OPP of Dr. Abiy Can Earn My Vote, If It Promotes MOA Politics of the Oromo
By Fayyis Oropia*
Oromo political elites have, over time, advanced three possible visions of Oromo sovereignty following liberation from what they regard as the oppressive system of Amharic domination: an independent Oromia, a federal Orompia (an Oromic-led ethnic federation), and an integrative Oropia (an Oromic-led geo-federation). In this framework, Oromia was kàyyô ganamà (“the morning goal”), Orompia became kayyô guyyà (“the midday goal”), and Oropia represents kàyyô galgalà (“the evening goal”).
An independent Oromia reflected a political objective based on relatively low confidence, given the Oromo’s political position at the time. A federal Orompia represented an intermediate level of confidence. By contrast, an integrative Oropia embodies a future-oriented vision grounded in greater political confidence.
Today, some argue that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s OPP seeks to dismantle the ethnic federation in favor of a geo-federal arrangement. If this move is genuinely intended to advance Oropia, rather than restore what critics describe as Amapia—an Amharic-dominated geo-federation—then the OPP may be politically outmaneuvering both the OFC and the OLF.
Both the OFC and the OLF have yet to develop what I consider an optimal solution to the unique political condition of the Oromo people. The unionist Ethiopia envisioned by the OFC—a multinational federation—primarily addresses the interests of Minorities at the Center (MAC), while the independent Oromia advocated by the OLF is more applicable to Minorities at the Periphery (MAP). However, the Oromo nation is neither a MAC nor a MAP. Rather, it constitutes the Majority Over All (MOA) within Ethiopia.
MOA politics of the Oromo is founded on a strong confidence not only in liberating Oromia, but also in leading and shaping Oropia. Oromia was the goal we pursued when we were marginalized as a political minority. Orompia became the aspiration we developed as we advanced beyond political mediocrity. Oropia is the vision we will realize when we emerge as a political majority within the geo-federal state of Ethiopia.
I argue that confining the Oromo to Oromia within a federation amounts to political self-limitation. The Oromo are a people who live throughout Ethiopia and, more broadly, across the Horn of Africa. Likewise, establishing an independent Oromia based on the OLF’s current territorial map could amount to political self-mutilation, as it would limit the Oromo’s potential to shape and lead the entire country through an Oromic-led geo-federation.
From this perspective, the optimal solution would be for the Oromo to assume leadership of the Ethiopian state and transform it into Oropia. Other nations should remain free to exercise their right to self-determination, whether within the OFC’s federal model or through the OLF’s preferred framework.
For the Oromo, MOA politics should focus on realizing Oropia: an Oromic-led union in which Oromiffa becomes the principal working language of the state and the country itself is renamed from Ethiopia to Oropia. The Oromo political strategy should be to dismantle the empire-state, build a genuine union-state, and offer all other nations the option of establishing their own states if they so choose. In this vision, secession would not be the Oromo agenda.
The Oromo occupy a unique political position: they are the country’s largest nation, dispersed throughout Ethiopia, whose historical and cultural center—Finfinnee (Addis Ababa)—also serves as the national capital, yet they have historically perceived themselves as politically marginalized. None of the five major political approaches pursued by Oromo nationalists fully addresses this unique condition:
- Dr. Negasso Gidada’s collaboration with hegemonic state forces.
- Andargachew Tsige’s alignment with Ethiopian unitarism.
- Galaasa Dilbo’s advocacy for an independent Oromia.
- Dawud Ibsa’s proposal for a referendum between “Independent Oromia” and “Union Ethiopia.”
- Lencho Leta’s support for a multinational union-state.
From my perspective, none of these approaches offers the most effective solution. As the country’s largest nation, the Oromo should seek to attain state power at Tulluu Daallatti Palace in Finfinnee, dismantle the imperial political system, and build a voluntary union-state called Oropia while guaranteeing all other nations the right to self-determination, including full independence if they choose, whether in Amhara, Tigray, or elsewhere.
When compared with other national liberation struggles around the world, the Oromo condition appears distinct. Broadly speaking, five categories of dominated peoples can be identified. Although each sought liberation and self-determination, none precisely matches the Oromo experience.
1. Nations Colonized by Overseas Powers
Examples include many African countries colonized by European empires. Their solution was external self-determination through complete independence. Some Oromo nationalists, including Galaasa Dilbo, apply this model to Oromia and advocate independence without a referendum. The question, however, remains: Is Oromia comparable to a territory colonized by an overseas power?
2. Minority Nations at the Periphery
Examples include Eritrea, South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor, and Ogaden. These peoples pursued referendums to determine whether to remain within an existing state or establish an independent one. The OLF under Dawud Ibsa broadly follows this model. Yet one may ask: Is Oromia simply a peripheral nation whose future can be decided independently of the rest of Ethiopia?
3. Minority Nations at the Center
Examples include the Gurage, Harari, Hadiya, and Kambata peoples. For such groups, the preferred solution is internal self-determination through self-rule within a federal union. The OFC, under Merera Gudina, broadly reflects this approach. But are the Oromo simply another minority nation at the center?
4. Major Nations Oppressed by Their Own Authoritarian Elites
These nations primarily struggle for democracy, justice, constitutional government, and equal citizenship rather than national self-determination. The political outlook associated with Ginbot 7 and Andargachew Tsige largely reflects this perspective. Yet does this sufficiently address the historical marginalization of Oromo language, culture, and identity?
5. Minority Elites Dominating the Political Center
Examples include regimes that present themselves as multinational while maintaining centralized political dominance. The TPLF-led system is often cited by its critics as an example. The OPDO under Negasso Gidada operated within this broader framework, which critics argue primarily benefited the ruling elite.
The Oromo do not fit neatly into any of these categories. They are a major nation situated at the center of the state, yet they have historically experienced political domination by smaller neighboring elites. There appears to be no close historical parallel in which a country’s largest nation, whose own capital city serves as the seat of state power, remains politically marginalized within that state. Such a distinctive political reality may therefore require a distinctive political solution.
From this perspective, the five approaches outlined above remain suboptimal. A more appropriate strategy would be to “liberate the center” by attaining state power at Tulluu Daallatti in Finfinnee and transforming the empire-state into a genuine union-state. Such a transformation could involve adopting a new national flag, making Oromiffa the principal working language of the union, and even renaming the country from Ethiopia to Oropia.
Within this framework, the Oromo would become the guarantors and providers of the right to self-determination rather than merely its beneficiaries. Other nations—whether in Bahir Dar, Mekelle, or elsewhere—would remain free to determine their own political futures.
Galatômà!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2017/06/0 ... -websites/