The Oromo Commemorating Adwa on Our Terms Is a Step in the Right Direction!
By Fayyis Oromia*
The Oromo beginning to commemorate the Victory of Adwa on our own terms is a step in the right direction. I have long advised Oromo nationalists to strategically engage with Ethiopiyumma (Ethiopianism), because the Oromo have played a foundational role in building and preserving Ethiopia—what I call Great Oromia—as a nation-state. It is now appropriate and empowering that we are reclaiming Adwa’s history and adopting the green-yellow-red flag as a shared symbol among the diverse nations of this country.
What still remains for us to accomplish is the promotion of Afaan Oromo to the position of primary language, replacing Amharic. The essential mission of future Oromo nationalists must be twofold: to consolidate political power (Aangoo) in the Finfinne palace, and to promote Afaan Oromo as the working language of all national institutions. Amhara elites in particular—and pro-Amharanet elites more broadly—must be challenged. These groups are currently seeking a return to power in Finfinne, using unity and territorial integrity as a pretext.
I trust that Oromo nationalists are not naive enough to cede even limited power to Amhara elites. Undoubtedly, Oromo Republicans in both the OFC and OLF will be strengthened to prevail and cooperate with the OPP to achieve these two core objectives: consolidating Oromo power and elevating Afaan Oromo.
Visions of Sovereignty Among Oromo Nationalists
Even though there is broad agreement among Oromo nationalists about the need for freedom from domination by historically Habeshanized elites, differences persist concerning the type of sovereignty we aim to achieve for Oromia: a free Oromia within or without the Ethiopian union. To clarify, when I refer to Gadaa Oromia, I mean the national territory inhabited by Afaan Oromo-speaking people who identify as Oromo today, with Finfinne as our political capital. Great Oromia, on the other hand, refers to the country known as Ethiopia—a wider region inhabited by Cushitic peoples, including Habeshanized areas (Abyssinia).
‘Free Oromia without the Ethiopian union’ represents a form of sovereignty that seeks to dismantle the current geopolitical formation of Ethiopia. In contrast, ‘Free Oromia within the Ethiopian union’ envisions transforming the existing Abyssinian empire into a democratic and inclusive Ethiopian union, grounded in the principles of Oromummaa—freedom, Gadaa democracy, and national sovereignty.
Based on these visions, Oromo nationalists can generally be grouped into two camps. Despite this division, our shared foundation remains the same: freedom for the Oromo and sovereignty for Oromia. This ideological divergence has existed since the earliest days of the Oromo liberation movement. However, this difference must not become a source of division or conflict. As long as the future path is determined through the democratic will of the Oromo people—via a public referendum—both visions can and should coexist in a cooperative struggle for liberation.
Understanding how our adversaries try to exploit this ideological divergence to divide us, we must see beyond what appears to be a contradiction. In reality, the conflict between these two visions is not a true contradiction. Rather, it reflects two complementary interpretations of Oromo history and aspirations, each shaped by different experiences and analyses of our past.
Historical Narratives and Diverging Visions
Let us now try to understand why Oromo nationalists hold these two different visions of Oromia’s destiny. The divergence stems from the distinct historical narratives we accept and internalize—narratives that shape our interpretation of the past and influence our strategies for the future.
Based on this divergence in perceived Oromo history, I frequently receive emails filled with both concern and critique from committed Oromo nationalists who read my articles on various platforms. For instance, in response to my recent article titled “The Third-Generation OLF: Pragmatic, Inclusive and Smart,” one nationalist challenged my argument that ‘Free Oromia within the Ethiopian union’ is just as valid a vision as ‘Free Oromia without the Ethiopian union.’Below is a paraphrased version of his response, which illustrates the ideological tension within the movement:
“There’s no Oromummaa without Oromia. If by Oromummaa you mean dance and music, nobody would object to Oromo dancing 24/7. But there are limits to free speech, and your recent writing crosses into treason. We stand firmly in defense of the Oromo cause and cannot tolerate betrayal by entertaining the idea of staying within Ethiopia. Our informal research shows the following:
Many mixed-heritage Oromos and Habeshanized Oromos are now reluctantly accepting Oromia as a compromise—yet they continue to serve as linchpins in the Abyssinian system of domination.
Articles like yours and Obbo Boruu Barraaqaa’s on an inclusive Ethiopia have awakened some Abyssinian and Habeshanized Oromos to the reality that their Ethiopia has long been an apartheid-like regime, glorifying Abyssinian supremacy.
In personal conversations, many of them are unaware that the Oromo have an independent historical trajectory parallel to Abyssinia. That’s why I urge Oromo scholars to present our history in three dimensions:
(a) as a shared history (e.g., the Battle of Adwa);
(b) as parallel, distinct histories of Oromia and Abyssinia;
(c) as a shared history of conflict (e.g., the Menelik invasions and so-called Oromo expansion).
While Abyssinian elites promote only the shared, glorified history, Oromo nationalists have emphasized the conflict narrative. But now, it’s time for us to deeply explore our parallel historical path. This includes our proud legacy: the Gibe kingdoms, the Gadaa confederacies, and the independent cultural and political systems that defined Oromia from the 16th to 19th centuries. Our findings show that these aspects are still missing from mainstream Ethiopian history. Their exclusion reflects a system of cultural apartheid, where only Abyssinian experiences are centered.”
This reflection is compelling and represents the legitimate frustration of many Oromo nationalists. It underscores the broader issue: the Ethiopian historical narrative has long privileged Abyssinian experiences and silenced or distorted the narratives of other nations, especially the Oromo.
The Marginalization of Oromo History and Identity
The core of the issue lies in the systematic marginalization of Oromo history within the central narrative of the Ethiopian state. For example, when one asks, “Who ruled Ethiopia between 1606 and 1632?” the standard answer is Emperor Susenyos. But that answer only reflects Abyssinian history. During the same period, in southern Ethiopia, the Gadaa confederacy of Odaa Gaarres had four successive Abba Gadaa: Doyyo Boru Lukku (1603–1611), Sabbaqa (1611–1616), Bidu Doqqe (1616–1627), and Babbo Horro (1627–1635). Meanwhile, in the Gibe region’s Limu-Enarya state, kings like Benero (1605–1619) and Sysgayo (1619–1630) also ruled. Why, then, is Susenyos the only one remembered?
This is the result of a deliberate policy of historical erasure—an attempt to define “Ethiopia” solely through the lens of Abyssinian rule, ignoring the experiences and contributions of nations like the Oromo, Ogaden, Sidama, and others. This exclusion is not merely academic—it has deep social, psychological, and political consequences.
Abyssinian elites have historically promoted the idea that “Abyssinia = Ethiopia”, thereby sidelining the majority populations who do not identify with that heritage. This narrative is enforced through the school curriculum, media, literature, and national monuments. As a result, an Amhara or Tigrayan child grows up identifying fully with the Ethiopian state, while an Oromo or Ogadeni child is made to feel alienated, as if their heritage has no place in the country’s story.
That is why the Oromo, Ogadenis, and other historically marginalized peoples are not merely fighting for or against Ethiopian unity; rather, they are fighting for freedom and inclusion. This struggle is about reclaiming their right to define the nation, either through a restructured multi-national Ethiopia or through an independent Oromia, where Oromo identity, language, and values are centered.
The regime changes in 1974 and 1991 brought no fundamental shift in this system. If anything, the exclusion deepened. The introduction of Tigrinya into the Finfinne palace after 1991 was simply a replacement of one Abyssinian elite with another—Amharic privilege exchanged for Tigrinya dominance, while Afaan Oromo remained suppressed. Today, there are still no Oromo heroes commemorated with statues in Finfinne, the capital of Oromia. The monuments continue to reflect only the Abyssinian legacy.
The Role of Oromo Nationalism and the Path Forward
Despite the oppressive narratives imposed by Abyssinian elites, we—Oromo nationalists—must understand that reclaiming our history is a critical part of reclaiming our future. Our struggle has always been twofold:
To preserve and promote our history, heritage, and civilization, including the Gadaa system and the cultural identity rooted in Cushitic civilization;
To secure first-class citizenship—either within a reimagined, democratic Ethiopian union (Great Oromia), or through an independent Gadaa Oromia.
Many Oromo activists have begun to rightly frame the Ethiopian state as a historically apartheid-like system, where the majority are excluded from national identity and power. The 1991 regime change didn’t alter this reality in any meaningful way. Ethiopia’s center—its history, monuments, languages, and political institutions—still privileges Abyssinian heritage while sidelining Oromo and other Cushitic peoples.
That’s why today, we must reject the simplistic equation: Ethiopia = Abyssinia = Habesha. True equality requires either:
Transforming Ethiopia into a multi-national, democratic union (Great Oromia), where all languages, cultures, and histories are equally honored; or
Establishing an independent Oromia, where the Oromo people can thrive without cultural suppression or political domination.
Toward a Cushitic Future—Oromo Unity and the Fate of Ethiopia
If we choose the path of integration through freedom, then the Oromo liberation movement will not only liberate Oromia—it will liberate the entire Cushitic region from centuries of Abyssinian domination and identity suppression. In doing so, it can awaken even the Habeshanized Cushites to their true roots.
This awakening must come with a shift in national philosophy—from the Abyssinian doctrine of “unity by force” to the Cushitic ideal of integration by consent. It must be grounded in mutual respect, inclusive representation, and cultural equity. In this vision, a future Ethiopia—reborn as Great Oromia—would become a union of Cushitic peoples, not a hegemonic empire ruled from a single cultural center.
In that future, Afaan Oromo would thrive alongside Af-Somaal, Tigrinya, Amharinya, Afar-Af, Sidama-Afo, and all other Cushitic tongues. Oromo children would learn their own heroes, their own contributions to history, their place at the center—not at the margins—of Ethiopian civilization.
But such a transformation can only happen if we first dismantle the structures of Habeshanism—that political and cultural ideology which has long imposed an exclusionary narrative. Habeshanism must be buried for Oromummaa to fully bloom—be it within a union or in independence.
Some may ask: Can Ethiopia really survive this transformation? The answer is yes—but not as the Abyssinian empire of the past. That version of Ethiopia is dying. What can be born in its place is a new Ethiopia, one that reflects the Cushitic majority, honors all its peoples, and operates through the principles of Gadaa, equality, and sovereignty. If that fails, then a peaceful separation into two states—Oromo and Abyssinian—remains a dignified and just outcome.
Ultimately, we must recognize that the difference between the two sovereignty visions—union vs. independence—is not a threat to our movement, but a reflection of its strength and complexity. Our diversity of thought is a resource, not a weakness. The essential point is that both paths lead to one goal: freedom, dignity, and self-determination for the Oromo people.
Let the future be shaped by Oromo public decision—through democratic referendum—not by infighting, foreign interference, or elite manipulation. Let the people decide whether the destiny of Oromia is to stand alone as a sovereign nation or to lead in transforming Ethiopia into a union of equals.
What unites us is our shared commitment to liberation, to Oromummaa, and to a future where our language, culture, and identity are not only respected—but empowered. Whether that happens inside or outside a union, our sovereignty is non-negotiable.
Final Blessing
May Waaqa guide us to act with wisdom, unity, and courage.
May He bless both the Oromo and Oromia.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/02/2 ... direction/