The Alliance for Survival was presented as a historic opening. Its collapse now threatens to become something else: a public test of the judgment of the Amhara leaders who championed it, a blow to already fragile trust among Amharas, and an opportunity for the Prosperity Party to portray its opponents as divided and strategically adrift. The immediate question is no longer whether the alliance was a sound choice. It was not. The question is how Amharas can survive its consequences without allowing the failure of an alliance to become the failure of the Amhara cause.
The alliance joined the Amhara Fano National Movement (AFNM) with the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), and other regional movements under a shared anti-government banner. AFNM chairman Zemene Kassie read the founding declaration and was identified by other reporting as the alliance’s first chair. The symbolism was striking. But a declaration is not a durable political structure, and the events in Tigray have exposed how much of the alliance’s public promise rested on a TPLF whose position could change quickly.
As of October 16, federal-aligned forces had retaken Mekelle, and the government announced a six-month caretaker administration with elections among its stated aims. Reporting also described further government advances. This article’s argument is therefore about the collapse of the alliance’s strategic premise and the TPLF’s diminished position, not a claim that the TPLF has disappeared or that the war is over.
That distinction matters. A political alliance can lose credibility and strategic value before its members formally dissolve it. If the partner treated as the coalition’s central military and political anchor is pushed from the regional capital and forced to contest control elsewhere, the alliance’s promise of coordinated momentum is badly weakened. Fano now faces the consequences of having tied its national political image to a partnership whose balance and prospects were not sufficiently tested in public.
The alliance is collapsing and Amharas must not collapse with it.
The first consequence for Amharas is strategic. The alliance has not shown that it can reliably convert a shared declaration into sustained coordination, influence, or gains for the Amhara cause. Its most visible partner is under severe pressure, and the Tigray caretaker administration creates a separate political track whose direction and legitimacy remain uncertain. The alliance may continue to exist in name, but its claim to be a rising, coordinated force has been damaged.
The second consequence is political. The Prosperity Party can use the alliance’s reversals to reinforce its message that armed opponents are fragmented, opportunistic, and unable to offer a viable national alternative. That does not mean the regime has resolved the grievances that fuel the Amhara struggle. It means that an avoidable strategic setback may give the government an advantage in public argument and in its effort to divide its opponents. This is an inference about the likely political effect, not a claim that the government has already secured a decisive victory.
The third consequence is internal fracture. The alliance did not carry the same meaning for all Amharas; communities assessed it through different histories, territorial issues, and security fears. For many Amharas in Gondar, Welkait, and Raya, an alliance with the TPLF was deeply alarming. Unresolved territorial claims and the legacy of past conflict led them to see the TPLF as a direct threat to their security, political rights, and ability to remain in their homes as Amharas. In Shoa, many Amharas viewed an alliance with the OLF/OLA as a direct threat to their continued security and presence, citing repeated attacks on Amhara communities attributed to OLA forces. These concerns were justified and foreseeable. They were not signs of misunderstanding or disloyalty; they reflected serious questions about security, territory, and political rights that leadership had a duty to weigh before making its move. AFNM’s first assignment should have been to build confidence across Amhara communities: to listen, address their concerns, and show that no community would be sidelined or told to wait for an uncertain future. Instead, the alliance widened divisions inside the Amhara constituency.
The alliance has also left many Amharas facing a judgment crisis: whose analysis was sound, whose endorsement deserves trust, and who should be heard when the movement makes its next critical choice? This confusion is not a small communications problem. Pundits and elites who publicly championed the alliance, including some who played important roles in mediating among Fano factions, must answer for the judgment they asked Amharas to trust. A cause cannot organize itself around leaders and elites if its supporters no longer know whether their confidence is being earned through careful judgment or demanded through blind loyalty.
A credibility crisis for leaders and public advocates
Zemene Kassie and the AFNM leaders who promoted the alliance now face a serious credibility test. The issue is not that political leaders must predict every battlefield turn. No responsible analysis can promise that. The issue is whether they examined short- and long-term interests with the seriousness the Amhara cause required before making a strategic partnership central to the movement’s public direction.
When leaders commit a movement to a consequential alliance, they owe their constituents more than confidence and slogans. They owe them a clear account of the expected benefits, the risks, the limits of the agreement, the safeguards for Amhara priorities, and the conditions under which the partnership would be reviewed. If those questions were not examined closely, then the failure is one of political judgment and preparation. That judgment now deserves public scrutiny.
The damage extends beyond the signatories. Amhara elites, commentators, and diaspora media outlets that preached the alliance without meaningful scrutiny helped muddy the political waters, confuse the public, and divert attention from building Amhara strength at home. They urged people to lean on an outside ally at the very moment the cause needed internal cohesion, independent judgment, and a clear public mandate. The TPLF, treated as the alliance’s anchor, lost Mekelle less than two weeks after renewed fighting began; the alliance had not demonstrated concrete gains for Amhara priorities.
Media outlets that speak under the Amhara flag have a special obligation to correct the record in the same public arena where they promoted the alliance. They should identify claims that outran evidence, distinguish advocacy from reporting, and stop branding dissent as treachery. Those who helped mislead the public cannot retain any moral authority by changing the subject. They must own the consequences, correct their claims, and explain how they will scrutinize the next strategic choice. If they refuse, the public should stop treating their endorsements as leadership.
The moment for leadership renewal
This is a moment for leadership renewal and a reckoning, not a cosmetic reshuffle. Zemene Kassie and the AFNM leadership that made this alliance its flagship have shown a serious failure to grasp the complexity of the Amhara struggle and to forecast what this partnership could cost. They treated a shared opponent as if that alone made a sound strategy. They failed to reckon adequately with different Amhara communities’ security fears, territorial concerns, internal divisions, partner agendas, and the alliance’s vulnerability. When the coalition’s TPLF anchor lost Mekelle less than two weeks after renewed fighting began, the assumptions behind the alliance were badly exposed; promised gains for Amhara priorities remained unproven. This is not an unlucky battlefield turn that excuses leadership. It is a failure to test assumptions, weigh short- and long-term interests, and prepare for foreseeable reversals. Zemene Kassie and his colleagues owe the public a direct account. Those who cannot accept responsibility, correct course, and rebuild trust must give way. Renewal must go beyond replacing individuals. AFNM needs structural change: accountable decision-making, genuine consultation across Amhara constituencies, independent strategic assessment, a clear mandate, measurable objectives, and defined review thresholds. Its leadership must organize the struggle around addressing the political conditions that gave rise to it—security, rights, representation, accountability, constitutional reform, justice, and legitimate resolution of territorial disputes—instead of betting the cause on an alliance whose priorities it does not control. The Amhara cause cannot afford leadership that mistakes bold declarations for strategy.
What the newly recognized leadership must do
The roadmap for renewed leadership is clear: build unity at home, establish an independent mandate, earn public legitimacy, and then form partnerships from a position of strength. It should translate that sequence into visible work:
- Unite the Amhara constituency: Unity is not achieved by announcing a movement, naming a platform, or declaring that factions now stand together. AFNM was announced more than six months ago, yet it has not demonstrated the sustained political work needed to turn that announcement into a shared Amhara cause: an agreed agenda, inclusive decision-making, accountable representation, or credible ways to resolve internal disputes. A platform is not a united constituency. If unity has already been achieved, its advocates should be able to point to these concrete results. The leadership must now build them—bringing Fano factions and Amhara communities into a common political process, engaging security actors, including those opposed to Fano, and reducing conflict among Amharas. Without that work, “unity” remains a slogan, while the divisions that weaken Amhara representation persist.
- Define an independent mandate: State the priorities plainly—protect civilians, halt genocidal attacks and displacement, secure representation and accountability, and address constitutional and territorial questions through legitimate processes. Ground claims in evidence and challenge collective-blame narratives.
- Build wider Ethiopian relationships: Engage credible civic, faith, professional, youth, and community actors in Afar, Somali, Gambella, Southern, Central, and other regions. Assess prospective partners by their constituencies, record, aims, reciprocity, and respect for Amhara agency.
- Agree on a national minimum: Set shared urgent objectives and principles for a legitimate transition, including decision-making, representation, dispute resolution, and protections. State unresolved structural questions plainly; do not let Amhara concerns be postponed indefinitely.
- Earn independent legitimacy: Lead inclusively, advocate consistently, use reliable evidence, and accept accountability. Document abuses and displacement, assess the roles of state institutions and all armed actors, and keep AFNM’s core demands visible in every coalition.
- Offer a political future for Ethiopia: Put forward a credible vision for equal rights, constitutional reform, legitimate processes for territorial disputes, accountability, power-sharing, and institutional checks.
- Review partnerships and adapt: Publish assessments of results, reciprocity, representation, trust, and progress. Correct, renegotiate, narrow, or end arrangements when commitments fail or conditions change.
Some advocates have framed the choice as accepting this alliance or leaving Amharas isolated. That is a false choice. Rejecting a particular partnership does not mean rejecting cooperation with other Ethiopian constituencies. When warnings of isolation are used to pressure Amharas into supporting an alliance without examining its terms, risks, or likely benefits, they substitute fear for strategic judgment.
In addition, Amharas could be one constituency among Ethiopia’s many peoples, but their population, geographic reach, historical experience, social networks, and organized capacity give them the potential to become a formidable political force. That potential depends on building confidence, representation, and cohesion across Amhara communities. A divided constituency risks marginalization even within an alliance while a cohesive one can pursue broader relationships with greater influence.
Obviously, partnerships can strengthen the struggle, but they should be chosen and reviewed according to how well they serve Amhara priorities. The starting point must be a clear political mandate and accountable leadership, followed by relationships built on shared interests and mutual respect. Amharas should cooperate with others without treating any single alliance as indispensable or postponing unresolved concerns to an uncertain future.
Conclusion
The collapse of the Alliance for Survival’s promise is a warning, but it need not be the end of Amhara political agency. The danger is that Amharas will respond by retreating into mutual accusation, losing confidence in every leader and outlet, or waiting for the Prosperity Party’s opponents to rescue them. The better response is to learn publicly, reorganize deliberately, and restore the ability to act on Amhara priorities with independent judgment.
Zemene Kassie and other AFNM leaders, Amhara elites, and diaspora media advocates should face serious accounting of the choices they promoted. Those who can rebuild credibility should do so through candor and service. Those who cannot make room for people able to unite Amharas and assess gains and risks with greater care. The broader public must also demand evidence, not merely endorsements, before lending its trust.
Amhara survival cannot be made dependent on the fortunes of any alliance or movement. Partnerships may strengthen the struggle, but the foundation must be Amhara cohesion, political clarity, and leadership that is answerable to the people it claims to represent. The alliance may have failed. Amharas must ensure that their cause does not fail with it.
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.
What this event teaches us has much greater importance, any idea based on false or imagined premise, continuously lead to failure every single time; due to its made-up foundation. That includes the temporary victories claimed in the collective human struggle. These are unique in/to the Human phenomenon; but seldom exist in the natural order, that is if we consider natures ‘renewal process’ ( wild fire, earthquake, volcanic vents, and magnetic field reversals, etc. ) as one.
Tree loses their leaves when the temperature fall and winter approaches, appearing dead visually, only to come back to life and blossom and give frits after spring followed by summer. That is only because, the natural-Order ( the knowing) is remembered by every cell in the tree ( as transferred from the seed), the temperature changes and the seasons are only the conditional effects; the knowing remains ‘within’… .
The human has forgotten or is tricked to ignore the Inner-knowing it comes with ( as all natural (biological) SEEDS contain) was forced to settle for learnt-knowledge from the ‘without’ which is based on FICTION (PROJECTION).
For the tree to exist, soil, water, air, space, and sunlight (the 5 elements) must be there first; else the SEED is useless. The same way with out the presence of the the 5 elements there is no human, there is biological-life; though life exist independent of matter. Leads us to the fact that, the ‘inner-knowing’ can only be maintained when life is not masked by false identities such as human, ant, elephant ( a ‘form’ description) a shell or a container for ‘life’ that does not poses inner-knowing as does ‘life’. In the movie the ‘Star War’ they called it ‘the Power’ & ‘the Force’, that which you are ; in the form or without.
‘Dante’s allegory of the cave…’ explained
Link = youtube.com/watch?v=Ipj_Tdzokzo
The foundation:
“At first there was No-thing” , meaning there was only One (The Power/ The Force) & Creation took place.
Now, ‘Creation’ still remains One, but with leaner thinking, it appears full of variety of forms, but holding the One-ness intact; if one of the 5 building- block ( earth, air, water, fire, space) were to be removed, ‘creation’ is no more.
That will bring us back to: “There is No one else here”. = “At first there was No-thing”!
In other words, the one you call your self ‘me’, we, this & that are all ‘fake-news’.
When that sink-in, you wont be fighting yourself & killing yourself becomes meaningless. The idea of owning yourself, taking yourself, buying yourself, selling yourself, killing yourself… to pay RENT to live on the Planet you were born into & all the things considered SMART & being POWERFULL today, cannot be described using words…
Be well.
What is the Amhara cause? What does Fano aims to accomplish? What is its vision for Ethiopia? Is “the removal of Abiy and his government” sufficient reason for making alliance with parties that have diametrically opposing political stances? The whole affair seems to have not been well-thought out and executed out of desperation. I still believe that Fano can accomplish its desired goals without allying itself with the TPLF or OLA, and perhaps even without going to war against the EDF if it constitutes itself as a strong political party. If Fano wants the support of the peoples of Ethiopia, it needs to clearly outline what vision it has for Ethiopia, explain why the government of Abiy Ahmed needs to be removed, how it plans to manage the transition, whether a new constitution should be drafted, etc…..the Ethiopian people are clearly tired of wars without cause.
oh how we Ethiopians rush to judgement! Already we declared the alliance failing because the war is not won in two weeks! Shame on the author and shame on us. Even now it has created a massive political shift, hope for the people and fear on the regime. Why do we have to be so cynical to knock down something good that has a likelihood of succeeding?
This article is a classic example of premature judgment disguised as strategic analysis. Declaring the Alliance for Survival a failure simply because the political and military situation changed within two weeks is not serious analysis; it is a rush to judgment based on short-term developments. No credible political or military alliance can be fairly evaluated solely by its immediate battlefield outcomes.
The author appears more interested in assigning blame to Zemene Kassie and the AFNM leadership than in objectively examining the alliance’s broader strategic and political implications. An alliance does not necessarily have to produce an immediate military victory to generate political momentum, alter the balance of power, expose the vulnerabilities of the ruling government, or create new opportunities for cooperation among opposition groups.
Equally troubling is the article’s tendency to present legitimate concerns about the TPLF and OLA as sufficient grounds for dismissing the alliance altogether. Political cooperation does not require identical historical experiences, political ideologies, or long-term objectives. It requires identifying shared interests, establishing clear conditions, and managing disagreements. If the author believes the alliance was fundamentally flawed, the burden is to demonstrate why its strategic objectives were unattainable—not merely to point to early setbacks.
The call for leadership accountability is legitimate, but accountability must be based on evidence, not hindsight. Where was this level of scrutiny when the alliance was announced? Were its objectives, limitations, and anticipated risks adequately examined before it was condemned? More importantly, what concrete alternative does the author propose that could realistically advance Amhara interests under the existing political and security conditions?
The article repeatedly calls for unity while contributing to the very divisions it claims to oppose. Undermining leaders, discrediting public advocates, and demanding their removal without presenting a viable alternative do not automatically strengthen the Amhara cause. They risk deepening internal fragmentation at a moment when political clarity and strategic coordination are urgently needed.
One can disagree with the alliance, question its assumptions, and demand transparency without declaring it dead before its longer-term consequences can be assessed. Strategic partnerships must ultimately be judged by their objectives, implementation, political effects, and measurable outcomes—not by the expectations or impatience of their critics.
The real question is not whether the alliance has already succeeded or failed, but whether it can advance its stated objectives and whether its participants can adapt to changing circumstances. Serious criticism should help answer that question. Premature declarations of failure, personal blame, and calls for leadership purges do little to advance the cause the author claims to defend.
Thr lengthy article is “Much Ado About Nothing”. A self evaluating,biased and quite dismissive with regard the struggle of existence of the amhara
people and the role AFNM played in the last three years and up to the formation of the “Alliance”.Why the writer of the article rushed for judgement without giving the alliance enough time makes one suspect his motive and ambition are driven by a “partisan”point of view. The whole content of the article is “text book example of rush for judgement”. It’s fine to come up with critisism as long as it’s constructive,to be dismissive in such manner makes the wrter lose credit in areas he attempted to gain”political score”
Forward with AFNM and the alliance !
The Alliance has not failed. If we have to talk about failure, it is Sisay that has badly failed since he has failed to see the real picture. TPLF is alive and well, and you see that in action. The Alliance is also equally well and on course. Sisay appears to have a wish that is bound to also fail.
From the beginning the dominant faction in Fano has refused to outline a strategy , simply stating that the struggle starts with Amhara and ends with Amhara. This has restricted the Fano movement to the geographical TPLF delineated “Killil” with ethnic Amharas outside of it, relegated and marginalised. Some Fano spokesperson has gone as far as ridiculing and calling ethnic Amharas as “urban Amhara” or “false Amharas” . Fano needs ethnic Amharas spread out through out Ethiopia aligned with it. Should it shun them it would be at its own peril!
For Amharas to avoid declaring Fano’s coalition with TPLF as unholy, the terms of the alliance should be spelt out. Otherwise it would be like the messianic “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed”.
The author of the above writing deserves praise as he has touched upon important talking points over lack of consultation; lack of strategy and vision.