Why Was Prime Minister Meles Gobena an Economically Effective Dictator, Unlike Dr. Abiy Ahmed?
By Fayyis Oromia*
Interestingly, some of us have already lived under the last four regimes led by biologically Oromo but politically Amhara rulers: Teferi M. Gudisa, Mengistu H. Ayana, Meles Z. Gobena, and Abiy A. Ali. All these leaders have proven to be pro-Amharic-domination and anti-Oromic-leadership. They were authoritarian, effectively suppressing the Oromo identity and language to the point where Oromic lost both demographic and geographic legitimacy as a primary language of the country.
When comparing the last two dictators, one may ask: Why was Meles such an economically effective dictator, unlike Abiy? I see two main factors:
- Meles aligned with the TPLF, which was widely seen as the vanguard organization of the Tigrayan people. As a result, he had the full backing of his constituency. In contrast, Abiy foolishly alienated the OLF, which had long been seen as the vanguard of the Oromo struggle, and thus lost support of the Oromo majority.
- Meles effectively neutralized and replaced the entrenched Amhara bureaucrats, who were often skilled at sabotaging economic development. He filled key government positions with capable Tigrayan intellectuals. Abiy, on the other hand, alienated Oromo intellectuals and instead privileged inefficient OPDO cadres, weakening the administrative backbone of his regime.
Otherwise, when I see extremist Neo-Naftagnas barking louder than they can bite under the regime of Dr. Abiy—who has tried to appease and serve them for the past seven years at the expense of the Oromo liberation movement—I can’t help but remember Ato Meles. Meles was a very effective dictator; the Naftagnas had no chance even to breathe, let alone bark.
Dr. Abiy betrayed the Oromo cause in an attempt to please his in-laws, but ended up earning only their contempt. He gave them freedom to organize and act against Oromo nationalists. Following their advice, he imprisoned leaders of the OLF and OFC, and launched military offensives against the OLA and the Oromo people.
Had a genuine Oromo nationalist been in power at the Finfinné palace, the Naftagnas might have already, seven years ago, accepted and respected the Oromo people’s legitimate rights, including the leadership of Oromic and ownership of Finfinné.
Dr. Abiy still has a chance to correct his mistake. He just needs to reconcile fully with the OLA, OLF, and OFC, release all Oromo nationalists from prison, and take bold steps to bring the Naftagnas under control. He must answer the core Oromo questions—such as promoting Oromic as the primary working language of the federation, restoring Wollo to Oromia, and placing Finfinné under the administration of Oromia immediately, without hesitation.
It would be better for him to be an effective dictator like Meles than to continue failing as a democrat. But ideally, he should strive to become a good democrat like Fayyis Oromia.
Years ago, I mistakenly wrote that Dr. Abiy had already been “Fayyisized.” But to be a truly inclusive democrat, one must be Fayyisized! Interestingly, Dr. Abiy’s MIS principle—Medemer, Ida’amu, and Synergy—was actually advocated by Fayyis Oromia years ago. The core idea is this: Finfinne is our heart and Oromia (Gadà country) is our body. From there, we expand our influence to Ethiopia (Great Oromia or “Oropia”), to the Horn (Greater Oromia), to Africa (Greatest Oromia), and to the world (Global Oromia). This is rooted in the Gadà principle of inclusiveness—Guddifachà and Moggàfachà. Dr. Abiy named it “Medemer.”
Unfortunately, it’s now clear that Abiy and his circle have chosen to maintain the dominance of Amharic and Amharaness through the continuation of the Naftagna dictatorship, rather than democratizing Ethiopia by elevating Oromic and Oromummà to their rightful leadership role.
The Oromo Political Spectrum: The “Odaa Tree” Metaphor
All Ethiopian political actors, especially Oromo elites, can be classified into ten categories based on their views regarding freedom and sovereignty. Imagine an Odaa tree with two legs and a central stem from which seven branches sprout.
- Left leg: Ethio-dictators
- Right leg: Ethno-dictators
- Junction (trunk): Inclusive democrats
- Seven branches: Various political orientations
Here is a breakdown:
O-1. Ethio-Dictators
Example: Mengistu Hailemariam
They long for a Derg-style, assimilative Ethiopia and aim to maintain unity by force. Oromo elites in Ezema under Dr. Berhanu Nega belong here.
O-2. Ethno-Dictators
Example: Dr. Abiy and his EPP members
They support ethnic domination like the TPLF did, even using authoritarian tactics.
O-3. Inclusive Democrats
Example: Fayyis Oromia
They reject both forms of dictatorship and instead support an inclusive agenda. I once believed Abiy was in this camp—sadly, I was wrong.
O-4. Ethio-Centralist Freedom Fighters
Example: Haile Fida
They envision a centralized democratic Ethiopia with fair Oromo representation.
O-5. Ethio-Referendists
Example: Birtukan Mideksa
They propose a referendum to choose between centralized or federal Ethiopia after liberation.
O-6. Ethio-Federalists
Example: Andargachew Tsige
They believe in geographic federalism as a middle ground after liberation.
O-7. Dual Federalists
Example: Merera Gudina
They accept either ethnic or geographic federalism, as long as freedom is guaranteed.
O-8. Ethno-Federalists
Example: Bulcha Demeksa
They advocate for ethnic federalism as the best form of post-liberation sovereignty.
O-9. Ethno-Referendists
Example: Dawud Ibsa
They demand self-determination through public referendum on federation vs. independence.
O-10. Ethno-Separatists
Example: Galàsà Dilbo
They fight for an independent Republic of Oromia unconditionally.
The first two groups are anti-freedom reactionaries. The last seven are freedom fighters. The third group (inclusive democrats) seeks to unite freedom fighters around a common agenda—liberation first, then public decision on sovereignty.
Dr. Abiy initially supported this inclusive approach by inviting all political movements to the table. But he has since turned his back on Oromo liberation forces and aligned himself with the Naftagna system.
Final Reflections
Recent developments have clarified Ethiopia’s political spectrum. We now see three camps:
- Opposition: Unitarists and Federalists
- Rebels: Unionists and “Secessionists”
- Ruling Elite: Hegemonists
For years, the TPLF maintained its power by playing Unitarists and Secessionists against each other, presenting itself as a “moderate” middle force. But with the rise of movements like Medrek and PAFD—advocating true language-based federalism—the game has changed. TPLF aligned with unitarists to block democratization.
Secessionist movements are not inherently anti-union. They simply demand full national liberation before choosing voluntary union—like the EU model. Federalists want union before independence. Unionists envision it after independence.
Unitarists may speak of federalism, but they aim to dismantle Oromia and deny political organization based on national identity. Though calling themselves “multi-national,” they primarily advance Amhara interests.
Dr. Abiy had the chance to choose an inclusive, democratic path. He failed. He could have empowered Oromo nationalism to reach Ethiopia, the Horn, and beyond. Instead, he chose repression.
Still, anyone who believes in the vision of Fayyis Oromia can get “Fayyisized.” No matter how long it takes, the Oromo will own Finfinne, govern Oromia, and participate equally in the affairs of Ethiopia, the Horn, Africa, and the world.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/1 ... as-fayyis/