Mengistu Musie (Dr.)
Mmusie2@gmail.com
Thank you, Ato Andargachew Tsige, for having the courage to expose Berhanu Nega for who he truly is behind the political masks and calculated public image. Many of us have had suspicions for years, but your recent revelations helped validate what has become more and more obvious:
Berhanu is not a principled leader — he is a political opportunist.
I wrote an article in Amharic some time ago outlining what I believe to be Berhanu Nega’s deeply rooted resentment toward the Amhara people, as well as the political convenience he has pursued at the expense of integrity. That article was triggered after seeing him align himself with the empty-headed OLF leadership — figures like Lencho Leta and others who have never presented a coherent political or national vision for Ethiopia. For Berhanu to ally himself with these individuals is more than just a political miscalculation — it is a betrayal of all those who once saw him as a symbol of change.
Many people once trusted Berhanu, perhaps out of desperation, perhaps out of hope. But looking back, it’s difficult to understand what he truly stood for — if anything at all. He has consistently failed to show any moral compass or coherent ideology. His character is marked by inconsistency, political flip-flopping, and, as many have pointed out, dishonesty.
Ato Andargachew said it best — from the moment Berhanu joined the OPDO-aligned group, he found comfort. He settled in, even as the government engaged in horrific acts, including the Wellega and Metekel massacres. Those atrocities did not seem to shake him. He showed no meaningful concern, no urgency, and certainly no leadership. This kind of silence in the face of genocide is not neutrality — it is complicity.
Let me add two critical historical points that help explain why Berhanu’s recent shift to “social democracy” is so concerning — and so revealing.First, when the TPLF took power in 1991, Berhanu Nega left his academic life in New York and
returned to Ethiopia. While he may not have taken an official government post at the time, he was openly supportive of the new TPLF-led regime under Meles Zenawi. One reason for that was his close relationship with figures like Bereket Simon and the leadership of BEADEN, who were aligned with the TPLF in both ideology and strategy.
At that time, the TPLF was championing liberal market policies, aligning itself with the United States and Western economic ideology. The idea of privatization, foreign investment, and market-driven growth was embraced — and Berhanu became a strong proponent of liberalism.
His writings and public statements in the years following 1991 reflect this. He positioned himself as a liberal intellectual, frequently mocking and criticizing the Ethiopian left, particularly the EPRP and others who adhered to ideologies based on social justice and social democracy.
He often dismissed these leftist views as backward, obsolete, and a relic of the 1970s student movement. His criticism was not just academic — it carried disdain. He ridiculed the very foundations of the ideology that many Ethiopian intellectuals and revolutionaries had sacrificed their lives for. In his eyes, liberalism was the path forward, and anything else was to be discarded as a failed experiment.
Second, fast forward to the post-TPLF era, and suddenly, we see Berhanu Nega undergo a dramatic transformation. After returning to Ethiopia, he rebranded himself and his new political vehicle — EZEMA — as a party based on social democratic ideology. The same Berhanu who once championed unregulated market liberalism and derided the left as outdated now claims to stand for social democracy?
He did not arrive at this new position through years of reflection or analysis. He adopted it practically overnight, purely to align himself with his new political allies — primarily the OPDO elite. To gain acceptance and political space, he reshaped his rhetoric and betrayed the very intellectual foundation he once claimed to stand on. It was not a thoughtful change — it was a calculated move for survival and influence.
This ideological U-turn not only exposes his lack of conviction, it also confirms that Berhanu Nega has never truly believed in any political philosophy beyond his own ambition. A leaderwho changes core beliefs so casually cannot be trusted to stand for the people. He adapts not because of principle, but because of pressure — and worse, opportunity.
Beyond Idiology
Beyond ideology, Berhanu Nega has consistently failed to take moral positions on critical national issues. From the genocidal violence in Wollega and Metekel to the erosion of civil liberties under the current regime, his voice has been either absent or complicit. He has been disturbingly silent on the suffering of the Amhara people. One must ask — what kind of leader stays comfortable in power while his people are being killed?
His political relationships only deepen the concern. I know of one of his closest friends now living in Dallas — a man who once had credibility, who now speaks with open contempt toward Gojjam Amharas. In one conversation, he told me plainly that “Abiy should do more than what he is doing now,” implying that the persecution of the Amhara people is somehow justified or not yet complete. These are the kinds of voices Berhanu surrounds himself with today.
As Ato Andargachew said, and I strongly echo, Berhanu Nega has become the Joseph Goebbels of Ethiopia — a manipulator of public opinion, a smooth talker who hides betrayal behind polished language. He is not a voice of resistance. He is not a visionary. He is a well-packaged tool of deception.
Final Thoughts
Ethiopia is in crisis — not just because of external enemies or armed conflict, but because of internal betrayal like Berhanu Nega who is giving advise to the killing machine of OPDO. The worst kind of betrayal is the one that comes from someone you once believed in, someone who claimed to speak for you.
Berhanu Nega has revealed himself to be just that: a betrayal in the form of a politician. A man without a compass, without conviction, and without the moral courage required to lead a wounded nation forward.
