Sovereignty: Abesha’s Dictatorial Style vs. Oromo’s Democratic Way
Fayyis Oromia*
Abesha’s style of sovereignty is inherently dictatorial—be it Amhara’s dictatorial centralism, Tigray’s imperial federalism, or Eritrea’s separatist authoritarianism. In contrast, the Oromo approach embraces democracy, allowing the people to choose freely among centralism, federalism, or separatism. Within Oromo nationalist circles, it is understood that these three forms of sovereignty—represented by Amhara (assimilationist), Tigrayan (imperial), and Eritrean (exclusionary) models—are not inherently bad if selected through a democratic process. Yet, the most preferred vision remains the Oromo-led rainbow union, rooted in Oromummaa.
In Oromo terms, the Amhara model could be seen as a democratic assimilation, where Afaan Oromo would be freely developed and used at the federal level. This would encourage neighboring linguistic groups to integrate into the Oromo cultural and linguistic framework, ultimately leading to the idea that Ethiopia = Oropia—an Oromummaa-led state. This approach must be distinguished from the dictatorial assimilation enforced in the past. Meanwhile, Tigrayan imperialism—Oromo ruling other nations while enjoying state autonomy—differs significantly from the democratic autonomy for all nations envisioned in the Oromo model. Eritrea’s exclusive nationalism parallels the idea of an independent Oromo state—a path Oromo may take only if others refuse to join the rainbow union.
A Strategic Shift: From Separation to Optimal Sovereignty
Today, Oromo organizations and people are exploring a more nuanced strategy. Rather than being fixated solely on independence, there’s a growing understanding that sovereignty can come in various democratic forms. Hence, the constant labeling of the OLF as a “secessionist” organization by Habesha cadres lacks validity. In reality, the Gadaa tradition of democracy and freedom drives the Oromo to prefer a negotiated and inclusive sovereignty.
We want to give the rainbow union a chance. But if this ideal is sabotaged by the authoritarianism of Abyssinian elites, the Oromo people will be forced to consider separation. At present, Oromo liberation forces are even willing to explore the unity long sought by “pro-unity” groups, provided it is based on fairness.
Language, Identity, and Historical Amnesia
Any genuine unity must begin by correcting the linguistic imbalance. The federal language must include Afaan Oromo, not just Amharic. Some Oromo nationalists are optimistic that pro-unity forces might accept this fair solution. Historically, Amharic (Lisane Negus) was actually shaped by Oromo nobility around 1270, as a language distinct from the common Oromo tongue. Thus, Amharic and Oromiffa should both be considered forms of Afaan Oromo—though with different historical roles. Oromiffa remains the language of resistance and liberation, while Amharic is still associated with imperial domination.
The Three Generations of OLF: One Cause, Many Roads
The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) has evolved through three generations, each expanding the vision of sovereignty:
- First-generation OLF: Pursues independence as a final goal.
- Second-generation OLF: Considers independence or autonomy within a union.
- Third-generation OLF: Entertains all three possibilities—independence, autonomy, and an integrative geo-federation (Oropia).
All three generations share the core value: freedom for the Oromo people. The timing and context determine which model to emphasize. As long as Oromo people are oppressed, the independence option remains non-negotiable. However, overemphasizing it could unintentionally strengthen the ruling Biltsigina regime by dividing democratic forces. Thus, strategically, the union option should be emphasized for now, while keeping independence as a fallback.
Historical Mistakes and Political Realities
A significant historical failure of both Amhara and Oromo elites has been their inability to form a strategic alliance, allowing TPLF to dominate by playing them against each other. While Amhara elites continue to act as if they hold political power in Finfinne, Oromo elites often underestimate their own influence. This false perception of weakness has held back Oromo agency. Recent changes in the OLF signal a growing confidence and pragmatism in the Oromo movement.
Three Strategic Cards for Oromo Nationalists
Unlike the Amhara (limited to integration) and Tigrayans (oscillating between imperialism and independence), Oromo nationalists hold three political cards:
- Independent Oromia
- Autonomous Oromia within a Union
- Integrative Oropia (a reformed, democratic Ethiopia)
This versatility is a major advantage. As long as Oromo unity is preserved and rooted in democratic values, any of the three models could serve the people’s interests.
Final Thoughts
While independence remains a valid path, Oromo people are not a periphery group like Eritrea or South Sudan. With their demographic majority and geographic centrality, Oromo have the capacity to transform the center, not just separate from it. An integrative Oropia—democratic, pluralistic, and Oromummaa-led—is a powerful vision. Oromia’s sovereignty could be realized through:
- Independent Oromia within the African Union
- Autonomous Oromia within a Oropian Union
-
Integrative Oropia as a transformation of Abyssinian-Ethiopia into a Cushitic democracy
What must remain unconditional is freedom and dignity for the Oromo people. The form that freedom takes—whether as independence, autonomy, or integration—should be left to a future democratic referendum.
Galatôma!
REad more:https://orompia.wordpress.com/2017/06/1 ... mos-way-2/