Are the Three Main Oromo Questions Answered by the Three Post-Monarchy Dictators?
By Fayyis Oromia*
Did the Derg answer the land question? Did Woyane address the question of self-rule? Is Biltsiginà now answering the language question?
I once listened to an interview with Dr. Lencô Latà, in which he said that the Oromo question still unanswered is the democratization of the ethnic federation. However, I believe this is not a uniquely Oromo issue. It concerns all nations within Oropia (Oromummaa-led Ethiopia). Issues such as class struggle and self-administration of nations are not exclusive to the Oromo.
In my view, the only specific and unique question of the Oromo should be the promotion of Afaan Oromo to the status of the primary working language of the federation. This issue remains unresolved. It appears that Dr. Abiy and his Prosperity Party are slowly coming back to their senses. The ETV Afaan Oromo channel has already begun 24-hour broadcasting. This is a step in the right direction as far as the Oromo struggle is concerned.
The Oromo struggle has achieved a great deal over the past 50 years, through gradual changes. During the most recent uprising in 2018, we succeeded in removing alien forces from the palace in Finfinne. However, Oromo members of the Prosperity Party—those who prioritized Amarigna/Amharanet over Afaan Oromo/Oromummaa—took power and attempted to appease Amhara elites. This cost them Oromo support.
Now, Dr. Abiy appears to be trying to return to the Oromummaa camp, which has disappointed the Amharanet bloc. As I see it, the only way for Dr. Abiy and his Prosperity Party to reconcile with the Oromo is to promote Afaan Oromo to its rightful place as the primary working language of the federation. That means all federal institutions—parliament, palace, cabinet, justice system, military, and security—should primarily use Afaan Oromo, spoken by approximately 40% of the population, instead of Amarigna, spoken by only 10%.
Moreover, the composition of civil servants across all institutions should reflect this demographic reality: 40% Oromo, 20% Agaw, 10% Amhara, 6% Somali, 5% Tigrayan, 4% Sidama, 3% Gurage, 2% Afar, etc.—rather than the current imbalance, which is approximately 52% Amhara, 16% Oromo, 15% Tigrayan, and 17% other groups. If this realignment is achieved, then the Oromo people can say, to some extent, that the main goal of our liberation struggle has been met.
I believe Dr. Abiy is now persuaded to adopt a step-by-step approach to promoting Afaan Oromo as the federation’s primary working language.
Five Steps in the Oromo Political Evolution
To put it simply, there are five major phases in the political evolution of the Oromo:
1. The Era of Assimilated Elites (pre-1960s)
Up until the 1960s, Oromo elites were actively involved in building a unitary Ethiopia dominated by Amharigna and Amharanet. These elites were proud of being Amharanized and were willing to sacrifice themselves for such an Ethiopia—what we might call a unitary Amapia (Amharanet-dominated Ethiopia). Is Dr. Abiy’s Prosperity Party (EPP) trying to resurrect this type of Ethiopia? Are his policies a step backward to this era? All Oromo elites affiliated with groups like EZEMA (Yä Andinet Hayiloch) seem to operate from this first stage of political evolution. Their goal is an assimilative unitary Amapia.
2. A Controlled Federation (post-1991 – present)
The second phase is marked by efforts to create an autonomous Oromia within a federal but still authoritarian Ethiopia, where Amharigna and Amharanet continue to dominate. Is Abiy working to make this federation more genuine, or is he just preserving the status quo? Oromo elites in EPP who feel relatively comfortable under the current dominance of Amharigna and Amharanet belong to this phase. Their aim is to maintain the present authoritarian federation.
3. The Vision of an Independent Gadaa Republic
This is the ideal pursued by the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF)—an independent Oromia governed by Gadaa democracy. Most of the pro-independence Oromo elites who still struggle with low political confidence are rooted in this stage. Their vision can be summarized as: an independent republic of national states.
4. A Democratic Federation Led by Oromummaa
The fourth step envisions a democratic federal Ethiopia, but one led by Oromummaa and Afaan Oromo. This is the aspiration of Oromo federalists like Leenco Lataa, Jawar Mohammed, Mararaa Gudina, and others. These elites operate with intermediate political confidence. Their objective is: a democratic Oromiffaa-led federation.
5. An Integrative “Oropia” Vision
Finally, the fifth step advocates for an integrative and inclusive Ethiopia, reimagined as Oropia—a country where the Oromo lead and transform the entire state, rather than just administrating Oromia. This vision is promoted by thinkers like Fayyis Oromia, who argue that the Oromo should assert themselves as owners of the entire Ethiopian project, not just as participants. So far, no Oromo organization is fully pursuing this vision.
The goal here is: an integrative, united Oropia.
Where Is Abiy Heading?
It seems that Abiy’s current trajectory is either:
- A backward move toward the first phase of unitary Amapia; or
- A defensive attempt to maintain the second phase—an Amharigna-dominated federation.
Both directions stand in opposition to the forward march of Oromo federalists, who advocate for the fourth stage, where Oromummaa and Oromiffaa lead the democratic transformation of the state. It also goes against the fifth-stage vision proposed by Fayyis, which is to establish a truly integrative Oropia.
In reality, we must push forward—toward the third, fourth, or fifth steps. The OLF, as our political and ideological backbone, should lead us toward one of these goals.
I believe the time is right for the OLF to utilize the name “Ethiopia,” the green-yellow-red flag, the idea of Ethiopian unity (“Andinet”), and even institutions like the Orthodox Church and Amarigna (as a second language)—all for a strategic purpose. This is not about betrayal or compromise but about utilitarian flexibility to achieve a long-term vision of Oromo leadership in the Horn.
Oromo People’s Common Objective: Oromia or Oropia?
Let’s now reflect briefly on ideas that are not necessarily new, but deserve to be discussed again for the sake of continuity.
First, we should ask ourselves: What is the common objective of the Oromo struggle?
Undoubtedly, we all would answer that the Oromo people’s core objective is freedom from alien rule and the right to exercise self-determination over our national future. This is our shared foundation.
However, after achieving this freedom, we see two major post-liberation visions among the Oromo:
- An Independent Oromia
- An Integrative Oropia (often described as the “democratization of Ethiopia”)
To better understand these two visions, I ask readers to refer to my previous writings where I define Oromia and Oropiamore precisely.
By Oromia, I mean the territory outlined by the OLF, also referred to in earlier writings as “Oromoland.”
By Oropia, I propose a reimagined, inclusive, Oromo-led political community—a transformed Ethiopia under democratic leadership rooted in Oromummaa.
Despite my efforts to clarify these ideas in past writings, the concept of Oropia continues to face rejection from all three dominant political camps in the current empire:
- Ethiopianists reject it because they see it as an attempt to erase the “glorious” name of Ethiopia.
- Federalists are cautious, fearing suspicion that Oromummaa may be imposed on other nations.
- Oromianists worry that it’s a subtle strategy to preserve the Ethiopian empire under a new name.
Yet those who support Oropia believe the name “Ethiopia” can be instrumentalized—just as Abyssinian rulers used it to maintain control and legitimacy for decades.
They renamed Finfinne as Addis Ababa, and referred to Oromia as Ethiopia.
For over 80 years, Amhara elites used Ethiopiawinet to conceal Amharanet, while since 1991, Tigrayan elites have masked Tigrawinet using the same term.
Now the dilemma for Oromianists is this:
- Should we use the name Ethiopia as a political tool, like Abyssinians did?
- Or should we boldly rename the country as Oropia, no matter the risks?
My suggestion is: Do both.
To the international community and when engaging other nations in the empire, use “Ethiopia” as a diplomatic trademark.
But for Oromo internal discourse and national identity, use “Oropia.” This dual usage is not unprecedented—many countries have multiple names:
- Germans call their country Deutschland,
- The French call it Allemagne,
- And English speakers call it Germany.
So Oromo nationals should feel free and confident to use the name Oropia, just as we already use Finfinne despite the official name being Addis Ababa. We don’t need anyone’s permission to do so.
Re-Naming Institutions: From “Ethiopian” to “Oromian”
Once we can freely rename the country Oropia—without seeking approval, just as we did with Finfinne—we will be able to clearly distinguish:
- The assimilative Ethiopia of Amhara elites
- The apartheid-style Ethiopia of Tigrayan rulers
- From the future we are fighting for: either an independent Oromia (Oromianists’ goal), or an integrative Oropia (Oropianists’ vision),
decided freely by the Oromo and other peoples of the region.
This means we should also start renaming institutions:
- “Ethiopian Airlines” → Oromian Airlines
- “Ethiopian Coffee” → Oromian Coffee
- “Ethiopian National Team” → Oromian National Team
This isn’t about symbolic defiance; it’s about asserting the reality that these institutions are based in Finfinne, Oromia.
Let no Oromo wait for permission from Abyssinian authorities or anyone else. Naming is power—and it’s time we reclaim that.
Seven Definitions of “Ethiopia” – Why the Name Is Contested
To clarify the Babylonian confusion surrounding the name Ethiopia, we must carefully examine its multiple meanings across different historical and political contexts. This will help us understand why many Oromo nationalists reject the name, and why others still see strategic value in using it.
Here are seven definitions of “Ethiopia,” as used by various groups over time:
1. The Greek Definition
For the ancient Greeks, Ethiopia referred to the land where people with “burnt faces” lived—that is, all of Africa, or at least sub-Saharan Africa. It was a racial-geographic term rather than a national one.
2. The Biblical Definition
In Biblical texts, Ethiopia is often synonymous with the land of Cush, located south of Egypt. This region likely included parts of modern-day Sudan and could also be considered part of ancient Cushland, which many associate with the Oromo and other Cushitic peoples.
3. The International Definition (Modern Usage)
For the international community, Ethiopia refers to the current political state in the Horn of Africa, with its recognized borders and government based in Addis Ababa/Finfinne.
4. The Historical-Cultural Definition (Non-Abyssinian Perspective)
Some scholars, like Prof. Megalommatis, argue that Ethiopia historically refers not to Abyssinia but to the non-Abyssinian parts of Cushland, thereby aligning the term more with Oromo identity than with the Semitic-speaking Abyssinians.
5. The Abyssinian Definition
For Abyssinian elites, Ethiopia has simply become a renamed version of Abyssinia—used to give an imperial gloss to a centralized system of domination, first under Shewan Amharas, then under Tigray elites. Here, Ethiopia = Abyssinia + imperial expansion.
6. The Conservative/Monarchist Definition
For nostalgic Ethiopianists and monarchists, Ethiopia equals Amhara identity. In this view, being “Ethiopian” inherently means being Amhara, and any challenge to this equivalency is seen as an existential threat.
7. The Tigrayan Definition (TPLF Era)
During the TPLF’s rule, Ethiopia was a mask for Tigrayan domination. While claiming to build a multiethnic federal state, in practice the TPLF used the Ethiopian state as a vehicle to protect Tigrayan interests and expand influence.
What Do These Definitions Tell Us?
The first four definitions (Greek, Biblical, international, and Cushitic) show that the name Ethiopia does not inherently belong to Abyssinians—in fact, Oromo and other Cushites have a stronger historical claim to it.
The last three definitions, however, explain why many Oromo nationalists reject the name altogether. These are the versions of Ethiopia that have been used to oppress, assimilate, and dominate—versions deeply linked to the Amhara and Tigrayan elite power structures.
That’s why when some Oromo nationalists say “the content matters more than the name,” their argument doesn’t hold. If the name truly didn’t matter, Abyssinian elites would have no problem accepting “Oropia” as a replacement—for the sake of unity and shared identity. But they do resist it, because they know that naming defines ownership and narrative control.
Oromia or Oropia: What Comes Next?
When we envision the future of this political community, we must understand that the name “Ethiopia” comes with historical baggage—not just pride and resilience, but also pain, domination, and exclusion.
If Oromo nationalists choose independence, the result will be an Oromia that stands on its own.
If Oromo nationalists choose unity, it must be on new terms—through a rebranded and restructured “Oropia”, not the Ethiopia of old.
Until a democratic decision is made, Oromo people can freely refer to the state as Oropia, while others may continue to call it Ethiopia. Dual naming is not unusual globally, and it reflects the political complexity of the country.
Alliance for Liberation: A United Front for Freedom and Democracy
Whether we choose to pursue an independent Oromia or an integrative Oropia, one thing remains clear: we need an indispensable force strong enough to dismantle the current ruling system of oppression. And to build that force, we must pursue two parallel strategies:
- Unity of Purpose Among Oromo Nationalists
- Alliance with Other Oppressed Nations in the Region
Among these two, the second strategy—building alliances with other oppressed peoples—is even more effective for those of us advocating for an integrative Oropia, since our goal aligns with that of other nations seeking a genuinely democratic federal Ethiopia. Most non-Abyssinian groups are also struggling for freedom from domination and self-rule within a new union based on equality.
If we genuinely commit to this version of liberation, one that keeps both the unity and integrity of the region intact, we will need to build consensus around five foundational principles—the core pillars of a just multinational federation.
Five Foundational Virtues of an Integrative Oropia
1. Freedom from National Domination
Every nation within the state must be free from any form of subjugation or forced assimilation. This includes the freedom to decide, through a public referendum, between:
- An independent Oromia, or
- An integrative, restructured Oropia
Let the people decide—self-determination is non-negotiable.
2. Renaming the Federation
If we opt for the second path (Oropia), the name of the country must change to reflect its new, inclusive identity. The name “Oromia”—the land of the brave—should replace “Ethiopia”, which literally means the land of burnt faces, and which carries with it centuries of trauma and domination.
This symbolic renaming is essential to signal a new beginning.
3. Democracy as the Rule of the Game
No future union can survive without democratic governance. That includes not only civil rights and elections but also true national equality—the right of every nation to exercise internal autonomy and have a proportional voice in the federal structure.
4. Afàn Oromô as the Primary Working Language
Afàn Oromô, spoken by more than 40% of the population, must become the primary working language of all federal institutions—parliament, judiciary, military, security, administration—in place of Amharigna, which represents only 10% of the population.
A fair state must reflect its linguistic demographics.
5. Odaa as the Symbol of the Union
The Odaa tree, a symbol of Oromo democracy and unity, should be adopted as the central emblem on the new national flag. It reflects values of collective leadership, justice, and inclusivity, which are urgently needed in the new federation.
A Guarantee for Lasting Unity – Or the Path to Independence
If these five principles are genuinely embraced, the Oromo may find good reasons to support the vision of an integrative Oropia. But if other nations—especially the historically dominant Abyssinian elites—refuse to accept these terms, the push for complete independence will become inevitable.
It is now up to the pro-unity forces within Ethiopia to decide:
- Do they want to accept and demand Oropia, a reimagined and just federation?
- Or will their refusal to compromise lead to the disintegration of the state, starting with an independent Oromia?
If the first option is chosen, then all peoples in the empire—Oromo, Somali, Sidama, Afar, Agaw, even Habesha—can join forces to forge a common political future built on:
- Freedom
- Equality
- Democracy
This alliance would become the most powerful political coalition in the region’s history.
Post-Biltsiginà Transition: What Should the OLF Do Now?
If all nations—especially the historically marginalized—can agree on the concept of Oropia, then freedom fighters across the empire can unite around two essential principles:
- Freedom from national domination, and
- Democracy after freedom
But this vision requires a strategic shift—and a clear roadmap for transition. To achieve that, we must stop obsessing over past injustices and battles before the Biltsiginà regime, and instead focus on shaping the post-Biltsiginà future. Let the historians document the past; let the public verdict shape the future.
In this context, the role of the OLF (Oromo Liberation Front) becomes pivotal.
After decades of exile and armed struggle, the OLF returned to the country—but the question remains:
- Did they return to continue fighting for an independent Oromia?
- Or have they evolved to embrace the better alternative of an integrative Oropia?
This is the moment for the OLF to clearly articulate its updated vision. If they now prefer the path of Oropia—a restructured, democratic federation led by Oromo values and language—they must openly declare it.
Adopting Oropia does not mean betraying the original Kaayyoo (goal). Instead, it shows flexibility and a commitment to results. A genuine Oropia can actually offer a more meaningful form of sovereignty than a vulnerable, isolated Oromia. The future belongs to nations that can lead by integration, not only by separation.
Oromo Sovereignty: Two First-Class Options
Once the oppressive system is dismantled, the Oromo nation will face two excellent strategic choices:
- Independent Oromia – full national sovereignty, complete with independent institutions and international recognition.
- Integrative Oropia – a federal republic redefined and led by Oromummaa, with full national rights and leadership within a democratic union.
For the Oromo, neither path is a loss. Both options guarantee freedom, dignity, and national self-rule. Choosing between them will be like choosing between two first-class cars—a Mercedes or a BMW—if one has the means to afford either.
This is precisely why demonizing those who support Oropia as “betrayer Ethiopianists” is not only false, but also self-defeating. The OLF’s potential embrace of Oropia does not mean abandoning the liberation struggle. On the contrary, it could be the most powerful expression of its success—Oromia leading a union rather than seceding from it.
Oromummaa as the Common Ground
Regardless of whether we pursue Oromia or Oropia, all Oromo nationals today must agree on these two pillars:
- Oromia – the land, the territory, the homeland of the Oromo people
- Oromummaa – the culture, the identity, the national consciousness of the Oromo
These are non-negotiable.
In contrast, the ideology of Ethiopiawinet—when it serves as a cover for Habeshan nationalism (Habeshawinet)—must be firmly rejected. It is this ideology that has historically opposed and undermined Oromummaa, even while pretending to promote unity.
That is why we enthusiastically supported the “Oromo First” movement. This campaign wasn’t just a slogan—it was a project that united both pro-independence and pro-federation Oromo nationalists.
Interestingly, while the main drivers of the movement were pro-union Oromo elites, the ones who most proudly embraced it were the pro-independence camp. This proves one thing clearly:
The ideological divide between pro-Oromia and pro-Oropia camps is not irreconcilable. Both share a deeper commitment to freedom from domination and self-determination—they only differ in the preferred shape that freedom should take.
Conclusion: Sovereignty Through Unity, Not Rigidity
At this critical juncture, the key question Oromo nationals must answer is: Which type of sovereignty does the OLF now pursue after returning home—an independent Oromia or an integrative Oropia?
My suggestion is clear: the OLF should prefer the Oropia route—not as an abandonment of the liberation cause, but as its strategic culmination. This option allows for a greater form of sovereignty: one where the Oromo are not just free from oppression, but also leaders of a multinational, democratic union.
This approach demands utilitarian flexibility, not dogmatic rigidity. It’s about seizing the opportunity to transform the entire political architecture of the region—with Oromummaa as its foundation, not as a sub-theme.
To make this transformation real, we must promote Oromummaa as a central component of a redefined Ethiopiawinet—not the Ethiopiawinet of Abyssinian nationalism, but a shared civic identity built on equality, freedom, and diversity. In this version, Oromummaa does not oppose unity; it redefines it.
That’s why we must stop Abiy’s backward movement—his push toward unitary Amapia or Amharanized federalism. It is a regressive vision that threatens to collapse the hard-won gains of the Oromo struggle.
Instead, let us push forward with clarity and unity toward one of the three forward-moving phases of the Oromo political evolution:
- Phase 3: Independent Gadaa Republic of Oromia
- Phase 4: Democratic Oromia-led federal Ethiopia (Oropia)
- Phase 5: Integrative Oropia led by confident Oromummaa
Final Thoughts and Vision
Whether we choose independent Oromia or a reimagined, democratic Oropia, the Oromo have already won the moral argument: that no nation should be ruled without its consent, and that freedom and dignity are non-negotiable.
The only remaining task is to negotiate the form of our sovereignty:
- A sovereign Oromia, built outside the empire, or
- A sovereign Oropia, built atop the ruins of the old empire—reclaimed, renamed, and restructured.
Both options are valid. What matters is that the choice must be ours, decided freely and democratically by the Oromo people, not imposed by any external force.
Let’s not delay this decision. Let’s prepare politically, socially, and institutionally to exercise our right to referendum and to determine our own future.
As always, I conclude with my usual and heartfelt prayer:
May Wàqà help us promote this common movement of Oromummaa as the true core of a new, just, and inclusive Ethiopiawinet. May we lead the way forward—together.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2018/08/1 ... aa-oromia/