Are the Three Main Oromo Questions Answered by the Three Post-Monarchy Oromo Dictators?
By Fayyis Oromia*
Abstract
This article examines whether the three historically central Oromo political questions—land, self-rule, and language—have been substantively addressed by successive post-monarchical Ethiopian regimes led by Oromo-origin rulers: the Derg under Mengistu H. Ayàna, the EPRDF/TPLF era under Meles Z. Gobena, and the current Prosperity Party government under Abiy Ahmed. While partial progress has been achieved, particularly regarding land reform and formal ethnic federalism, the article argues that the Oromo language question—specifically the elevation of Afàn Oromo (Oromic) to the primary working language of the federation—remains unresolved. The article further proposes a five-stage framework for understanding Oromo political evolution and outlines competing post-liberation visions: independent Oromia, federal Orompia (an Oromic-led ethnic federation, and an integrative Oropia (an Oromic-led geofederation).
Introduction: The Three Oromo Questions
The modern Oromo political struggle has historically revolved around three interrelated questions:
- The land question
- The question of self-rule
- The language question
Each of these has, at different times, been partially addressed by post-monarchical regimes. The Derg regime under Mengistu H. Ayàna introduced radical land reform; the EPRDF government under Meles Z. Gobena institutionalized ethnic federalism and nominal self-rule; and the current Prosperity Party government under Abiy Ahmed has, at least rhetorically, acknowledged linguistic diversity. Yet the extent to which these reforms substantively resolve Oromo grievances remains contested.
In an interview, Dr. Lenco Lata once argued that the Oromo question that remains unanswered is the democratization of Ethiopia’s ethnic federation. While this assessment is accurate, democratization is not uniquely an Oromo concern; it affects all nations within the Ethiopian polity. Class struggle, authoritarian governance, and the denial of genuine self-administration are shared experiences among Ethiopia’s diverse peoples.
This article contends that the only question uniquely and specifically Oromo today is the language question, particularly the failure to institutionalize Oromic as the primary working language of the federation.
Language and Power in the Federal State
Oromic is spoken by over 40 percent of Ethiopia’s population, yet Amharic—spoken natively by roughly 10 percent—remains the dominant federal working language. This linguistic imbalance has profound implications for power distribution, access to state institutions, and symbolic ownership of the state.
Recent developments, such as the introduction of 24-hour Oromo-language broadcasting on state television, suggest incremental progress. However, symbolic recognition alone is insufficient. A genuine resolution requires structural transformation: all federal institutions—parliament, executive offices, the judiciary, the military, and security services—must primarily operate in Oromic.
Equally important is proportional representation within the federal civil service. A state claiming to represent its peoples must reflect demographic realities. Current imbalances—where Amhara and Tigrayan elites remain disproportionately represented—undermine the legitimacy of the federation and perpetuate perceptions of domination.
The Oromo Struggle: Achievements and Contradictions
Over the past five decades, the Oromo struggle has achieved significant milestones through sustained resistance and gradual reform. The 2018 popular uprising marked a critical turning point, culminating in the removal of entrenched ruling elites from political power in Finfinne (Addis Ababa). However, Oromo participation in the Prosperity Party that followed often prioritized accommodation with Amhara elites over the advancement of Oromo national interests, leading to widespread disillusionment.
Recent political shifts suggest that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed may be attempting to re-engage Oromo constituencies. Yet reconciliation with the Oromo people depends fundamentally on resolving the language question and addressing systemic imbalances in state power.
Five Phases of Oromo Political Evolution
To contextualize contemporary debates, Oromo political development can be understood through five broad phases:
1. The Era of Assimilated Elites (Pre-1960s) in Amapia (an Amharic-dominated geo-federation)
Prior to the emergence of modern Oromo nationalism, Oromo elites largely participated in building a centralized, Amharic-dominated state. Assimilation into Amharanet was viewed as a path to prestige and power. Contemporary Oromo elites aligned with unitary Ethiopianist parties continue to reflect this worldview.
2. Controlled and an Amharic-dominated Ethnic Federalism, i.e Amarpia (Post-1991–Present)
This phase introduced formal ethnic federalism but retained authoritarian governance and Amharic linguistic dominance. Oromo elites comfortable within this structure seek to preserve the status quo rather than transform it into a genuinely democratic and Oromic-led federation.
3. The Independent Gadaa Republic in a Possible Confepia (Cconfederation of free nations in Ethiopia)
Championed primarily by the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), this vision advocates for an independent Oromia governed by Gadaa principles and where possible foster confederation or union of free nations. While symbolically powerful, it has struggled to consolidate broad political confidence.
4. A Democratic Orompia Vision
This model envisions a democratic Ethiopia reconstituted around Afaan Oromo as the primary working language. Advocated by Oromo federalists, it seeks systemic transformation without secession.
5. The Integrative Oropia Vision
The most ambitious phase proposes a fully reimagined multinational state—Oropia—in which Oromic leadership and values guide an inclusive political project encompassing all nations. While theoretically compelling, this vision has yet to be adopted by a major political organization.
Oromia, Orompia, or Oropia: Competing Post-Liberation Visions
Following liberation from domination, Oromo political thought diverges into three principal trajectories of post-freedom sovereignty:
- Independent Oromia
- Federal Orompia
- Integrative Oropia
Each option reflects a legitimate expression of self-determination. The debate is not about freedom itself, but about the form post-freedom sovereignty should take.
The concept of Oropia—a rebranded, inclusive, Oromic-led geo-federation—has faced resistance from Ethiopianists, cautious federalists, and Oromianists alike. Yet history demonstrates that political naming is instrumental. Just as Abyssinian elites strategically deployed the name “Ethiopia” to legitimize imperial expansion, Oromo leaders may choose to instrumentalize or redefine it.
Naming, Power, and Political Ownership
The contestation over the name “Ethiopia” reflects deeper struggles over ownership and narrative control. Historically, the term has carried multiple meanings—from ancient Greek and biblical references to modern imperial and federal interpretations. While some definitions align more closely with Cushitic histories, others have been used explicitly to justify domination.
Renaming institutions and reclaiming symbolic space—such as referring to Finfinne by its Oromo name or imagining Oropian national institutions—is not mere symbolism. It is an assertion of political agency.
Toward an Integrative Democratic Future
Whether the Oromo pursue independence or integration, durable freedom requires alliances with other marginalized nations. A democratic multinational union must rest on five foundational principles:
- Freedom from national domination
- The right to self-determination, including secession
- Democratic governance
- Oromic as the primary federal working language
- Inclusive national symbolism rooted in shared democratic values
If these conditions are rejected by dominant elites, the case for independence becomes unavoidable.
The Role of the OLF in the Post-Biltsiginna Era
The Oromo Liberation Front stands at a historic crossroads. Having returned from exile, it must clarify whether its contemporary objective is an independent Oromia or an integrative Oropia. Embracing the latter would not represent ideological betrayal but strategic evolution—transforming liberation from resistance into leadership.
For the Oromo nation, both options represent first-class sovereignty. The choice between them should be made democratically, through informed public deliberation and, ultimately, a referendum.
Conclusion
The Oromo struggle has already secured its moral foundation: no nation should be governed without consent, and dignity is non-negotiable. What remains is to determine the political architecture that best safeguards this principle.
Whether through an independent Oromia or a reimagined Oropia, the future must be shaped by Oromo agency, Oromummà, and democratic choice. The path forward lies not in regression toward unitary domination, but in advancing toward political arrangements that reflect equality, justice, and shared sovereignty.
May Wàqa guide this collective endeavor toward a just and inclusive future.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2018/08/1 ... aa-oromia/