Decolonization of Oromia, Dekillilization of Orompia, or Democratization of Oropia?
By Fayyis Oromia*
For decades, Oromo political elites have debated a central strategic question: should the Oromo struggle prioritize the democratization of Ethiopia or the liberation of Oromia? Historically, those who entertained the prospect of democratizing Ethiopia were often accused of betraying the Oromo national cause and were vilified by proponents of outright liberation. Over time, however, it has become increasingly evident that a genuinely democratic Ethiopia would, in practice, amount to an expanded Oromia—both territorially and politically. In this sense, democratization naturally points toward the emergence of what may be described as Orompia—an Oromic-led ethnic federation—or Oropia, an Oromic-led geofederation.
This transformation is likely to commence once the current hybrid rule of the Prosperity Party (Biltsigina) collapses and is replaced by genuinely republican Oromo leadership in Finfinné. The democratization of the state, coupled with the elevation of Oromic to its rightful position as the primary federal language, would effectively institutionalize Oropia: a political entity nearly twice the size of Oromia. Consequently, a broad consensus has emerged among Oromo nationalists favoring the democratization of Oropia over the decolonization of Oromia alone. Notably, the concepts of Orompian dekillilization and Oropian democratization are increasingly supplanting the earlier emphasis on Oromian liberation.
This shift necessitates a corresponding transformation in political discourse. Oromo elites must now move from a colonial narrative toward a Cushitic narrative. The colonial framework was indispensable during the historical phase of liberation, but that phase has largely concluded. Oromia is no longer under the direct colonial domination of Abyssinian elites. Today, Oromo leadership faces a new challenge: not merely to secure Oromia’s freedom, but to guide Orompia or Oropia in the aftermath of an Abesha-dominated Ethiopian state.
Adopting a Cushitic narrative is crucial to fulfilling this leadership role. Such a narrative emphasizes that Ethiopia’s authentic historical foundation is Cushitic rather than Solomonic, as previously asserted by Abyssinian rulers. Most nations within Ethiopia—including the Habesha—have Cushitic roots. Embracing a supra-national Cushitic identity allows for the construction of a more inclusive political community grounded in historical reality rather than imperial mythology.
Critics of this paradigm shift have argued that it represents a retreat from the goal of an independent Oromia in favor of Ethiopian unity. This interpretation is misplaced. The proposed shift does not abandon the principle of self-determination; rather, it raises a fundamental question: does it alter the path toward Oromo self-determination, or does it alter the goal itself? To date, this distinction has not been adequately addressed by critics. The concept of “national self-determination within a multinational democracy” does not necessarily imply a change in ultimate objectives.
Many critics remain trapped in what can be described as a parallel framework—an “either-or” mentality that views Oromian independence and Ethiopian unity as mutually exclusive. This perspective ignores the possibility of a series framework, in which political goals are pursued sequentially rather than competitively. Under such a framework, Oromo political development could progress from an occupied Oromia, to genuine autonomy within a union, and potentially toward full independence or voluntary integration within a broader regional arrangement, such as the African Union.
To clarify this series-based reasoning, three metaphors are instructive.
1. First, the electric circuit metaphor. When independence, federalism, and integration are viewed as parallel circuits, they appear contradictory and mutually exclusive. When viewed as components of a series circuit, however, they become sequential stages that can be achieved without conflict: independence (Oromia) may precede federalism (Orompia), which may later evolve into integration (Oropia).
2. Second, the train journey metaphor. The Oromo political journey can be likened to traveling from Djibouti (colonial subjugation), through Dire Dawa (Oromia), to Adama (Orompia), and finally to Finfinné (Oropia). Each stop represents a stage of political development rather than a final destination.
3. Third, the political evolution metaphor, which identifies five levels of political consciousness:
- Support for a unitary Abyssinian empire and denial of Oromia’s existence.
- Recognition of Oromia’s existence under Abyssinian domination.
- Advocacy for Oromian autonomy within a union.
- Demand for unconditional independence, potentially in a Gadà republican framework.
- Support for a voluntary union of free peoples and regional integration.
Opposition to those transitioning from Level 2 to Level 3 is counterproductive, as both trajectories ultimately converge toward self-determination. Rejecting intermediate stages undermines strategic progress.
No proposal has been made to return to Level 1 or to abandon the struggle at Level 2. Such options are unequivocally rejected. The proposal, rather, is to advance toward Level 3—potentially in alliance with other democratic forces—as a tactical step toward higher levels of self-determination. This threatens only centralist and hegemonic forces, not Oromo independence.
Even Abyssinian political elites are subject to this evolutionary process, albeit at a slower pace. As some have argued, the enduring resolution of the Ethiopian question may lie in separation—peaceful or otherwise—followed by the possibility of voluntary reunification. Accordingly, a series framework consisting of a tactical goal (Level 3), a core goal (Level 4), and a strategic goal (Level 5) offers a coherent roadmap.
Past attempts to discredit this framework inadvertently benefited authoritarian actors, particularly the TPLF, which sought to polarize Oromo and Amhara democratic forces. By posing alternately as Oromo secessionists and Amhara unitarists, such actors aimed to fracture opposition movements. Fortunately, these tactics were ultimately unsuccessful.
A final illustrative anecdote highlights a broader political lesson. Oromo leaders have traditionally articulated their demands openly, while Habesha elites have often cloaked ethnic interests in the language of national unity. Strategic communication does not require abandoning principles, but it does demand political sophistication. Whether Oromo nationalists can adopt such strategic flexibility while safeguarding Oromo interests remains an open question.
In conclusion, the Oromo people successfully advanced their liberation through a colonial narrative. The current historical moment, however, demands a transition to a Cushitic narrative that reflects leadership, inclusivity, and regional responsibility. In doing so, Oromo political forces can guide the emergence of Orompia or Oropia grounded in justice, democracy, and historical truth.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2019/05/1 ... at-oromia/