By Mekuria
In moments of national struggle, media platforms play a critical role—not only in informing the public but in shaping narratives that can unite or divide. While passionate reporting and principled commentary are essential, there is a fine line between supporting a cause and interfering in its internal dynamics. As the Amhara resistance movement evolves, it is imperative for media outlets to respect organizational autonomy and avoid overreach.
Ethio 360 and Addis Dimts: Foundational Voices in the Amhara Movement
Examining the journey, Ethio 360 and Addis Dimts were instrumental in igniting the Amhara revolution that gained momentum in April 2023. Their contribution is undeniable and should be recorded as such in the annals of Ethiopian history. No one can take this credit from them, and their influence during the early stages of the movement remains deeply significant.
Ethio 360 in particular played a vital role in informing and mobilizing the Amhara public, especially in the formative days of the Fano resistance. However, recent actions suggest a troubling shift—from objective reporting and critical analysis to active interference in the internal affairs of the Amhara Fano People’s Organization (AFPO), known by its Amharic acronym አፋህድ (Afahd), and its grassroots organizing efforts.
While the media has every right—and even the responsibility—to scrutinize and express opinions, it must stop short of attempting to shape or override decisions made by autonomous organizations. Like any legitimate movement, Afahd has the right to independently elect its leaders, chart its strategy, and speak in its own voice. It is not the role of any media house—however influential—to dictate policy or undermine internal consensus. Ethio 360 should recommit to its foundational role: amplifying voices from the ground, not speaking over them.
The Controversy: Ethio 360’s Role in the Afahd-Fano Dynamics
Recently, Ethio 360—and particularly its co-founder Habtamu Ayalew—have become controversial figures within the Fano political space. Their attempt to position themselves as decision-makers or influential arbiters in the internal affairs of Afahd has created tension and frustration among grassroots actors.
Media personalities like Habtamu have every right to voice opinions on the Fano movement. However, problems arise when commentary crosses the line into interference or pressure to influence organizational decisions. Worse still, individuals who express differing views or challenge Ethio 360’s position are sometimes labeled “beaden (ብአዴን)”—a derogatory term suggesting betrayal or disloyalty to Amhara cause. This kind of labeling is counterproductive and deeply harmful to the unity and integrity of the broader Fano movement.
In a recent article published on Borkena, I acknowledged the contributions of both Ethio 360 and Addis Dimts, awarding them an “A” grade for their historic role. I even gave an A+ to Habtamu Ayalew for his long-standing leadership and impact in the media space. However, genuine leadership also demands restraint, humility, and respect for organizational sovereignty.
Respect for Organizational Sovereignty
A recent episode underscores the core issue: Ethio 360 provided a platform to individuals from Afahd’s diaspora support group who issued a political statement claiming to represent Afahd while simultaneously expressing support for other Fano organizations. While individuals are free to support any cause they believe in, doing so under the official umbrella of Afahd raises questions of loyalty, alignment, and accountability.
As the proverb says, “You cannot climb two trees because you have two feet.” And Scripture reminds us, “No one can serve two masters.”
If these individuals act as Afahd’s support group, they must respect its internal decisions and structures. If, however, they want to represent a broader or pan-Fano agenda, they should clearly state that and operate outside the formal bounds of Afahd. Clarity in affiliation and purpose is essential.
Regardless of whether Afahd’s decisions are popular or strategically sound, its right to make those decisions must be respected. No one can claim to speak for Afahd while simultaneously aligning themselves with parallel structures. This dual representation causes confusion, weakens accountability, and undermines the legitimacy of Afahd’s leadership.
Ethio 360’s Responsibility as a Media Platform
Decisions about how financial or logistical support reaches fighters on the ground must rest solely with Afahd—so long as the support group claims to operate under its banner. This is a fundamental organizational principle that should not be compromised. Ethio 360, as a media platform, must recognize and respect this structure.
Habtamu Ayalew—an experienced leader and former figure in the Andinet Party—should rise to the occasion by demonstrating the maturity expected of someone in his position. He ought to uphold the autonomy of grassroots movements like Afahd and advocate for a clear boundary between media roles and internal organizational decision-making.
As a media professional, Habtamu has every right to share insights and perspectives on the Fano struggle. However, attempting to influence or override the decisions of an independent movement is both inappropriate and unacceptable. Ethio 360 should remain what it once proudly was: an independent, courageous platform that amplifies the voices of those in the struggle—without assuming the role of a political actor.
In a recent broadcast with Artist Shimelis, Habtamu mocked the low turnout of Afahd diaspora supporters, remarking that only four people responded to a public call for assembly. As someone formerly close to Afahd’s leadership, this reaction was not only inappropriate but also counterproductive. Rather than ridiculing the situation, he should have reflected on what the turnout reveals—whether it points to weak outreach, fear among supporters, or diminishing trust in the leadership. Public mockery from within undermines morale and damages the movement’s image. In moments like this, Habtamu’s responsibility should be to offer constructive guidance and help rebuild trust, not to embarrass those striving to contribute. For Afahd to regain strength and momentum, its leaders and close allies must demonstrate unity, take setbacks seriously, and focus on mobilizing support—not alienating it.
In conclusion, Habtamu Ayalew appears increasingly out of touch in his recent criticisms of Afahd, crossing the line from constructive engagement to erratic and unhelpful commentary. Rather than offering thoughtful analysis or support, his tone has grown dismissive and, at times, reckless—undermining the very movement he once seemed aligned with. Such an approach not only weakens morale but also distracts from the critical work of organizing and mobilizing around the Fano cause. If Habtamu truly cares about the future of Afahd, it is time he recalibrates his role—offering insight and solidarity instead of public ridicule.
Labeling Afahd Fanos fighters led by Eskinder Nega and other dedicated leaders, or equating them with ብአዴን is regrettably misguided and overly simplistic. Such claims ignore the broader grassroots nature of Afahd and reduce a complex, evolving movement to a few figures or political affiliations. While Eskinder may have influence or ties, Afahd operates with its own structure, leadership dynamics, and strategic objectives. Dismissing Afhad members as merely an extension of ብአዴን not only disrespects those risking their lives on the ground but also undermines the credibility of any serious political analysis. This kind of labeling reflects more about the speaker’s bias than the reality of the movement.
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
Insightful.
Ethio 360 appear to be too staburn to change heart. A I- know-all attitude has been the mark of journalist Habtamu who has always been genuine and unafraid to say his mind. one thing he has to know is that there are things beyond his realm of knowledge.
Ethio 360 insists that it has evedence of BeAden infiltration in AFPO. AFPO has recieved the information but didn’t not reacted as expected. 360 must understand that AFPO could have subtle reasons for that. Case should be closed there.
We need to understand that an enemy agent could be turned into a decisive partner in wartime.
AFAD and Eskindir are not serving the Amhara cause. They are trying to weaken Fano from within . Can you tell me how Asged was chased out of the struggle and how tFanos in shewa gave their hand to the genocider regieme recently ? Habtamu should release more information and expose Afad. Eskinder`s legitimacy is dewindled to Zero.
Ewnetu, the truth is, what you’re saying is utter nonsense. You have no credible information—none. If you consider yourself a man, you should have gone to Ethiopia like Eskinder did—faced the hardships, descended into the trenches, climbed the hills, and fought for the cause.
As to Asegid, he once claimed that he was the one the monks had identified as the anointed king of Ethiopia. He was obsessed with this idea. He even confronted Eskinder, asking, “What are you doing here?”—as if the Amhara land belonged to him alone. His fixation on undermining Eskinder was relentless.
In the end, Asegid chose to side with the regime. That is the historical truth. If you doubt my words, go to Ethiopia and ask Asegid yourself.