Mereja.Forum

[OPFist]

The Oromo Better Have Consensus on Oropian (Oromummà-led Ethiopian) Unity and Referendum on Oromian Integrity!

By Fayyis Oromia*

I believe that in the future, it is possible to reach a consensus on Oropian unity (an Oromummà-led Ethiopian unity) and to hold a referendum on Oromian integrity. It is not necessarily harmful to divide Oromia into regions such as North Oromia (Wallo), West Oromia (Wallaga), South-West Oromia (Ilu-Jimma), Central Oromia (Shoa), East Oromia (Hararge), South-East Oromia (Arsi-Bale), and South Oromia (Borana-Guji)—if doing so serves the greater purpose of preserving Oropian unity. However, this must be decided through a referendum of the Oromo people. Anything else would be hypocrisy and a blatant double standard, especially from those who claim to be pro-unity.

Not only the reactionary unitarists and conservative hegemonists, but even the so-called modern liberals and moderates suffer from this same contradiction—much like their Western counterparts, who often project universal values while practicing selective justice.

Here are some of the double standards I have observed among these elites:
- “Amharic is indisputably the federal working language,” while Afan Oromo requires a public verdict.
- “Ethiopian unity is unconditional,” while Oromian integrity must be subject to a referendum.
- “Ethiopiawinet” (which is often a mask for Habeshanet or Abyssinian nationalism) is seen as a sacred nationalism, while Oromummà is vilified as tribalism or ‘gosegninet’.

Note: Oropia = A reimagined union formerly known as Ethiopia, based on the FADOB principles:
F – Freedom from domination
A – Afan Oromo as the primary working language of the union
D – Democracy as the rule of the game
O – Oropia as the new name of the union
B – Black-red-white as the Cushitic flag of the union

Hypocrisy in the Pro-Unity Camp

Some recent statements by pro-unity leaders reveal troubling contradictions. They claim that Ethiopian unity must be unconditional, while Oromian integrity must be voted on. Even though current federalism (killil system) is flawed, it at least partially secures Oromian territorial continuity. Still, this security is under threat by these elites.

For example, an Ezema leader recently insisted on unconditional acceptance of Ethiopian unity as a precondition for building alliances with other opposition groups like the OLF. This is deeply problematic.

On “Clanism” and the Delegitimization of Oromo Nationalism

Unitarist media outlets frequently lament about “clanism” (gosegninet) when discussing the Oromo liberation movement. Interestingly, some Oromo individuals, often descendants of elites who were privileged under the monarchy or military regimes, are now aligning with these reactionary unitarists. We currently see three major groups pushing for unconditional unity while ignoring Oromian autonomy:
- Tigrean elites, who verbally support Oromo rights but are mostly interested in their own grip on power.
- Old-style (fara) unitarists, who discredit federalism as mere “clan politics.”
- [ deleted ] (arada) unitarists, like those in Ezema, who use the language of democracy and development while quietly working against the Oromian cause.

These arada elites employ postmodern discourses to undermine Oromo self-determination, using intellectual arguments to obfuscate their hegemonic goals. Examples:
- “Everyone is part of Oromo, so no need for a liberation movement.”
- “Oromos, as a majority, can rule Ethiopia through democracy—no need for a national struggle.”
- “Oromos are already dominant, so Ethiopia is already Oropia.”
- “Focus on development, not freedom.”
- “OLF betrayed independence; first attack them before anything else.”
These tactics only serve to preserve alien domination while distracting the Oromo masses.

Unfair Political Bargaining

In alliances like Medrek, we saw Oromo elites persuaded to accept Ethiopian unity unconditionally, while Oromian integrity was left to referendum. Why should there be a consensus for one and a public verdict for the other?

Tigrean elites at least talked the talk of national rights, even if they didn’t walk it. Amhara elites, by contrast, continue to be unwilling to accept Oromian integrity, and often still fight their ancestors’ war of domination against the Oromo.

Historic Western Support for Domination

Western powers have long assisted in suppressing Oromo aspirations:
- The original conquest of Oromia was aided by European colonialists.
- Uprisings in Raya and Bale were crushed with Western support.
- Calls for a federal Ethiopia post-WWII were rejected by Western allies in favor of monarchy.
- Soviet assistance helped crush Oromo-led revolutionary movements.
- The OLF was undermined in 1992 with Western and EPLF backing.
- Later attempts at Oromo resurgence, such as through AFD, were disrupted by coordinated geopolitical moves (e.g., Somalia invasion with U.S. approval).
This pattern of intervention must not be forgotten.

The Case for Oromian Integrity

The territory where Oromo people live is continuous, from Raya in the north to Lamu in the south, and Assosa in the west to Jijiga in the east. The Oromo struggle is not inherently anti-Ethiopian, but prioritizes Oromia’s integrity as a necessary foundation for broader unity.

Just as Habesha elites demand loyalty to Ethiopian unity, Oromo elites demand recognition of Oromia’s territorial integrity. Until this is respected, unity will remain shallow and imposed.

Forging a Common Alliance Against Biltsigina

The ruling regime, Biltsigina, thrives on division—especially between Amhara and Oromo forces. It dispatches cadres disguised as both “ultra-nationalists” and “radical liberals” to fuel discord:
- Between Amhara and Oromo forces, by weaponizing mutual suspicion and historical grievances.
- Within Amhara forces, by creating factionalism among Ezema, AEUP, Medrek, EPRP, etc.
- Within Oromo forces, by exploiting differences across religion, region, and political affiliation.
The antidote is simple: unity for purpose. Amhara forces must unite to advocate for their interests, and Oromo forces must solidify their tokkummaa of Oromummaa for Bilisummaa.

A Vision Forward: Oropian Unity with Oromian Integrity

When Amhara elites recognize Oromian integrity unconditionally, Oromo nationalists will also embrace Ethiopian unity. Both sides have economic, cultural, and regional interests in forming a genuine federation, built on mutual respect, not domination.

The region needs a new kind of alliance, stronger than AFD or Medrek—a coalition that respects:
- Oromian integrity
- Oropian (Ethiopian) unity
- Democracy and self-determination
- Stability for the Horn and Africa at large

Conclusion

The Oromo people are not inherently against unity. But unity without justice, without mutual respect, and without recognition of Oromian integrity is nothing but domination in disguise. The path to true peace in Ethiopia—and the Horn—lies in recognizing this fundamental truth.

If Ezema and others want alliance with the Oromo, they must accept Oromian integrity unconditionally, just as they preach unconditional Ethiopian unity. Anything else is hypocrisy. Let us build Oropia: a union of free nations, led by mutual consent—not historical conquest.

Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/consensus ... integrity/

[OPFist]

I believe that in the future, it is possible to reach a consensus on Oropian unity (an Oromummaa-led Ethiopian unity) and to hold a referendum on Oromian integrity. It is not necessarily harmful to divide Oromia into regions such as North Oromia (Wallo), West Oromia (Wallaga), South-West Oromia (Ilu-Jimma), Central Oromia (Shoa), East Oromia (Hararge), South-East Oromia (Arsi-Bale), and South Oromia (Borana-Guji)—if doing so serves the greater purpose of preserving Oropian unity. However, this must be decided through a referendum of the Oromo people. Anything else would be hypocrisy and a blatant double standard, especially from those who claim to be pro-unity.

[OPFist]

Not only the reactionary unitarists and conservative hegemonists, but even the so-called modern liberals and moderates suffer from this same contradiction—much like their Western counterparts, who often project universal values while practicing selective justice.