Oropia Is Our Gross Salary, Whereas Oromia Is Our Net Salary!
By Fayyis Oromia*
There is no question that Oropia (an Oromummaa-led Ethiopia) is almost twice the size of Oromia. For the Oromo to now claim ownership of Oropia is like receiving a gross salary without deductions. It seems that nearly all Oromo nationalists agree on the task of transforming Ethiopia from the historically Amharanet-dominated “Amapia” into a future “Oropia.” With Oromo ownership of Oropia, the Oromo will become givers of the right to self-determination, no longer mere recipients, as has long appeared to be the case.
Nations far from Finfinne, like the Amhara of Bahir Dar and the Tigrayans of Mekelle, may separate from Oromia if they so choose, by demanding their right to self-determination up to independence. If all nations eventually depart, what remains will be Oromia—our net salary.
The common vision of the Oromo people, from the beginning, has been bilisummaa (liberation). The three post-liberation visions of sovereignty, as imagined by different Oromo political groups, include: (1) an independent Oromia, (2) a federal union (a democratic Ethiopia with ethnic federalism), and (3) an integrative Oropia. The first vision served well for mobilizing the Oromo during the struggle for freedom, which we have largely achieved. The second is appropriate during this transitional phase toward democracy. The third, the most advantageous, will ideally serve the future.
There was a time when Oromo freedom fighters sought to liberate the Oromo people from all forms of subjugation in Ethiopia without defining a specific national area—Oromia. Movements such as the Ràyyà Oromo revolt, the Bale resistance, the formation of the Maccaa Tulama Association, and struggles led by MEISON, IC’AT, and the Ethiopian National Liberation Front (ENLF), which preceded the OLF, did not initially push for territorial separation. Gradually, however, some Oromo activists came to acknowledge the existence of an Oromo national homeland—Oromia—while still envisioning it within a united framework.
Ethiopia is said to have been built largely on the blood and bones of the Oromo people. More recently, we have begun thinking not just about the existence of Oromia but about the need to liberate it—potentially as an independent nation-state.
These three visions (1. Oropia as a unified Ethiopia without separate Oromia, 2. Oromia within a federal Oropia, and 3. an independent Oromia) continue to coexist within the Oromo community. Their common denominator is the struggle for unconditional freedom—freedom from political domination, economic exploitation, and cultural suppression.
I see the Oromo liberation movement as composed of two wings and a central body:
- One wing aims to transform all of Ethiopia, rename it Oropia, and elevate Afan Oromo to the status of federal working language—without the need for a separate Oromo kilil (state).
- The middle body seeks an independent Oromia with regional influence.
- The second wing envisions a liberated Oromia within a federated Oropia, positioning the Oromo as a leading nation in that union.
All three factions worked, often in harmony, against the common enemy: the existing system of domination. Surprisingly, however, no unified organization has yet emerged to coordinate and accommodate all three wings under one structure.
These different visions stem from the various ways in which we, the Oromo, understand our history:
- As a shared proud history with Abyssinia (e.g., the Battle of Adwa),
- As a parallel and conflicting history (e.g., Menelik’s conquest),
- As both shared and conflicting.
Each perspective leads to a different vision of Oromian sovereignty. To achieve our shared objective—freedom—we must first unite against domination and then democratically decide our preferred path.
Here are the three models again, now in global analogies:
- English-style: Like England after Roman rule, forge an autonomous Oromia and unite with neighboring autonomous states to form a democratic federal union (Oropia), with Afan Oromo as the primary working language.
- Russian-style: Like Russia after the USSR, dismantle the existing federal system and establish an independent Oromia with regional influence.
- Indian-style: Like India, liberate all nations and nationalities, rename the country Oropia, make Afan Oromo the federal working language, and subdivide Oromia into multiple federal units.
All Oromo nationals are entitled to choose the option we believe best serves our nation. What matters most is the voice of the Oromo majority. Currently, during this transitional phase, Oromia’s self-rule and/or Oropia’s shared rule should be our central agenda—unlike the Tigrayan elites’ preference for either secession or continued federation.
Interestingly, the three Abyssinianist groups (Amhara, Tigray, and Eritrea) each have only one viable path:
- Amhara elites lean toward the Indian model, aiming to maintain Amharic as the federal language.
- Eritrean elites, as a minority on the periphery, chose separation (Russian model).
- Tigrayan elites lack both the language privilege and the strength to stand alone, so they cling to the English-style federalism.
The Oromo, being the demographic majority and located at the center, can strategically play all three cards—English-, Russian-, and Indian-styles—so long as democracy and freedom guide the rules of engagement.
Thus, our movement evolved to fight for one goal—Oromo self-determination—with three interpretations:
- Internal self-determination: Oromia within Oropia (shared rule).
- External self-determination: An independent Oromia (no shared rule).
- Popular sovereignty: Oropian citizens’ right to a referendum to decide between the two.
The OLF has historically embraced all three, emphasizing different interpretations depending on the political climate. When Abyssinian elites pushed for forced unity, the OLF emphasized independence. When others recognized the Oromo’s right to self-determination, the OLF promoted democratic decision-making through referenda.
Today, the OLF has split into three factions:
- OLF: Advocates for the Oromo’s right to choose between internal and external self-determination.
- ONP: Focuses exclusively on external self-determination (independence).
- OFC: Advocates internal self-determination and seeks alliances with democratic, pro-unity Habesha forces.
Despite division, all three continue to fight for Oromo freedom. The rhetoric varies, but the objective—self-determination—remains constant. This mindset, the hallmark of Oromo nationalism, drives rebel movements, opposition parties, and even those within ruling coalitions.
I oppose any forced unity. I support a voluntary union of free peoples in Oropia, decided by referendum. Any unity without the Oromo people’s consent is doomed to fail—whether after one year, ten years, or a century. Unity based on elite predetermination will not last; only that grounded in self-determination will.
To our foes: You may delay the realization of Oromo self-determination, but you cannot stop it. The OLF may be divided, but the belief in self-determination remains deeply rooted among Oromo nationalists. As the International Crisis Group noted: “Despite its organizational flaws and divisions, many ordinary Oromos retain an almost messianic belief in the OLF as the major nationalist organization.”
Long live the OLF as a trinity—with one aim of freedom, expressed in three possible forms of sovereignty and advanced through three strategies, each with its own rhetoric.
Some Oromo nationalists rightly question the name “Ethiopia” as representing the Oromo. But we must dig deeper. The name Ethiopia is not disconnected from our history—it is deeply rooted in the Cushitic legacy. Consider Abraham Ashine (from the Oromo word “ashine,” meaning “we have begotten a child”), a warrior said to have ruled parts of Arabia. The ancient Cushitic empire encompassed not only Northeast Africa but also parts of Arabia. Even the name “Asia” may be connected to “Ashine.”
The deeper we explore, the better we understand our history—and the better prepared we are to shape our destiny. So let us, Oromo nationalists, work together, coordinate our efforts, and move forward in unity. Whether we aim for an independent Oromia, a federal union, or an integrative Oropia, our ultimate goal is the same: to consolidate the freedom of the Oromo people.
May Waaq bless the Oromo and Oromia.
As far as I’m concerned:
– The goal of an independent Oromia was appropriate in the past,
– The aim of a federal union is fitting now, and
– The vision of an integrative Oropia is most beneficial for the future.
Galatooma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/2 ... et-salary/