Ethiopian News, Current Affairs and Opinion Forum
OPFist
Member+
Posts: 6535
Joined: 29 Sep 2013, 09:27

Decolonization of Oromia or Democratization of Oropia?

Post by OPFist » 11 Jun 2025, 02:21

Decolonization of Oromia or Democratization of Oropia?

By Fayyis Oromia*

There was a time when Oromo elites argued and quarreled over the topic of Ethiopian democratization vs. Oromian liberation. Those who entertained the possibility of democratizing Ethiopia were regarded as traitors to the Oromo national cause and were demonized by pro-liberation nationalists. It took a long time to realize that a democratic Ethiopia is, de facto, Oromia in double size. In the process of democratization, it is natural for Ethiopia to transform into a larger Oromia—what we can call Oropia (an Ethiopia led by Oromummaa). This transformation will likely begin as soon as the current hybrid rule of Biltsigina loses power and genuine Oromo republicans from the OFC and OLF take over the Finfinne palace.

The democratization of the country, along with the promotion of Afaan Oromo to its rightful status as the primary federal language (replacing Amharic), is tantamount to fostering Oropia—a state nearly twice the size of Oromia. That is why today, almost all Oromo nationalists agree in preferring the democratization of Oropia over the decolonization of Oromia. Surprisingly, the idea of Oropian democratization is overtaking that of Oromian liberation.

Now is the right time for Oromo elites to shift their rhetoric regarding the Oromo movement—from a colonial narrativeto a Cushitic narrative. Oromia is already free from the tyrannical rule of Abyssinian elites. The colonial narrative was essential during the historical liberation struggle, but that phase is over. Oromo elites now have the opportunity not only to liberate Oromia but to lead the whole of Oropia atop the grave of an Abesha-dominated Ethiopia. To successfully fulfill this leadership role, it is vital to embrace the Cushitic narrative, which highlights that the true Ethiopia is Cushitic—not Solomonic, as the Abyssinian rulers previously portrayed. Most nations in Ethiopia, including the Habesha, have Cushitic roots, and we can embrace a supra-national identity of being Cush—true Ethiopians in the real sense.

I once read an article condemning a possible “paradigm shift” in the Oromo liberation struggle. It argued that this shift was moving away from the goal of an independent Oromia to a united Ethiopia. But I never said this shift must abandon the goal of freedom. In one of my previous articles, I asked: Is the suggested paradigm shift a change in the path toward the Oromo goal (self-determination), or a change in the goal itself? I still haven’t received an answer. I also don’t interpret the suggested “national self-determination with multinational democracy” as a shift in goal.

I believe the author still thinks within a “parallel framework”—the ‘either-or’ mentality. To him, it’s either Oromia’s independence or Ethiopian unity, with no grey area in between. He fails to adopt a “series framework”, which would help him realize that we can progress as a nation from an occupied Oromia to a genuinely autonomous Oromia within a union—perhaps even toward an independent Oromia or an integrated Oropia within the African Union. I don’t understand why some people resist this series thinking and reject Oromo nationalists who propose achieving Oromia’s autonomy within a union as a transitional goal.

To aid such individuals, I’ve introduced three metaphors to shift their mindset from rigid “parallel” thinking to a more nuanced “series” framework:

1) Electric Circuit Metaphor

Let’s consider three potential outcomes for the Oromo struggle: Oromia’s autonomy, Oromia’s independence, and the union of free peoples. When we think of these goals in a parallel circuit, we see them as contradictory options—we must choose only one. But if we think in a series circuit, we realize we can achieve them in sequence: first autonomy, then independence, and later, union—without conflict. This “series framework” could significantly improve our strategic thinking and contribution to the Oromo liberation movement.

2) Train Journey Metaphor

The journey of liberation can be likened to traveling from Djibouti (a colonial status), through Dire Dawa (federation or autonomous Oromia), to Adama (independent Oromia), and finally to Finfinne (union of free peoples). This metaphor—like the electric circuit one—can help reconcile perceived or actual contradictions among different nationalist positions.

3) Political Evolution Metaphor

All Oromo individuals and institutions pass through a political evolution. There are five levels:
- Level 1: Supporters of a unitary Abyssinian empire—often denying Oromia’s existence (e.g., EPRP).
- Level 2: Those like former OPDO members who accept Oromia’s existence but respect Abyssinian rule.
- Level 3: Groups like OFC and OPP, who seek Oromia’s autonomy within a union.
- Level 4: Those like ONP, demanding unconditional independence in a Gadaa republic format.
- Level 5: Advocates of a union of free peoples (as OLF originally envisioned), seeking regional cooperation and integration.
Some critics reject those transitioning from Level 2 to Level 3—even though they’re on the same path toward Level 4. Such intolerance is unproductive.

Was there a proposal to move back to Level 1? If so, I reject it. Was there a proposal to settle at Level 2 and abandon the struggle? Again, I reject it. But if the suggestion was to facilitate progress to Level 3—possibly in alliance with other democratic forces—why should this anger pro-independence Oromo nationalists? This step threatens only Abyssinian centralists and hegemonists.

Even Abyssinians cannot escape this political evolution, though it may take them longer. The lasting solution for the empire is, as the author suggested, separation—whether peaceful (like Czechoslovakia) or forceful (like Serbia and Croatia)—followed by the option of voluntary union. So let us embrace the series framework: tactical goal (Level 3), core goal (Level 4), and strategic goal (Level 5).

The article I referenced earlier, at that time, served as a gift to the TPLF and its cadres. The alliance between Oromo unionists (e.g., ODF) and Amhara unitarists (e.g., AG7) against the fascist regime was a nightmare for the TPLF. Its cadres disguised themselves as pro-independence Oromos in Oromo forums and as pro-unity Amharas in Amhara forums. Their goal was to polarize democratic forces and block the emergence of an inclusive opposition. Sadly, some genuine nationalists—both Oromo and Amhara—fell into this trap, labeling each other instead of uniting against dictatorship.

I once advised Oromo nationalists who always say “a spade is a spade” to learn to drink vodka from a water bottle. Here’s the story:

I met two Russians on the subway. One was drinking from a bottle labeled vodka, the other from a bottle labeled water. Oddly, the one drinking from the water bottle seemed more drunk. I asked why—and they laughed, explaining both were drinking vodka; only the labels were different. This is the difference between most Oromo and Habesha politicians. Oromo leaders are straightforward—they speak directly of Oromo rights. Habesha elites (Amhara and Tigrayans), however, disguise their ethnic politics with “Ethiopian unity” rhetoric. They pursue national interests under a unifying label, while Oromo politicians play with open cards.

Can Oromo nationalists learn to act more strategically, as their rivals do, while still protecting Oromo interests? Time will tell.

In conclusion, I thank Wàqa that we were able to foil the ambitions of the TPLF and its cadres, who tried to deceive both Oromo and Amhara communities by pretending to support each side separately. Their intent was to polarize and block inclusive opposition. But we didn’t fall into their trap. The Oromo achieved the liberation of Oromia using the colonial narrative—but we must now adopt the Cushitic narrative as we step into leadership of Oropia.

Wàqa bless us all!

Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2019/05/1 ... at-oromia/