Mereja.Forum

[OPFist]

Oropia is a Goal of High Confidence, Federalism is an Aim of Intermediate Confidence, and Oromia is a Vision of Low Confidence!

By Fayyis Oromia*

There is no doubt that all Oromo nationals agree on one common goal: bilisummaa (freedom). Where differences may arise is in the type of walabummaa (sovereignty) we envision after achieving freedom from subjugation under Habesha elites. We currently entertain three possible types of sovereignty:
- An independent republic of Oromia,
- A genuine ethnic federal union led by Oromia,
- An integrative Oropia (an Ethiopia led by Oromummaa).
The first goal was our plan at the early stage of our struggle, when our confidence was low. The second aim reflects our current thinking during this transitional period, representing an intermediate level of confidence. The third vision is one we may adopt in the future, once we develop the high confidence needed to lead the entire country. In that scenario, the whole of Ethiopia would effectively become a larger Oromia, renamed Oropia.

It is clear that Oromo society continues to consider all three options for sovereignty: independent Oromia, a federal union, and an integrative Oropia. Importantly, there has always been agreement on the common vision: freedom from an oppressive system.

The triangular post-freedom visions can be summarized as:
– Materializing Oromia within Oropia, as is currently happening (i.e., a federal union),
– Implementing Oromia as an independent neighbor to Abyssinia (i.e., independence),
– Realizing Oropia as a future transformation of the federal union (i.e., an integrative Oropia).

Historically, there was a time when Oromo freedom fighters aimed to liberate the Oromo people from any form of subjugation within the Abyssinian empire without defining a separate Oromia. We can cite examples like the Ràyyà Oromo revolt, Bàlé resistance, the Maccà Tülama Association, the Oromo struggle led by ME’ISON and IC’AT, and the formation of ENLF, a precursor to the OLF.

Later, some Oromo nationals began to recognize and embrace the existence of a distinct Oromo national area within the empire—a region forged by both the Habeshanized Tülama (Emperor Menelik) and the non-Habeshanized Tülama (General Gôbanà)—yet still without seeking separation from the empire built largely by Oromo blood and sacrifice.

Eventually, the vision expanded to include the liberation of this region in the form of an independent Gadaa Republic of Oromia. Today, the idea has further evolved, and some even envision the entire Ethiopia as Oropia.

These three visions—Oromia inside Oropia, Oromia as an independent neighbor, and Oropia without a separate Oromia—are all actively discussed within Oromo society. All these movements share one common denominator: the quest for unconditional freedom from political domination, economic exploitation, and cultural suppression.

Currently, no single organization exists to represent and coordinate all three factions of the Oromo national liberation movement. However, these groups, despite differences, are part of a shared effort to dismantle the oppressive Abyssinianist system.

The movement, thus, can be seen as consisting of two wings and a middle body:
- One wing aims to transform Ethiopia entirely, renaming it Oropia and making Afan Oromo a federal working language—though it downplays Oromia’s right to self-rule.
- The middle body pushes for an independent Oromia, envisioned as a strong nation-state in the Horn of Africa.
- The other wing seeks to liberate Oromia within Oropia and to position Oromia as a leading force in the federation.
Despite their different visions, all these parts are striving in unison against the same adversary: the dictatorial Abyssinianist elites.

These differing approaches stem from three distinct understandings of Oromo-Abyssinian history:
- As a shared proud history (e.g., the Battle of Adwa),
- As a conflicting parallel history (e.g., Menelik’s invasion and the so-called Oromo expansion),
- As a combination of both shared and conflicting elements.

Depending on how one views this history, three political pathways emerge:
- Those who accept both shared and conflicting aspects support liberation à la English-style—as the English did when forming the United Kingdom after centuries under the Roman Empire. Oromia, free and autonomous, could unite with neighbors to form Oropia, with Afan Oromo as the working language.
- Those who see only conflict and domination support a Russian-style liberation—akin to Russia’s post-Soviet model of establishing an independent, influential nation.
- Those who focus on shared pride prefer an Indian-style model—unifying all peoples under a federal structure named Oropia, with Afan Oromo as a national language and Oromia’s regions serving as federal units.
Oromo nationals are entitled to choose the vision that best serves our people. Ultimately, the voice of the Oromo majority will be decisive.

At this transitional stage, Oromia’s self-rule and/or Oropian shared-rule should be our central agenda—especially when contrasted with the federalism-or-separation dilemma of Tigrayan elites. Notably, the three main Abyssinianist elites (Amhara, Tigray, and Eritrea) each stick to only one strategy:

Amhara elites prefer the Indian-style due to their linguistic privilege.
Eritrean elites, due to insecurity, chose Russian-style secession.
Tigrayan elites lean toward the English-style, lacking both linguistic advantage and self-sufficiency.
However, the Oromo—being the majority—can play all three cards, as long as the guiding principles are freedom and democracy.

Three Sovereignty Interpretations of One Goal (Freedom):
- Internal self-determination = Oromia’s self-rule within a shared Oropia,
- External self-determination = Oromia’s independence outside of Oropia,
- Referendum-based choice = A democratic decision on internal vs. external self-determination.

Three Strategic Factions within the OLF Mindset:
- OLF proper supports freedom and self-determination, keeping all options open.
- ONP (Oromian National Party) prioritizes external self-determination and independence.
- ODF favors internal self-determination, aligning with pro-unity and democratic forces.

Regardless of rhetorical differences, almost all Oromo nationalists—whether in ruling parties, opposition, or rebel groups—are united by the goal of self-determination. This is the spiritual essence of the OLF, even when expressed in different strategies:

- ebel wings openly fight for self-determination,
- Opposition parties covertly pursue it while operating in the Oropian framework,
- Ruling-party Oromo figures claim “liberation has been achieved,” yet often work quietly toward the same aim.

Conclusion:

The struggle continues until the Oromo people become the sole determiners of their destiny—whether within or outside Oropia. The idea of national self-determination remains non-negotiable. Unity not based on the people’s free will is temporary and destined to fail. The only viable, long-lasting alliance against domination is one founded on mutual recognition of self-determination.

Let us motivate ourselves to act according to our respective positions while remaining united by the core objective: Oromo national self-determination. Whatever our chosen path—independence, federalism, or integration—our ultimate goal is one.

Let us rally around unifying symbols, such as the combined Abbaa Gadaa and OLF flags, and move forward in solidarity. May Waaqa guide us, and may the Oromo people realize freedom in whatever form—be it an inclusive union, an independent state, or an integrative transformation.

Galatoomaa!
Read more:https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/2 ... ly-oropia/

[sesame]

There is no cohesive Oromo nation! When Ethiopia spliters, everyone will lose, but Oromos will be among the biggest losers! They will be splintered as well. If sharing a language was all that was required to be a nation, Somalis would have been among the most cohesive! Ethiopians had ample opportunities to build a united nation but squandered them for ill-defined ethnic sub-national sentiments! God have mercy!