Salisawi Menelik (Abiy Ahmed) Despising the Oromo Just Like His Father (Dagimawi Menelik) Did!
By Fayyis Oromia*
Nowadays, there is an argument within the Oromo community about Menelik. Is he our hero? Is he an Oromo? Was he our colonizer? I have written about him in my previous articles. Based on my readings of Ethiopian and Oromo history, I have come to the conclusion that all Habeshas are basically and mainly of either Agaw or Oromo origin. Especially, most of the ruling monarchs from Yekuno Amlak to Haile Selassie were well Amharanized Oromos. Menelik also belongs to this group. However, there is no question that he was a brutal killer and despised the Oromo. His main mistake was neglecting Afan Oromo and revering Amharic, which caused the state to become an enemy of the Oromo. The same mistake is happening now with Abiy Ahmed (Salisawi Menelik). There is no question that both of them are biologically Oromo, but psychologically they are Amhara. They maintained Amhara-dominated Ethiopia (Amapia) rather than fostering Oromia (Oromummaa-led Ethiopia). It is no surprise to see Salisawi Menelik (also an Oromo killer) celebrating Dagimawi Menelik. The fact on the ground is, just like Germans do not identify themselves with Adolf Hitler, Oromos rejecting Menelik is legitimate, even though he is biologically Oromo.
Once upon a time, Hermann Cohn gave us a clear diagnosis describing Oromo elites who preferred to revere Amharas instead of respecting Oromummaa. This disease of Oromo elites is now rightly called the Menelik syndrome. Surprisingly, Oromo rulers despised Afan Oromo and revered Ge’ez as well as Amharic for about 3000 years. This started with the introduction of writing in Ge’ez and the translation of holy books into this language. It is logical and natural for human beings to respect and value the language of literature, especially when it is associated with the worshiped divinity. This is the privilege Amharic gained vis-à-vis Afan Oromo. Thus, Oromo rulers and elites wished to learn Amharic and neglect Afan Oromo. This tendency of being Ge’ezized and Amharanized continued until the emergence of the OLF about 50 years ago. The OLF attempted to reverse this process and taught Oromo people to be proud of their language — Afan Oromo. It also promoted Afan Oromo as the language of literature and of the holy books. Now, our people have started to respect and revere Afan Oromo. But our rulers (Dr. Abiy et al.) are still committing the same mistake done by previous rulers like Mengistu, Haile Selassie, Menelik, Yekuno Amlak, and others. They all promoted Amharic at the cost of Afan Oromo. I believe the main cause we must struggle for is the promotion of Afan Oromo as the primary working language of Ethiopia, replacing Amharic. The main working language of the palace, parliament, cabinet, court, and other institutions needs to be Afan Oromo. All Oromo nationals should have this issue as our common agenda. All other issues are secondary to this cause of promoting Afan Oromo.
Now, there is no question that the Oromo nation is free from both assimilative Amhara elites and hegemonist Tigrayan elites. The problem we have is the procrastinating approach of the OPP in addressing Oromo questions, being very cautious not to offend its Abyssinian partners (APP and TPLF). Our main issue until now was that of bilisummaa (freedom). That is already answered. Henceforth, our focus will be mainly on promoting Afan Oromo as the federal primary language. There is no justifiable reason to hinder this process. All other Oromo questions are subordinate to this issue. We can even opt for geo-federalism and for Finfinne as the only capital of Ethiopia, not necessarily under Oromia; the common flag can be green-gold-red, and the name of our country can continue to be Ethiopia. As long as Afan Oromo is the primary working language of Ethiopia, surely the whole country will be de facto Oromia. The Oromo should not necessarily fight only for self-administration of Oromia. Others can ask the Oromo for either autonomy or independence. We need to focus on consolidating Ango Oromo in the Cafe Arara palace and promoting Afan Oromo to the federal level.
I started writing in the cyber-world years ago when I heard the disagreement between the “two camps” in the Oromo liberation movement. There was a heated debate on the issue: “What is our goal — Ethiopian democratization or Oromian decolonization?” I was surprised when I heard, at the OSA conference around 1999, the debate between Obbo Sisay Ibsa et al. (pro “decolonization”) and Obbo Lencoo Lataa et al. (pro “democratization”), who vehemently argued and quarreled. Then it came to my mind: are these two groups and views really contradictory? I discussed in forums and through emails with proponents and opponents of both sides.
I tried to take a “neutral position” and look at the issue impartially. We discussed, and our discussion led to the formation of ULFO; we continued to discuss and contributed to the forging of AFD, and again we debated and gave our suggestions in fostering and consolidating the appearance of OFC as well as Medrek. I supported the formation of these major alliances and coalitions. Of course, I also tried to promote the merger into ULFO and the attempted reunification of OLF factions. Why did I promote such alliances, coalitions, and unities?
I experienced difficulties and problems in the struggle of Oromo people since my childhood as some of my relatives rallied behind MEISON, ICI’AT, and OLF. I have seen how many paid with their lives and limbs for the cause of Oromo freedom. Unfortunately, I also observed how certain Oromo individuals and groups have been instrumentalized by our enemies to suppress our national liberation movement. Many served the Derg; many were slave-servants of TPLF, acting against the liberation cause of their own people and nation.
Especially damaging to our liberation struggle were the discord and division among conscious Oromo nationalists based on minor perceived and real differences. These differences have been exploited by our enemies to make us fight each other and weaken our liberation forces. One such difference which hindered us was the division of our liberators into “pro Ethiopian democratization” and “pro Oromian decolonization” nationalists.
Some nationalists believed there was an irreconcilable difference between the two groups. I personally argued that this is fantasy rather than fact, if the conflict is really based only on such “difference of ideology.” I believe these two groups are complementary and could work together, contrary to the enemies’ attempts to portray them as contradictory and to manipulate them to fight each other. I tried to explain why in my previous articles, essays, and opinions. How clearly I put my opinion forward is a question readers can judge.
I especially tried to show our polity that they had no “difference of goal” as they claimed, but other problems hindered them from working together in alliances, coalitions, or unity. Theoretically, there was no reason why they could not accommodate both ‘decolonization of Oromia’ and ‘democratization of Ethiopia’ in promoting our cause. The Oromo public (despite the “conflict” among our polity) knew we had only one Oromo goal, which has three parts that can be considered as three possible outcomes based on public verdict:
- Strategic goal
- Core goal
- Tactical goal
Democratization of Ethiopia leading to true Oromia autonomy, if possible, was a good means to promote decolonization of Oromia. It was our tactical goal. Some Oromo nationalists advocating this could help democratize the country. Our core objective, clearly put, is an indispensable Oromia independence. Of course, we could have a strategic goal optionally, i.e., a possible union of free peoples in the region after achieving our core goal — regional integration for common economic benefit.
That is why I argued there is no need for a paradigm shift in terms of changing our goal as some tried to preach, but rather a shift in tactics and strategy to achieve our core goal. What we desperately need is to attain and consolidate effective and efficient means to achieve Oromo common goal — freedom. I think one of the best means or instruments is unity among Oromo activists. Most friends of Oromo struggle agreed, but a few seemed unhappy with such moves.
For instance, I once received constructive opposition to my push for unity from a renowned Oromo friend, Professor Megalommatis, expressed in one of his articles. He asserted Oromo needs dynamics as a priority over unity. I asked: why equate unity with lack of dynamics or inaction? Can’t we have unity with dynamics? Why is unity seen as a vice rather than a virtue that helps achieve Oromo freedom? I expressed clearly that I am an advocate not for inactive unity, but for dynamic and efficient unity.
He replied in an article titled “The Only Path to Independent Oromia: How to Make A Dream Come True,” published on Oromo Parliamentarians Council’s website. The Professor argued that unity in principle is not a vice, but in current global reality, trying to forge unity is futile, and even if unity happens, it will not function. He explained:
According to my understanding, the Professor did not consider unity itself a vice. His argument was that world powers and their regional servants (like the TPLF) use every possible manipulation within the global system of domination and regional policy to ensure liberation forces like the Oromo cannot unite or, if united, the unity fails. I personally think I do not have a “delusional political understanding” as described by the Professor. I acknowledge leaders of Oromo liberation movements are under material and mental influences and possible manipulation by global powers and regional players in the Horn of Africa.
My only effort has been to help Oromo nationalists appreciate the importance of unity for freedom and to promote it despite the odds. The Professor’s approach was an eye-opener for those puzzled by the repeated question to our leaders: “What hinders unity?” We now almost know that the “difference of objective” used as a cover by leaders was a farce. Are the hindrances described by the Professor the real factors?
Despite such global hindrances, I advocate for dynamic and functioning Oromo unity for freedom. Alliances like ULFO and OFC have somewhat countered Western and TPLF manipulation aimed at dividing our liberation groups. Forming alliances like PAFD and Medrek was a farsighted move by oppressed nations’ leaders against TPLF’s divide-and-rule tactics.
I hope future Oromo liberation leaders will think autonomously and free themselves from global Western dominance and local manipulations, like by Biltsigina and others, to lead us to Oromo national freedom with territorial independence, within or without a beneficial union of free peoples in the region. I am not naive to think this is simple, but I encourage our leaders to do their best under these circumstances by forging and using unity for freedom. So despite global hindrances and local dysfunctions mentioned by the Professor, I consider unity for freedom a virtue, not a vice, for our movement! Now, after freedom, the only thing Oromo nationalists should strive for is Afan Oromo as the primary working language of Ethiopia, with Amharic secondary based on the number of speakers. May Waqa bless Oromia and the Oromo!
Galatooma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2020/06/2 ... amharinya/