Dr. Abiy’s Ethiopia is de facto Amapia, not Necessarly Oropia!
When pro-Amaranet elites and pro-Oromumma elites talk about Ethiopia, they actually refer top two different content with the same brand. For the first bloc, Ethiopia is a country with Amharanet domination, whereas for the second camp it is the federation with Oromummà leadership. We can call Amaranet dominated Ethiopia as Amapia and Oromummà led Ethiopia as Oropia. As long as Amharanet/Amharigna is dominating over Oromummà/Oromiffà, there is little difference between Ethiopia of Dr. Abiy and that of Er. Menelik. As far as Oromiffa is kept inferior to Amarigna by Abiy’s regime, despite the majority position of the Oromo, aluta continua! The liberation struggle of Oromo nation shall continue. Since about 1270, there are two types of Oromo elites: 1) those revering Amaringa and who are happy to speak it as well as ready to Amaranize themselves and their children; 2) those respecting Oromiffà and trying to save it from being diminished through the ongoing influence from the Amaranized ones. The ruling class from Yekuno Caalaa to Abiy Ahmed are typically pro-Amarigna, whereas freedom fighters being led by the bilisummà mindset of the OLF are pro-Oromiffà. The struggle now is also between these two camps of Oromo elites. We already defeated classical Abesha elites through the last three revolutions (1974, 1991 and 2018). At the present, pro-Amarigna Oromo elites being led by Dr. Abiy are in power in Finfinné palace. It seems they are determined to keep the hitherto domination of Amaringa at the cost of Oromiffà. With that, they seem to be commited to hinder the natural transformation of Ethiopia from the status quo as Amapia to the inevitable state of Oropia. That is why the regime of Abiy Ahmed is persecuting genuine Oromo nationalists dictatorially, aborting the started democratization process. In a true democracy, Afàn Oromo definatly will be the leading primary language of Ethiopia because of its demographical advantage. To maintain the existing domination of Amaringa, dictatorship of pro-Amaranet elites is mandatory. Oromo struggle now need to concentrate against such Oromo elites, who are masked as liberators and led by the 21st century Oromo traitors.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/1 ... ly-oropia/
Re: Dr. Abiy’s Ethiopia is de facto Amapia, not Necessarly Oropia!
It is clear that the OLF is now acting like Ehnofederalist in order to materalize a genuine democratic language based federation as a prelude to an independent Oromia. On the contrary, EPP of Dr Abiy is tentatively Ethiofederalist prefering an integrated Ethiopia dominated by Amarigna. In case, they change this domination and democratize the country, they might be called Oropianists for the fact that democratic Ethiopia, where Afàn Oromo takes the leading position, will be de facto Oropia as envisioned by OFC. Is the ongoing conflict between the OLF and EPP ideological or more of power struggle? In short, Oromianists’ goal is sovereign Oromia with or without Oropia, whereas Oropianists’ vision is sovereign Oropia with or without Oromia. We followed one panel discussion, which took place in Minessota few years ago. The panelists were individual Oromo scholars and Oromo political leaders from three factions of the OLF and OFC. It was a nice start for further unification of Oromo liberation forces, specially it was encouraging and uplifting to see leaders from different groups speaking from same podium and sitting side by side to respond to questions raised by the public. All things in the conference went good, except my disappointment by not hearing an explicit unity of goal or unity of purpose from leaders of our liberation fronts.This disappointment does not include leader of the federalists at home (OFC), who had already done his homework in uniting the major Oromo federalist parties. Since that conference, we had different discussions and could observe that the conflict between Oromo elites is only in formulating the type of Oromia’s sovereignty to be realised after freedom: ‘liberation of Oromia (Biyya-Oromo) vs transformation of Oropia (Future Ethiopia or Biyya-Küsh). As I could understand our politicians, they still try to make and maintain a “conflict” among the following two goals of the only one Oromo objective (freedom to self-determination):
– OLF’s aim of Oromo freedom and decolonization of Oromia,
– OFC’s goal of Oromo freedom and transformation to Oropia.
Here, I would like to ask Oromo elites: where is the conflict which can hinder us from forging unity, or cooperating and working together? The common denominator for the two positions is a struggle for Oromo freedom from Abyssinian domination. That means, at least we can cooperate to consolidate together our freedom. If we really do agree on this common ground and struggle in unison, then after keeping our freedom, which is a necessary pre-condition for public verdict, it is up to Oromo public to decide whether we opt for liberation of Oromia or transformation to Oropia. During the expected post-freedom referendum, all Oromo political organizations will have chance and right to advocate for their respective positions, be it to pursue the realization of an independent Oromia or an integrative Oropia.
I personally will vote where possible for the bigger country (Oropia) if the name of the future union will be Oromia, instead of Ethiopiao. Otherwise, I prefer Oromia to the future New Ethiopia, in case the name Ethiopia persists; having in mind that we can have a possibility to opt for a union of free peoples after independence. The position ‘Ethiopian union of autonomous nations’ before achieving full independence can not be the end-goal by itself, but achieving this term can serve as a transitional intermediate goal towards one of the two ends: Oromia or Oropia. In the current political trend of Africa and in a globalized world, union of free peoples similar to that of European Union (EU) can be a common end goal we all nations in the Horn region can far-sightedly plan for. So, we can have a plan to move from the status quo rhetoric, i.e. “Oromia is already liberated, and Oromo have already achieved our objective”, which in reality is a temporay Position, — towards OLF’s independent Oromia or OFC’s integrative Oropia. The important thing to know for all Oromo nationalists is that achieving OFC’s goal is a very nice prerequisite to the further move to OLF’s goal, which is again a very good prelude for the reverse move to the OFC’s. We can either have a left to right approach of OLF – first achieve an independent Oromia and then move to an integrative Oropia or a right to left approach of OFC – first opt for Oropia and if other neighbouring nations reject the union, our Oromia will be left for us. It seems OLF chose the left to right approach, whereas OFC prefered the right to left. So, again: where is the conflict?
Parallel to the panel discussion mentioned above, I also read one interview given by Mr. Jawar Mohammed to the journalist of Gadaa.com. Surprisingly, he also thinks that the two main ideas in Oromo liberation movement, i.e. “liberation of Oromia” and “transformation to Oropia” are contradictory and exclusive to each other. But, it is really good that he has additionally said that the two “contradictory” concepts are only the means to the end of Oromo cause. If both ‘liberated Oromia’ and ‘transformed Oropia’ are not the end by themselves, what is then an end he does have in mind? Union of independent nations in the region? I think he is one of “parallel thinkers,” who tend to see at the above two main ideas separately – as if they are exclusive to each other. Actually, a current constructive way of thinking is that of “series thinkers.” According to this later group of thinkers, Oromo cause has got only one objective, i.e. self-determination, with three possible terms or sub-goals:
– short-term of the goal is to achieve politically, economically and culturally autonomous Oromia within Amapian union as transitional position. We know that the status quo is only cultural Oromian autonomy within Amapian union. Is it this limited Oromian autonomy what Mr. Jawar tried to tell us, when he said the “Oromo people have already achieved our objective”? Otherwise, the short-term of the goal is also known as intermediate goal for it is only temporary solution on the way to Oromian independence, be it within Oropia or without Oropia. Short term of the goal is simply put: automomous Oromia within Amapia.
– middle-term of the goal is to achieve complete sovereignty of Oromia in a form of independence. There is nothing which can hinder Oromo people from achieving this, if we work on it together. The picture of a scare scenario, which some individuals tried to draw in front of our eyes, when they said “in case Oromo opt for such isolated independence of Biyya-Oromo, the region will be in chaos,” also can not hinder us from moving to this level of liberation. This middle-term of the goal can also be called core objective of Oromo national liberation movement. Contrary to the assertion of those who tell us that “we are already liberated” and despite the demand of a “paradigm shift” towards accepting only Oromian autonomy (federation) by others, I would like to say: Oromo can be told that we achieved our objective, only when the core objective will be realized and an independent Oromia will be established.
– long-term of the goal can be fostering a union of free peoples in the region (Oropia according to the left to right approach). It may not be time for the Oromo to talk about such “far-fetched” plan now, but it addresses the fear of those who draw a picture of a scare scenario “showing” us that we can have a chaotic neighboring nations, which can negatively affect the existence and further development of Oromia after a possible independence. Where such genuine union of free peoples is possible in the future, I don’t see any logic why a well seasoned and reasoned mind tryies to advocate Ethiopian union with only Oromian autonomy at the expense of Oromian independence. They just need to take time and think over again. They should try to think in a “series framework” instead of “parallel framework.” To understand more about these two ways of thinking, they need to read the following article: http://gadaa.com/oduu/?p=2523. Otherwise, this union (long-term of the objective) is also known as an end goal for it is really the final beneficial arrangement for all stake holders in the region. Long term of the goal is in short: automomous Oromia with in Oropia.
In summary, according to “series thinkers,” we can achieve in our liberation journey all the above three terms of Oromo objective one after another. We do not need to quarrel over the subjectively produced “conflict” between the two main ideas (liberation of Oromia vs transformation of Oropia) for the two concepts are not contradictory, but complementary to each other. Transformation of Oropia, if it really happens, is a very good means to achieve liberation of Oromia according to the right to left approach and vice versa in the left to right one. That is why dictatorial Abyssinian elites never ever allow Ethiopia to be democratic as far as they have power. We can argue over the effectiveness of this evolutionary means in comparison to the revolutionary liberation of Oromia through armed struggle. But, if transformation really happens, now OPP is on a right track to achieve the short-term of the objective (transitional Oromian autonomy within Ethiopian union). Then, the OLF can bring us further to middle term; of course, finally we need a consensus of all free neighboring nations of the region in order to come to the long term of the goal. Shortly put, we do have only one Oromo objective (self-determination) with three possible sub-goals as an outcome at the three terms, if we follow the left to right approach:
– short-term (Oromian autonomy within Amapian Union)
– middle-term (Oromian independence)
– long-term (Oromian union = Oropia as a union of free peoples)
Then, again I would like to ask: where is the “conflict” between the goals of OPP (transformed Oropia) and OLF (liberated Oromia)? Our politicians in these two organizations only need a change in their way of thinking from their current “parallel framework” to “series framework” so that they do not perceive a “conflict”, but see a complementarity among Oromo forces, both democratic federalists and liberation fronts. Be it we want finally to achieve Oromia or Oropia, the common path passes through Caffé Aràrà (Finfinné palace), where we find the master-key for both goals. We just need to work together to consolidate power in Finfinné palace and then move the country in either direction. To make our liberation journey plausible, we have used till now for the left to right approach a metaphor of train journey from Djibouti (symbol for colony) — through Diredhawa (federation) — and Adàma (independence) — to the end goal Finfinné (union of free peoples). If the train has no technical problem (internal Oromo problems like disunity) or if our foes do not make an obstacle (extraneous Oromo difficulties), there is no reason why we all can not move together to Diredhawa — then further together to Adàma and — finally together to Finfinné.
Why should we quarrel now sitting on the way? After arriving at Diredhawa, we will see how many of us really want to stay there and do not want to move further to Adàma. Then, again after arriving at Adàma, we will see how many really do not want to move further to Finfinne. Simply put, it is only the Oromo public that will decide whether our end destination should be only Diredhawa, or only Adàma, or finally Finfinné. This is the whole essence of self-determination, the only one Oromo objective (the process of liberation movement with three terms or three sub-goals to come to our end). Do our leaders in Oromo liberation movement really believe in public verdict? If yes, I am sure they do have no problem with this mechanism and with such common move of both Oromo democratic federalists and Oromo liberation fronts to achieve the three terms of the goal one after another based on the wish and political will of Oromo People, be it we decide at last for Oromia or Oropia. Surely the transitional Ethiopian Union can be used to facilitate our move to either an own state of Oromia or a union state of Oropia.
To further clarify our liberation journey, we can also use a car drive on a highway, instead of a train journey. It looks as if we do drive on a three-lane highway from Djibouti to Finfinné. Taking the three-lane highway as a metaphor, we can see that certain Oromo individuals are driving their cars on the right-lane in order to leave the highway when they arrive at Diredhawa. They seem to have no will and wish to drive further up to Adàma or Finfinne. So, all Oromo, who are Ethiopian federalists out of conviction, are not seeing Ethiopian union as only transition. Oromo who made their destination to be Adàma, instead of Diredhawa, are driving on the middle-lane planning for the longer journey and, of course, those who have Finfinné in mind as their destination are driving on the left-lane for they know that they have to drive a long distance. Important now in our liberation journey is that we possibly make no traffic gridlock, but we better drive in harmony and exit the highway, where ever we think that we have already arrived at our respective destination. We have to be very careful not to be a cause for the possible gridlock and not to hinder those driving further towards Adàma and Finfinne. Do we agree? If yes, then let Waaqa help us not be the obstacle on the liberation journey towards Adàma and/or Finfinné.
I am not writing this article only to look at the “conflict” side among our elites, but also to commend their hitherto efforts to solve the “conflicts” and to forge unity of purpose. For instance, the formation of OFC to promote transformation of Oromia and the unity of groups under united OLF were good steps. But we are still waiting for the best breakthrough, i.e. the re-unification of all OLF factions. Instead of several mini-fronts, it is better to have only one strong OLF which fights for liberated Oromia. So, we all need to encourage such unity of our organizations. As already discussed, our need of a possible only one Oromian democratic federalist organization at home, which now seems to be OFC, and only one Oromian liberation front, which definitely will have a possible name of the beloved OLF, can be addressed wholy in the future. OFC can choose either Oromia or Oropia. The above mentioned moves of our liberation fronts can further consolidate and empower them through formation of only one OLF, behind which we all can rally and into which we all can invest our talent, money and time.
Interesting is also to look at response of the different Oromo websites to the panel discussion mentioned above. JimmaTimes.com at that time rushed to tell us how one of the conference panelist said “secession of Oromia is infeasible” by publishing the article written by Qérransô Biyyà (the blogger of the website OromoPress.BlogSpot.com). Surprisingly, Qérransô concentrated on the “necessity of the paradigm shift” and reported some parts of the speech from individuals (those who seem to prefer Oromian autonomy in Ethiopian context and self-determination as a goal), and he left out the speech of those who concentrated on demanding Oromian independence as a goal of Oromo liberation movement. Is this not “a lie by omission,” which is actually not expected from a balanced journalism? Of course, as usual Bilisummaa.com also published video of the conference with the usual conflict-producing and conflict-promoting comment from journalists of the website. I hope this website will learn in the future how to promote Oromo national liberation, instead of making endless unproductive comments it used to make till now.
Otherwise, the question we need to ask ourselves is: why paradigm shift? I personally think and believe that if paradigm shift means change of direction or change of goal, there is no such necessity of paradigm shift. This is “true and necessary” only in the mind of “parallel thinkers.” For they think that achieving Oromian autonomy (federation) is the journey to a different direction in comparison to achieving Oromian independence or fostering a union of free peoples in the form of Oropia, they do advocate for such shift. They mean “let us leave the move in a direction of independence (Oromia) or give up the move in a direction of a union of free peoples (Oropia), instead let us move to the different direction, i.e. in a direction of federation (Ethiopian union).” But, are really the directions of movement towards Ethiopian federation, Oromian independence, and Oropian union in three different directions, as “parallel thinkers” try to convince us?
According to the “series thinkers,” all the three sub-goals of the only one Oromo objective (self-determination) are inline on one direction, which we can achieve one after another, if Oromo people want, all the three terms and come to the end goal. So, what we need is not a paradigm shift in a sense of give up on Oromian independence or in a sense of change in direction, but to have a public verdict on the three sub-goals. On the process of our liberation journey or our self-determination, we need to decide based on public verdict, whether we want to have Oromian autonomy within Ethiopian context or an independent Oromia or a union of free peoples in the form of Oropia as an end goal. So, what we need now is a collectively determined move towards a transitional Ethiopian union on grave of the dead Abyssinain Empire and see if Oromo people really be satisfied with this form of sovereignty. If not, it is again up to the Oromo people to push for Oromian independence and see if we really be satisfied with such isolated form of sovereignty. If it is free will of Oromo public, there is no reason why we can’t move further and foster a union of liberated peoples in Oropia as our final and beneficial sort of sovereignty, which is my favorite form of sovereignty.
It is not a paradigm shift in a sense of giving up the goal of Oromian independence or giving up an attempt to realize the goal of union of free peoples what is necessary, but process of a public decision on the type of sovereignty we want to have as an end goal. Take it only 10 years or as long as 100 years, we will achieve our desired goal; no necessity to give up. But we need a dramatic change in methodology or practice to achieve our desired Goal. We should not make a change of objective without considering common wish of general Oromo public. We additionally need a major change in thinking and planning, which ultimately changes the way we can implement our project of liberating the Oromo and Oromia or Oromia. I think PAFD’s road map is optimal: dismantle Abyssinian Empire, foster a transitional Ethiopian Union and arrange a referendum on: ‘own Oromia’ -vs- ‘union Oropia’! At the end of the day, there is no lose for Oromo people, if we opt for either Oromia or Oropia. That is why the conflict between OFC and OLF can not be ideological, but power struggle. The conflict with EPP is on the contrary very ideological. Ins in Vase the EPP is not against Afaan Oromo as the potentially primary working language of Ethiopia, ist position may not be anti-Oromo. After all, genuiner Oromo nationalists do have a calculated common objective: Oromia with Oropia. Looking again at the only one Oromo objective of self-determination, dear Oromo elites, where is the conflict? Our short term goal is Oromian autonomy within Amapia, middle term being an independent Oromia and our long term vision is Oromian union = Oromian autonomy within Oropia. May Wàqa help us to move till the end of our journey
– OLF’s aim of Oromo freedom and decolonization of Oromia,
– OFC’s goal of Oromo freedom and transformation to Oropia.
Here, I would like to ask Oromo elites: where is the conflict which can hinder us from forging unity, or cooperating and working together? The common denominator for the two positions is a struggle for Oromo freedom from Abyssinian domination. That means, at least we can cooperate to consolidate together our freedom. If we really do agree on this common ground and struggle in unison, then after keeping our freedom, which is a necessary pre-condition for public verdict, it is up to Oromo public to decide whether we opt for liberation of Oromia or transformation to Oropia. During the expected post-freedom referendum, all Oromo political organizations will have chance and right to advocate for their respective positions, be it to pursue the realization of an independent Oromia or an integrative Oropia.
I personally will vote where possible for the bigger country (Oropia) if the name of the future union will be Oromia, instead of Ethiopiao. Otherwise, I prefer Oromia to the future New Ethiopia, in case the name Ethiopia persists; having in mind that we can have a possibility to opt for a union of free peoples after independence. The position ‘Ethiopian union of autonomous nations’ before achieving full independence can not be the end-goal by itself, but achieving this term can serve as a transitional intermediate goal towards one of the two ends: Oromia or Oropia. In the current political trend of Africa and in a globalized world, union of free peoples similar to that of European Union (EU) can be a common end goal we all nations in the Horn region can far-sightedly plan for. So, we can have a plan to move from the status quo rhetoric, i.e. “Oromia is already liberated, and Oromo have already achieved our objective”, which in reality is a temporay Position, — towards OLF’s independent Oromia or OFC’s integrative Oropia. The important thing to know for all Oromo nationalists is that achieving OFC’s goal is a very nice prerequisite to the further move to OLF’s goal, which is again a very good prelude for the reverse move to the OFC’s. We can either have a left to right approach of OLF – first achieve an independent Oromia and then move to an integrative Oropia or a right to left approach of OFC – first opt for Oropia and if other neighbouring nations reject the union, our Oromia will be left for us. It seems OLF chose the left to right approach, whereas OFC prefered the right to left. So, again: where is the conflict?
Parallel to the panel discussion mentioned above, I also read one interview given by Mr. Jawar Mohammed to the journalist of Gadaa.com. Surprisingly, he also thinks that the two main ideas in Oromo liberation movement, i.e. “liberation of Oromia” and “transformation to Oropia” are contradictory and exclusive to each other. But, it is really good that he has additionally said that the two “contradictory” concepts are only the means to the end of Oromo cause. If both ‘liberated Oromia’ and ‘transformed Oropia’ are not the end by themselves, what is then an end he does have in mind? Union of independent nations in the region? I think he is one of “parallel thinkers,” who tend to see at the above two main ideas separately – as if they are exclusive to each other. Actually, a current constructive way of thinking is that of “series thinkers.” According to this later group of thinkers, Oromo cause has got only one objective, i.e. self-determination, with three possible terms or sub-goals:
– short-term of the goal is to achieve politically, economically and culturally autonomous Oromia within Amapian union as transitional position. We know that the status quo is only cultural Oromian autonomy within Amapian union. Is it this limited Oromian autonomy what Mr. Jawar tried to tell us, when he said the “Oromo people have already achieved our objective”? Otherwise, the short-term of the goal is also known as intermediate goal for it is only temporary solution on the way to Oromian independence, be it within Oropia or without Oropia. Short term of the goal is simply put: automomous Oromia within Amapia.
– middle-term of the goal is to achieve complete sovereignty of Oromia in a form of independence. There is nothing which can hinder Oromo people from achieving this, if we work on it together. The picture of a scare scenario, which some individuals tried to draw in front of our eyes, when they said “in case Oromo opt for such isolated independence of Biyya-Oromo, the region will be in chaos,” also can not hinder us from moving to this level of liberation. This middle-term of the goal can also be called core objective of Oromo national liberation movement. Contrary to the assertion of those who tell us that “we are already liberated” and despite the demand of a “paradigm shift” towards accepting only Oromian autonomy (federation) by others, I would like to say: Oromo can be told that we achieved our objective, only when the core objective will be realized and an independent Oromia will be established.
– long-term of the goal can be fostering a union of free peoples in the region (Oropia according to the left to right approach). It may not be time for the Oromo to talk about such “far-fetched” plan now, but it addresses the fear of those who draw a picture of a scare scenario “showing” us that we can have a chaotic neighboring nations, which can negatively affect the existence and further development of Oromia after a possible independence. Where such genuine union of free peoples is possible in the future, I don’t see any logic why a well seasoned and reasoned mind tryies to advocate Ethiopian union with only Oromian autonomy at the expense of Oromian independence. They just need to take time and think over again. They should try to think in a “series framework” instead of “parallel framework.” To understand more about these two ways of thinking, they need to read the following article: http://gadaa.com/oduu/?p=2523. Otherwise, this union (long-term of the objective) is also known as an end goal for it is really the final beneficial arrangement for all stake holders in the region. Long term of the goal is in short: automomous Oromia with in Oropia.
In summary, according to “series thinkers,” we can achieve in our liberation journey all the above three terms of Oromo objective one after another. We do not need to quarrel over the subjectively produced “conflict” between the two main ideas (liberation of Oromia vs transformation of Oropia) for the two concepts are not contradictory, but complementary to each other. Transformation of Oropia, if it really happens, is a very good means to achieve liberation of Oromia according to the right to left approach and vice versa in the left to right one. That is why dictatorial Abyssinian elites never ever allow Ethiopia to be democratic as far as they have power. We can argue over the effectiveness of this evolutionary means in comparison to the revolutionary liberation of Oromia through armed struggle. But, if transformation really happens, now OPP is on a right track to achieve the short-term of the objective (transitional Oromian autonomy within Ethiopian union). Then, the OLF can bring us further to middle term; of course, finally we need a consensus of all free neighboring nations of the region in order to come to the long term of the goal. Shortly put, we do have only one Oromo objective (self-determination) with three possible sub-goals as an outcome at the three terms, if we follow the left to right approach:
– short-term (Oromian autonomy within Amapian Union)
– middle-term (Oromian independence)
– long-term (Oromian union = Oropia as a union of free peoples)
Then, again I would like to ask: where is the “conflict” between the goals of OPP (transformed Oropia) and OLF (liberated Oromia)? Our politicians in these two organizations only need a change in their way of thinking from their current “parallel framework” to “series framework” so that they do not perceive a “conflict”, but see a complementarity among Oromo forces, both democratic federalists and liberation fronts. Be it we want finally to achieve Oromia or Oropia, the common path passes through Caffé Aràrà (Finfinné palace), where we find the master-key for both goals. We just need to work together to consolidate power in Finfinné palace and then move the country in either direction. To make our liberation journey plausible, we have used till now for the left to right approach a metaphor of train journey from Djibouti (symbol for colony) — through Diredhawa (federation) — and Adàma (independence) — to the end goal Finfinné (union of free peoples). If the train has no technical problem (internal Oromo problems like disunity) or if our foes do not make an obstacle (extraneous Oromo difficulties), there is no reason why we all can not move together to Diredhawa — then further together to Adàma and — finally together to Finfinné.
Why should we quarrel now sitting on the way? After arriving at Diredhawa, we will see how many of us really want to stay there and do not want to move further to Adàma. Then, again after arriving at Adàma, we will see how many really do not want to move further to Finfinne. Simply put, it is only the Oromo public that will decide whether our end destination should be only Diredhawa, or only Adàma, or finally Finfinné. This is the whole essence of self-determination, the only one Oromo objective (the process of liberation movement with three terms or three sub-goals to come to our end). Do our leaders in Oromo liberation movement really believe in public verdict? If yes, I am sure they do have no problem with this mechanism and with such common move of both Oromo democratic federalists and Oromo liberation fronts to achieve the three terms of the goal one after another based on the wish and political will of Oromo People, be it we decide at last for Oromia or Oropia. Surely the transitional Ethiopian Union can be used to facilitate our move to either an own state of Oromia or a union state of Oropia.
To further clarify our liberation journey, we can also use a car drive on a highway, instead of a train journey. It looks as if we do drive on a three-lane highway from Djibouti to Finfinné. Taking the three-lane highway as a metaphor, we can see that certain Oromo individuals are driving their cars on the right-lane in order to leave the highway when they arrive at Diredhawa. They seem to have no will and wish to drive further up to Adàma or Finfinne. So, all Oromo, who are Ethiopian federalists out of conviction, are not seeing Ethiopian union as only transition. Oromo who made their destination to be Adàma, instead of Diredhawa, are driving on the middle-lane planning for the longer journey and, of course, those who have Finfinné in mind as their destination are driving on the left-lane for they know that they have to drive a long distance. Important now in our liberation journey is that we possibly make no traffic gridlock, but we better drive in harmony and exit the highway, where ever we think that we have already arrived at our respective destination. We have to be very careful not to be a cause for the possible gridlock and not to hinder those driving further towards Adàma and Finfinne. Do we agree? If yes, then let Waaqa help us not be the obstacle on the liberation journey towards Adàma and/or Finfinné.
I am not writing this article only to look at the “conflict” side among our elites, but also to commend their hitherto efforts to solve the “conflicts” and to forge unity of purpose. For instance, the formation of OFC to promote transformation of Oromia and the unity of groups under united OLF were good steps. But we are still waiting for the best breakthrough, i.e. the re-unification of all OLF factions. Instead of several mini-fronts, it is better to have only one strong OLF which fights for liberated Oromia. So, we all need to encourage such unity of our organizations. As already discussed, our need of a possible only one Oromian democratic federalist organization at home, which now seems to be OFC, and only one Oromian liberation front, which definitely will have a possible name of the beloved OLF, can be addressed wholy in the future. OFC can choose either Oromia or Oropia. The above mentioned moves of our liberation fronts can further consolidate and empower them through formation of only one OLF, behind which we all can rally and into which we all can invest our talent, money and time.
Interesting is also to look at response of the different Oromo websites to the panel discussion mentioned above. JimmaTimes.com at that time rushed to tell us how one of the conference panelist said “secession of Oromia is infeasible” by publishing the article written by Qérransô Biyyà (the blogger of the website OromoPress.BlogSpot.com). Surprisingly, Qérransô concentrated on the “necessity of the paradigm shift” and reported some parts of the speech from individuals (those who seem to prefer Oromian autonomy in Ethiopian context and self-determination as a goal), and he left out the speech of those who concentrated on demanding Oromian independence as a goal of Oromo liberation movement. Is this not “a lie by omission,” which is actually not expected from a balanced journalism? Of course, as usual Bilisummaa.com also published video of the conference with the usual conflict-producing and conflict-promoting comment from journalists of the website. I hope this website will learn in the future how to promote Oromo national liberation, instead of making endless unproductive comments it used to make till now.
Otherwise, the question we need to ask ourselves is: why paradigm shift? I personally think and believe that if paradigm shift means change of direction or change of goal, there is no such necessity of paradigm shift. This is “true and necessary” only in the mind of “parallel thinkers.” For they think that achieving Oromian autonomy (federation) is the journey to a different direction in comparison to achieving Oromian independence or fostering a union of free peoples in the form of Oropia, they do advocate for such shift. They mean “let us leave the move in a direction of independence (Oromia) or give up the move in a direction of a union of free peoples (Oropia), instead let us move to the different direction, i.e. in a direction of federation (Ethiopian union).” But, are really the directions of movement towards Ethiopian federation, Oromian independence, and Oropian union in three different directions, as “parallel thinkers” try to convince us?
According to the “series thinkers,” all the three sub-goals of the only one Oromo objective (self-determination) are inline on one direction, which we can achieve one after another, if Oromo people want, all the three terms and come to the end goal. So, what we need is not a paradigm shift in a sense of give up on Oromian independence or in a sense of change in direction, but to have a public verdict on the three sub-goals. On the process of our liberation journey or our self-determination, we need to decide based on public verdict, whether we want to have Oromian autonomy within Ethiopian context or an independent Oromia or a union of free peoples in the form of Oropia as an end goal. So, what we need now is a collectively determined move towards a transitional Ethiopian union on grave of the dead Abyssinain Empire and see if Oromo people really be satisfied with this form of sovereignty. If not, it is again up to the Oromo people to push for Oromian independence and see if we really be satisfied with such isolated form of sovereignty. If it is free will of Oromo public, there is no reason why we can’t move further and foster a union of liberated peoples in Oropia as our final and beneficial sort of sovereignty, which is my favorite form of sovereignty.
It is not a paradigm shift in a sense of giving up the goal of Oromian independence or giving up an attempt to realize the goal of union of free peoples what is necessary, but process of a public decision on the type of sovereignty we want to have as an end goal. Take it only 10 years or as long as 100 years, we will achieve our desired goal; no necessity to give up. But we need a dramatic change in methodology or practice to achieve our desired Goal. We should not make a change of objective without considering common wish of general Oromo public. We additionally need a major change in thinking and planning, which ultimately changes the way we can implement our project of liberating the Oromo and Oromia or Oromia. I think PAFD’s road map is optimal: dismantle Abyssinian Empire, foster a transitional Ethiopian Union and arrange a referendum on: ‘own Oromia’ -vs- ‘union Oropia’! At the end of the day, there is no lose for Oromo people, if we opt for either Oromia or Oropia. That is why the conflict between OFC and OLF can not be ideological, but power struggle. The conflict with EPP is on the contrary very ideological. Ins in Vase the EPP is not against Afaan Oromo as the potentially primary working language of Ethiopia, ist position may not be anti-Oromo. After all, genuiner Oromo nationalists do have a calculated common objective: Oromia with Oropia. Looking again at the only one Oromo objective of self-determination, dear Oromo elites, where is the conflict? Our short term goal is Oromian autonomy within Amapia, middle term being an independent Oromia and our long term vision is Oromian union = Oromian autonomy within Oropia. May Wàqa help us to move till the end of our journey