Is OLA a Modern Version of the OLF with High-Confidence Politics of Haile Fida?
By Fayyis Oromia*
It is encouraging to see that the OLA is now in a position to challenge the dictatorial OPP and confident enough to prefer an integrative Oropia (an Oromummaa-led Ethiopia) over the pursuit of a smaller, independent Oromia. I believe this is the right time to foster a modern version of the OLF, inspired by the high-confidence politics of Dr. Haile Fida.
Dr. Haile envisioned a transformed Ethiopia—gradually becoming Oropia—where Afaan Oromoo would serve as the primary working language. The OLF’s earlier goal of an independent Oromia reflected a politics of low confidence, understandable under the desperation of Habesha colonization. The OFC’s current pursuit of ethnic federalism represents politics of intermediate confidence—suitable for this transitional phase.
As long as Amarigna/Amarannet dominates, and Oromiffa/Oromummaa remains secondary, Oromo nationalists may continue supporting the OFC’s federalist agenda. But for the long-term, we need a modern, high-confidence political vision—one that requires a renewed and genuine nationalist movement under a reimagined OLF.
With such a vision, we can transform Ethiopia into Oropia—a geo-federation of approximately 25 regional states: Tigray, Erob, Kunama, Afar, Wolqayit, Agaw, Gondar, Gojjam, Wollo, Shewa, Macca, Tulama, Arsi-Bale, Barentu, Borana-Guji, Ogaden, Issa, Garre, Sidama, Omo, Kaffa, Gibe, Gambella, Benishangul, and Finfinne.
As I see it, the goal of an independent Oromia belongs to the past. The objective of ethnic federalism is the status quo. The vision of an integrated Oropia, with a pan-Ethiopian geo-federation led by Oromummaa, is the future of genuine Oromo nationalism. Is the OLA confident and ready to lead us toward this vision?
Many of us once hoped the Prosperity Party of Dr. Abiy would become a modern version of the OLF—one that envisioned an integrative Oropia, not an independent Oromia. Unfortunately, the Prosperitans chose to maintain the long-standing dominance of Amarannet, rather than promote the legitimate leadership of Oromummaa in a rainbow-like Ethiopiawinet (e.g., 40% Oromummaa, 20% Agawinet, 10% Amarannet, 6% Somalumma, 5% Tegarunet, 4% Sidamummaa, etc.).
To achieve this vision, Afaan Oromoo must be the legitimate and primary working language of the federation. The Prosperity Party failed here—and thus couldn’t serve as a modern version of the OLF, acting instead like the Derg’s WPE 2.0.
The OLF’s call for an independent Oromia played its mobilizing role at a dark time of oppression when our politics reflected low confidence—we prioritized security above all. Today, we are closer to freedom from Abyssinian domination and have developed intermediate confidence, reflected in OFC’s call for sovereignty through federal union. We’re not yet ready to give up a bordered Oromia, but we are approaching the level of high confidence where we can aim to own and lead all of Ethiopia, transforming it into an Oromummaa-centered Oropia—as envisioned by leaders like Dr. Haile Fida.
Three Approaches, Three Sovereignties
In truth, the desire for independence (separation) is often pursued by minority nations on the periphery. A federal union is typically preferred by minorities closer to the center. Integration, however, is a vision that can only be pursued by a majority that feels secure across the entire country.
Thus, the three versions of sovereignty reflect our evolving mindset:
- Kaayyoo Ganama (the original vision): An independent Oromia—our goal during times of insecurity.
- Kaayyoo Guyyaa (the current vision): A federal union—appropriate for this transitional time.
- Kaayyoo Galgala (the future vision): An integrative Oropia—a high-confidence politics for a secure and empowered Oromo nation.
These stages parallel Abbaa Gadaa’s flag: white (past), red (present), and black (future).
Three Strategic Positions of the Oromo Movement
I now see the Oromo liberation movement as having two wings and a backbone:
- Haile Fida’s wing seeks to transform Ethiopia entirely—possibly renaming the country Oropia, promoting Afaan Oromoo as the primary language—yet it may overlook the need for self-rule in the Oromo homeland. This should have been the goal of Dr. Abiy’s OPP.
- The backbone, represented by Galasa Dilbo, seeks a fully independent Oromia that can exert influence over the Horn of Africa—a classic OLF vision.
- Lencho Lata’s wing seeks to liberate Oromia within a federal Oropian union, positioning Oromia as the leading national state—currently championed by the OFC.
These three camps are working—consciously or not—to harmonize their actions against a common enemy: the fascist, racist, and reactionary Abyssinian elite forces. Unfortunately, no organization exists to coordinate and unify these factions. Still, one thing is certain: one of the three forms of Oromo sovereignty is inevitable, and none are inherently harmful to our people.
Three Visions Based on Three Historical Interpretations
The divergence among these political goals reflects different interpretations of Oromo-Abyssinian history:
- Only Common Proud History (e.g., Adwa): Believers pursue Indian-style integration.
- Only Conflicting Parallel History (e.g., Minilik’s invasion): These opt for Russian-style separation.
- Both Common and Conflicting History: These follow an Anglican-style federal union.
Lencho’s model resembles England’s transformation after Roman rule—forming the United Kingdom with English as its working language. Why can’t Oromia, once autonomous and free, unite with neighboring regions to form Oropia?
Galasa’s model is Russian—dismantling an empire, establishing a federation with strong national identity and language. Could Oromia follow this path and influence the region?
Haile Fida’s model mirrors India’s—liberating all nations together, promoting one national language (Afaan Oromoo), and forming a multi-regional federal republic named Oropia, with regions defined by traditional Odaaterritories.
Dr. Abiy’s OPP should have followed this path to become a credible modern OLF.
The Oromo’s Democratic Advantage
What sets the Oromo people apart is our ability to choose among three democratic models, unlike the elites of Amhara (Indian model only), Eritrea (Russian-style separation only), and Tigray (Anglican-style union only). Being the demographic majority, the Oromo can play all three cards—so long as democracy and freedom are the rules of the game.
Let us then collaborate with all pro-freedom and pro-democracy forces to dismantle the Abyssinian system and reach a position where we can democratically decide our sovereign future.
Final Thought
Each of the three options—independent Oromia, federal union, and integrative Oropia—has value. The choice must ultimately be made by a politically conscious Oromo public through a future referendum.
This essay is a message to Oromo adversaries who rejoice in the perceived fragmentation of our movement. They should know that from the start, our liberation movement had only one goal: freedom. The forms that freedom might take—three types of sovereignty—are flexible responses to the current political reality.
In my view:
- The vision of independence served its purpose in the past.
- The federal union is best suited for the present.
- An integrative Oropia, with Afaan Oromoo as the primary working language, will best serve Oromo interests in the future.
Dr. Abiy’s Prosperity Party failed to become this modern OLF. The question remains:
Can General Marro’s OLA become the high-confidence force to realize Dr. Haile Fida’s integrative vision of Oropia?
May Waaqa guide us toward this revelation.
Galatooma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/05/0 ... aile-fida/