Let’s Be Transformed Like Dr. Nagàso Gidàdà – From Oromianist Through Unionist to Oropianist!
By Fayyis Oromia*
I read some years ago about Dr. Nagàso Gidàdà, the former president of Ethiopia, joining the opposition party UDJ with a feeling of ambivalence. Was his move constructive or destructive to the national liberation movement of his own nation—the Oromo? Was his political development a backward or forward step, or just a horizontal shift within the spectrum—from the vision of an independent Oromia (as he held in OLF), through federal union (as he pursued in OPDO), towards an integrative Oropia (Oromummaa-led Ethiopia), his position in UDJ?
To answer these questions, we must examine the tension between the interests of the Oromo nation—to which he belongs—and the interests of Ethiopia, a country made up of many nations, where two Abyssinian nations have alternated dominance over the past 150 years. In short, we need to understand the complementarity and contradiction between the Oropian democratic movement and the Oromian liberation movement.
Years ago, as a student, I was sitting on a bus with a friend, admiring a beautiful city we were touring. We suddenly saw one of our elderly teachers walking. He had light skin, a bald head extending to the back, and a full beard. My funny friend looked at him and asked if the teacher was walking forward or backward—because his bald head and full beard made it hard to distinguish the front from the back! We laughed so much that it became an inside joke among our group.
When I later read about Nagàso’s decision to join the “multi-national” UDJ instead of the national OFC, I remembered that joke—and laughed. Was this a backward or forward political move?
Looking at his career: first, he was an OLF activist, advocating for Oromia’s liberation from Abyssinian colonialism. Then he joined OPDO, supporting ethnic federalism in Ethiopia (a federal union). After leaving OPDO, I heard him advocating for the Oromo’s right to self-determination via referendum. But eventually, he joined a party that rejected this right and even proposed dismantling Oromia under the guise of promoting geographic federalism (Oropia) over ethnic federalism, which remains popular among the Oromo. Was this a forward or backward move for an Oromo intellectual who wrote his dissertation on Oromo history and has fought for Oromo rights for over 40 years?
There’s no doubt that the Oromo liberation movement is gaining momentum, slowly but surely. This has worried many stakeholders in the region—firstly, Habesha elites; secondly, their Western allies who have historically supported the suppression of the Oromo; and thirdly, some elites of smaller nations within the empire who mistakenly fear future Oromo domination.
These anti-freedom forces are doing everything they can to hinder the Oromo liberation movement. One modern tactic is promoting the illusion of Ethiopian democratization.
Opponents of Oromo liberation know well that genuine democratization of Oropia would accelerate Oromo freedom. That’s why they offer only lip service to democracy, while actively blocking it. Conservative Amhara elites—those who hold to the old Nefxenya (gun-rule) mindset—have shown alliance with the 21st-century Nefxenya of the TPLF through the Zenawi-Shawel handshake. These modern Nefxenyas rebrand themselves but pursue the same imperial goals.
I wasn’t surprised by the handshake between Siye Abraha and Gizachew Shiferraw. But the handshake between Nagàso Gidàdà and Gizachew made me both sad and amused. It triggered mixed emotions. Clearly, all such handshakes are about saving the empire!
The conservatives try to preserve it with old methods—citing ancient histories like those of Debterà Bahirey and Aleqa Taye and calling for the dismantling of Oromia. The “modern” Nefxenyas, however, use different narratives to undermine Oromo self-determination:
“All Ethiopians are Oromo” – implying Oromo liberation is unnecessary.
“Oromo as majority can rule Ethiopia through democracy” – attempting to co-opt Oromo individuals into a centralized system.
“Ethiopia is already Oromia” – a confusing twist on history, like Siye Abraha’s claim.
“Oromo people need food, not freedom” – used by TPLF and OPDO to pacify demands.
“OLF betrayed Oromia’s independence” – a divisive tactic by TPLF cadres posing as pro-independence radicals.
So far, no Amhara party has moved to the middle ground to accept and support ethnic federalism as a compromise between Amhara unitarists and Oromo independence advocates. I personally don’t believe in the existence of true “multi-national” parties in Ethiopia. The label is often used as a smokescreen.
For instance, Amhara-dominated parties promote themselves as inclusive, yet label others as “narrow nationalist.” They point to leaders from various ethnicities—like Birtukan Mideksa (Oromo in blood, Amhara in mind), Hailu Araya (Tigrayan in blood, Amhara in mind), Berhanu Nega (Gurage in blood), and Muluneh Iyuel (Hadiya in blood)—as proof of inclusivity. But these figures merely embody an Amhara political mindset.
Language is a telling sign: these parties push only for Amharic, even while seeking Oromo support. Conservative parties like Semayawi and EPRP speak of “the Ethiopian people,” not “peoples”—refusing to acknowledge the country’s multinational reality.
Interestingly, even Oromo intellectuals like Merera Gudina and Nagàso Gidàdà once spoke about “Ethiopian peoples.” But after media pushback, they shifted to “Ethiopian people”—a term preferred by Habesha elites who resist multinational discourse. I believe both expressions are valid, depending on context.
As for the Oromo nationalist journey, I think there is consensus now: First, we defend the current status quo (limited cultural autonomy); then we advance toward genuine Oromia autonomy, as advocated by OFC; and finally, we pursue self-determination via referendum—leading to one of two outcomes: either a free Oromia within a regional union, or a free Oromia without such a union.
Also, let’s understand this: Abyssinian and Oromian elites preach democracy for two very different ends:
- For Abyssinian elites, democratization is a tool to dismantle Oromia through geography-based federalism—ultimately leading to a unitary, Amharic-speaking state. Is this what Dr. Nagàso chose?
- For Oromian elites, democratization is a path to liberation. We want to transform fake ethnic federalism into genuine federalism, as a precursor to full self-determination.
Habesha elites preach democracy, but fear its implementation. Oromo elites, by contrast, welcome genuine democracy, as it brings us closer to liberation. We’re not afraid of unions based on free will; such unions may even see the Oromo leading the region.
Among Oromo individuals, there are differences about the outcome of self-determination, but democratization is a necessary step, not the end goal. Those who oppose democratization are missing the point.
Now, returning to Nagàso’s handshake with Gizachew and Siye—what is its impact on our movement? Just as the Meles-Hailu handshake excited TPLF, the Nagàso-Gizachew handshake gave joy to pro-unitary Amhara elites. Why? Because they saw it as a victory for their unitary vision over the Oromo struggle for freedom.
Dr. Nagàso compared the Oromo movement to a chick in an egg-shell, unaware that he had moved from one egg-shell (Oromo liberation) into another (Amhara domination). Why? He admitted it was due to the “love and popularity” he received from Habesha elites—a familiar tactic: praise Oromo elites when they align with domination, and vilify them when they resist.
Still, I hope the Oromo members in AG7 will one day wake up. Unless Habesha elites are willing to recognize the Oromo right to self-determination—including Oromia’s autonomy—no manipulation will stop the Oromo from continuing the struggle.
If UDJ had truly committed to democratization, then geo-federation might be seen as a de facto integrative Oropia—one legitimate result of self-determination. In that case, Dr. Nagàso’s move would not be backward, but a lateral shift from OLF’s independent Oromia, through OPDO’s federal union, to UDJ’s integrative Oropia.
Maybe he is the only prominent Oromo to evolve from the first-generation OLF (which advocated only for independence), to the second generation (which allowed both independence and union), and finally to a third generation (which accepts three possible sovereign futures: independent Oromia, federal union Oromia, or integrative Oropia).
What all stakeholders must remember is that the Oromo people cannot be fooled. Our goal is simple: self-determination, which may lead us to any of these three sovereign options.
May Wàqà guide us all.
Galatòma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/05/0 ... ropianist/