MAC Politics of the OFC and MAP Politics of the OLF vs MOA Politics of the Oromo
By Fayyis Oromia*
Both the OFC and OLF have yet to find an optimal solution for the unique situation of the Oromo. The unionist Ethiopia envisioned by the OFC (a multinational federation) is beneficial for minorities at the center (MAC), while the independent Oromia proposed by the OLF is favorable for minorities at the periphery (MAP). However, the Oromo nation is neither MAC nor MAP—it is the majority over all (MOA) in the country.
An optimal solution, therefore, would be for the Oromo to take over the entire Ethiopian state and transform it into “Oropia.” Let the other nations exercise their right to self-determination—whether within the OFC’s model or in the OLF’s framework.
For the Oromo, our MOA politics should focus on realizing Oropia—an Oromummà-led Ethiopia—where Afàn Oromô becomes the primary working language of the union, and the country itself is renamed from Ethiopia to Oropia. The Oromo strategy should be to dismantle the empire-state, build a union-state, and offer other nations their own states if they so choose. Secession is not and cannot be the Oromo agenda.
The Oromo are unique in the world: a majority nation spread throughout the country, whose political center—Finfinné (Addis Ababa)—is also its own capital, yet one that remains politically marginalized. None of the five political approaches taken by Oromo nationalists so far have been optimal for this unique condition:
- Dr. Nagaso Gidada working with the hegemonists
- Ob. Andargachew Tsige aligning with unitarists
- Gen. Kamal Galchu advocating for an independent Oromia
- Ob. Dawud Ibsa demanding a referendum on “Independent Oromia vs Union Ethiopia”
- Ob. Lencho Leta choosing union Ethiopia
These are not the best solutions for the Oromo. As the national majority, the Oromo must aim to take over state power—at the Tullü Dàlatti Palace in Finfinné—and dismantle the empire system. The objective should be to build a union-state called Oropia and allow other nations the right to self-determination, including full independence if they wish—such as for the Amhara or Tigray region.
When comparing the Oromo’s unique colonial condition with others globally, we see five types of colonized or dominated nations. All pursued liberation and self-determination, but none share the exact experience of the Oromo. These five categories are:
- Nations colonized by overseas powers, such as European colonizers in Africa. Their solution was external self-determination through full independence. Some Oromo nationalists compare the Oromo to this and demand independence without a referendum—e.g., the Front for Independent Oromia (FIO) led by Gen. Kamal Galchu. But is Oromia truly colonized by an overseas power?
- Minority nations at the periphery, dominated by a central state—e.g., Eritrea, South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor, and Ogaden. These groups pursued referendums for independence vs union. The OLF under Ob. Dawud Ibsa follows this model. But is Oromia merely at the periphery, such that its self-determination would fracture the rest of Ethiopia without their consent?
- Minority nations at the center under domination—e.g., Gurage, Harari, Hadiya, Kambata. For these, the best solution is internal self-determination through self-rule within a union, without a referendum. The OFC of Dr. Merera Gudina supports this path. But are the Oromo such a minority?
- Major nations with dominant cultures oppressed by their own authoritarian leaders. These nations fight primarily for democracy and justice for all, not for national self-determination. The AG7 movement of Ob. Andargachew Tsige fits here, influenced by Amhara elites. But does this benefit the Oromo, whose culture and language have been historically marginalized?
- Minority nations that dominate the political center, masked as multi-nationalists while enforcing centralized rule—e.g., the TPLF regime. The OPDO under Dr. Nagaso Gidada collaborated with this system, serving only the interests of the hegemonist Tigrayan elite.
The Oromo are unique: a major nation at the center, yet politically dominated by smaller neighboring nations. There is no other large nation globally whose own capital is the center of power, yet is itself politically marginalized. This unique reality calls for a unique solution.
The five approaches above are suboptimal. The optimal solution for the Oromo is to liberate the center—Tullü Dàlatti in Finfinné—and take control of the state machinery, transforming the empire into a genuine union. This may include changing the country’s flag, official language, and even the name from Ethiopia to Oropia.
In this way, the Oromo will become givers of self-determination rights—not receivers—to other nations, whether they be the Amhara of Bahirdar or the Tigrayans of Mekele.
Galatooma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/mac-polit ... f-the-olf/