Dilemma in Oromo’s Current Struggle: the Necessity of Priority Setting
By Fayyis Oromia*
Currently, the Oromo people face two significant adversaries: the dictatorial regime of Biltsiginnà, which holds power, and the nostalgic Naftagnà, attempting to return to the Finfinne palace. As a result, Oromo nationalists appear divided over whom to prioritize in the struggle. During this time of political contest between Biltsiginnà and Naftagnà, some Oromo elites advocate supporting Biltsiginnà to prevent Naftagnà’s resurgence. Meanwhile, others choose to oppose Biltsiginnà, even if that aligns them by default with Naftagnà.
Which of these two approaches is correct—supporting Biltsiginnà or unintentionally allying with Naftagnà? In my view, both camps need to reassess their positions. All genuine Oromo nationalists—those within the OLA, OFC, and OLF—should act in unison to check Naftagnà’s return while simultaneously resisting Biltsiginnà’s dictatorship. The oppressive Salisawi Derg (i.e., Biltsiginnà), which continues to subordinate Afan Oromo to Amharic, must be overthrown, and the Naftagnà forces, determined to eradicate Oromummà, must be prevented from regaining control of the Finfinne palace. In terms of strategic priority, we must first ensure that Naftagnà does not return to power before we focus on removing Biltsiginnà.
Over the past seven years, the “triple hybrid” (ethnic, ideological, and psychological) Prime Minister, Dr. Abiy Ahmed, has worked to undermine the Oromo liberation struggle, supported by elites aligned with pro-Amharanet ideology. Their goal: to suppress the growth of Oromummà and prevent it from achieving its rightful place. The reality is that Ethiopia is a project backed by Western powers, intended to serve as a buffer against Arab influence in East Africa. Historically, Western alliances have leaned on Christian Habesha elites, sidelining the predominantly Muslim Oromo population, whom they viewed as needing containment. This skepticism toward the Oromo national liberation movement has led the West to both overtly and covertly undermine our struggle.
Oromo elites have often been used as instruments in this sabotage. During the 2005 Oromo uprising (Fincila Diddaa Garbummaa), Ad. Birtukan Midhagsa was suddenly elevated to opposition leadership—an intentional move to lure Oromo supporters toward Ethiopian unity. When the struggle reached a decisive moment in 2018, Dr. Abiy was similarly promoted. Both figures were instrumental in curbing genuine Oromo resistance to maintain a system dominated by Amharanet, at the expense of Oromummà. Whether they succeeded remains to be seen.
A few years ago, “Lady Liberty” Birtukan was appointed as head of Ethiopia’s election board. Her selection seemed apt given her integrity and moral character—she was not a political opportunist. As an Oromo woman of principle, she had previously resisted manipulation by Meles Zenawi. She earned the respect of many Oromos and Ethiopians at large. But why was she promoted by the Abyssinian elite in the first place? And why was she later sidelined? Let us examine the context.
Both Habesha elites and their Western sponsors have always sought to contain the Oromo liberation movement. Ethiopia remains their strategic tool to resist Arab/Islamic influence in the Horn. This personal essay is open to critique or support—I welcome feedback. But we must ask: Was Birtukan’s rise to “Lady Liberty,” “Queen Midhagsa,” and “Ethiopian Mandela” by chance or calculated design? How about Dr. Abiy’s elevation? Why are Oromo elites so frequently selected to manage Ethiopia’s crises (e.g., Qusee Dinegde, Teferi Benti, Tesfaye Dinqa, Abiy Ahmed)? The answer lies in their utility to the status quo.
The Oromo liberation movement stands opposed to both Arab influence and European intervention in the Horn. From the arrival of Judaism 3,000 years ago to Christian and Islamic expansions, Wàqeffata Oromos largely resisted. The term “Gàllà” (meaning “No-Sayer”) comes from this resistance. Though some Oromos were gradually Christianized or Islamized, resistance continued.
Historical accounts suggest that many who are now considered Shewa Amhara or Wallo Muslims were originally Oromos who converted. The 16th-century “Oromo migration” was less an invasion and more a defensive expansion against Christian and Muslim external forces. The Oromo eventually ruled the Gonder dynasty for 300 years before Christianized Agaw warlords, supported by Europeans, began to dismantle their influence—culminating in Menelik’s colonization of Oromia with European weapons.
European powers endorsed Ethiopia as an empire, weaponized Habesha elites, and suppressed Oromo and southern nations. This geopolitical design remains intact. The primary obstacle to this system is the Oromo liberation movement. Western powers have historically thwarted it: from the Raya and Bale uprisings to the OLF’s move in 1991/92. Their interest in Somalia’s collapse was similarly driven by the threat posed by Oromo and Somali liberation movements.
Modern methods of suppressing Oromo resistance include grooming leaders like Birtukan and Abiy to give Oromo people the illusion of representation. But such efforts fail to quell conscious nationalists. Whether Birtukan served as a tool of Habesha colonialism or as a reformer for true change is a critical question.
As for Dr. Abiy: was his promotion meant to appease the Oromo and distract the liberation movement? Or can he become Ethiopia’s de Klerk, dismantling the old system and building democracy? History is filled with Oromo-background leaders—Menelik, Haile Selassie, Mengistu—who did not serve Oromo interests. To be truly Oromo politically, one must work for Oromo national liberation; to be psychologically Oromo, one must identify with the suffering of this nation.
Dr. Abiy entered Finfinne with promises of change. Will he uphold those promises or align with outdated Habesha elites? If he embraces change, he could help forge a new, democratic Ethiopia where Oromo autonomy or independence is based on the people’s free will. If not, we face more instability.
I hoped he would bridge Oromo nationalists and democratic unionists—creating an OPDO-ANDM alliance to check TPLF dominance. But it’s clear: nothing can succeed at the expense of Oromo liberation. Habesha elites cannot use symbolic promotions to distract us. The unity among Oromo organizations is encouraging. This unity must grow and forge broader alliances for democracy.
We once hoped “Lady Liberty” would support unity at home and in the diaspora. The common ground must be either Oromia’s autonomy (OFC vision) or independence (OLF vision). Those calling to eliminate Oromia are delusional; only more misery will follow. Thankfully, many now align with Oromo democrats, reframing their struggles as fights for democratization.
That is why I assert: Ethiopia’s struggle is now part of the Oromo struggle—not the reverse. Dr. Abiy must choose: side with reactionary elites or forward-thinking Oromo leaders. May Waaqa guide him toward the latter. Centuries of oppression have not broken Oromo determination for national and civic freedom.
To conclude: whether Dr. Abiy’s rise was by chance or design will be known with time. What is certain is this—no effort to suppress Oromo liberation will succeed. As long as Oromia remains under occupation, dreams of democracy and peace in the Horn will remain illusions. Let the West and Habesha elites understand: promoting Oromo cause is part of the solution, not the problem. I still hope Dr. Abiy will be a true de Klerk, not a Medvedev manipulated by a “Putin of Ethiopia.”
Who, then, will be Ethiopia’s Mandela? That’s a question for another day.
Galatôma!
Read more:https://orompia.wordpress.com/2020/05/3 ... -birtukan/