There Is No Oromo Turn (Teregninet), but Oromo’s Legitimate Eternal Leadership of Ethiopia!
By Fayyis Oromia*
Amhara elites trying to hinder and reject the legitimate leadership of Oromummaa in Ethiopia are fighting against the reality on the ground. There is no question that the Oromo constitute at least 60% of the Ethiopian population. Thus, it is legitimate to expect Oromo nationals to be the majority in all institutions of the country, starting from the palace to all the smallest job sectors in Ethiopia. The current participation of only 16% of Oromo in all enterprises and institutions must grow to 60%. This is a fair share across all cultural, economic, and political areas of Ethiopian life. Amhara elites crying foul simply because they see this growth from 16% to 60% is tantamount to psychotic denial of reality. Whether they like it or not, this fact shall prevail, and the Oromo will have our rightful 60% share in all spheres of Ethiopian life, including jobs in the Finfinne palace and in parliamentary activities.
Practically, this means that the Oromo and Oromummaa shall lead Ethiopia for eternity, not just temporarily (with Teregninet). No other nation like the Teregna is waiting to take away the legitimate leadership of the Oromo in Ethiopia. From now on, after removing the hybrids led by Dr. Abiy, Oromummaa shall have the legitimate leadership of Ethiopia. Thus, the transformation of the existing Amhara-dominated Ethiopia (Amapia) to Oromia (Oromummaa-led Ethiopia) is the reality that no power in the world can hinder—let alone the disgruntled Amhara elites now bragging about fighting against Oromummaa (against the God-given Oromo identity).
Nowadays, Oromo elites in power are accused as if they have replaced Tigrayan domination with Oromo domination. Especially Amhara elites entertain this allegation, saying Oromos are taking most positions in Finfinne and federal institutions. But in reality, the ruling elites are only trying half-heartedly to correct the longstanding injustice so as not to lose Oromo support completely. Let’s compare the four major nations who hold about 90% of positions in both federal and Finfinne institutions: Amhara 55%, Oromo 15%, Tigray 12%, Gurage 8%, and others 10%. When compared with population ratios (Amhara 27%, Oromo 35%, Tigray 6%, Gurage 4%, others 28%), it is clear that in Finfinne and federal institutions, Amhara hold twice their legitimate proportion, Oromo hold half, Tigray twice, Gurage twice, and others one-third.
To correct this disproportion, the number of Amhara, Tigray, and Gurage workers needs to be halved, Oromo workers doubled, and others tripled. This correction must continue until Amhara workers reduce to 27%, Tigray to 6%, Gurage (including Silte) to 4%, Oromo workers increase to 35%, and others to 28%. This is simply implementing Dr. Merera’s merit principle: “Be Ethiopia yalen hizboch be qumetachin iniselef”—i.e., let all nations in Ethiopia get their share based on their size. Is this domination or correction? Surely, for those losing their privileged positions, it might seem like Oromo domination, but in reality, it is correction. Only when Oromos occupy more than their population proportion (according to the 2007 census, 35%) can we accuse the ruling Oromo elites of promoting Oromo domination.
In reality, the Oromo liberation movement is for justice and union based on equality. To get rid of the TPLF regime, there was no alternative but to reorganize an alliance like the AFD (Alliance for Freedom and Democracy). As we know, certain liberation fronts work together as an alliance called PAFD, which includes the OLF, ONLF, SLF, BPLM, and GPLM. This is a good restart. Such an alliance is the only way forward. MEDREK and PAFD, including cooperation and coordination of these two alliances, was the best method to end the TPLF dictatorial regime.
It is clear that the above liberation movements had no problem finding common ground to forge an alliance. They all believe in the right of nations to self-determination and took this as a precondition for fostering the alliance. The problem arose when these freedom fighters tried to form an alliance with democratic forces such as AG7, which insisted on unconditional Ethiopian territorial integrity as a precondition.
How can this problem be resolved? I tried to discuss this issue with some people in forums and via e-mail. All concerned parties agreed on the necessity of an inclusive alliance against the TPLF regime, but they differed on the precondition required for such an alliance. We can classify these groups into two blocs:
One bloc, represented by the PAFD, argues that accepting and respecting the right of nations to self-determination must be the precondition for cooperation.
The other bloc, the ENM (Ethiopian National Movement), insists that territorial integrity must be the precondition.
Let’s examine the arguments of the two camps: self-determination versus territorial integrity.
1) Territorial Integrity Camp (e.g., Prof. Messay Kebede):
Prof. Messay insists that territorial integrity is mandatory for cooperation and the future union of free nations we want to forge in the country. Here is how he argues:
“Far from promoting free union, the right to self-determination actually blocks it. It is when union becomes unconditional that it forces peoples to find a form of accommodation that suits them all. An analogy: if two individuals decide to build a house together, cooperation makes sense if the house becomes their common interest—that is, if both intend to live in the same house. However, if one partner is building another house simultaneously, any partnership becomes suspicious and ends. The right to self-determination cannot provide the common goal for a lasting union. Moreover, nobody is inclined to make serious concessions if the outcome is precarious. It is when we decide to live in the same house, no matter what, that we would be inclined to improve the house. While Stalin recognizes the right to secede, Rousseau maintains that a nation means an indivisible unity, for only indivisibility creates a common goal. Obviously, conditional unity hardly produces serious commitment to lasting union.”
“The Stalinist approach has no historical foundation, as nations did not emerge from peoples exercising the right to self-determination. The politics of either lumping people together or splitting them apart based on desire is too artificial and a manipulation of political elites. Instead, modern nations emerged through inner movements smashing oppressive conquest and empire structures. Except for overseas colonial empires—which had difficulty modernizing due to lack of organized democratic movements in the pre-independence phase—the resolution to build a common house guaranteeing freedom and equality for all is the cornerstone of the modern nation, not the right to secession.”
“True democrats must understand that refusal of self-determination alone can bring about hoped-for changes. Refusal means unconditional unity so everything else is negotiable. But if union is conditional, the threat of secession jeopardizes democratic rules. Moreover, a union formed without equal alienation of rights is flawed since one partner reserves the right to secede. As Rousseau says, the condition of modern democracy is ‘the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community.’ Joining a political union means ceasing to consider oneself a nation. One becomes part of an organic whole, with distinctive characteristics such as language, religion, and customs becoming regional expressions of a larger union. How these specifics integrate is negotiable and can be protected. By contrast, union defined as a collection of autonomous nations is a Stalinist aberration and contradiction.”
“The best alternative is to renew commitment to unconditional unity, thereby creating conditions for a satisfactory solution for all. If the union is abiding, serious talks can start on building the common house. I recommend the term ‘ethnic groups,’ recognizing Amhara and Tigrayans as no less ethnic groups than Oromo, Gurage, Somali, etc. This defines Ethiopia as a multicultural nation rather than a multinational state, requiring federal arrangements with large autonomy and self-rule. This avoids the current impasse without sacrificing rights necessary to realize full equality of Ethiopia’s ethnic groups.”
2) Self-Determination Camp:
Those who support self-determination argue that territorial integrity as a precondition is dictatorial and does not guarantee a union as a lasting solution. It would perpetuate the forced unification that has existed so far.
To achieve a durable alliance between forces of territorial integrity and forces of self-determination against TPLF, they need a common goal. Some liberation fronts gave up demands for unconditional independence and moved toward compromise—self-determination. They expected democratic forces favoring territorial integrity to move toward this center. The recommended common goal is a voluntary union of free peoples; for example, a free Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia resulting from the self-determination of each nation. So far, it has been difficult to find common purpose between these two forces.
Forces of self-determination argue that nations must be free from domination by any means and then build a union based on free will. The mistrust between the forces of territorial integrity and self-determination has been a God-given opportunity for TPLF, which has used it to rule the country for as long as possible. Unless these two groups come to terms and cooperate, all nations in the empire face brutal rule, not for a few years but for many decades to come.
The two groups should agree on common ground. Union of free Amhara, Tigray, Afar, Oromo, Ogaden, Sidama, Gurage, and so forth—as a result of their respective self-determination and union, including Eritrea, Djibouti, Somaliland, Puntland, and Somalia (if they agree)—is the noble cause for which all can fight together. Not accepting this model means unconditional separation of free nations as an alternative.
In 2006, forces of self-determination formed the AFD together with some forces favoring territorial integrity, taking away a critical tool the TPLF used to rule over Ethiopians—namely, designating territorial integrity forces as “centralist chauvinists” and self-determination forces as “narrow separatists,” thereby polarizing and turning them against each other. Since then, this divisive tactic has lost power, and the TPLF has been attacked cooperatively from both fronts. The remaining question is: what was the precondition on which the AFD was forged? Was it established with any precondition?
Furthermore, there is an important difference between “unity” and “union.” Forces supporting territorial integrity tend to advocate unity, while those supporting self-determination tend to accept union if it is the result of a public verdict. The former is pre-modern; the latter is post-modern.
A British scholar (name forgotten) classified countries into three categories:
Pre-modern chaotic states, such as artificial constructs in Africa—including present-day Ethiopia—favored by forces of territorial integrity;
Modern nation-states, like some mono-national states in Asia and Latin America;
Post-modern unions of free nations, such as the European Union.
African nations, including those in Ethiopia, remain in the pre-modern category due to colonial arrangements. This situation is perpetuated by African Union leaders, who are dedicated to maintaining the status quo. Africans need to move beyond artificial states like Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Djibouti, Somaliland, Somalia, and Kenya, and instead form natural nation-states such as Tigray, Amhara, Afar, Oromo, Hausa, Yoruba, Somalia, etc. This will allow transformation from pre-modern to modern states (e.g., an independent Oromia without union) and ultimately to post-modern unions (e.g., an independent Oromo state within a union of neighboring free nations). This last status is most beneficial, as Europeans currently enjoy.
The positions of territorial integrity versus self-determination should have been openly discussed before attempting to forge cooperation against TPLF. Even when nations vote to be free within a union, it remains mandatory to decide on the type of federal structure. Forces favoring territorial integrity, like Medrek, believe this can be decided by public verdict. The question is: can this philosophy be extended to deciding on free nation-states within or outside a union? Doesn’t this require nations’ self-determination to decide on their sovereignty? Can’t the public decide on this issue via referendum? Doesn’t democratic rhetoric include this option? Can such forces accept a public decision for freedom without union, or would they resort to violence to enforce their preferred union?
Dictatorial “unifiers” advocating territorial integrity without public verdict effectively deny freedom by demanding unconditional unity. For example, when they say, “we do not negotiate on territorial integrity,” they signal: “accept our unity or face consequences.” They don’t advocate territorial integrity and then allow the public to decide. This approach is arrogant, dictatorial, and uncompromising.
To such people, forces of self-determination can respond: “we do not negotiate on the freedom of peoples!” How can two groups who say “no negotiation” reach democratic agreement? The only solution is violence, as has been the case for the last 150 years. Dictatorial unconditional unity forces have imposed “unity” by force. Forces of self-determination call this colonization since it is not union based on free will. Some groups with similar dictatorial ideology (like the TPLF) now want to maintain this status quo at gunpoint. That is why forces of self-determination assert that such forces are not open to lasting solutions and remain causes of misery in the Horn of Africa.
The Remaining Question:
Is there any possibility for cooperation between these two blocs? The only common denominator is acceptance of a shared strategic goal: a union based on nations’ right to self-determination (voting democracy). An alliance of the two blocs might theoretically agree to establish a federal democratic Ethiopia, where the public first decides on the type of sovereignty—“YES to union” versus “NO to union.” If the choice is “YES,” then the public decides on the type of federation: Ethiofederation versus Ethnofederation. If possible, consensus democracy can be exercised to reach a compromise—a federal union of free peoples. Otherwise, the risk of public referendum and acceptance of its outcome must be accepted.
Genuine ethnic federalism based on free will is good common ground for both forces. If the territorial integrity camp relinquishes the demand for unconditional territorial integrity as a precondition, the two camps’ cooperation for freedom and democracy in Ethiopia would be a smart move. However, the two blocs must find a middle ground compromise between their seemingly irreconcilable goals. An alliance like AFD—that is, PAFD plus ENM—is the best way forward for both self-determination of nations and democratization of Ethiopia’s union (national independence within a regional union). The result will be independent nations within an integrated Ethiopia. This is not fantasy but an achievable fact.
Personally, I oppose any dictatorial unity and support a union of free peoples based on free will. Any unity without public verdict will eventually fail—whether in 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years. That is why I advocate for lasting solutions based on free will, not temporary, weak compromises.
Medrek’s insistence on unconditional territorial integrity as a precondition will surely not last long because it is not based on peoples’ self-determination but on pre-determination by a few elites. The alliance of PAFD and ENM must be grounded in consensus democracy or self-determination voting democracy rather than dictatorial territorial integrity.
Lastly, the right to self-determination is neither Stalinist—as Prof. Messay and others try to discredit—nor outdated. It is part and parcel of the UN Charter in 21st-century modern politics!
Oromo liberals in power are determined to respect all nations’ rights in Ethiopia to self-determination and are doing a good job correcting past injustices in work representation in both Finfinne and federal institutions. What is happening now is correction, not domination!
I consider it domination only if Oromos take more than 35% of positions in parliament, government, military, civil service, economy, etc., of Ethiopia. Actually, this figure can increase to 60%, reflecting the reality on the ground.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2019/03/2 ... domiation/