Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com
By Mekuria
For the past three years, Messay Mekonnen has worked tirelessly to amplify the Amhara struggle both nationally and internationally. Yet his tendency to exaggerate the words of Zemene Kasse and Asres Mare risks bending truth and creating division rather than fostering unity. Zemene’s every statement is calculated — designed to present himself as innocent while subtly shifting blame onto others.
We must remember who Zemene and Asres Mare really are. Unless they occupy top leadership, they show little interest in genuine unity. These are the same men who branded Eskinder Nega a thief, accused him of working with Abiy Ahmed, and dismissed Afhad as no different from the Prosperity Party. In Gojjam, they even hunted down Afhad supporters and bragged about capturing Masresh’s fighters.
This is not leadership — it is sabotage. From the early days of the Fano movement, Zemene denounced Eskinder by alleging he “stole” fighters during his imprisonment to form the Amhara Popular Front (APF). That claim was not innocent; it was a calculated move to sow doubt. Figures like Professor Habtamu Tegegn, Zemedkun Bekele, Girma Kassa, and Asay Derbie amplified the attack, tarnishing Eskinder’s image instead of rallying behind him as a politically experienced and internationally respected leader.
The result was disastrous. The diaspora, once highly enthusiastic in its support for Fano, became divided and disillusioned. Precious time and resources were lost. International engagement, which could have advanced the Amhara cause, weakened because of the confusion and mistrust sown by Zemene and his circle. Instead of uniting against existential threats, the Fano movement turned inward. Leaders attacked one another out of fear that someone else — especially Eskinder — might overshadow them. Insecurity, not strategy, became the driving force.
Zemene’s pattern is consistent: he joins collective initiatives only to abandon them when he cannot dominate. He walked away from the early plan to form an Amhara People’s Army with Eskinder. He withdrew from Afhad once leadership slipped from his hands. He and Asres refused calls from fellow Fanos, ignored agreements, and even issued press releases under Afgo’s name without approvalof Afabha — violating the very principle of collective decision-making.
For Zemene and Asres, the Amhara Fano movement is theirs alone. Others are dismissed as “barefoot fighters” unworthy of leadership. But this mentality has fueled division, weakening the struggle at its core. What is even more worrying is that this dictatorial tendency of Zemene Kasse has, to some degree, transmitted to other groups such as those led by Mirie Wodajo and Habte Wolde. It is not uncommon today to hear of skirmishes against Afhad in Wollo and Gonder, respectively. This must stop. Such actions reflect nothing more than shifta mentality. All of them are Amharas — including Afhad leaders. To turn weapons against fellow Fano is to do Abiy Ahmed’s work for him. The blood of Amharas should not be spilled by Amharas.
Fano Does Not Need One-Man Leadership
One of the most damaging assumptions — encouraged by figures in the diaspora — is that Fano must have a single, unified leadership under one man to succeed. History and reality show the opposite: decentralization is Fano’s greatest strength.
Fano emerged as a people’s resistance, not as the personal project of one leader. Its resilience lies in the fact that there is no single command center that can be dismantled, no headquarters that can be bombed, and no leader whose arrest would cripple the movement. Local commanders, fighters, and communities in Gonder, Wollo, Shewa, Gojjam, and beyond all carry the struggle in their own areas. This makes it harder for the regime to suppress Fano, because the movement is like water — it flows where it is needed, adapting to terrain and circumstance.
History offers powerful lessons. In Vietnam, the resistance against French colonial forces and later against the United States succeeded not because of one man’s leadership, but because of a decentralized guerrilla strategy. Small, self-reliant units operated across villages and jungles, loosely coordinated but united by a common purpose. The enemy could win battles, but it could not extinguish the spirit of a decentralized movement.
Closer to home, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) survived Abiy’s attempts to annihilate it by embracing decentralization tactics. Village-based cells and local commanders ensured that even when some units were destroyed, the struggle as a whole survived and expanded. The TPLF’s eventual march to the gates of Debre Berhan was not the triumph of one man, but of a decentralized system that adapted under pressure.
The same truth applies to Fano today. A centralized structure, while neat on paper, would make the movement more vulnerable. It would create a bottleneck of decision-making, invite authoritarian behavior, and reproduce the very power struggles we already see. Worse, it would make the struggle hostage to the ambitions or weaknesses of one man at the top.
Instead, what Fano requires is coordination, not centralization. That means:
* No attacks on fellow Fano units.
* Communication channels to share intelligence and strategies.
* A minimum code of conduct to prevent betrayal, smear campaigns, or political manipulation.
* A culture of collective responsibility where leaders emerge by merit and commitment, not by intrigue or sabotage.
In this model, no single leader can claim ownership of the struggle. The movement belongs to the Amhara people, not to the egos of a few individuals.
The Way Forward
The media should not amplify empty slogans while ignoring the underlying causes of disunity. Diaspora Amharas and Ethiopians at large must instead support leadership that embraces democratic principles, coordination, and collective responsibility.
The Amhara struggle is not only about removing Abiy Ahmed. It is about building a governance system rooted in rule of law, accountability, and good governance. Leaders clinging to outdated power games, in the style of Atse Yohannes and Tewodros, must be rejected.
The future of the Amhara resistance depends not on one man at the top, but on many leaders, fighters, and communities working together. Victory will not come from centralized command, but from the strength of a decentralized movement united in purpose — just as the Vietnamese and the Tigrayans proved in their own struggles.
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 [email protected]
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.
Read more on Borkena Ethiopian News
