Is Dr. Abiy Dividing Oromia into Eight Regions to Preserve the Integrity of Oropia?
By Fayyis Oromia
Abstract
This article analyzes the evolving political geography of Ethiopia in the context of federal restructuring, linguistic policy, and historical identity formation. It argues that recent regional reconfigurations signal a broader transition toward an Oromic-led federal order and explores the implications of a proposed reorganization of Oromia into eight administrative regions. The discussion situates this proposal within a wider historical framework of Cushitic peoples—particularly the Oromo and Agaw—and examines the long-term consequences of cultural assimilation under Abyssinian state formation. Finally, it highlights contemporary demands for self-rule, with particular attention to the Agaw and Kemant peoples, framing these developments as part of a broader movement toward equitable federalism and cultural restoration in Ethiopia.
Introduction: Ethiopia’s Federal Transformation
Recent political developments suggest an increasing convergence among Oromo nationalist forces around a vision that redefines Ethiopia’s federal structure. Historically, the Ethiopian state has been characterized first as an Amharic-dominated geo-federation (Amapia) and later as an Amharic-dominated ethnic federation (Amarpia). Current trends, however, indicate a possible transition toward either an Oromic-led ethnic federation (Orompia) or an Oromic-led geo-federation (Oropia).
Nowadays, reports are emerging that Dr. Abiy and his Prosperity Party are preparing to divide contemporary Oromia into six regions. By adding Finfinne and Wollo as two separate regions, Oromia could be reorganized into eight administrative regions in total. Whether this development is good or bad depends on the trajectory of Ethiopia’s transformation. Is the country moving backward toward “Amapia,” or forward toward “Oropia”? This is where the Oromo people need to remain vigilant. If the move represents a step backward, no Oromo in their right mind would accept it. However, if it signifies progress, it could become a strong pathway toward greater sovereignty—one that the Oromo should confidently support.
Also the political position of the Ethiopian Citizens for Social Justice (EZEMA) remains a subject of debate. While the party has expressed opposition to ethnic federalism, its broader ideological orientation—whether toward a revived Amharic-centered model or a civic, Oromic-influenced federation—remains unclear. Nevertheless, insofar as it supports democratization and the elevation of Oromic as a federal working language, it may be interpreted as implicitly aligned with an Oropian framework. A return to a centralized Amharic-dominated system appears unlikely without coercive enforcement, whereas current political trajectories favor democratic pluralism.
This transformation is not merely conceptual. The division of the former Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region into multiple administrative units—including Sidama, Southwest Ethiopia, Central Ethiopia, and South Ethiopia—demonstrates an ongoing process of federal restructuring. Similarly, recent administrative fragmentation within the Amhara region suggests a broader pattern that may shape Ethiopia’s future federal architecture.
Within this context, a comparable restructuring of Oromia appears plausible.
Proposal: Division of Oromia into Eight Regions
In alignment with emerging federal dynamics, Oromia could be reorganized into eight administrative regions:
- North Oromia
- West Oromia
- Southwest Oromia
- Central Oromia
- East Oromia
- South Oromia
- Southeast Oromia
- Finfinné (as a distinct federal entity)
Such a reconfiguration could enhance administrative efficiency, reflect demographic and geographic diversity, and maintain Oromia’s political coherence within the federation.
Language Policy and Federal Legitimacy
If ongoing public discourse accurately reflects governmental intentions to transition from an ethnic-based federation to a civic geo-federal system, language policy becomes a central pillar of legitimacy. A transformation of this magnitude requires a redefinition of federal identity.
This article contends that Oromic should be elevated to the primary federal working language, replacing Amharic. If adopted across all federal institutions—including the executive, legislature, judiciary, and security apparatus—such a policy could mitigate concerns of marginalization among Oromo populations. Under these conditions, a transition to geo-federalism could become both politically viable and socially equitable.
Proposed Federal Member States
Based on historical, cultural, and administrative considerations, the following entities are proposed as constituent units within a restructured federation:
- Tigray – Mekelle
- Wolqait – Humera
- Afar – Semera
- Agaw & Qemant – Gondar
- Begemidir – Debre Tabor
- Gojjam – Bahir Dar
- Shoa – Debre Berhan
- North Oromia (Wollo & Raya) – Dessie
- Central Oromia (Sheger) – Adama
- West Oromia (Wollega) – Nekemte
- Southwest Oromia (Ilu & Jimma) – Jimma
- East Oromia (Hararge) – Harar
- Southeast Oromia (Arsi & Bale) – Robe
- South Oromia (Borana & Guji) – Negele
- Finfinné (including Sheger City)
- Gambella – Gambella
- Southwest Ethiopia – Bonga
- South Ethiopia – Arba Minch
- Sidama – Hawassa
- Wolaita – Sodo
- Central Ethiopia – Wachamo
- Benishangul – Asosa
- Ogaden – Gode
- Issa – Fiq
- Gàrre – Liban
The working language of each state should be determined by demographic realities and codified through regional legislation.
Identity, Assimilation, and the Cushitic Question
Historical and anthropological evidence indicates that much of what is now referred to as Abyssinia—particularly the regions of Amhara and Tigray—was originally inhabited by Agaw populations. Areas such as Gondar, Gojjam, and Lasta retain strong historical connections to Agaw settlement.
The Agaw, a Cushitic people closely related to the Oromo, once occupied a vast area stretching from present-day Eritrea to southern Gojjam, historically known as Agaw-Midir. Over centuries, processes of cultural and linguistic assimilation led to the erosion of Agaw identity, replaced largely by Amharic and Tigrinya dominance.
This phenomenon—often described as Habeshanization—has had profound effects on the Agaw, while the Oromo have largely preserved their identity through sustained resistance and organized political movements.
Abyssinian State Formation and Intra-Cushitic Conflict
Ethiopian imperial history may be interpreted as a series of conflicts among Cushitic elites, including both assimilated and non-assimilated groups, rather than a simple division between Cushitic and Semitic populations. Political tensions frequently emerged between those integrated into dominant state structures and those resisting assimilation.
Official historical narratives have often minimized these dynamics, emphasizing selective genealogies and patriarchal lineages that obscure Cushitic origins. This has contributed to the marginalization of Cushitic identities within dominant historiography.
The Agaw-Midir Question and Contemporary Mobilization
The Agaw represent one of the most culturally marginalized groups in Ethiopia despite their historical significance. Their contributions include the Zagwe Dynasty (c. 1137–1270) and the architectural achievements of Lalibela.
Contemporary movements—such as the Kemant people’s demands for constitutional recognition and self-administration—reflect broader efforts to reclaim Agaw identity and political autonomy. These claims are grounded in constitutional principles and parallel similar struggles across Ethiopia’s diverse nationalities.
Toward a Cushitic Renaissance
The revitalization of Agaw-Midir, alongside ongoing Oromo assertions of self-determination, represents a significant step toward a more inclusive and equitable Ethiopian state. These movements are not rooted in ethnic exclusivity but in demands for equality, dignity, and constitutional rights.
A genuinely federal system must acknowledge historical injustices and dismantle structures that perpetuate cultural assimilation and exclusion. Recognizing Agaw self-governance in regions such as Gondar and Qwara would constitute a meaningful step toward this goal.
Conclusion: Ethiopia and the Future of African Unity
The pursuit of self-determination within Ethiopia is closely linked to broader aspirations for African unity and dignity. By embracing linguistic equality, cultural revitalization, and genuine federalism, Ethiopia has the potential to transform into a model of inclusive governance.
A state that respects Cushitic heritage while safeguarding the rights of all its peoples could serve as a foundation for regional cooperation and development. Achieving this vision requires political resolve, institutional reform, and a sustained commitment to justice and equality.
Only through such transformation can Ethiopia realize its full potential as a unified, prosperous, and inclusive state.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2019/02/2 ... nal-state/
Re: Is Dr. Abiy Dividing Oromia into Eight Regions to Preserve the Integrity of Oropia?
Nowadays, reports are emerging that Dr. Abiy and his Prosperity Party are preparing to divide contemporary Oromia into six regions. By adding Finfinne and Wollo as two separate regions, Oromia could be reorganized into eight administrative regions in total. Whether this development is good or bad depends on the trajectory of Ethiopia’s transformation. Is the country moving backward toward “Amapia,” or forward toward “Oropia”? This is where the Oromo people need to remain vigilant. If the move represents a step backward, no Oromo in their right mind would accept it. However, if it signifies progress, it could become a strong pathway toward greater sovereignty—one that the Oromo should confidently support.