The Smart OLF: Functioning as ROR (Rebel, Opposition, and Regime)!
By Fayyis Oromia*
The OLF is no longer just a specific organization—it has become a mindset embraced by all genuine Oromo nationalists who are striving for full freedom and sovereignty. These nationalists are currently operating on three fronts to counter the notorious anti-Oromo Abyssinian elites: within the rebel group (OLA – Oromo Liberation Army), the main opposition parties like the OFC, and the currently ruling party (OPP). Our adversaries try to pit these three movements against each other, hoping that the Oromo rebel, opposition, and regime factions will clash. But I trust that OLF-aligned individuals across all fronts know what needs to be done. They must harmonize their struggle to prevent the return of both Ethiofascist Amhara elites and Ethnofascist Tigrayan elites to the Finfinne palace. At the same time, they must cautiously work to remove the pro-Amharanet and anti-Oromummaa elites of Biltsigina, who currently hold power.
OLFites must work strategically to take over leadership within the OPP by replacing the traitors. This means infiltrating Biltsigina and its military and security structures on a large scale. A centripetal approach—engaging within the regime—should be prioritized over a centrifugal one, which means staying solely in rebellion. In particular, the current attempt by Amhara elites to seize control of the regime and its institutions must be countered by the three-way OLF movement.
Undoubtedly, the OLF remains the most respected Oromo organization, enjoying the support of nearly all Oromo nationalists despite its fragmentation. But can its various factions now unite to form a strong opposition capable of removing the EPP from power? This is a crucial question. I always hope the OLF will become strong and smart enough to play a decisive role not only in Oromian politics but also in Ethiopian and broader Horn of Africa politics.
Until now, the OLF has lacked the flexibility to evolve from an Oromo-centered movement into an inclusive Ethiopian political force. The OPP seems somewhat better in this regard. However, the problem with the OPP is that it remains influenced by OPDO-era elements—those with a slave mentality who continue to serve Abyssinian interests over Oromian ones. For instance, they still accept the dominance of Amharanet/Amharic in the Finfinne palace and in the federation, at the expense of Oromummaa and Afaan Oromoo. This status quo must be challenged and changed. May Waaqa help the Oromo opposition groups come together to form a powerful political party capable of challenging the OPP!
To dismantle the Biltsigina regime, there is no alternative to building an inclusive alliance similar to the AFD. Such an alliance is the only way forward. All Oromo organizations and others who believe in the right of nations to self-determination should be part of forming this coalition. The main challenge arises when freedom fighters try to form alliances with so-called democratic forces who insist on unconditional national unity as a precondition. How can this dilemma be resolved?
I’ve discussed this issue with others in various forums and via email. While most agree on the necessity of an anti-Biltsigina alliance, they diverge on the preconditions. Broadly, two camps have emerged: one insists on recognizing the right to self-determination as a prerequisite for alliance, while the other demands the inviolability of Ethiopia’s territorial integrity. Let’s examine both positions:
1) The Camp of Territorial Integrity:
This camp argues that unconditional unity is essential for any alliance or future union. Professor Messay, for instance, asserts:
“Far from promoting a free union, the right to self-determination actually hinders it. Only unconditional union forces people to find mutually acceptable accommodations. If two people decide to build and live in one house, their cooperation makes sense. But if one is also building a separate house, trust erodes. The right to secede undermines unity. Real unity requires equal commitment from all parties, not conditional membership. The concept of a union as a collection of autonomous nations is a Stalinist invention and unsustainable.”
He further argues that democracy and equality require all parties to give up individual sovereignty to create a new collective identity. Instead of multinational federalism, he proposes defining Ethiopia as a multicultural nation with strong regional autonomy—but without the option of secession.
2) The Camp of Self-Determination:
Proponents of this view argue that making unity a precondition for any alliance is dictatorial. Unity must be based on free will, not imposed by force or elite decision-making. They advocate a voluntary Union of Free Peoples—a union of independent states such as Oromo, Amhara, Tigray, etc.—formed after each nation exercises its right to self-determination.
This group believes that the ongoing conflict between the two camps only serves the interests of the Biltsigina regime. Without cooperation between these camps, Biltsigina could rule indefinitely. They propose that both sides adopt a shared strategic goal: federation based on the right to self-determination.
The 2006 AFD alliance brought together these two camps, challenging TPLF’s divisive strategy of labeling one group as “centralists” and the other as “separatists.” The key question now is: what was the precondition for forming the AFD? Or was it formed without any such condition?
Unity vs. Union:
There’s also a fundamental difference in how the two camps define “unity.” Pro-unity forces advocate a pre-modern idea of indivisible unity, while pro-union forces propose a post-modern union of free states, similar to the EU. A British scholar once categorized countries as:
- Pre-modern chaotic states (e.g., Abyssinian empire)
- Modern mono-national states (e.g., in Asia or Latin America)
- Post-modern unions of free nations (e.g., the EU)
Africans must leave behind artificial colonial-era constructs like Ethiopia and Nigeria and instead forge natural nation-states (e.g., Oromo, Tigrai, Amhara) that can later unite voluntarily in post-modern unions.
Can There Be a Middle Ground?
Yes—genuine ethnic federalism based on free will could provide common ground for both camps. If the pro-unity side gives up its insistence on unconditional unity, a united front for freedom and democracy is possible. A revised AFD-style alliance would serve both camps: it would promote national self-determination and broader democratization, potentially leading to a union of free peoples.
This is not mere idealism—it is achievable. I personally oppose all forms of imposed unity and support a union based on the free will of all stakeholders. History has shown that unity without public mandate is short-lived. That is why I advocate for a lasting solution grounded in self-determination and democracy.
The coming inclusive OLF must be founded on these principles. It must be both firm in its pro-self-determination stance and flexible enough to evolve and engage at the national and regional levels. It should lead the way for a democratic federation in Oromia and across Ethiopia. If done right, this OLF can win majority support and take leadership not only in Oromia but in Ethiopia at large—an Ethiopia led by Oromummaa values (Oropia).
Finally, the idea that self-determination is “Stalinist” is outdated. It is, in fact, enshrined in the UN Charter and remains a key principle of modern global politics.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2019/04/1 ... on-to-odp/