By Mekuria
Elena Bantwe’s recent article on Borkena is provocative, timely, and written with conviction. It challenges readers to reflect on the costs of political choices in today’s Ethiopia. Yet while her piece contains some compelling observations, it also reflects certain misunderstandings of the realities on the ground—particularly regarding the Amhara people’s role in the war against the TPLF and their complex relationship with Abiy Ahmed’s government.
The Context: Why Amharas Went to War
The idea that the Amhara “multiplied their suffering” by joining Abiy’s military expedition against the TPLF is, at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, a distortion of historical truth. For more than 27 years under TPLF rule, the Amhara people endured systematic marginalization, humiliation, and dispossession. They were cast as villains in Ethiopia’s ethnic narrative, politically sidelined, and denied access to their ancestral lands—most notably in Wolkayit and Raya.
Thus, when war erupted in 2020, the Amhara did not join Abiy’s campaign as his loyal followers but as defenders of their people, their dignity, and their land. The TPLF had initiated the conflict by launching attacks on the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) in Tigray, killing many Amhara officers in cold blood. Soon after, it attempted to break into Amhara territory through Kirakir in Gondar, a move that exposed its broader aim: to destabilize the Amhara region and reclaim its lost dominance at the center of Ethiopian politics.
TPLF leaders such as Getachew Reda and Tsadkan Gebretensae were not shy about their ambitions. They openly spoke of “neutralizing” Amhara elites—language that made clear their intention to settle old political scores once they regained power. Under such existential threats, the Amhara people had no moral or strategic option but to fight back. The war, for them, was not merely Abiy’s war; it was a war of survival.
The Failure of the Amhara Leadership
That said, Bantwe is right to question the misplaced trust many Amhara elites placed in Abiy Ahmed. From 2018 to 2020, the Amhara political establishment, particularly the former Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM), lacked strategic foresight. They aligned themselves with Abiy’s Prosperity Party without building an independent vision or alternative power base.
Dr. Ambachew Mekonnen’s tragic conflict with General Asaminew Tsige epitomized this failure. Instead of uniting to form a strong, autonomous Amhara defense structure, internal rivalry and misplaced loyalty to Abiy led to paralysis—and ultimately, to Ambachew’s assassination. The absence of coordinated Amhara leadership at this critical juncture allowed Abiy to exploit divisions and neutralize potential challengers from within.
Meanwhile, a few vigilant voices within the Amhara public sphere recognized Abiy’s manipulative politics from the outset. Programs such as Ethio 360, Addis Dimts, and Reyot Media consistently warned that Abiy’s populism masked authoritarian control and that his promises of reform were hollow. Their warnings, unfortunately, were dismissed by much of the political elite until it was too late.
The Unresolved TPLF Question
Even today, the TPLF and Tigrayan elites—whether aligned with Debretsion Gebremichael’s faction or with Getachew Reda and Tsadkan Gebretensae—continue to press claims over “Western Tigray.” This persistent narrative keeps the political wound open and makes genuine cooperation between the Amhara and Tigrayan people nearly impossible.
The insistence on reclaiming “Western Tigray” not only ignores historical facts but also disregards the human cost and resentment accumulated over decades of TPLF rule. For Amharas, the struggle for Wolkayit is not about expansionism—it is about restoring what was taken by force, rectifying historical injustice, and protecting communities that have long suffered ethnic persecution. Until Tigrayan leaders abandon their expansionist rhetoric and acknowledge Amhara grievances, reconciliation will remain out of reach.
Tigrayan elites continue to advocate for the prosperity of their province at the expense of Amhara lives, expecting Amharas to “close their eyes” while they are deceived and dispossessed—a colonial mindset disguised as federalism. From Stalin of Zara media to figures like Tewodros Tsegay, Alula Solomon, Danel Berhanie, Mariam Yawit and many others, we hear the same chorus: that “Western Tigray” is an occupied Tigrayan land. This narrative is not grounded in history but in opportunism—a political scheme to capture the Amhara’s fertile lands under the false banner of self-determination.
If the mere presence of a language-speaking community justified annexation, then Ethiopia could claim parts of northern Kenya because Oromo-speaking communities live there, or parts of Eritrea because Tigrinya is spoken across the border. In the same way, Ukraine should not go to war with Russia simply because much of eastern Ukraine speaks Russian. The logic is absurd and dangerous. What these groups seek is not coexistence, but an alliance that benefits Tigray at the expense of Amhara sovereignty and security.
Equally disappointing are figures like Engineer Yilkal Getnet and Lidetu Ayalew—ironically, Amharas themselves—who frequently appear on Tigrayan media outlets, amplifying narratives that undermine the Amhara cause. By participating in these platforms, they lend legitimacy to propaganda aimed at erasing Amhara rights under the guise of “dialogue.”
Abiy’s Politics of Manipulation
Still, Bantwe captures one critical truth with precision: Abiy Ahmed’s rule thrives on manipulation, not leadership. He observes and learns from the actions—and inactions—of those around him. His power consolidates through the weaknesses of Ethiopia’s elites, not through a coherent vision for the country.
Abiy has perfected the art of dividing opponents, exploiting regional insecurities, and weaponizing public apathy. He understands that as long as Ethiopians remain fragmented and reactionary, he can continue to rule unchallenged. This dynamic explains why both the Amhara and Tigray fronts have failed to produce a unified, forward-looking alternative capable of ending the cycle of mistrust and violence.
In Conclusion
Elena Bantwe’s critique of the Amhara political response is valuable in provoking reflection, but it underestimates the existential realities that shaped their choices. The Amhara people did not blindly follow Abiy into war; they defended their survival against a familiar and unrepentant adversary. If Ethiopia is to heal, it must begin by addressing historical truths—not by rewriting them for political convenience.
For now, the path to reconciliation between Amhara, Tigray, and the broader Ethiopian body politic remains obstructed—not only by Abiy’s cynical governance but also by the unyielding posture of those who still dream of restoring the old order under new names.
Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
Support Borkena : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/
Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
To submit Press Release, send 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.