alliances must not become another excuse for mutual accusations, personal hostility, or attempts to undermine individuals who hold different views.
Eskinder’s supporters, in particular, should resist the temptation to turn strategic disagreement into a personal contest. Defending Eskinder does not require dismissing every argument made by his critics. Equally, supporting Fano’s current leadership does not justify treating every disagreement as an act of betrayal.
The Amhara movement needs a political culture in which arguments are judged on their merits and decisions are evaluated according to their consequences. It needs leaders who can acknowledge mistakes, reconsider their assumptions, and work with others without demanding complete agreement on every issue.
Above all, it needs a shared understanding that the welfare and political future of the Amhara people must take precedence over the reputations and ambitions of individual leaders.
Threats against Eskinder are unacceptable
My disagreement with Eskinder’s position on the TPLF and the OLA does not diminish my opposition to threats against him. Reports of threats by individuals associated with Fano, including threats of killing, should be taken seriously and rejected unequivocally. Political disagreement cannot justify intimidation or violence.
If Fano is a movement committed to defending the rights and dignity of the Amhara people, its political conduct must reflect those principles. A movement cannot credibly demand justice and political freedom for its constituency while tolerating the intimidation of people who express different opinions.
The same standard should apply to the media. Journalists, commentators, and political activists must be free to debate the direction of the struggle without fear of retaliation. A movement that silences criticism may create the appearance of unity, but that unity will be fragile because it rests on fear rather than shared purpose.
Eskinder should be able to defend his views, establish media initiatives, and engage with his supporters without being threatened. Those who disagree with him should answer his arguments with better arguments, not intimidation.
The Addis Ababa media council controversy
I also see no inherent problem with Eskinder’s effort to establish an Addis Ababa media council. Addis Ababa is governed by its established political and administrative authorities, including the city administration led by Mayor Adanech Abiebie, while the federal government under Abiy Ahmed exercises its own authority. Whatever one’s assessment of these authorities, the existence of a media initiative associated with Eskinder does not, by itself, constitute a threat to Fano.
The relevant questions are whether such an initiative operates lawfully, whether it serves a legitimate public purpose, and whether it respects the rights of others. Those questions should be examined on their merits rather than through suspicion of Eskinder’s political intentions.
I cannot know the motives of every person who has criticised the initiative. Nevertheless, the possibility of political rivalry should not be ignored. If individuals oppose Eskinder primarily because they fear that he might attract more public support or become more influential than they are, then the dispute has ceased to be about the principles of the Amhara struggle. It has become a contest over political prominence.
That would be a serious mistake.
The Amhara movement should welcome initiatives that contribute to public debate, political awareness, and the articulation of the people’s concerns, provided they operate within the law and do not undermine the rights of others. There is no reason why every initiative must be controlled by a single political leadership or approved by those who already possess influence.
A movement that fears the emergence of independent voices reveals a weakness in its political culture. Genuine leadership should be confident enough to tolerate competition, debate, and independent public engagement.
Service to the people must come before the pursuit of power
The greatest danger facing any liberation movement is the possibility that its leaders will gradually place their own political ambitions above the purpose for which the movement was established. A struggle that begins with the promise of defending a people can lose its moral foundation if leadership positions, personal influence, and organisational control become more important than public service.
This danger is not unique to Fano, nor is it confined to the Amhara political experience. History offers many examples of movements whose original objectives were undermined by internal rivalries and struggles for power. Their leaders became preoccupied with who would control the movement rather than with whether the movement was fulfilling its responsibilities to the people.
The Amhara movement must avoid that fate.
Fano’s legitimacy ultimately rests on its relationship with the people it claims to represent. Its leadership should therefore be judged by its commitment to protecting civilians, advancing the political rights of the Amhara people, encouraging accountability, and pursuing a realistic strategy for the future. No individual or faction should be permitted to treat the movement as personal property.
Likewise, Eskinder and other political figures should be evaluated according to the substance of their contributions rather than the loyalty of their followers. They should be free to disagree, but they should also be willing to reconsider their positions when the evidence demands it.
What comes first is service to the people, not the ambition to lead them.
Conclusion: The Amhara struggle requires political maturity
I have defended Eskinder because I believe he has been unfairly targeted and because his defence of political disagreement and democratic principles deserves recognition. I continue to believe that threats against him and attempts to silence him are unacceptable.
But support does not require silence when a political judgment appears mistaken. On the question of possible cooperation with the TPLF and the OLA, I believe Eskinder and his supporters have not adequately confronted the strategic realities facing the Amhara movement.
The history of hostility between these organisations and the Amhara people is real and cannot be brushed aside. Any political understanding must therefore be cautious, conditional, and grounded in the protection of Amhara interests. Yet historical grievances should not automatically close every door to political cooperation when the immediate threat is so serious and the imbalance of power so pronounced.
The Amhara movement cannot afford to make political purity a substitute for strategic thinking. Nor can it afford to turn every disagreement into an internal war over loyalty and leadership. Its future depends on the ability to distinguish between principled disagreement and destructive division, between legitimate caution and strategic inflexibility, and between service to the people and the pursuit of power.
Eskinder was right to defend democratic principles. He was right to resist efforts to silence him. But on the strategic question of how Fano should navigate its relations with other political and armed actors, I believe he missed an essential reality: a movement facing a powerful adversary must carefully examine every reasonable political option rather than allow past enmities to determine all its future choices.
The same lesson applies to Fano’s leaders and their supporters. They must abandon intimidation, resist personal rivalries, and stop treating political influence as something to be protected at the expense of the movement’s broader purpose.
The Amhara struggle must be bigger than Eskinder, bigger than any individual Fano leader, and bigger than any faction seeking dominance. Its purpose should be the protection, dignity, freedom, and future of the Amhara people. Every political decision should be measured against that standard.
When the survival and welfare of a people are at stake, leadership is not about proving who is right in every disagreement. It is about recognising reality, making difficult judgments, and placing the interests of the people above personal ambition.
Editor’s Note: Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
Join our Telegram Channel: t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
To submit a press release, send the submission to info@borkena.com
Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory
Join the conversation. Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian news updates regularly.