Are Anti-Heftegna Oromo Nationalists Aligning with Seftegna Forces or Semocratic Actors?
By Fayyis Oromia*
Recent political developments in Ethiopia suggest a gradual consolidation among opposition forces resisting the Heftegna (Hybrid-neftegna) political order associated with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Emerging signals point to the formation of a broader, more coordinated movement aimed at reclaiming political influence and reshaping the country’s governance trajectory. Within this evolving context, Dr. Lemma Megersa is increasingly perceived as a central figure capable of bridging diverse opposition constituencies. In collaboration with Gedu Andargachew, he appears to be revisiting the cooperative dynamics that characterized the 2018 political transition.
A key unresolved challenge, however, concerns the nature of cooperation between anti-Heftegna Oromo nationalists and northern political forces, including actors from Amhara, Tigray, and Eritrea. A critical distinction must be made between Seftegna (Semenawi-neftegna) forces—characterized here as authoritarian or militarized actors—and Semocrats (Semenawi-democrats), who represent democratic-oriented political movements. Careful political engagement requires vigilance toward groups such as Fanno, Shabiya, and Woyane, which are often perceived as aligned with coercive or hierarchical political traditions. By contrast, collaboration with semocratic actors, including figures like Lidetu Ayalew, may offer a more constructive pathway toward dismantling the current political order.
Unlike earlier initiatives, this emerging alignment is not confined to a bilateral Oromo–Amhara (often termed “Oromara”) framework. Rather, it aspires to evolve into an inclusive, Oromo-led national alliance that accommodates the political aspirations of Ethiopia’s diverse nations and nationalities. In this regard, cooperation between Oromo nationalists—such as Jawar Mohammed—and democratic northern actors (Semocrats) , while maintaining caution toward authoritarian elements (Seftegnas), represents a potentially pragmatic and forward-looking strategy.
Such cooperation could prove transformative if it is grounded in the recognition of a central political reality: the Oromo population constitutes a major demographic and political force, and its leadership role in Ethiopia’s future is both significant and legitimate. Continued resistance to Oromo political agency risks exacerbating polarization and prolonging instability. Sustainable progress requires engagement with these realities rather than reliance on superficial political consensus.
Historical Context: Unionism and Unitarism in Ethiopian Politics
Ethiopia’s modern political struggle has long been shaped by a fundamental ideological divide between unionist and unitarist perspectives.
Unionist approaches emphasize the rights of nations and nationalities to self-determination, autonomy, and voluntary political union. In contrast, unitarist perspectives prioritize the rights of individual citizens within a centralized state structure, often subordinating national autonomy to the goal of state unity.
This divide became particularly pronounced following the 1974 revolution. Despite shared socialist orientations, organizations such as Me’ison and Ihapa diverged significantly. Me’ison, largely associated with Oromo intellectual leadership, advocated national self-determination and regional autonomy. Ihapa, influenced by Tigrayan intellectual circles, emphasized cultural rights within a centralized political framework.
After the repression of the Derg regime, these ideological trajectories continued to evolve. Former Me’ison members gravitated toward the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), while Ihapa’s ideological legacy contributed to the development of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). The tension between unionist and unitarist visions has persisted, shaping political discourse in various forms.
The TPLF Era: Federalism in Form, Centralization in Practice
Following the political transition of 1991, the TPLF-led ruling coalition formally adopted a federal system recognizing the principle of self-determination. In practice, however, governance remained highly centralized. Federalism functioned more as a constitutional framework than as a genuinely decentralized system of power-sharing. As a result, political authority was concentrated within the ruling elite, limiting substantive regional autonomy and reinforcing hierarchical governance structures.
Political Alliances Since 1974: Patterns of Fragmentation
Since the fall of the imperial regime, numerous political alliances have attempted to bridge ideological divides between unionist and unitarist forces. Most have ultimately failed due to internal contradictions, exclusionary practices, or external interference. Examples include IMALEDIH, IHADEG, COEDF, CAFPDE, ULFO, UEDF, CUD, AFD, MEDREK, AGER-ADIN, PAFD, and ENM.
These repeated failures reveal a consistent pattern: ruling elites—first under TPLF dominance and later under the Prosperity Party—have effectively leveraged ideological and identity-based divisions to weaken opposition movements.
Toward a New Strategy: Building an Inclusive Alliance
Breaking this cycle requires a deliberate and structured approach:
First, internal consolidation is essential. Unionist forces should strengthen coordination through platforms such as PAFD, while democratic unitarists consolidate around frameworks such as ENM.
Second, these consolidated blocs must engage in strategic coalition-building to form a broad-based alliance capable of challenging the current ruling structure.
For such an alliance to succeed, democratic unitarists—particularly Semocrats—must move beyond historically regressive models, including centralized assimilationist governance and indirect rule systems that offer symbolic recognition without genuine autonomy.
A viable alternative lies in principled cooperation between democratic unitarists and reform-oriented unionists, grounded in shared commitments to democracy, pluralism, and institutional accountability.
Phases of Political Transformation
Ethiopia’s political trajectory can be understood as unfolding in two broad phases:
- The Liberation Phase, focused on ending authoritarian governance and dismantling the current system.
- The Democratization Phase, centered on building durable democratic institutions and expanding inclusive political participation.
If the country has already entered an early stage of democratization, the priority should shift toward institutional consolidation and the prevention of authoritarian relapse.
Unionist movements—particularly those rooted in Oromo political constituencies—must also expand their engagement to include all marginalized communities, including historically dominant groups. Such inclusivity may encourage broader democratic cooperation and reduce mutual distrust.
Conclusion: Toward an Inclusive Ethiopian Political Future
The formation of a genuinely inclusive political alliance remains both necessary and achievable. Such a coalition would bring together Oromo nationalist actors and democratic reformists from across Ethiopia around shared objectives: dismantling authoritarian governance and constructing a democratic, pluralistic state.
This effort must move beyond narrow ethnic or regional alignments and evolve into a nationwide political project. Leadership figures such as Dr. Lemma Megersa may play a crucial role in this process, but long-term success will depend on principled inclusivity, political realism, and sustained cooperation across ideological divides.
Only through such an approach can Ethiopia advance toward lasting stability, democratic transformation, and equitable governance.
Galatôma
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2019/01/0 ... -ethiopia/