In his article, “Ethiopia’s War Evades Foreign Scrutiny, but Highlights UAE-Saudi-Turkish Competition,” Gregory R. Copley mentioned the following:
‘Significantly, the Fano forces have adopted traditional Ethiopian military ranks for their commanders, such as dejazmatch (generally an overall commander), fitawrari (leader of the center), gerazmatch (commander of the left wing of the army), and so on, reminiscent of the Solomonic royal and imperial periods. This highlights their desire to restore the Solomonic framework of Ethiopia, rather than the later republican ethnic approach of dividing and conquering the 80 or so ethnicities.”
By Caleb T (Dr.)
Abstract:
In his article, “Ethiopia’s War Evades Foreign Scrutiny, but Highlights UAE-Saudi-Turkish Competition,” Gregory R. Copley discusses the Fano forces’ adoption of traditional Ethiopian military ranks such as dejazmatch, fitawrari, and gerazmatch, interpreting it as a desire to restore the Solomonic monarchy framework. This interpretation oversimplifies the political dynamics in Ethiopia, particularly the motivations behind the Fano movement. Copley’s view neglects the role of Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism, which has fostered divisions and instability in the country. While these traditional titles may evoke memories of the imperial era, the Fano’s adoption of them is more symbolic, reflecting a resistance to ethnic fragmentation and a critique of the current government’s failure to promote national unity. This paper challenges Copley’s assertion by situating the Fano movement within the broader context of Ethiopia’s ongoing ethnic tensions, historical grievances, and the desire for a more inclusive and cohesive national identity. Rather than seeking a return to monarchy, the Fano forces aim to address the failures of the current ethnic-based political structure and to restore a sense of Ethiopian unity that transcends ethnic divisions.
Introduction:
In his article, “Ethiopia’s War Evades Foreign Scrutiny, but Highlights UAE-Saudi-Turkish Competition,” Gregory R. Copley makes the claim that the Fano forces’ adoption of traditional Ethiopian military ranks such as dejazmatch, fitawrari, and gerazmatch reflects a broader desire to restore the Solomonic monarchy framework. According to Copley, these symbolic gestures are part of a “hidden agenda” to revive an imperialistic or ethnocentric system, positioning the Fano as advocates for a return to a monarchic Ethiopia. While it is true that these military ranks have historical significance in Ethiopia’s imperial past, Copley’s interpretation oversimplifies the complex political dynamics of modern Ethiopia and misrepresents the Fano’s intentions.
The Fano movement, while utilizing traditional military titles, is not motivated by a nostalgic desire to return to the monarchy. Rather, it reflects a broader frustration with the current system of ethnic federalism that has resulted in political fragmentation, ethnic-based violence, and instability. The ethnic federalist policies implemented by previous regimes, notably the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF)-led government, have contributed to divisive politics, fueling inter-ethnic tensions that have left many, particularly the Amhara, marginalized and vulnerable. In this context, the adoption of imperial military ranks should be seen as a symbolic resistance to the ethnic division that has characterized Ethiopian politics in recent decades.
While the Fano’s use of traditional titles such as dejazmatch and fitawrari may evoke memories of the imperial period, these symbols are more likely a reflection of resistance to the divisive policies of ethnic federalism rather than a call for a return to monarchy. Moreover, the context of Ethiopia’s history, particularly the genocidal campaigns during the Italian occupation and the EPRDF’s propaganda, complicates the narrative that the Fano is driven by nostalgia for the imperial past. The Fano forces’ adoption of these titles could be seen as an effort to counteract what they perceive as the failed political order, which has left ethnic groups, particularly the Amhara, marginalized and subjected to violence. Rather than signaling a desire to restore the monarchy, the Fano’s symbolic gestures represent a push for national unity and cohesion, pushing back against the fragmentation caused by ethnic-based governance. Copley’s view seems to echo the EPRDF-era propaganda, which glossed over Ethiopia’s deep-rooted ethnic conflicts, presenting an idealized version of a unified Ethiopian identity under imperial rule, while failing to address the realities of ethnic oppression and division.
The Fano’s use of these traditional military ranks is therefore a symbolic gesture aimed at challenging the political order and fostering national unity, rather than a literal desire to restore the Solomonic monarchy. The movement seeks to restore a sense of Ethiopian identity that transcends ethnic lines and to critique the failures of the current government in addressing the country’s deep-seated divisions. This paper argues that Copley’s interpretation fails to account for the contemporary realities of Ethiopia’s ethnic conflicts and overlooks the broader goals of the Fano movement, which include the creation of a more cohesive and stable Ethiopian state that can move beyond ethnic-based governance.
The Context of Ethiopia’s Ethnic Federalism and Fano’s Ideological Roots
It is critical to understand the political environment in Ethiopia, particularly the historical context of ethnic federalism that was instituted after the overthrow of the Derg regime in 1991. The establishment of ethnic federalism was intended to address the diverse identities and grievances within the Ethiopian state. According to experts, ethnic federalism was a response to historical marginalization, allowing various ethnic groups a degree of autonomy (Abbink, 2011). In this system, Ethiopia’s governance is characterized by ethnic-based regional states, which, while meant to give power to historically marginalized groups, have also exacerbated inter-ethnic tensions and fostered a fragmented political environment.
Copley’s claim that the Fano forces’ adoption of traditional military ranks is an effort to restore the Solomonic monarchy disregards the historical and cultural significance of these ranks. These military titles, deeply rooted in Ethiopian heritage, predate the modern political frameworks, including both the Solomonic monarchy and the more recent ethnic federalism. The use of traditional military ranks by the Fano could be seen not as a desire to reinstate a monarchy, but as a symbolic reclamation of Ethiopia’s pre-colonial heritage, which, for many Ethiopians, represents unity, strength, and a shared national identity. Fano has primarily been associated with resistance to perceived state oppression, particularly under the current government of Abiy Ahmed. This resistance is framed not as a call for monarchy, but as a reaction against what they view as the federal government’s failure to preserve Ethiopian unity and security.
The Fano Movement and Its Roots in Ethiopian Nationalism
The Fano movement, often portrayed as part of the Amhara nationalist response to Abiy Ahmed’s policies, is deeply rooted in a sense of Ethiopian nationalism. It is not an attempt to revive an imperial system, but rather a defense of Ethiopia’s territorial integrity and an effort to challenge the erosion of the central state’s power due to the implementation of ethnic federalism. While some members of the Fano forces may be nostalgic for a more unified Ethiopia as envisioned under the Solomonic dynasty, their struggle is more likely tied to a desire for a stable, unified nation-state, rather than a reversion to imperial rule.
For many Amharas and Ethiopians across various ethnic groups, the vision of Ethiopia as a multi-ethnic, united state transcends both the monarchical past and the current challenges posed by the ethnic federal system. The desire to restore “traditional military ranks” can be viewed as an assertion of pride in Ethiopia’s imperial past, but not as a call to return to an imperial monarchy. Rather, it represents a rejection of ethnic fragmentation and the hope to move towards a more cohesive national identity, which has been undermined by contemporary policies (Fassil, 2020).
The Fano Movement: Ethiopian Nationalism, Not a Monarchical Revival
Copley’s assertion that the Fano forces’ adoption of traditional military ranks signifies a desire to restore the Solomonic monarchy is problematic. The Fano movement, often associated with the Amhara resistance, is not primarily focused on restoring an imperial system but rather on challenging the current government’s policies of ethnic federalism. While some individuals within the Fano may harbor nostalgia for Ethiopia’s pre-1974 monarchy, the movement itself is more concerned with the perceived marginalization of the Amhara people under the current federal system.
The Fano forces’ adoption of traditional military titles could be seen as an effort to reassert Ethiopian nationalism and pride, particularly in the face of perceived threats to the country’s unity. This move is more likely symbolic, invoking Ethiopia’s imperial past in the hope of reviving a sense of shared national identity, rather than a literal attempt to bring back the monarchy. As Fassil (2020) argues, the adoption of historical symbols by the Fano represents a desire for unity, not a return to the autocratic and exclusionary politics of the past.
While Copley suggests that the use of these ranks signals a push for a Solomonic-style monarchy, this view overlooks the fact that ethnic groups across Ethiopia, including the Amhara, have diverse visions for the country’s future. The Fano, for example, are not only calling for a return to a centralized government but also advocating for a model that addresses ethnic equality and national integration, rather than the exclusionary systems that characterized the monarchy.
The Fallacy of ‘Monarchical Revival’ in Modern Ethiopian Politics
While Copley’s interpretation hints at the Fano movement being a pretext for restoring a Solomonic monarchy, it is crucial to note that modern Ethiopia is significantly different from the Ethiopia of the Solomonic dynasty. The Solomonic empire, though historically significant, was also highly centralized and hierarchical, and its legacy was marked by the exclusion of many ethnic groups from political power. In contrast, the current Ethiopian political landscape is shaped by ethnic pluralism, where various groups demand political representation, autonomy, and participation in governance. This reality makes the notion of a restoration of a Solomonic monarchy politically unfeasible and out of touch with the aspirations of many Ethiopians today, who are focused on addressing the failures of ethnic federalism and ensuring greater political inclusion.
Moreover, Ethiopia’s transition from imperial rule to a republican system has created significant tensions over issues of national unity, ethnic autonomy, and governance. The ethnic federal system, implemented after the fall of the Derg regime, was meant to provide ethnic groups with self-determination, but it has arguably led to greater political fragmentation. In this context, many Ethiopians are questioning whether ethnic federalism is the best solution for the country, and whether a return to a more centralized form of governance—though not a monarchy—is necessary to restore stability (Markakis, 2011).
Rejection of the Imperial Past, Embracing Unity
It is crucial to understand that the majority of Ethiopians, including many members of the Fano movement, do not seek to revive the Solomonic monarchy. Instead, they are calling for a return
to a stronger, more unified state that transcends ethnic divisions. The desire for unity is central to the Fano’s resistance, and their adoption of traditional military ranks reflects this broader ambition rather than a nostalgic yearning for imperial rule.
In fact, the majority of the Ethiopian population is far more focused on addressing the issues of ethnic competition, economic inequality, and political corruption than on revisiting a political system that excluded many of Ethiopia’s ethnic groups. As Markakis (2011) notes, the future of Ethiopia will depend on finding a balance between maintaining ethnic autonomy and ensuring national unity, with the goal of creating a more inclusive political system that recognizes the country’s diversity.
Violent Incidents and Massacres in Oromia: Catalyst for Amhara Resistance
The violent incidents and massacres in Oromia have played a crucial role in intensifying the Amhara people’s resistance against the government of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, particularly due to the perception that the government has failed to protect Amhara civilians. These events have exacerbated fears of systemic ethnic violence and marginalization, leading to a deepening sense of injustice and fueling support for Amhara resistance movements, including the Fano militia.
Before diving into recent atrocities and massacres of violence against the Amhara people, Mr. Copley, I would like to remind you of a statement you made in your article published on Borkena on August 12, 2020, titled “Genocide is Alive and Well in Africa.” In that article, you wrote:
“The Oromo war against Ethiopian nationalists and ethnic Amhara peoples is driven by small extremist groups, supported by foreign governments. But it is virulent and gaining traction. Moreover, its impact is strategic.”
This statement highlighted the ongoing violence and its wider implications. In light of this, it is crucial to examine the most recent incidents of violence against the Amhara people to understand the broader context of the issues at hand.
Ataye Massacre (2021)
The Ataye Massacre, which began in April 2021, was a violent episode centered in the town of Ataye in the Amhara region of Ethiopia. The violence began on April 16 and escalated over the course of two weeks. Mobs targeted various locations, including an ambulance coming from Ataye, and the clashes resulted in widespread brutality. By the end of the conflict, at least 303 people were killed, 269 were injured, and approximately 50,000 individuals were displaced. Additionally, about 3,073 buildings were destroyed, including nearly a quarter of the town’s houses. Mass killings, door-to-door massacres, and the destruction of homes marked this period of violence, with around 328,000 people affected by the crisis.
Gimbi Massacre (2020)
One of the most tragic and symbolic incidents occurred in Gimbi, a town in the Oromia region, in 2020. Reports indicate that dozens of Amhara civilians were targeted and killed in a coordinated attack by armed groups. The Gimbi massacre is part of a broader pattern of attacks against Amharas in Oromia. For the Amhara community, this massacre became a stark illustration of their growing vulnerability under the government’s leadership, particularly under Abiy’s administration, which is seen as dominated by the Oromo ethnic group. The perception that these attacks were either ignored or insufficiently addressed by the government deepened fears of ethnic cleansing or targeted violence against the Amhara population (Fassil, 2020). This incident, like others in Oromia, contributed to the growing disillusionment with Abiy’s leadership and the government’s inability or unwillingness to protect its Amhara citizens.
Metekel Massacre (2020)
In late 2020, the Metekel massacre in the western part of the Amhara region, located near the border with Benishangul-Gumuz, further escalated tensions. This attack targeted Amhara civilians, leaving hundreds dead. The Amhara regional government attributed the violence to Oromo ethnic-based armed groups, which were believed to be collaborating with the central government. The Amhara perceived these attacks as part of a larger effort to destabilize their region and weaken their political influence in the country. The Metekel massacre highlighted the growing insecurity within Amhara territories and fueled concerns that Abiy’s administration was either unable or unwilling to address the problem of ethnic violence, particularly when it came to the protection of Amhara civilians (Abbink, 2021).
Benishangul-Gumuz Massacre (2019)
In 2019, another massacre occurred in the Benishangul-Gumuz region, in which Amhara civilians were killed by armed groups. These attacks were reportedly supported by militias with alleged backing from the Oromo ethnic group. For the Amhara, this massacre intensified their fears of being systematically targeted and marginalized under a government perceived as dominated by Oromos. The Benishangul-Gumuz massacre added to the perception that the government was either complicit in or indifferent to the growing wave of ethnic violence, particularly in regions with significant Amhara populations. The attacks also contributed to the already high levels of inter-ethnic tension, heightening distrust between the Amhara community and Abiy’s government (Fassil, 2020).
Conclusion:
In response to Copley’s interpretation, it is important to recognize that Ethiopia’s political landscape is far more complex than a simple desire to return to an imperial past. The adoption of traditional military ranks by the Fano forces is more a reflection of Ethiopian nationalism, a resistance to ethnic fragmentation, and a response to the failures of the current government’s policies. It is crucial to understand that the Fano movement, while tapping into historical and cultural symbols, does not seek to return to the monarchic system of the past. Instead, it seeks to preserve Ethiopian unity and challenge the divisiveness of ethnic federalism.
The future of Ethiopia will depend on how the country addresses its ethnic tensions, the inclusivity of its political system, and its ability to move beyond the challenges posed by ethnic based governance. A return to an imperial monarchy, as Copley suggests, is neither a practical nor desirable solution for the vast majority of Ethiopians.
Gregory R. Copley’s assertion that the Fano forces’ adoption of traditional military ranks signals a desire to restore the Solomonic monarchy misses the mark. The Fano’s actions should be understood in the context of the deep frustrations many Ethiopians feel with the current system of ethnic federalism, which has led to divisions and violence. While some in the Fano movement may indeed have nostalgic feelings for Ethiopia’s pre-republican past, their primary goal is to address the failures of the current government and work toward a more unified Ethiopia.
The return to a centralized system, which many in the Fano advocate, is not the same as a push for a return to a monarchy. It is, rather, a desire to strengthen Ethiopia’s national identity, promote political stability, and ensure that the country can move beyond the divisions that ethnic federalism has created.
The future of Ethiopia hinges on its ability to address these ethnic tensions and reform its political system in ways that promote unity, inclusivity, and stability. The challenge lies in moving beyond ethnic-based governance and finding a model that accommodates the country’s diverse ethnic groups without exacerbating divisions. As such, the Fano movement should be understood not as a call for a return to imperialism, but as part of a broader resistance to the fragmentation of Ethiopia and a push for a more cohesive national vision. In the end, the solution lies not in restoring an imperial monarchy but in creating a political system that can unite Ethiopians across ethnic lines and provide stability for future generations.
Editor’s note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
__
To Publish an Article On borkena , please send submission to info@borkena.com for consideration.
Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena
Like borkena on Facebook
Add your business to Borkena Business Listing/Business Directory Jobs
Join the conversation. Follow us on X (formerly Twitter ) @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian news updates regularly. Ethiopia To share information or for submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com