Lessons Amhara Fano National Movement (AFNM) Can’t Ignore

By Sisay M. (Amoraw) 

The recent formation of the Amhara Fano National Movement (AFNM)is not just another announcement in a long and painful path of Amhara collective defense against genocide. It is a turning point. For over five years, Fano has carried the burden of Amhara survival with little more than courage, local trust, and raw determination. That alone is extraordinary. But moving from resistance to an organized Movement changes everything. It raises expectations. It raises risks. And it demands a level of discipline and political clarity the movement has not always shown.

History is full of brave movements that lost not because they lacked fighters, but because they failed to turn sacrifice into strategy and unity into institutions. This is that moment for Fano.

What Fano Got Right …and Must Not Lose!

Before talking about what needs to change, we should be honest about what Fano did right since those strengths are the reason the struggle is still alive.

• First, Fano earned deep grassroots legitimacy. This was not a project designed by elites. It was not formed in conference rooms or foreign capitals. It grew out of community defense, local organized groups, and collective outrage over Amhara mass killings, displacement, and state violence. It grew out of necessity when the state either could not or would not protect Amharas. Fano Fighters were not strangers. They were neighbors, cousins, former classmates, farmers, and teachers. That social bond created trust, and trust created resilience.
• Second, Fano proved remarkably adaptive. Without centralized logistics, formal training, or reliable supply chains, they survived drone warfare, coordinated offensives, and reorganized after major losses. In many areas, they did more than fighting, they kept communities functioning when regime’s official structures collapsed.
• Third, the diaspora stepped in when the world looked away. Fundraising, advocacy, and media activism kept attention on atrocities that would otherwise have been buried under geopolitics. That support was messy and uneven, but it mattered.
• And finally, the movement carried a moral narrative that still resonates. The cause was framed as not conquest or domination, but about survival, dignity, and basic rights. That framing is powerful, and it should never be taken for granted. It attracted sympathy beyond ethnic lines, even if political actors failed to fully capitalize on it.

These are not small achievements. But they are also fragile. Movements like Fano can lose their moral grounding once they start building formal power structures. AFNM must protect what made Fano legitimate in the first place.

Where the Fano Movement Struggled and AFNM Must avoid

Courage kept Fano alive. But courage could not fix structural problems.

• First, one of the biggest challenges has been fragmentation and localism. Different commands, different loyalties, and unresolved tensions made coordination difficult and, at times, impossible. What helped the movement survive early on eventually became a weakness when broader strategy was needed.
• Second, then there is the problem of personality-driven politics. Supporters rallied around individuals instead of institutions. Disagreements became public dramas. Criticism was treated as betrayal. This poisoned trust and made serious internal debate almost impossible.
• Third, there was no strategic communication. Messaging to the public, diaspora, and international audiences were at times self-contradictory. At times, no one could clearly explain what the movement wanted politically, beyond resisting immediate threats. Different voices spoke to different audiences with different promises, leaving supporters confused and outsiders unconvinced.
• Fourth, security and infiltration have hurt badly too. Fake defectors, informants, and psychological warfare have repeatedly damaged operations and created paranoia. In some cases, suspicion spreads faster than facts, turning comrades into enemies.

These are not moral failures of individual fighters. They are predictable consequences of fighting a modern state without modern organizational systems.

Organizational Lessons for AFNM to Consider

With the creation of AFNM,  guerrilla spontaneity and improvisation must give way to institutional discipline. 

• First, there must be clear command structures and an integrated civilian political leadership. Military operations and political direction must work together, not compete.
• Second, internal disputes must be handled through formal conflict-resolution mechanisms, not social media and whispered alliances. Disagreements are inevitable. What destroys movements is not disagreement, but unmanaged disagreements. Quiet mediation must replace social-media, TikTok and YouTube warfare. If disagreements are not managed internally and professionally, they will eventually become public fractures.
• Third, AFNM also needs uniform codes of conduct and disciplinary systems that apply across all commands. Loyalty to the institution must matter more than loyalty to individuals.
• Fourth, the movement needs professional intelligence and counter-intelligence capacity. Without serious investment in intelligence and counterintelligence, no amount of bravery will prevent continued infiltration and disruption.

Political Lessons for AFNM to  Consider

Every armed struggle eventually faces the same truth: wars are often lost at negotiating tables and diplomatic forums, not only on battlefields.

• Frist, AFNM needs a clear and consistent and coherent political message that speaks to not only what the Movement opposes, but what it stands for. As much as possible AFNM should demonstrate its stand on broader principles of citizenship, justice, and national stability. A movement that sounds only ethnic, even when grievances are real, might struggle to build lasting local and global alliances.

• Second, there must also be serious thinking about post-conflict political realities: governance, justice and reconciliation. These conversations are uncomfortable but avoiding them only guarantees chaos later.

If AFNM cannot explain what kind of country it wants to help build, others will define that future for it.

Diaspora Engagement Lessons for AFNM to Consider

The diaspora has been a lifeline for the struggle. It has also, at times, made things harder than they needed to be.

On the positive side, diaspora communities moved fast when people back home were under siege. They raised money, organized protests, pushed media coverage, and refused to let atrocities disappear into diplomatic silence. That kind of solidarity matters. Without it, many crimes would have gone unnoticed and unchallenged.

But the way diaspora engagement evolved also created serious problems. In many cases, individual Fano commands appointed people they personally knew or trusted to represent them abroad for the purpose of fund raising, public relations, and support mobilization. At first, this seemed practical. Trust is scarce in war, and it seemed justifiable if commanders worked with whoever they could rely on.

Over time, though, that individual-based model backfired. Different commands ended up with different “representatives,” each building their own followings, running their own fundraisers, and pushing their own narratives. Instead of one coordinated diaspora effort, we got parallel camps competing for influence and legitimacy. Factionalism deepened, rumors spread like wildfires and energy that should have gone into confronting the regime was spent fighting each other online.

In addition, some influencers slowly turned into political actors without clear accountability. Fundraising often happened without shared standards or transparent reporting, which bred suspicion even among loyal supporters. Trust eroded, and once that happens, even decent work gets questioned.

This is not about bad intentions. Most people were trying to help. The problem was the structure, or rather, the lack of one.

Now AFNM exists as the main organization leading the struggle on the ground, it needs to change how it deals with the diaspora. It should move away from working through individual brokers and start building relationships with credible, capable diaspora organizations that can mobilize communities, manage funds responsibly, and engage policymakers in a meaningful way. Institutions should work with institutions. That is how AFNM can reduce personality politics and protect the movement from constant internal drama.

The Front should identify trusted organizations with proven capacity and bring them into a formal partnership framework, with clear roles, unified fundraising channels, and standard financial reporting. Supporters deserve to know where their money is going. Leaders deserve partners who can operate with discipline and scale.

Media Engagement Lesson for AFNM to Consider

Both social and traditional mainstream media in the Amhara struggle has been driven more by emotion than by strategy. People spoke because they cared and they should. But caring is different from communicating wisely. And  unfortunately, the cost of that confusion has been real.

Supporters, activists, diaspora voices, and sometimes even Fano figures have all gone straight to YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Telegram, and foreign media, each telling the story from their own angle. Most of that came from good intentions. However,  without coordination, the message often collided with itself. One day the movement sounded ready for political engagement. The next day it sounded like compromise was betrayal. To outsiders, it sends a message that Fano’s movement looks unstable.

Worse, internal disagreements have regularly been dragged into public view. Leadership tensions, tactical frustrations, and personal leadership rivalries turned into online debates and viral clips. Serious political questions became social-media entertainment, and hostile propaganda machines didn’t even have to work hard to attack Fano.

AFNM must treat media as part of the struggle itself, not as something that happens on the side. That starts with building its own official media outlets that answer directly to the Front, instead of relying almost entirely on friendly influencers or independent channels with their own priorities.

A serious movement needs its own platforms such as verified social-media accounts, websites, video channels, and radio where official statements, updates, and positions are released clearly and consistently. When something major happens, people should not be asking, “Who should we believe?” There should be no doubt about where AFNM speaks from.

Language also matters. While communities on the ground need information in their local languages, the international community such as journalists, diplomats, lawmakers  need to hear the movement in languages they understand, especially English. If AFNM does not speak for itself to the world, others will shape the story, and probably not in ways that help the struggle.

This also means setting clear rules about who speaks publicly on military operations, political strategy, and negotiations. That is not about silencing people. It is about protecting the movement from being defined by its loudest or most emotional voices at the worst possible moments.

Different audiences need different messages. What strengthens morale in villages under attack is not the same language that convinces policymakers to apply pressure. A disciplined media strategy knows how to speak to both without contradicting itself.

And finally, media cannot keep being the place where internal problems are fought out in public. Disagreements will happen and that is normal. Turning them into online battles only weakens the movement and strengthens its enemies.

Needless to say, narratives shape alliances and alliances shape outcomes.
If AFNM does not build and control its own media voice, it will always be reacting to stories written by others. And no movement fighting for survival can afford to stay in that position.

Ethics and Community Engagement Lessons for AFNM to Consider 

Fano is known to be the most ethical and disciplined rebel group. It should continue modelling that character. History shows repeatedly that resistance groups lose legitimacy long before they lose military capacity. Once communities begin to fear you, your political future is already in danger.

The Movement must build clear systems for civilian complaints, investigations, and accountability, even during active conflict. Communities must feel protected, not just represented. This moral discipline must continue to AFNM’s strategic strength.

Last word

The Amhara people have endured unimaginable suffering for decades. The formation of AFNM is a declaration that this struggle must now be more than spontaneous resistance. It must become organized, disciplined, and politically serious.

But institutions alone will not save the movement. Only the choices AFNM makes will. It is time to choose cooperation over competition, humility over ego, and long-term vision over short-term applause.

History rarely gives movements like Amhara Fano unlimited chances. Courage brought Fano this far. What happens next will depend on whether AFNM can match that courage with discipline, unity, and political maturity.

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

Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory  Business Listing Toronto

Join the conversation. Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter)  @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly.  Subscribe to YouTube channel To share information or for submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com