By Fayyis Oromia*
Dr. Marara was once a member of Meison, led by Dr. Haile Fida, who envisioned an integrative “Oropia” (an Oromummaa-led Ethiopia). Dr. Haile’s vision focused on promoting Afaan Oromo as the primary working language of the Ethiopian state—transforming the country into a de facto “Oropia” as opposed to other Oromo nationalists who pushed either for an independent Oromia or for ethnic federation.
I remember a time when Dr. Marara did not support either independence or ethnic federalism. Rather, he advocated for the democratization of Ethiopia. In one interview, he stated:
“The Oromo need not die for ethnic federation, because democratizing Ethiopia is in the best interest of this largest nation in the country.”
However, over time, Dr. Marara shifted toward supporting ethnic federalism—likely due to intense pressure from Oromo nationalists, who strongly opposed any steps toward dismantling Oromia. Yet, in reality, he was right from the beginning: ethnic federation serves the political interests of the approximately 10% Amhara population more than it benefits the over 40% Oromo majority.
The Oromo struggle should aim to transform Ethiopia into Oropia—our “gross salary”—instead of focusing only on securing Oromia—our “net salary.” There is no need to die for either ethnic federation or independence. Rather, the Oromo could be in a position to grant autonomy or independence to smaller national groups, should they choose that path.
For instance, the Amhara of Bahir Dar might claim autonomy or even independence from the Oromo of Finfinne, not the other way around. But under Dr. Abiy’s administration, is it even possible for the Oromo to take on the role of givers of sovereignty, rather than remaining demanders of it?
Is Dr. Abiy’s Administration Truly Oromo-Led?
Some Oromo nationalists, such as Dr. Lenco Lata, claim that Dr. Abiy’s regime represents Oromo rule. But is that really true? Personally, I don’t think so. In my view, Oromo leadership can only be said to exist when Oromummaa takes its rightful place in leading a diverse Ethiopia—a “rainbow Ethiopawinet” composed of different cultures and nations. This would mean at least 40% Oromummaa, 20% Agawnet, 10% Amharanet, 6% Somalummaa, 5% Tegarunet, 4% Sidamummaa, and 11% representing other groups.
As long as Amharic remains the sole and primary language of the federation, the historical dominance of Amharanet will continue. For Oromummaa to lead, Afaan Oromo must become the primary language of the federal system—used in parliament, the executive, judiciary, military, and security institutions. Agawigna should take secondary position, followed by Amharigna in third. Unfortunately, current realities show that the Prosperity Party is committed to maintaining Amharanet’s dominance.
From Temporary Alliance to Tension: The Oromara Breakdown
After the fall of the TPLF, two major forces—the Amhara and Oromo elites—remain in open rivalry. Political conspiracies, accusations, and hostilities now dominate the landscape. This was inevitable. The Oromara alliance could only survive until their common enemy, the TPLF, was defeated and buried. Now, Amhara elites seem determined to eliminate all Oromo influence from the political center.
The only two Oromo figures previously close to the palace—Addis Demitu Hambissa and Obbo Lenco Bati—have already been pushed out under the guise of diplomatic appointments. The remaining Oromo in the palace, Dr. Abiy, has no clear stance in the struggle between Amharanet domination and Oromummaa leadership.
Unless Oromo forces unite to defend the current limited power they hold in the federal structure, the Oromo nation may soon face a renewed liberation struggle—this time against neo-Naftagna forces, who appear to be using Dr. Abiy as a puppet, much like Mengistu was used in the past. Both leaders may be Oromo by birth, but they appear to carry a mentality shaped by Amharanet.
From Hope to Disillusionment: Abiy as Oromo’s Obama or Quisling?
Just two years ago, many believed the Oromo were finally free, with the son of Abba Gadaa—Dr. Abiy—in control of the federal palace in Finfinne. Many Oromo nationalists supported him. Even other Ethiopian nationalities welcomed him as a liberator—possibly Ethiopia’s own Obama—destined to transform the country into a democratic Oropia.
Sadly, Abiy now appears more like Oromo’s Quisling than its Obama—a collaborator or traitor. The term “Quisling” refers to Vidkun Quisling, a Norwegian politician who cooperated with Nazi Germany during its occupation of Norway in World War II. Today, one could ask: Has Abiy done something similar by collaborating with neo-Naftagna elites to sabotage the Oromo struggle for freedom and justice?
Who Will Lead? The Oromo’s Search for Transformational Leadership
As the next election approaches, many of us are asking:
Which Oromo leader will rise to the occasion and take responsibility for democratizing and developing Oropia?
- Dr. Abiy of the OPP?
- Obbo Daud of the OLF?
- Dr. Marara of the OFC?
I believe all of them are capable of accepting and leading a united Ethiopia. However, the leadership of the OLF needs a fundamental paradigm shift. Their goal must go beyond simply liberating Oromia—they must be ready to lead an inclusive, democratic Oropia. Whoever assumes this historic responsibility must ensure that political power remains in Oromo hands, especially in the heart of the federation: Caffee Araaraa (the national parliament).
We cannot afford to lose the current opportunity. This power center is essential for the Oromo to reclaim ownership over Finfinne—not just symbolically, but politically and economically. We need this influence at all five levels of sovereignty:
- Oromia proper
- Oropia (an Oromummaa-led Ethiopia)
- Orohorn (an Oromummaa-led Horn of Africa)
- Orofrica (an Oromummaa-inspired continental vision)
- and the symbolic Oromummaa as a cultural-spiritual identity.
Initially, I believed that Dr. Abiy and his philosophy of Medemer might lead us in this direction.
Democratization or Decolonization First?
A few years ago, a compelling discussion emerged online—particularly from Addis Neger—around whether the Oromo struggle should prioritize the democratization of Ethiopia or the decolonization of Oromia. The writer of the article envisioned a figure akin to an Oromo Obama or Mandela, someone who could bring long-term solutions to the region’s deep-rooted problems.
What an admirable wish! The piece was written just days before the 2010 Ethiopian election and expressed optimism about the country’s democratic future.
But now, we must ask:
- Is Dr. Abiy the long-awaited Oromo Obama? Or is he, disappointingly, Oromo’s Quisling?
- Can Obbo Daud, Dr. Marara, or even General Marro rise to this challenge?
The Iron Fist of Biltsiginna
Let’s leave the long history of Ethiopian oppression to historians and focus on what’s happening today under Biltsiginna’s rule. There’s no question that this regime governs all nations within the empire with an iron fist. It’s a tragedy for the youth who gave their lives for freedom and democracy—fighting against previous dictatorships like the Woyane (TPLF) and the Derg. None of them could have imagined that the third revolution would evolve into an even more brutal and centralized dictatorship than the ones they overthrew.
Biltsiginna has transformed from a liberation front into a fascist regime, functioning as a tool for a single, highly manipulative authoritarian leader. There is no real OPP or Oromo-led administration anymore. Instead, there is one dictator, comparable to Hitler or Stalin, ruling over Ethiopia through force and deceit. He has surrounded himself with submissive individuals—hand-picked from each nation—who serve merely as token representatives. He has gathered Oromo, Agaw, Amhara, Somali, Tigray, Afar, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gambella, Harari, and Southern nationalities, not to empower them, but to use them.
The 2010 Election and the Myth of Democracy Under Occupation
The 2010 election in Ethiopia was a perfect example of how the TPLF regime wielded both force and manipulation to maintain its grip on power. Citizens and entire nations were either intimidated through fear or deceived through fraud. In the end, the regime claimed to have won nearly 100% of federal and regional parliamentary seats—a result reminiscent of elections under Stalin, Saddam Hussein, or Mengistu Hailemariam.
But why was such an outcome even possible?
Because in a multi-national empire like Ethiopia, elections are more than contests between political parties—they are contests between entire nations for dominance or liberation. Specifically, the Abyssinian ruling elite—Amhara and Tigrayan—have always competed for supremacy over the historically oppressed Oromo and other nationalities.
The relationship between the Abyssinian ruling class and the Oromo was that of colonizers and the colonized, while the rivalry between the Amhara and Tigrayans was more like a competition between two colonizers—similar to Britain and France during the colonial scramble for Africa.
The European Empire Analogy: Understanding Ethiopia’s Internal Colonialism
To better grasp this structure, imagine the following scenario:
- What if Denmark, a small European nation, somehow occupied Germany, France, and the rest of Western Europe?
- What if they made Paris the capital city, designated the German language as the official federal language, and formed a “Federal Democratic Republic of Europe” where only Danes held key positions in government, the military, and the economy?
Absurd, right?
Yet this is essentially what the Tigrayan-led TPLF regime did in Ethiopia. They came to Oromia (our France), made Finfinne (our Paris) their capital, imposed Amharic (our German) as the working language, and called the whole system a federation—ruled almost entirely by elites from a small minority (Tigray).
Now imagine those same Danish rulers holding an election and asking Germans, French, and Italians to vote for them. Would anyone expect a fair election? Would anyone believe that democracy could flourish in such a clearly unjust empire?
Decolonization Before Democratization: The European Example
This is why the democratization of Ethiopia under TPLF rule was a fantasy. The empire was, and still is, a collection of nations held together by force. As with South Africa under apartheid, meaningful democracy could only come after the dismantling of the oppressive system—not before.
The comparison to apartheid South Africa helps, but Ethiopia’s case is even more complex. In South Africa, the white rulers were foreign colonizers. In Ethiopia, the system is one of internal colonialism, where a few ethnonational elites dominate others.
True democracy was only possible after liberation, just as it happened in Europe following the breakup of oppressive systems like Yugoslavia. The West supported the disintegration of Yugoslavia into smaller nation-states—even the tiny Kosovo—because they recognized that freedom must precede democracy. Today, those free states have joined the European Union voluntarily, as equals.
If this logic worked for Europe, why should Africa be forced to follow a different, failed path? Why must Africans remain trapped inside borders they never chose, ruled by elites who do not represent them, while being blamed by Western regimes for not being “democratic enough”?
Colonial Legacies and the Artificial Borders of Africa
One of the enduring tragedies of colonialism in the Horn of Africa—and across the continent—is the imposition of artificial borders that either split one nation across several countries or forced multiple distinct nations into a single state.
Take the Somali nation, for example:
It was fragmented into five pieces, now spread across Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, British Somaliland, and Italian Somalia. This division was not organic—it was imposed from outside and against the will of the Somali people.
On the flip side, nations like the Oromo, Amhara, Tigray, Afar, Sidama, and others were clumped together in one artificial entity called Ethiopia, held together by Abyssinian ruling elites—and often underwritten by Western interests.
Today, almost all African countries suffer under the legacy of this colonial mapmaking. Yet ironically, those same Western powers—the ones who drew the borders—now blame African nations for lacking democracy, while ignoring the foundational problem:
You can’t build democracy on a foundation of domination and illegitimacy.
Why Genuine Democracy Requires Nation-State Foundations
For Africa to truly democratize, it must first dismantle these colonial boundaries. True nation-states, based on the free will of their people, must be established. Only such relatively [deleted] states can have meaningful elections and functioning multiparty systems free from the toxic politics of ethnic domination.
In multinational empires like Ethiopia—where diverse nations were forced together by conquest—elections are not just about ideas or parties. They are about nations competing for survival, dominance, or liberation. In such a system, democracy is reduced to a zero-sum game of national survival, not a fair contest of policy or governance.
Some argue against breaking up multinational states, citing the viability of smaller nations. But that’s precisely why federal arrangements, like a genuine and authentic ethnic federalism, are necessary—not the fake version practiced under TPLF or PP rule. In such systems, each nationality could enjoy real autonomy at the level appropriate to its size:
- Independent states
- Autonomous regions or zones
- Self-governing districts or counties
- This would be based on free consent, not military power or historical coercion.
Ethiopia: Empire or Union? The Need to Decolonize First
Returning to Ethiopia’s case:
Expecting democratization before decolonization was always unrealistic. You cannot hold fair elections inside a structure built to dominate certain nations. The TPLF regime ruled as an oligarchy, benefiting a small minority—often at the expense of the vast Oromo majority and other oppressed nations.
So, did the so-called takeover by the OPP under Dr. Abiy change this reality? Is Oromia free from colonial domination just because someone of Oromo origin sits in the palace in Finfinne? No.
True democratization means the end of Abyssinian domination, which also means the loss of power and economic advantage long enjoyed by Abyssinian elites. Expecting those elites to give up power peacefully was always naive.
The real question is:
Did Dr. Abiy actually succeed in transferring power away from TPLF oligarchs?
And more importantly:
Will any future elections in Ethiopia truly be free and fair, or are they just new masks on an old face of domination?
Why Past Elections Were Not Enough: The Real Struggle Was in the Streets
In past elections, especially under the TPLF regime, participation was often justified as a way to expose authoritarianism, not necessarily to win power. For example, Medrek’s participation in the 2010 election was meant to shed light on the anti-democratic nature of the system.
But we had already done that in 1992 (by OLF), in 2005 (by CUD), and again in 2010 (by Medrek). Was there really a need to “expose” the TPLF again and again when the truth was already crystal clear?
Instead of preparing for massive public uprisings in response to predictable vote rigging, the legal opposition was often silent, disorganized, or too cautious. This raised serious questions:
What was the purpose of contesting elections in a rigged system?
Wouldn’t boycotting or preparing for popular resistance have been more effective?
The True Resistance Came from the Ground: #OromoProtests and Youth Uprising
Ironically, the Oromo youth, not the official opposition, were the ones who changed the course of history. The #OromoProtests, beginning in 2014, ignited the most powerful grassroots movement Ethiopia had seen in decades.
The youth didn’t wait for an invitation from Medrek, OLF, or any other party.
They rose up—spontaneously, bravely, and repeatedly—facing bullets, arrests, and torture with unshakeable resolve. And they succeeded in shaking the very foundation of the TPLF regime.
It was not the ballot box that brought about a shift in Ethiopia—it was the barricades, the demonstrations, and the massive sacrifices of those who dared to say “enough.”
This revolution was driven not by a political party, but by a conscious Oromo public, especially the youth, who reclaimed their voice and demanded a new future.
Democratization Must Follow Decolonization—Not the Other Way Around
Those who believed that Ethiopia could democratize without first dismantling its internal system of national oppression were fundamentally mistaken.
True democratization means:
-The dismantling of Abyssinian domination
- Restoring self-rule to oppressed nations
- Building a union based on free will, not military conquest
In other words:
Decolonization must come first.Only once nations like Oromia are free to govern themselves without interference, can a genuine federation or democratic union be considered.
Unfortunately, some “democratic opposition” groups still imagined Ethiopia as a stable empire that simply needed electoral reform. But this was never the case. Ethiopia was not a democratic state gone wrong—it was a colonial empire pretending to be a country.
The road to democracy in such an empire does not begin at the ballot box. It begins with a clear, courageous effort to decolonize—and only then can genuine elections, political pluralism, and constitutional integrity follow.
Who Will Lead? Oromo Leaders at a Crossroads
As we approach future elections, Oromo communities are asking a vital question:
Who will emerge as the leader to take responsibility for democratizing and transforming Ethiopia—Oropia?
Will it be Dr. Abiy Ahmed of the OPP, who came to power with hope but now appears compromised by the very forces Oromos sought to dismantle?
Will it be Obbo Daud Ibsa of the OLF, a long-time symbol of Oromo liberation, but whose movement still seems reluctant to fully embrace leadership of a broader Ethiopia?
Or will it be Dr. Merera Gudina of the OFC, who historically promoted democratizing Ethiopia through political means rather than armed struggle?
All three of these leaders have, at various times, accepted the idea of leading Ethiopia, not just Oromia. However, the challenge is no longer just about willingness—it is about vision, courage, and a paradigm shift.
From Oromia to Oropia: A Necessary Paradigm Shift
The leaders of the OLF, in particular, must realize that liberating Oromia is not enough. While national freedom is essential, it must be linked to a broader vision—the transformation of Ethiopia into Oropia, a just and democratic union of free nations.
This calls for a paradigm shift:
- From liberation alone to nation-building
- From ethnic autonomy to multinational leadership
- From demanding rights to granting them to others
- From being the colonized to becoming a democratic liberator
If Oromos reach a position of influence and leadership—as they already partially have in the federal system—then they must not mirror the behaviors of past rulers. Instead, they must offer autonomy and independence to others, if that is what they choose.
Imagine this:
Let the Amhara of Bahir Dar ask for autonomy or independence from the Oromo of Finfinne—not the other way around. That’s what it means to lead with power and responsibility, not from a position of weakness or subjugation.
But is the current federal administration under Dr. Abiy willing or able to ensure that Oromos can play this role of givers of autonomy, not beggars for it?
Dr. Abiy: Oromo’s Obama or Oromo’s Quisling?
When Dr. Abiy Ahmed came to power in 2018, many saw him as the long-awaited “Oromo Obama”—a reformer who could unite a deeply fractured country and lead it toward democracy. Even other oppressed nations looked to him with hope.
But today, that hope feels deeply betrayed.
Dr. Abiy increasingly resembles a Quisling—a traitor collaborating with the forces Oromos fought to defeat. Like Vidkun Quisling of Norway who betrayed his people during WWII, Dr. Abiy appears to have aligned himself with neo-Naftagna elements to maintain Amharanet domination under a new cover.
Instead of replacing the old domination system, he has reinforced it—while using Oromo identity as a shield. He has removed prominent Oromo voices from government (like Addisu Demissie and Lenco Lata) under the pretext of diplomacy or restructuring, leaving only himself at the top—a man whose loyalty to Oromummà is now in serious question.
The Biltsiginna Illusion: A Dictatorship Wearing Democratic Clothes
Despite the sacrifices of the Oromo youth, what emerged after 2018 was not the full transformation many had envisioned—it was merely a rebranding of authoritarianism. The ruling party, Biltsiginna (Prosperity Party), has shown itself to be a continuation of past regimes in both structure and practice:
- Authoritarian governance masked as reform
- Token inclusion of ethnic leaders without real power
- Systematic repression of dissent—journalists, activists, opposition parties
- The centralization of decision-making around a single individual, Dr. Abiy
The result is a government that consolidates control through co-optation, fear, and division. It rules not through legitimate consensus but by instrumentalizing ethnic divisions to ensure no united front rises against it.
Dr. Abiy’s regime has become not a neutral bridge between Ethiopia’s nations, but a tool of Amharanet revival, where Oromummà is tolerated only as cultural decoration, not as political substance.
The Missed Opportunity: Why Opposition Forces Must Unite
Instead of seizing the momentum from #OromoProtests and uniting into a clear opposition coalition, many Oromo and non-Oromo parties remained fragmented. Worse, some were infiltrated or manipulated by the regime to attack one another.
Biltsiginna exploited this division skillfully:
- Pitting ultra-unitarists against ultra-secessionists
- Using fake opposition voices to confuse the public
- Amplifying ethnic blame games to distract from state violence
Yet there was—and still is—a clear middle ground available:
A union of free nations, built not on conquest or coercion, but on free will and mutual respect.
This position is not just morally right—it is politically pragmatic. It provides a shared foundation for:
- Moderate nationalists who seek autonomy without isolation
- Unionists who want a peaceful, diverse Ethiopia
- Liberation movements ready to lead, not just resist
It is this alliance of the democratic center, between Oromo forces like OFC, OLF, and pan-nationalist groups like Medrek or PAFD, that could have outmaneuvered Biltsiginna—if only they had united in time.
Decolonization Must Precede Democratization
Many still fail to grasp this essential truth:
You cannot democratize an empire until the imperial structures are dismantled.
To expect fair elections, constitutional order, or multiparty competition inside an empire of domination is like expecting a fair trial in a kangaroo court. The system itself is rigged—not just its leaders.
Ethiopia, as structured today, is more akin to:
- Yugoslavia under Serb domination, not post-apartheid South Africa
- A conglomerate of nations ruled by one, rather than a union of peoples
This is why the call for “decolonization before democratization” is not an excuse for separatism, but a prerequisite for justice.
Once decolonization is achieved—where all nations enjoy equal power, language rights, and political autonomy—then, and only then, can a genuine federal union or democratic state be built.
The Final Question: Who Will Be the Oromo’s Obama?
And so, we return to the question:
Who among Oromo leaders will rise to this moment?
- Dr. Abiy—once full of promise, now seems committed to preserving the old order under a new name
- Dr. Marara—a long-time advocate of democratizing Ethiopia, seems intellectually and morally prepared, but lacks the broad institutional power
- Obbo Daud—a liberation icon, but must evolve beyond Oromia-centric strategy toward Ethiopia-wide leadership
If none of them can step up with clarity and courage, then perhaps a new generation of Oromo leaders must emerge—rooted in Oromummà, but with a pan-Ethiopian democratic vision.
Whoever leads next must recognize that:
- The Oromo majority has the historic opportunity to lead Ethiopia’s democratization
- Democratizing Oropia is more strategic than only decolonizing Oromia
- It’s time to stop asking for autonomy—and start giving it
This leadership must:
- Prioritize language equality by making Afaan Oromo the working language of federal institutions
- Institutionalize genuine federalism or confederation
- Offer a new social contract based on voluntary union, not forced assimilation
- Be ready to lead not only Oromia, but also Ethiopia, the Horn, and Africa from a place of justice and dignity
Conclusion: Decolonize First, Then Democratize
The journey to a just Ethiopia—or Oropia—requires us to reverse the narrative:
- We don’t democratize to decolonize.
- We decolonize in order to democratize.
The legacy of oppression, linguistic supremacy, political centralism, and ethnic domination must be dismantled, not renamed. And the Oromo people, long oppressed, now stand in a unique position—not just to liberate themselves, but to offer a model for liberation and justice to others.
That is what leadership means.
And the final question still lingers:
Will Dr. Abiy continue to be Oromo’s Quisling, or will someone else emerge as the Oromo’s Obama?
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/05/2 ... ederation/