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.
No comments:
Post a Comment