We Need a Revolution by All Citizens and Nations to Get Rid of the Fascists—Just as We Did Against the Feudalists!
By Fayyis Oromia*
We overthrew successive feudal regimes through an all-inclusive revolution by all citizens and nations in 1974. Since then, we have endured three fascist regimes—each favoring one ethnic elite at the expense of others. The Derg favored Amhara elites; the TPLF (Woyane) privileged Tigrayan elites; and now Biltsiginna promotes Oromo elites. Yet none of these regimes genuinely benefited the very nations they claimed to represent.
It is striking: Amhara elites were indifferent to the suffering of Tigrayans and Oromos under the Derg. Tigrayan elites ignored the oppression of Amhara and Oromo during the TPLF era. Today, some Oromo elites remain unmoved by the suffering of Amhara and Tigrayans caused by Biltsiginna. Enough is enough. All nations in Ethiopia must recognize this repeated pattern of “divide and destroy” orchestrated by fascist regimes. We must rise together and revolt against fascism.
For this to happen, each major opposition bloc must break free from outdated ideologies: the Amhara opposition from Derg mentalities, the Tigrayan bloc from TPLF’s divisive mindset, and the Oromo front from Biltsiginna’s ethnocentric policies. We need a common denominator—a united front fighting for freedom and democracy, to build a shared homeland grounded in liberty, equality, and fraternity.
The Trap of Dictatorship: A Repeating Pattern
Amhara and Oromo elites, in particular, have repeatedly fallen into the trap set by Ethiopia’s dictatorial regimes. These regimes have long survived by polarizing and dividing these two powerful blocs. Today, many Amhara elites make three critical mistakes:
- Framing their struggle as anti-Oromummaa (Oromo identity),
- Using derogatory terms like the “G-word” to refer to Oromos,
- Clinging to a colonial-era narrative of being “civilizers” of other nations.
Biltsiginna and Abiy Ahmed are exploiting this dynamic for the same old strategy: divide and rule.
Why Is It So Easy for Biltsiginna to Rule?
Because misguided elites from the two largest nations—Amhara and Oromo—are still trapped in battles over history, ideology, and identity. Biltsiginna has successfully positioned itself as the “moderate center”—advocating a union of autonomous nations—while portraying Amhara elites as chauvinists and Oromo elites as narrow nationalists. This manipulation keeps the two camps locked in conflict.
Ironically, there were visionary leaders from both groups who once overcame these divisions. The formation of the Alliance for Freedom and Democracy (AFD) in 2006 was a landmark step to counter TPLF’s divide-and-rule tactic. It even paved the way for the Oromara movement and the regime change in 2018. Can we now build an AFD-2 to confront Biltsiginna’s current tactics?
Divide and Rule: A Colonial Legacy
It was once quoted that Meles Zenawi described the historical tension between Amhara and Oromo as a “unique advantage” for TPLF. Regarding their unity within AFD, he called it “a marriage between fire and straw.” It’s tragic that these two great nations remain divided—victims of Ethiopia’s ruling elites and their European colonial backers.
In reality, both the Amhara and Oromo were victims of European imperial manipulation. At the end of the 19th century, as European powers scrambled for Africa, the British and French avoided direct confrontation by empowering local proxies. The British labeled the Amhara as “superior Semites” and armed them to suppress the “inferior animist” Oromo and other southern nations. Both the rulers and the ruled became captives of this colonial manipulation.
Later, Tigrayan elites played a similar role, this time under American influence—again to suppress the Oromo and eventually the Amhara. Despite their differences, there is no theoretical barrier preventing a genuine alliance between Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo pro-freedom fronts. But practical challenges persist.
Overcoming Mutual Sabotage
Both sides need to abandon their respective nationalist agendas:
- Amhara forces must drop the drive for Amharanet Domination (AD).
- Oromo fronts must let go of exclusive Oromummaa Leadership (OL).
When Amhara elites push AD, Oromo fighters see it as a threat to their freedom. When Oromo fronts push OL without accommodating unionist aspirations, Amhara elites fear displacement and marginalization. This mutual mistrust is counterproductive.
TPLF and now Biltsiginna have exploited this mistrust to divide and rule. To overcome this, both nations must rally around a shared agenda: freedom and democracy. With that, both Oromia and Amhara can enjoy self-determination within a union.
A Common Vision: Union of Free Peoples
To build a lasting alliance, the two major nations must unite around a shared purpose. I propose:
- A union of free peoples with Afaan Oromo and Amharic as the working languages of a federal Ethiopia.
- A free Oromia and a free Amaraland within this union, based on self-determination.
Oromo fighters argue that freedom must come first, then union by free will. A few enlightened Amhara voices argue that Habesha (Amhara and Tigrayans) are Abyssinized Cushites—essentially Oromo and Agaw descendants—who must reconnect with their roots and allow the Oromo a leadership role in shaping the future.
However, many Amhara forces fear the disintegration of the empire and resist any Oromo leadership. Likewise, many Oromo fronts resist the return of Amhara power, fearing renewed cultural domination. Both camps are sabotaging each other—just as they did during and after the 2005 elections. When the Amhara-led CUD was about to win, Oromo groups withheld support. When the OLF formed AFD, Amhara forces opposed it.
The Cost of Mistrust
This deep mistrust is now the main reason Biltsiginna remains in power. Until Amhara and Oromo forces forge a shared platform, Ethiopians will continue to suffer under dictatorship—not for years, but for decades.
A union of free peoples based on the right to self-determination could be the middle ground. Let’s envision a federation of free nations—Amhara, Tigray, Afar, Oromo, Ogaden, Sidama, Gurage, and beyond. Perhaps even including Eritrea, Djibouti, Somaliland, Puntland, and Somalia—if they choose to join. The alternative? Unconditional separation.
The Question Yet to Be Asked
The question yet to be asked is: Do Amhara forces choose to accept the alternative of separation, or must they be compelled to face that reality? We already know that the TPLF accepted the idea of separation as soon as it sensed its grip on power in the Finfinne palace was slipping. To compel Amhara forces to accept a union based on national self-determination, we would simply need to demote Amharic to a regional language used only in Amhara and promote Afaan Oromo as the sole federal working language. Then, Amhara elites would come to understand that Ethiopianness is no longer synonymous with Amharanet (as it is now), but rather with Oromummaa.
In such a scenario—where Oromummaa becomes equivalent to Ethiopianness—Oromo freedom fighters would likely shift to support Ethiopian identity against ethnicity-based politics, while Amhara elites might begin to defend their own identity by opting for the self-determination of the Amhara people. Ironically, they would then support “ethnicity” and reject Ethiopianness = Oromummaa. In doing so, they would finally grasp what it means to struggle for national independence—whether within a union or outside of one.
OLF’s Strategic Moves Against TPLF
To date, the OLF has taken some significant steps to create common ground with Amhara forces and to defeat the TPLF politically. The short-sighted TPLF—skilled at winning battles but unable to win the broader war—believed it could eliminate the OLF by persecuting and massacring its supporters. But this backfired. These brutal tactics only increased the OLF’s support among Oromos, which it lacked prior to 1991.
More significantly, the OLF didn’t eliminate TPLF’s supporters but gradually removed the TPLF’s presence and legitimacy in Ethiopia. Two key steps were instrumental:
- In 1992, the OLF denied the TPLF political legitimacy in Oromia, turning the TPLF into an eternal enemy of the Oromo.
- In 2006, the OLF formed the Alliance for Freedom and Democracy (AFD) with Amhara parties like the CUD, dismantling the TPLF’s central tool for division: labeling Amhara forces as centralists and Oromo freedom fighters as separatists. This tactic had long kept both groups fighting each other rather than uniting against the TPLF.
As this narrative lost power, the TPLF came under pressure from both Oromo and Amhara sides. The same approach must now be applied against Biltsiginna. Whether it takes one year or ten, Biltsiginna will eventually fall—just as the Derg and the EPRDF did. In the future, Biltsiginna will be remembered in Ethiopia as a dark regime—like the Nazis in Germany. A new generation will disown its legacy, just as today’s Germans reject their fascist past.
On Amhara Forces and Democratic Unity
I appreciate the efforts of Amhara forces attempting to foster democratic unity. Advocating for unity is not inherently wrong. However, many use both religious and political methods to promote it—often by the same individuals or organizations. This combination is dangerous. I advise them to choose one: either act as religious leaders committed to moral inclusivity or as political actors pursuing the specific interests of their group.
As politicians, Amhara elites often prioritize maintaining the empire, while Oromo freedom fighters aim to dismantle it and build a new union. As religious leaders, they are morally obligated to consider the needs of both sides. These dual roles often lead to internal contradictions.
To understand the unity Amhara elites promote, they must distinguish between empire and union:
- An empire is unity by force.
- A union is unity by free will.
If Amhara forces genuinely support the latter, then they must accept that referenda on self-determination could result in the independence of nations, not just their continued inclusion in Ethiopia.
Unity vs. Union: Pre-modern vs. Post-modern
There’s a vital distinction between unity and union. Unity is pre-modern—often coercive—while union is post-modern—voluntary and democratic. One English scholar categorized nations into three types:
- Pre-modern chaotic states (e.g., artificial constructs in Africa like the Abyssinian Empire, which Amhara elites favor),
- Modern nation-states (e.g., mono-ethnic states in Asia or Latin America),
- Post-modern unions of free nations (e.g., the European Union).
African countries—including Ethiopia—remain pre-modern due to colonial legacies and are preserved that way by authoritarian regimes, including those in the African Union. To evolve, Africans must move beyond artificial nations like Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nigeria, and Kenya, and instead build natural states like Oromia, Amhara, Tigrai, Hausa, or Somalia.
These modern nation-states can then voluntarily form post-modern unions, such as a union of free peoples. This transformation—from pre-modern oppression through modern sovereignty to post-modern cooperation—is what Europe now enjoys. Africa deserves the same.
Clarifying My Position
I hope Amhara forces do not misunderstand me. I am not a representative of the OLF, though I’m often accused of being one. I am an independent thinker. While some of my views align with the OLF, my goal is not to support them unconditionally. My objective is Oromo self-determination, which may result in either:
- An independent Oromia within a union of free peoples, or
- An independent Oromia without a union.
Some Amhara forces accept the first option, but many reject the second. They prefer a larger, centralized Ethiopia over what they dismiss as “inferior mini-states” like Oromia or Amhara state. I too support a larger union—but only one based on free will, not coercion.
To build a democratic union based on self-determination, we need an Amhara-Oromo alliance against Biltsiginna. I believe some Amhara forces also desire this future.
The Real Question: Alliance With Whom?
Some Amhara voices have, at least in theory, acknowledged that the destiny of the Oromo should be decided solely by the Oromo people living in Oromia—who are also Ethiopians. But if that same Oromo population chooses independence without union, will Amhara forces accept it or fight against it? They must clarify: Do they support union by free will or unity by force?
Some argue, citing U.S. history, that force saved American unity during the Civil War, and therefore Ethiopia can be “saved” the same way. But this comparison is flawed. The U.S. is a land of immigrants united by a single language and identity. Ethiopia is a multi-national empire with distinct native nations. Do they want all Ethiopian nations to be “melted” into one, speaking only Amharic?
Even the liberal Ezema party advocates unconditional integration—a position not shared by Oromo fronts or other oppressed nations fighting for self-determination. I support a union based on free will, but I oppose any form of forced unity that disregards the sovereignty of nations like the Oromo.
If Ezema seeks an alliance with Oromo fronts like the OLF, they must drop their insistence on unconditional unity and instead accept self-determination as a shared principle. I did read Ezema’s call for an alliance with Amhara and Oromo forces to topple Biltsiginna. I welcome that call, but I must ask:
An alliance of whom—exactly—against Biltsiginna?
Ethiopia’s Political Triangle
Ethiopian politics currently balances between three main blocs:
- Biltsiginna—the ruling authoritarian force,
- Unity forces—those seeking to preserve the empire under the guise of democracy,
- Freedom fighters—nations struggling for liberation before discussing union.
The third bloc includes groups like the OLF, ONLF, SLF, and others. Their goal is to achieve national liberation first, then determine whether to form a union based on free will.
When Amhara forces talk about forming an alliance against Biltsiginna, do they mean including only the second bloc?Or are they ready to include the third bloc as well?
So far, Ezema has insisted on Ethiopian unity as a precondition for alliance, effectively excluding the third bloc. If Ezema is serious about forming a real alliance to defeat Biltsiginna, they must rethink this precondition and find a common denominator with those fighting for self-determination
I believe the only common ground can be the acceptance of union based on the self-determination of nations. If Ezema activists are truly democrats in practice, as they often claim, I hope they will embrace this principle. Nations should have the right to determine their own destiny through free will, whether that means freedom within a union or independence without one. Does their rhetoric about democracy include the right of peoples to decide their own fate? Or are they merely unitarist foxes in sheep’s clothing? Or perhaps some are naive politicians, being instrumentalized to fulfill the intentions of extremists who seek to restore their domination at any cost? I hope that, gradually, the Amhara people will think and act independently of the extremist-minded chauvinist conservatives.
The two positions—Amhara forces advocating for unconditional unity versus Oromo fronts supporting union based on free will—should be discussed and debated before attempting to forge an alliance against Biltsiginnà. Even when nations vote for freedom within a union, it is essential to subsequently decide on the type of federal arrangement to be adopted. Amhara forces advocate for geography-based federalism, while most freedom fighters prefer language-based federalism (“ethnic federalism”). As democrats, all parties should accept the outcome determined by the public’s verdict. This is what UDJ aimed to achieve in Medrek. In fact, UDJ succeeded in its objective: Article 39 was rejected, and if Medrek wins any election, the issue regarding the type of federation will be decided by public verdict. However, it seems that federalist Oromo parties in Medrek lost in the compromise solution. They did not insist on achieving the Oromo nation’s right to self-determination and even compromised the further existence of Oromia, as geography-based federalism would dismantle this region.
Now, the question for Amhara forces is: can they extend the philosophy they apply in deciding on the type of federation, based on public verdict as agreed in Medrek, to the argument of freedom within a union versus independence without a union? Doesn’t this require the self-determination of nations to decide on the type of sovereignty peoples can have? Can they imagine that the public can also decide this issue through a referendum? Does their democratic rhetoric include this option? Can they accept and live with the decision if a certain public opts for self-rule without union? Or will they resort to force to impose the union they desire? As of now, Ezema has not even decided on the type of federation to support.
Amhara forces should not misunderstand me. I support union when it is based on free will. My question to them is: just as UDJ accepted the principle of public verdict on the decision regarding geography-based versus language-based federation, can they also accept, in principle, that people should decide on the type of sovereignty they wish to have—self-rule within a union or independence without a union? Regarding the benefit/cost discussion in comparing the two types of sovereignty, all stakeholders can try to convince the public so that the majority may accept their respective wishes before voting. Amhara forces can advocate for the advantages of union, and pro-liberty fronts can discuss the importance of independence. Of course, the compromise and common ground for both groups can be national freedom within a regional union, which can be advocated by both forces if they reach a consensus. Then, an alliance of both forces can try to convince the public about the importance and benefits of this common goal—a union of free peoples. Ultimately, the public should decide which they prefer.
Interestingly, some Amhara forces fear that people can be brainwashed and vote against their own interest. It is simply wrong to think that people decide against their own interest. If they mistakenly vote against their own interest, like the Americans electing Mr. Bush by mistake, let it be. That is also part of democracy! Do Amhara forces want a certain force to have been raised and prevented this election of Mr. Bush, or do they want that, just like Meles Zenawi did, a certain forceful person would have taken away the victory and declared himself the winner? During elections, informing the public before making the decision is something good, but just taking away this possibility of decision-making from the people is undemocratic. So, my message to Amhara forces is that there is no half-baked democracy. Either they accept it as it is, including the right of nations to self-determination, or they should stop acting like the pope of democracy and stop condemning those who are undemocratic, for it is known that they can also be the same or even worse if they get the chance to be in power. If they reject such a simple right of nations as an opposition, it is imaginable what they can do if they gain power: they may do worse than what TPLF is doing now.
The mere fact that concerned people may be brainwashed by interest groups to vote against their own interest is the reality we have to live with. All nations have our own interests, and each of us wants to convince people that our respective position is right. By the way, why should we call it brainwashing instead of convincing? It is about influencing people, be it this way or that way. In America, the evangelicals were convinced and were successful with Mr. Bush, and the quasi-socialists were successful with Mr. Obama. Where is brainwashing? It is about convincing the majority. The one who won the hearts and minds of the majority was the victor. In free and fair competition, for Amhara forces who struggle for unity, there is the same chance as that of Oromo fronts (advocates of union as a result of self-determination). Their freedom of choice is mutually respected.
But regarding those dictatorial unifiers who advocate unconditional unity without the option for public verdict, it should be known that they are taking away the freedom of Oromo fronts by advocating such a dictatorial position. For example, when they say “be andinet lay anideraderim!” they are sending the message: you either accept this andinet or we will deal with you. They don’t say, we advocate for unity and then let the public decide. Their approach is arrogant, dictatorial, and uncompromising! To such people, Oromo fronts should also say: “be netsanet lay anideraderim.” Now, how can two groups who say “anideraderim” deal with each other democratically? The only solution will be bullets, as it has been until now. Up to now, pro-unconditional-unity dictatorial forces have won for the last 150 years and have “united” us by force. Oromo freedom fighters call this colonization, for it is not a union based on free will. Some people with similar dictatorial ideology now want to continue the status quo at gunpoint. That is why Oromo fronts dare to say: such forces are not open to a lasting solution, but they are still causes for misery in the Horn region.
The question yet to be answered is again: do we see any possibility and any common denominator for an eventual alliance between the above-mentioned bloc of Amhara forces and Oromo fronts against Biltsiginnà? I suggest that the only common denominator is acceptance of a common strategic goal, i.e., union based on nations’ right to self-determination. In relation to this common denominator, we can classify current political organizations in Ethiopia into the following three groups: 1) on the right side are ethno-nationalists, who want to see Ethiopia with a uniformly Amharanized one people; they are geography-based federalists who advocate for a “democratic federal Ethiopia” where there will be no visible danger for future disintegration, and they actually plan to get rid of national areas like Oromia; 2) in the middle are language-based federalists, usually known as ethnic federalists. They want to see autonomous nations like Oromia determining their fate in their national area, but this group excludes pushing for the right of nations to self-determination per referendum; 3) on the left side are ethno-nationalists, who want to exercise the right of nations to self-determination and forge sovereign, independent republics of their national areas like an independent Gadaa republic of Oromia without union.
I think the position of the OLF is the third one, i.e., self-determination of the Oromo people per referendum, which can lead either to language-based federation (union of free nations) or to an independent republic of Oromia without union. Now, coming to the call for alliance by Ezema, I think it is an alliance of all these three groups, who can agree on establishing a federal democratic Ethiopia per public verdict to decide firstly on the type of sovereignty: YES to union vs NO to union, and then if the choice is YES, secondly to decide on the type of federation: language-based federation vs geography-based federation. The OLF can be part of such an alliance if its vision of the Oromo’s right to self-determination leading to self-rule within union or to independence without union, based on a referendum among the Oromo, is accepted and respected.
Also, in the Oromo liberation camp, nowadays there are three tendencies or directions: 1) Ethiopianist Oromos rallying behind Ezema seem to claim that Ethiopia belongs to the Oromo or the Oromo belong to Ethiopia, and they say we have to fight for the freedom of all Ethiopians from any sort of domination, exploitation, and subjugation. They are not against Afaan Oromo, alongside Amharic, being the working language of the federal government, as it is the language of the majority. This group of Oromos is smart to claim some of Oromos’ rights in a diplomatic way. 2) Federalist Oromos, like those rallying behind OFC, are supporters of language-based federation. They want to see Oromia having its autonomy and limited sovereignty, but this group doesn’t dare to push for the right of the Oromo to self-determination; instead, they seem to accept unconditional unity. Otherwise, they say other regions can be divided if they want to forge geography-based federalism, but this is not the vision of the Oromo and should not be the fate of Oromia. They look at geography-based federalism as a plot to dismantle Oromia. That is why I ask: can Ezema get support from this group? 3) Oromianist nationals include all the Oromo rallying behind their liberation fronts, especially behind the OLF, and they want to achieve the self-determination of the Oromo people leading to either self-rule of Oromia within union or to independence without union, based on the outcome of a referendum among the Oromo.
I hope that the right-leaning ethio-nationalists—who seek to establish Ethiopia through geography-based federalism—and the centrist federalists—who support a democratic Ethiopia with language-based or asymmetric federalism (featuring both mono-national states like Oromia and multinational states like the SNNP)—will eventually move beyond their current positions. Instead, they should join the left-leaning ethno-nationalists who aim to liberate their respective national regions and simultaneously build a union of free nations based on self-determination.
To be clear, neither the goal of dismantling Oromia nor the intention of dismembering Ethiopia by force can lead to the lasting unity that Amhara forces wish to see. Therefore, I hope that all stakeholders will unite around a common goal: to build a language-based federation or a union of free peoples based on self-determination, as a compromise solution.
Just as some Amhara forces seem to cherish the name “Ethiopia,” many Oromos suspect that these groups oppose the very existence of Oromia. When I hear and read Ezema leaders insisting that acceptance of Ethiopian unity must be a precondition for any alliance, I conclude that Ezema is simply a more polished version of traditional chauvinists. Their “my way or the highway” approach does not promote the genuine unity they claim to seek.
I firmly believe that lasting unity must come through the free will of the nations in this empire—through their right to self-determination. Otherwise, no matter how long Ezema campaigns for unity, it will never win the hearts and minds of the Oromo and other self-aware, historically oppressed nations (excluding those who act more Habesha than the Habesha themselves).
It is commendable that Ezema opposes the EPP, but it has made no constructive compromises to form an alliance with Oromo freedom fighters. This failure, intentional or not, creates a major obstacle even for the so-called unity forces. The reality is that the unity bloc cannot succeed against both the first bloc and the third (freedom fighters), who have the potential to form a strategic alliance against the second (the unity bloc). Those in the second bloc should recall that they lost the 2005 struggle not just due to the TPLF’s actions, but also because they lost the support of the Oromo and other oppressed nations. For example, the OFC and UEDF withdrew from the alliance at the last moment after seeing the threat posed by CUD’s intention to reverse even the TPLF’s superficial language-based federation, which at least provided some limited cultural autonomy to nations.
Now, Ezema appears to be repeating the same mistake. That’s why I dare say that Ezema’s leaders are either naive politicians or planted actors sabotaging the goals of the Amhara unity forces—because their approach ultimately leads not to unity, but to further division.
If they truly seek lasting unity, they must agree to accept the people’s verdict. When the time comes, they can advocate for the union they believe in, while others campaign for national independence. Then, let the people decide. That is the essence of self-determination through a referendum.
Moreover, if the parties involved agree at the outset to form a union of free peoples, they can promote that shared vision together and leave the final decision to the public. If this reflects the position of the Amhara forces, then there is no fundamental conflict with Oromo freedom fighters. Let the people first decide on the form of sovereignty—self-rule within a union or independence without a union—and, if the result favors union, let them then decide on the type of federation: language-based or geography-based. If this is the position of the Amhara forces, there is no obstacle to forming an alliance with the Oromo liberation fronts against Biltsiginnà.
When genuinely practiced, ethnic federalism—i.e., a free Oromia within an Ethiopian union built on the free will of nations—offers solid common ground for both Amhara forces and Oromo fronts. Therefore, if Ezema abandons its insistence on unity as a precondition for alliance, any collaboration between Ezema and the OLF to pursue freedom and democracy in Ethiopia would be both smart and timely.
However, the two organizations must find a middle-ground compromise between their seemingly opposing goals (the OLF’s pursuit of an independent Oromia and Ezema’s aim of an integrated Ethiopia). I believe that an alliance similar to the former AFD would be the most effective path toward both national self-determination for the Oromo and democratization and integration of Ethiopia as a region—national independence within a regional union. The result would be a free Oromia within an Ethiopian union—not just a dream, but a realistic and achievable outcome.
Lastly, let me emphasize: no empire in history has ever been reformed into justice. It is only through the collapse of empires that enslaved nations have achieved freedom. For democracy and a genuine union of nations in Ethiopia to be realized, the imperial structure must come to an end—only then can an Ethiopian union be forged.
Sovereignty of all Ethiopians over their country must be respected. All nations in the empire, large or small, must be granted equal rights to national self-determination. Only when they are free can they make authentic decisions about their own destiny. In the end, the peoples of the empire—and even more—can choose to join a voluntary union. No nation should dictate the fate of another, as the Habesha elites have historically tried to do. The same principle applies across Africa. Only then will a united African state, based on the free will of its nations and peoples, become possible. Even the Habesha nations, who themselves have long been denied a say in their governance, will finally have the chance to exercise their own self-determination and elect leaders of their choice.
As long as national domination continues, the struggle for liberation will remain. That’s why I say the best solution to Ethiopia’s current crisis lies in cooperation between Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo freedom fighters, united around language-based federalism in the form of an Ethiopian union as both a common ground and a common purpose.
Just as the ODF once did, I applaud the call by some elites to collaborate with all Oromo organizations, and more broadly, with all democratic Ethiopian opposition forces, to bring down the Abyssinian system of domination.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2018/10/0 ... nd-amhara/