Dr Yonas Biru, Ethiopianist Politics, and the Amhara Nationalist Sphere:

Dr. Yonas Biru, Ethiopianist Politics, and the Amhara Nationalist Sphere:

By:Shumet Nigus Mengist

Alexandria ,Virginia 

A Contextual Analysis of His Relationship With ADP/APP and His Post-2018 Political Role**

The political role of Dr. Yonas Biru in the last seven years occupies a unique place in contemporary Ethiopian discourse. His critics accuse him of functioning as an ideological amplifier for Amhara nationalism and Ethiopianist anti-federalist narratives, while his own statements present himself as an independent technocrat whose political evolution was shaped by disappointment with institutional governance and the escalation of the Tigray conflict. Assessing this requires a contextual, historical, and philosophical analysis, situating his actions in the broader political environment of ADP/APP and the struggle over Ethiopia’s multinational constitutional order.

1. The Pre-Prosperity Context: ADP, Amhara Nationalism, and the Anti-Federalist Agenda

Before the merger that formed the Prosperity Party in 2019, the Amhara Democratic Party (ADP) was undergoing a profound ideological transformation. Influenced heavily by diaspora networks, its leading elites began promoting the argument that the 1995 FDRE Constitution was never endorsed by the Amhara people, and therefore lacked legitimacy. This position was not a mere legal critique but a political project aimed at:

delegitimizing the multinational federal system, and

undermining Oromo political consciousness, including Oromummaa.

During this pivotal moment, diaspora commentators who could articulate Ethiopianist centralization arguments in Western policy language became valuable to ADP circles. This is where Dr. Yonas Biru entered the ecosystem—not necessarily as a formal party member, but as a useful ideological intermediary, whose writings and interviews aligned with the broader anti-federalist framing emerging from Amhara elites.

These groups saw in Biru a polished intellectual voice capable of translating their core message—“federalism is a mistake; Oromummaa is a threat”—into internationally respectable language.

2. The Economic Advisory Council: Biru’s Own Account

Dr. Yonas Biru has stated that the only role he considered upon returning to Ethiopia in 2018 was membership in an Independent Economic Advisory Council (IEAC). According to his account:

He negotiated for two years with Mamo Mihretu and former Minister Girma Biru.

He refused to join unless the Council was fully independent from the government.

Eventually, the government agreed to his conditions.

After the Council was formed, “some members started pushing to make it a government organ,” leading to his resignation after five months.

He claims the government asked him not to resign.

He published two articles at the time defending his decision.

This account illustrates that he did hold real influence in the policy space of 2018–2019. It also shows that he perceived himself as a principled technocrat who resisted political capture.

However, even within this period of collaboration, his ideological proximity to Amhara elites remained evident through consistent alignment with Ethiopianist narratives in the diaspora.

3. Informal Advisory Relationships: A Parallel Network

Ethiopian intelligence sources, as well as political insiders, have long observed that Biru maintained informal advisory relations with senior Amhara figures:

Demeke Mekonnen, then Deputy PM and Foreign Minister

Gedu Andargachew, Foreign Minister

Belene Seyoum, PM’s press secretary

Mamo Mihretu, senior policy advisor and later Governor of the National Bank

These relationships were not random. They reflected ideological compatibility, especially regarding:

suspicion of multinational federalism,

resistance to Oromo-led political transformation, and

interest in using diaspora intellectuals to shape international narratives.

Multiple sources indicated that Biru helped draft diplomatic correspondence for Demeke and Gedu—work that later blended into his broader public rhetoric attacking Oromummaa.

4. Biru’s Own Claims of Continued Government Cooperation (2019–2020)

Contrary to accusations that he “returned to the U.S. and immediately started an anti-Oromo campaign,” Biru offers another timeline:

In November 2019, Billene Seyoum emailed him requesting

 “a formal analysis reviewing Ethiopia in a time of political transitions and reforms … for international news agencies.”

 Biru says he agreed and contributed.

In 2020, Mamo Mihretu similarly asked him to prepare analyses for international audiences.

In May 2020, at the height of the GERD diplomatic crisis, he claims:

He helped secure the involvement of Rev. Jesse Jackson.

He drafted a letter for Jackson addressed to the Congressional Black Caucus.

The letter gained traction in Washington.

Prime Minister Abiy called to thank him for this contribution.

These points show that the Prosperity Party government continued to use him as a diplomatic asset even after he left the Economic Council, and even while he was informally advising Amhara leaders.

This dual role—critic outside but collaborator inside—strengthened the perception that he occupied a liminal space between technocratic service and ideological activism.

5. The Turning Point: The Tigray War and Biru’s Radicalization

According to Biru, his break with Abiy Ahmed came with the Tigray conflict:

He says he supported the original “law enforcement operation.”

He claims he became critical when Abiy allegedly turned it into a “civil war.”

However, his public commentary after late 2020 did not target Abiy directly. Instead, it increasingly:

attacked Oromo identity,

portrayed Oromummaa as a civilizational danger,

dismissed Oromo intellectuals as extremists, and

framed multinational federalism as a historic mistake.

In practice, criticizing “the Oromo” became a surrogate for criticizing Abiy, echoing the messaging of Amhara Prosperity Party elites and Ethiopianist diaspora media.

Whether intentional or not, Biru’s rhetoric aligned perfectly with:

NAMA’s anti-federalist agenda,

ADP/APP’s historical rejection of the 1995 Constitution,

diaspora Amhara activists’ portrayal of Oromummaa as a tribal cult.

Thus, even if Biru personally claims neutrality, his public output strengthened the ideological narratives of Amhara nationalism and the Ethiopianist anti-Oromo messaging ecosystem.

6. Conclusion: 

A Dual Legacy—Technocrat or Ideologue?

Dr. Yonas Biru’s political identity since 2018 reflects a dual legacy:

1. Technocratic Collaborator (2018–2020)

He engaged with government leaders, contributed to international messaging, and played a limited diplomatic role.

2. Ideological Instrument (2020–2024)

Whether by design or by political drift, he became:

a central voice for anti-federalist Ethiopianism,

a preferred commentator in the Amhara nationalist sphere,

a consistent critic of Oromo identity, institutions, and culture,

a rhetorical tool in the wider assault on Oromummaa.

His personal narrative of principled independence does not erase the impact of his public discourse over the last seven years. His writings—often framed as scholarly critiques—have provided intellectual cover for efforts to delegitimize multinational federalism and demonize Oromo political identity.

In the end, the contradiction remains:

He presents himself as an independent professional betrayed by the government.

Yet his public rhetoric has become central to a political project long pursued by Ethiopianist and Amhara elites.

This is why, despite his claims, many perceive him not as a neutral economist but as a partisan ideologue whose work disproportionately targets Oromo identity and fuels the ongoing war of narratives against Oromummaa.

Yonas Biru and the Politics of Manufactured Outrage

 

Yonas Biru and the Politics of Manufactured Outrage

How an economist became the loudest microphone for Ethiopianist anti-federalism

By :Shumet Nigus Mengist

In Ethiopia’s toxic political arena, there is no shortage of loud voices. But few have reinvented themselves as dramatically—or as opportunistically—as Dr. Yonas Biru. Once known as a World Bank technocrat with modest influence, Biru has transformed into the diaspora’s most aggressive attack dog against Oromummaa, multinational federalism, and any political arrangement that threatens the old unitary Ethiopian idea.

Today, his commentaries circulate like scripture across Ethiopianist and Amhara-dominated social media spaces. Yet behind the performance lies a deeper political story—one that ties Biru to the ideological ambitions of the former ADP (now Amhara Prosperity Party) and the anti-federalist diaspora.

Let us be clear: this is not a personal story. This is a political ecosystem.

A Useful Technocrat at a Critical Moment

When Abiy Ahmed came to power in 2018, the ADP leadership—Demeke Mekonnen, Gedu Andargachew, and their diaspora echo chambers—were already campaigning against the 1995 Constitution. Their narrative was simple: the Amhara never endorsed the constitution; therefore, the federal system is illegitimate.

Their deeper goal was even clearer: dismantle multinational federalism and delegitimize Oromo political consciousness.

Enter Yonas Biru—a Western-based economist hungry for relevance and eager to speak the language of “national unity” in a way palatable to Washington and Brussels. He became, for lack of a better term, a useful intermediary. A polished voice to sanitize the raw nationalism of Amhara elites.

Even Biru’s own admissions confirm his proximity to power. He negotiated for two years to join an Independent Economic Advisory Council. He exchanged regular communications with policy heavyweights like Mamo Mihretu and Girma Biru. He received invitations from Billene Seyoum to write analyses for international media. He drafted diplomatic letters for Demeke Mekonnen and Gedu Andargachew.

These are not the footprints of an outsider. They are the fingerprints of an insider who operated quietly within the political architecture of the Prosperity Party.

The Turning Point: Ambition Denied

Then came the disappointment.

Biru did not secure the position he desperately wanted—the governorship of the National Bank of Ethiopia. The position went elsewhere, and Biru’s tone shifted sharply.

He now claims principled independence, insisting he resigned from the Economic Council because the government wanted to turn it into a political appendage. Maybe. But his transformation from a quiet technocrat to a full-time cultural warrior was too dramatic, too convenient, and too perfectly aligned with the agenda of anti-Oromo Ethiopianists.

When his political hopes faded, Biru redirected his critique—not at Abiy Ahmed, the man who denied him influence, but at the Oromo identity itself. This is not coincidence; it is political substitution.

When some cannot confront power directly, they attack the community associated with it.

The Anti-Oromo Crusade Disguised as Analysis

Since 2020, Biru has reinvented himself as the philosopher-king of Ethiopianist resentment. His commentary is predictable, repetitive, and serves one core purpose:

Delegitimize Oromummaa and weaken multinational federalism.

His claims:

Oromummaa is a “lie.”

Gadaa is “half democracy, half apartheid.”

Oromo identity politics are “the cancer of Ethiopia.”

Oromo intellectuals are extremists or frauds.

This is not analysis. It is propaganda with an academic accent.

Amhara elites and Ethiopianist activists use his work as intellectual cover to justify their broader assault on federalism and on Oromo political legitimacy. His writing functions exactly as it is intended: to injure the dignity of a people and to re-center the old imperial narrative as the only acceptable Ethiopian identity.

A Convenient Selective Memory

Biru wants the world to believe that his fierce opposition to the government began with the Tigray conflict. He says he supported the initial operation but opposed the “civil war” that followed.

But his writings tell a different story: his sharpest attacks have always targeted Oromo identity, not state policy. He critiques “Oromummaa” far more than he critiques war crimes, corruption, or authoritarianism.

Why?

Because his audience—Amhara elites and Ethiopianist diaspora networks—reward him for attacking Oromo identity, not for challenging centralized power.

The Legacy of Manufactured Outrage

In the end, Yonas Biru’s political relevance does not come from his economics degree, his brief advisory roles, or his abandoned Council seat. It comes from something much simpler:

He says out loud what Ethiopianist centralists want to hear, in English, with confidence.

He became their microphone.

Their translator.

Their intellectual veneer.

But loudness is not wisdom.

Insults are not analysis.

And no amount of academic vocabulary can hide the political truth:

For seven years, Yonas Biru has fueled an ideological crusade against Oromo identity—because attacking Oromummaa became the easiest substitute for confronting the failures of Ethiopia’s ruling elites.

History will not remember him as the economist who changed Ethiopia.

It will remember him as the man who mistook bitterness for principle and propaganda for scholarship.