Three Types of Oromo in Ethiopia: the Habeshanized, the Hybridized, and the Horomonized
Fayyis Oromia*
Obbo Léncô Latà tells us that the Oromo are now ruling Ethiopia. I argue that Oromo elites have always ruled Ethiopia, but Oromummà has never led it. There is nothing new about Dr. Abiy. His stance toward Oromummà is not different from his predecessors. He chose to revere Amharanet—as the dominant element of Ethiopiawinet—instead of respecting and promoting Oromummà as a legitimate leading component of the Ethiopian identity.
The reality on the ground is that Oromo elites—including the Amharanized Emperor Menelik and the non-Amharanized Dr. Abiy—have ruled Ethiopia by promoting Amharanet at the expense of Oromummà. That’s why the Oromo curse the first and mistrust the second. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that many Oromo elites are now reclaiming the flag, history, and name of Ethiopia—for which the Oromo have paid dearly throughout history.
In everything related to Oropia (an Oromummà-led Ethiopia), the Oromo have historically had the lion’s share. This is even reflected in the new Unity Park exhibition in Addis Ababa. Whether we like it or not, almost all rulers—from Yekuno Amlak to Abiy Ahmed—have Oromo heritage. One just needs to dig deeper and de-Habeshanize the history. There has never been an Amhara rule per se, but rather a rule of Amharanized Oromo elites who promoted Amharanet at the cost of Oromummà. Thanks to the OLF, this trend is slowly but surely reversing. From now on, Oromo elites who promote Oromummà—in Caffé Aràrà (the palace), in Finfinné, in Ethiopia, and in the Horn—will rule the country.
Simply put, Ethiopia was, is, and will be ruled by Oromo elites: by the Habeshanized in the past, the Hybridized currently, and surely by the Horomonized (those who prioritize Oromo interests) in the future.
What If We Decide for Oropia?
In the future, if we decide on Oropia, we should promote:
- Afàn Oromô as the working language of the union,
- The Cushitic Black-Red-White as the flag of the union, and
- Oropia, instead of Ethiopia, as the name of the union.
This slogan is already heard in the discourse of some Oromo nationalists. The Oromo national liberation movement has three alternative visions of sovereignty, all of which would be considered after achieving freedom from the system of Amaranet domination:
- Independent Oromia, as advocated by the OLF,
- A federal union with self-rule for Oromia, supported by the OFC,
- An integrative Oropia (a democratic Ethiopia without Oromia), once envisioned by Meison.
This is a simplified attribution, but still illustrative. Even in its own mission statement, the OLF states:
“The fundamental objective of the Oromo liberation movement is to exercise the Oromo people’s inalienable right to national self-determination, to terminate centuries of oppression and exploitation, and to form, where possible, a political union with other nations on the basis of equality, respect for mutual interests, and the principle of voluntary association.”
The OFC, for its part, has committed to a struggle for a multi-national federation within Ethiopia.
OFC vs OLF: A Difference in Name or Strategy?
The main difference between these two approaches lies in naming and framing. The OFC explicitly uses “Ethiopia” as the name of the envisioned union, while the OLF keeps the name and type of future union open for later determination.
Can we interpret the OFC as a political force working to implement the final sentence of the OLF’s mission statement? If so, there may be no reason to worry about the differing approaches. However, to bring both on the same page, it might be necessary for the OLF to name the possible future union as Oropia, and for the OFC to consider replacing Ethiopia with Oropia in its program.
As Obbo Ibsaa Gütama noted in one of his articles, the OLF has always envisioned a union “where possible” with neighboring nations. In principle, the Oromo struggle has rested on two pillars:
- Regarding means of struggle: Prefer nonviolent methods; use armed struggle if necessary.
- Regarding the end goal: Prefer political union; pursue independence if union is not possible.
Thus, the OFC opted for nonviolent struggle and political union, while the OLF emphasized armed struggle and independence. But ideally, the Oromo people should have embraced both methods for achieving freedom.
The question of independence (OLF) vs union (OFC) vs integration (Meison) will be ultimately answered through a referendum after liberation.
Why Oropia Now? A Modified Indian Model
The concept of Oropia mirrors the Indian model. In India, the Hindi people led a joint liberation with surrounding nationalities, made Hindi the working language, and divided the Hindi region into multiple federal states. Why can’t the Oromo do the same? We could:
- Liberate the Oromo and surrounding nations together,
- Rename the country Oropia,
- Promote Afàn Oromô as the working language, and
Base federal regions of Oromo national area on traditional Odà areas: Odaa Bisil, Bultum, Gaarres, Makodi, Nabee, and Roobaa.
It may be difficult to divide the current Oromia into those Odas without destabilizing the region. So, an autonomous Oromia could still exist within Oropia, much like Hindi-speaking states in India. Hence, Oropia is a modified Indian model.
Synthesis, Not Division
The idea of Oropia is a synthesis between two visions:
- Independent Oromia, which faces international resistance, and
- Union Ethiopia, which faces internal Oromo opposition.
This synthesis—Integrative Oropia—could resolve both issues. Rather than present the idea of independence too explicitly (which often alienates international allies), we can push for self-determination, freedom, and a democratic union.
By proposing Integrative Oropia, we reduce friction among Oromo factions and ease international concerns. This vision is neither exclusive independence nor imperial status quo—it is an inclusive, voluntary federation with Oromo leadership at its core.
Implementation Proposal
To facilitate transformation of Ethiopia to Oropia, I propose the following five steps:
Freedom of citizens and nations in the union,
- Afàn Oromô as the working language of the union,
- Democracy as the governing principle,
- Renaming the union as Oropia,
- Adopting the Cushitic Black-Red-White as the flag.
If other nations are not ready to accept this model, they may seek independence with Oromo recognition. Otherwise, an independent Oromia becomes inevitable, possibly dividing the current empire into four: North Ethiopia, Ogadenia, Oromia, and South Ethiopia.
Metaphorically speaking, integrative Oropia is like a gross salary (shared benefits), while independent Oromia is a net salary (full ownership but with fewer shared assets).
Conclusion: Toward a Shared Vision
Integrative Oropia can be the common ground for both pro-unity and pro-independence Oromo nationalists. It allows us to speak boldly to both our people and the international community. This vision also offers a strategic alliance with other anti-BIltsigina forces. Let us strive toward a common focus—unity of purpose, reclaiming our history, reforming our institutions, and, if needed, renaming the country.
Whether Dr. Abiy is guiding us in this direction remains to be seen. But we, the Oromo, now have the opportunity to shape the future. May Wàqa help us foster a free and democratic Oropia, a home for all nations in the region.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2020/05/0 ... oromummaa/