Remembering Ato Eshete Moges Amid the Current Political Realignment in Ethiopia

EDITOR’S FOREWORD

Memory at the Crossroads

On Professor Girma Berhanu’s “Remembering Ato Eshete Moges Amid the Current Political Realignment in Ethiopia”

Readers of this publication have met Ato Eshete Moges before. In December 2021, and again in an essay this Tribune carried in April 2024, Professor Girma Berhanu told the story of a Fano leader who, as TPLF forces pushed south towards Shewa Robit in the closing weeks of that year’s offensive, refused a second withdrawal. At Salaysh, some fifteen kilometres from the town, he and his son Yitagesu stood their ground at their home against the advancing TPLF fighters, and both died there. Eshete’s last telephone call, as Berhanu recounted it, was to report that his son had been killed and that he himself was surrounded.

Nearly five years on, the forces that killed them and the movement that mourns them have put their names to the same founding statement. On the evening of 20 September, Zemene Kassie, chairman of the Amhara Fano National Movement, read out on Tigrai TV the proclamation of the Ethiopian Peoples’ Forces Alliance for Survival — the coalition this publication has followed under the name Tsimdo. Seven organisations, among them the Amhara Fano National Movement, the TPLF, the OLA and the ONLF, alongside Afar, Benishangul and Gumuz movements, pledged to remove the Prosperity Party government and to install a transitional administration under a charter. Of all the pairings the alliance contains, it is the one between Fano and the TPLF, enemies in the war of 2020–22, that has drawn the sharpest scrutiny.

It would have been easy — and for a writer so closely identified with the Fano cause, perhaps expected — to answer that pairing with a denunciation. Professor Berhanu has written something harder. He declines both to bless the alliance and to mock it. He insists that historical grievances be documented rather than turned into collective accusations against any people. And he makes the memory of Eshete and Yitagesu a test rather than a weapon: not what the dead would condemn, but what principles those who invoke them must be able to state. The eight questions he sets out — on shared objectives, civilian protection, accountability for past abuses, and the danger that a military coalition becomes a contest for the palace — are the questions every member of this alliance should now be asked. None has yet answered them in public.

Not what the dead would condemn, but what principles those who invoke them must be able to state.

A word on timing. The essay was finalised in the days before the formal declaration, and its closing section rests on the OLA’s statement of 17 September, in which the organisation said it was neither involved in nor a component of the emerging alliance, while describing cooperation among opposition forces as a “procedural consensus”. Three days later the OLA was named among the seven founders. Its framing has moved with it: the procedural label now describes its participation rather than its absence, and it has demanded that Fano disown an armed faction in Wollega. We do not read this as weakening the essay. The distance travelled between a press release and a signature in the space of three days is, if anything, the clearest illustration yet of Berhanu’s warning that claims of unity can outrun the consensus beneath them.

The Tribune publishes this essay because it refuses both of the easy scripts on offer — betrayal on one side, unity on the other. Its call for a civic Ethiopian political community, in which the state belongs to its citizens rather than to any ethnic claimant, and for a civilian and representative transition rather than a handover between armed factions, comes from within the constituency with the strongest claim to feel betrayed. That is precisely what gives it weight.

Berhanu closes not with a policy but with a folk verse of the Fano tradition, in which the singer grieves that Fano went home without taking leave, and would have seen him off however wearied. It is a lament for a departure that came too soon. The question it leaves is the one the essay asks of all of us: what the living owe to those who did not come back — and whether that debt is to be paid in vengeance, or in principle.

ፋኖ አገሩ ገባ፥ ሳይሰናበተኝ፣
እሸኘው ነበረ፥ ምንም ቢታክተኝ።

“Fano went home without taking leave of me; I would have seen him off, however it wearied me.” — traditional Fano verse quoted by the author (Tribune translation)

— The Editor, The Ethiopian Tribune

SYNOPSIS

In this essay, Professor Girma Berhanu of the University of Gothenburg reads the September 2026 Alliance for Survival through the memory of Ato Eshete Moges and his son Yitagesu, who died fighting TPLF forces near Shewa Robit in 2021. He neither condemns nor endorses the coalition. Instead he argues that reconciliation which suppresses memory is fragile, and that alliances between former adversaries must be judged by the principles that govern them rather than by the enemy they share.

Berhanu distinguishes Fano as an armed formation from Fano as a moral and political tradition, and argues that if the latter is claimed, questions of legitimacy, accountability and historical memory become unavoidable. He calls for past abuses to be documented rather than attributed collectively to ethnic communities, and sets out the questions any credible coalition must answer: its shared objective beyond opposition to the government, its governing institutions, its safeguards for civilians, its approach to responsibility for past violence, its conception of citizenship, and its protections against a post-victory struggle for dominance.

His wider case is for a civic conception of Ethiopia in which political authority derives from citizens rather than from ethnic ownership of the state, and for any transition to be civilian, representative and constitutionally grounded rather than a transfer of power between armed factions. Drawing on Jeff Pearce’s critique of the alliance and on the OLA’s “procedural consensus” statement, he closes with a question he declines to answer for the dead: what would Eshete Moges say — and what should the living learn from those who died?

---

Remembering Ato Eshete Moges Amid the Current Political Realignment in Ethiopia

By Professor Girma Berhanu

University of Gothenburg

1. Introduction

Recent reports indicate that several armed groups that have been engaged in conflict with the Ethiopian government in different parts of the country have announced an alliance aimed at challenging the government in Addis Ababa. The reported coalition brings together Fano forces in Amhara, the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), and several smaller groups under what has been described as an alliance for survival. The groups have accused Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s government of presiding over war, mass destruction, poverty, and other forms of political and humanitarian crisis, and have argued that Ethiopia faces a serious risk of further fragmentation.

I do not dismiss the possibility that political realignment and dialogue among previously antagonistic actors could contribute to a pathway toward peace. Nor do I intend to mock or prematurely judge the emerging alliance. Political conflicts of this magnitude are rarely static, and former adversaries can, under certain circumstances, become partners in pursuit of shared political objectives. At the same time, however, political alliances cannot be understood solely through their immediate strategic calculations. They must also be examined in relation to historical memory, collective trauma, political legitimacy, and the expectations of the communities whose interests the actors claim to represent.

It was in this context that I found myself thinking about Ato Eshete Moges, a Fano leader who died in the Shoa Robit area alongside his son, Yitagesu Eshete. His death, and the circumstances surrounding it, remain deeply significant to me. I was particularly struck by the historical paradox presented by the possibility that a movement associated with his legacy might now cooperate with actors whom many Amhara communities associate with earlier violence and conflict.

This is not an argument that reconciliation is impossible. Nor is it an assertion that historical grievances should make political cooperation permanently unacceptable. Rather, it is an argument for historical consciousness. Reconciliation that simply suppresses memory is fragile; reconciliation that acknowledges past violence, establishes accountability, and articulates clearly defined political principles has a stronger intellectual and political foundation.

For many Amhara families, the violence associated with the conflicts of recent decades remains an unresolved historical experience. Accounts of massacres, displacement, destruction of property, sexual violence, and other alleged abuses have contributed to profound mistrust among communities. These experiences cannot simply be erased by the emergence of a new political configuration. At the same time, historical claims and allegations concerning responsibility for particular acts require careful documentation and should not be transformed into collective accusations against entire ethnic or political communities.

The central questions, therefore, are not simply whether former adversaries can cooperate, but under what conditions such cooperation could become credible and sustainable. What principles would govern the alliance? What mechanisms would address historical grievances? What safeguards would exist against renewed conflict? How would competing political objectives be reconciled? And, perhaps most importantly, what guarantees would be available to the communities whose histories and sacrifices are being invoked in the name of political change?

These questions are particularly important when the memory of individuals such as Ato Eshete Moges continues to shape the political imagination of those who identify with Fano.

2. Ato Eshete Moges: Memory, Sacrifice, and the Meaning of Fano

This article also serves as a commemoration of Ato Eshete Moges and his son, Yitagesu Eshete. Their deaths have acquired symbolic significance within narratives of Fano resistance and sacrifice. Yet commemoration should not simply reproduce heroic mythology. It can also provide an opportunity to examine the values, political assumptions, and historical interpretations that are attached to the memory of those who died.

The purpose of remembering Eshete is not to glorify war or violence. Nor should sacrifice be romanticised as though armed conflict itself produces political or social progress. Rather, the significance of his story lies in the questions it raises about responsibility, family, community, political commitment, and the moral costs of conflict.

The memory of Eshete can therefore be understood as part of a broader political and moral narrative surrounding Fano. In that narrative, Fano is presented not merely as an armed formation but as a social and political consciousness associated with resistance, community responsibility, self-determination, and opposition to perceived injustice. Whether one accepts this interpretation in its entirety or not, it is important to recognise that political movements acquire meaning not only through their organisational structures but also through the collective memories and symbols through which supporters understand them.

This distinction is important at the present historical juncture. If Fano is understood only as an armed organisation, then alliances can be assessed primarily in terms of military and strategic interests. If, however, Fano is understood also as a political and moral tradition, then questions of historical memory, political principles, legitimacy, and accountability become unavoidable.

The legacy of Ato Eshete Moges consequently raises a difficult question: what does it mean for a movement to preserve the memory and principles associated with those who sacrificed their lives while simultaneously entering political relationships with former adversaries?

The answer cannot simply be found in loyalty to the past, nor in an unquestioning embrace of the present. It requires a critical engagement with both.

Commemoration should not simply reproduce heroic mythology.

3. The Spirit of Fano and the Problem of Political Identity

One dimension of this discussion concerns the meaning attributed to the term “Fano.” The concept has been interpreted differently across historical periods and political contexts. It has been used to describe forms of local resistance, community mobilisation, armed struggle, and broader political consciousness. Consequently, treating Fano as a single, historically uniform entity risks overlooking significant changes in its composition, objectives, and political context.

A more productive approach is to examine the principles that different actors associate with Fano. These may include resistance to perceived oppression, community protection, political autonomy, sacrifice, solidarity, and a commitment to particular understandings of Ethiopian national identity.

The challenge today is to determine whether these principles can provide a coherent political foundation in a rapidly changing environment. Political movements inevitably confront pressures to compromise, form alliances, and adjust their strategies. Such adaptation is not necessarily evidence of betrayal. At the same time, strategic flexibility without clearly articulated principles can create uncertainty about the movement’s political identity and long-term objectives.

This is where the memory of Ato Eshete becomes particularly relevant. His story can be interpreted not simply as a narrative of military courage but as an opportunity to ask what political and ethical commitments should guide those who claim to inherit his legacy.

If Fano is to function as more than an armed formation, it requires a clearly articulated political philosophy. Such a philosophy would need to address questions of citizenship, equality, political representation, minority rights, territorial governance, accountability, and the relationship between ethnic identity and Ethiopian national citizenship.

The issue, therefore, is not whether Fano should cooperate with others in principle. Cooperation can be politically necessary. The more fundamental question is what kind of cooperation is compatible with the movement’s stated principles and with the interests of the wider population.

4. Historical Memory and the Possibility of Reconciliation

The prospect of cooperation among actors with deeply conflicting histories presents a broader theoretical problem. Political reconciliation requires more than a temporary convergence of strategic interests. Durable reconciliation generally depends on some degree of mutual recognition, accountability, institutional guarantees, and a shared understanding of the political future.

Historical memory plays an important role in this process. Communities do not enter political alliances as blank slates. They carry memories of violence, displacement, loss, and betrayal. These memories can influence political behaviour long after the immediate conflict has ended.

For this reason, political actors who seek reconciliation must confront rather than simply suppress historical grievances. The alternative is an unstable form of cooperation in which unresolved memories remain beneath the surface and can be activated when political circumstances change.

The question is particularly sensitive in Ethiopia, where political conflict has repeatedly intersected with competing understandings of ethnicity, citizenship, territory, state power, and national identity. A political coalition that brings together organisations with substantially different conceptions of these questions therefore requires more than a declaration of common opposition to the incumbent government. It requires a transparent account of what political order the coalition seeks to establish.

This is also why the memory of Ato Eshete Moges matters. His story represents, for many people, a particular history of sacrifice. That history cannot simply be detached from contemporary political choices. At the same time, historical memory should not become an obstacle to the possibility of reconciliation. The task is to create a political framework in which remembrance and reconciliation are not treated as mutually exclusive.

Reconciliation without memory is fragile; memory without reconciliation can become a permanent source of conflict.

5. The Present Crossroads

The current political moment presents Ethiopia with profound uncertainty. Political realignment may create new opportunities for negotiation, but it may also produce new tensions when organisations with incompatible objectives attempt to operate within the same political framework.

The central issue is therefore not whether cooperation is inherently legitimate or illegitimate. It is whether the actors involved can establish sufficient agreement concerning the political principles that would govern their cooperation.

Several questions deserve particular attention:

• What is the shared political objective beyond opposition to the current government?
• What institutional arrangements would govern the coalition?
• How would disagreements among participating groups be resolved?
• What guarantees would protect civilians and communities from renewed violence?
• How would responsibility for past abuses be addressed?
• What conception of citizenship would underpin the proposed political order?
• How would ethnic, regional, and national political interests be reconciled?
• What mechanisms would prevent a military coalition from becoming a struggle for political dominance after a change of government?

These are not merely strategic questions. They concern the foundations of political legitimacy.

A transition that simply replaces one concentration of power with another would not resolve the structural problems that have contributed to Ethiopia’s recurrent conflicts. A sustainable political settlement would instead require institutions capable of protecting citizens regardless of ethnicity or political affiliation.

6. Towards a Civic Conception of Ethiopian Political Community

My own concern is ultimately broader than the fate of any single political organisation. Ethiopia’s political future cannot be secured through competing claims of ethnic ownership over the state. The country belongs to its citizens, and political authority should derive from citizens rather than from exclusive claims that the state belongs to one ethnic group or another.

This principle does not require the denial of ethnic identity. On the contrary, a democratic political order must be capable of accommodating linguistic, cultural, historical, and regional differences while maintaining equal citizenship.

The challenge is to develop a political framework in which ethnic identity and national citizenship are not constructed as mutually exclusive alternatives.

Any future transitional arrangement should therefore be carefully considered. If a transition is required, its legitimacy would depend in part on its independence from the direct control of armed organisations, its civilian character, its representativeness, and its commitment to constitutional and democratic principles. Its purpose should be to establish the conditions for peace, equality, development, accountable government, and democratic participation rather than merely transferring power from one armed or factional group to another.

Ethiopians living abroad also have an important role to play. That role should include critical engagement with information, support for peaceful political processes, documentation of human-rights concerns, and resistance to misinformation. Diaspora political engagement is most constructive when it contributes to informed public debate rather than reinforcing polarization.

7. Final Reflections: What Would Ato Eshete Say?

A recent article by Jeff Pearce, Fano and Forget: The Betrayal of an Ideal, raises serious questions about the reported political realignment and its implications for the identity and historical memory of Fano. Pearce argues that an alliance involving actors associated with previous violence against Amhara communities risks undermining the principles the movement claims to represent. His argument is one interpretation of the current political development, but it reflects a broader concern: can strategic political alliances coexist with historical memory, political principle, and accountability?

As I am finalising this text, Addis Standard has reported an important clarification from the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) regarding the emerging alliance among Ethiopia’s opposition armed groups. The OLA has characterised the initiative as a “procedural consensus,” rather than a substantive political agreement, emphasising that it does not constitute a common position on Ethiopia’s political future or authorise any participating group to speak on behalf of others.

In a press release issued on 17 September, the OLA explicitly stated that it was neither involved in nor a component of the emerging alliance. At the same time, it acknowledged a broader pattern of cooperation among opposition forces, describing a process “stretching from west to east and from south to north.” The distinction is important. It suggests that coordination among opposition forces may be expanding, while the extent to which this coordination represents genuine political convergence remains unresolved. The OLA’s statement therefore highlights a central tension within Ethiopia’s opposition landscape. There may be growing recognition of the need for coordination, but procedural cooperation should not be mistaken for agreement on political objectives, governance arrangements, accountability, or a shared vision for Ethiopia’s future. In a fragmented political environment, claims of opposition unity can easily go beyond the actual level of political consensus.

The question that remains for me is therefore deeply personal, but also profoundly political: What would Ato Eshete Moges say about this emerging political configuration?

We cannot know the answer. Yet the question itself matters because it forces us to confront the uneasy relationship between historical memory and political expediency.

Remembering Eshete should not mean perpetuating a culture of revenge. Nor should honouring his memory require rejecting every possibility of political reconciliation. Rather, his memory can serve as a reminder that political movements are ultimately judged not only by the alliances they form or the power they acquire, but also by the principles they uphold when political circumstances change.

If there is a meaningful legacy to be drawn from his story, it should be one of responsibility: responsibility toward family and community, responsibility toward the wider society, and responsibility for the political consequences of one’s choices.

Ethiopia needs neither the romanticisation of armed struggle nor the erasure of historical suffering. It needs a political order grounded in equal citizenship, accountability, constitutional government, peaceful political participation, and respect for human dignity.

The central challenge, therefore, is to move beyond the politics of inherited grievance without erasing the history that produced those grievances. Reconciliation without memory is fragile; memory without reconciliation can become a permanent source of conflict. The difficult task is to hold the two together—to remember without reproducing hatred, and to pursue reconciliation without demanding historical amnesia.

As I think of Ato Eshete Moges and his son, Yitagesu, I am left not with a simple political answer, but with a question that deserves serious public reflection:

What should the living learn from those who died, and how should that memory shape the political choices we make in the present?

ፋኖን እወዳለሁ፥ ፋኖንስ አልጠላ፣
ተኳሽ እወዳለሁ፥ ተኳሽም አልጠላ፣
ሲደክመኝ አርፋለሁ፥ በጎፈሬው ጥላ።

ፋኖ አገሩ ገባ፥ ሳይሰናበተኝ፣
እሸኘው ነበረ፥ ምንም ቢታክተኝ።

References

Berhanu, G. (2022). Fano: A living saviour of the Amhara people and the Ethiopian spirit. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 9(1), 112–119. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.91.11537

Eurasia Review. (2025, September 19). Ato Eshete Moges: A lion among men whose courage blazed like fire across Fano. https://www.eurasiareview.com/19092025-ato-eshete-moges-a-lion-among-men-whose-courage-blazed-like-fire-across-fano-oped/

Eshete Moges, Yitagesu Eshte: Valorous father and son paid in life together. (n.d.). Gazette Plus. https://share.google/PUtbTNy7VJp4Bzbxo

Fano: A mass outrage for Amhara existence, justice and Ethiopian unity. (n.d.). https://share.google/166WApR72QNn7zfTb

Pearce, J. (2026, September 20). Fano and forget: The betrayal of an ideal. Jeff Propulsion. https://jeffpropulsion.substack.com/p/fano-and-forget-the-betrayal-of-an

The story of fatherhood in the war field of Shewarobit—Ethiopia. (n.d.). The Voice of Africa. https://share.google/PuPVK59lQEIQ7yEqQ

Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95.

Gazette Plus. (n.d.). [Article title not provided]. https://share.google/ePqSYE9DwKp9sDwAb

YouTube. (n.d.). [Video]. https://youtube.com/watch?v=uwKCTed332Y