The Two Types of Ethiopianists: Amapianists vs. Oropianists
By Fayyis Oromia*
It is interesting to observe that almost all elite politicians in Ethiopia are slowly but surely becoming Ethiopianists. However, they differ in the type of Ethiopia they envision. There are essentially two competing visions: one is Amapia (an Ethiopia dominated by Amaranet), and the other is Oropia (a state led by Oromummaa). A third, more theoretical option is Confepia—a confederation of free nations within Ethiopia—but this model seems unlikely to bring long-term stability.
Six years ago, both Dr. Abiy Ahmed and Dr. Lemma Megersa entered the palace in Finfinne with the support of the Oromo people in particular, and Ethiopians in general. Both are staunch Ethiopianists, committed to national unity and territorial integrity. However, they differ in their vision of Ethiopia. Dr. Abiy envisions a continuation of Amapia, whereas Dr. Lemma promotes the rise of Oropia. This fundamental difference explains their opposing positions during the formation of the Amapianist Biltsigina party. Dr. Lemma opposed the process, while Dr. Abiy actively pushed for it. Today, the Biltsigina party, seen as anti-Oromummaa, continues to uphold Amarigna dominance by obstructing the legitimate elevation of Afaan Oromo as the primary working language in federal institutions such as the palace, parliament, cabinet, judiciary, military, and security forces.
Oromo elites can broadly be categorized into three groups: Amapianists, Unionists, and Oropianists. Amapianist Oromo elites, who are content with maintaining the status quo of Amaranet/ Amarigna dominance, are fading away and belong to the past. These elites, often seen as having a “slave mentality,” revere Amarigna while undermining the value of Oromiffa. They reflect the internalized bias of many Oromos who believe that speaking Amarigna signifies education, while using Afaan Oromo is considered backward. Such “slave Oromos” can be found in many families.
The difference between an Amapianist and an Amarianist is that the former uses the rhetoric of Ethiopiawinet to mask Amaranet dominance, while the latter seeks to preserve Amaranet overtly. Fortunately, Unionist Oromos—those who believe in a diverse and inclusive Ethiopian union—are gaining momentum. They may serve as a transitional force, helping to shift from the dictatorial Amapianist order to a democratic Oropianist system. Ultimately, the vision of Oromianist/Oropianist elites is poised to prevail: Ethiopia will either give way to an independent Oromia or transform into Oropia.
The Oromo liberation movement has succeeded in resisting Amapianist rulers up to Meles Zenawi. In the past six years, Unionist Oromos and others have attempted to salvage an Ethiopia dominated by Amaranet. Oromo nationalists initially gave Abiy Ahmed the benefit of the doubt, hoping he might reframe Ethiopia in Oromo terms. However, he appears to have chosen to preserve Amaranet dominance at the expense of Oromummaa. By imprisoning Jawar Mohammed and other Oromo nationalists, Abiy fell into the trap set by shrewd Amapian elites, who worked to alienate him from his Oromo support base—a strategy that partially succeeded. Abiy consequently lost a significant portion of Oromo backing and came to rely primarily on Amarian support. Whether that will be enough to sustain him through the ongoing Oromo revolution remains to be seen.
As far as I’m concerned, Abiy has squandered his opportunity to be the first Oromo leader to genuinely transform Ethiopia. Instead, he has distanced Oromos further from the idea of Ethiopia and Ethiopiawinet, which are still closely tied to Amharanet. His failure may mark the end of the old Ethiopia and the beginning of a sovereign future—either as an independent Oromia or as an inclusive Oropia. Oromo elites now have the best chance to realize either of these outcomes, based on a self-determination referendum.
For conservative Amarianists (Habeshanized Cushites), Ethiopia is the land of the Solomonized, Semitic peoples—primarily the Amhara and Tigray—with their Habesha culture. They equate Ethiopia with Abyssinia, disregarding the other 80+ nations in the country. Thankfully, this narrow view is slowly dying out. In their desperate attempts to preserve this version of Ethiopia, Amarianists resort to every possible measure against democracy and freedom—two forces that will accelerate its demise.
True Ethiopianists, on the other hand, view Ethiopia as Cush—a country with more than 8,000 years of cultural heritage. The core of this Ethiopia includes Cushitic languages like Afaan Oromo, indigenous religions like the Agaw’s Hige-Libona and the Oromo’s Wàqeffannaa, and other rich Cushitic traditions. Such an Ethiopia would also accommodate non-Cushitic cultures, languages, and religions.
For Oropianists, Ethiopia is either the womb from which a free Oromia will emerge (per the OLF’s vision), or a vessel that will be gradually transformed into Oropia (aligned with Ethiopia’s current borders). Given that democracy, freedom, and development are increasingly becoming the global norms, this transformation appears inevitable. The global political trend favors these progressive values, which empower the Oropianist vision. Thus, Ethiopia will either become synonymous with Oropia or disintegrate into smaller nation-states.
When we observe both Ethiophilic Amarianists and Ethiophobic Oromianists, it becomes clear that neither group is fully in tune with the rising Cushitic Ethiopia. Amarianists fear and reject the coming transformation, while Oromianists are hesitant to embrace it. In reality, Oromianists should celebrate and champion this emerging Ethiopia—Oropia. The political tide is turning toward Oropia, heralding the end of the assimilative, Habesha-centric Ethiopia = Amapia. Abiy has failed to recognize this shift.
Looking forward, as envisioned by Oromianist elites, the future of Oromia = formerly Ethiopia is a union guided by the FADOB principles:
F – Freedom from systems of domination
A – Afaan Oromo as the federal working language
D – Democracy as the foundational political system
O – Renaming the union from Ethiopia to Oropia
B – Adoption of the Black-Red-White Cushitic flag
This Upper Nile country, known as Oropia by its indigenous peoples, has been called various names throughout history: Abyssinia by the Portuguese, Cush by the Jews, Al-Habesh by the Arabs, Punt by the Egyptians, and Ethiopia by the Greeks. It is hoped that Oropianist leaders like Jawar Mohammed will advocate for this inclusive, forward-looking vision of a united Oropia—a more just and representative alternative to both Amapia and a fragmented Horn of Africa.
Galatôma!
Read more:https://orompia.wordpress.com/2017/03/1 ... thiopia-2/