Ethiopian News, Current Affairs and Opinion Forum
OPFist
Member+
Posts: 6532
Joined: 29 Sep 2013, 09:27

When Dr. Abiy Repeatedly Mentions Ethiopia, Which One Does He Have in His Heart: Amapia or Oropia?

Post by OPFist » 15 Jun 2025, 06:36

When Dr. Abiy Repeatedly Mentions Ethiopia, Which One Does He Have in His Heart: Amapia or Oropia?


By Fayyis Oromia*

We hear that Dr. Abiy repeatedly mentions Ethiopia, and it is not bad that he strives to keep the national unity and territorial integrity of Ethiopia. But the million-dollar question is: which Ethiopia does he have in his heart and mind? Is it the traditional Menelik’s Ethiopia, dominated by the Amharanet and with Amharigna as the only working language of the federation—practically Amapia (Amharanet-dominated Ethiopia)? Or is it the innovative Haile Fida’s Ethiopia, with legitimate leadership of Oromummaa and Afan Oromo as the primary language of the country—given that the Oromo make up about 60% of the population—where Ethiopia will be de facto Oropia (Oromummaa-led Ethiopia)?

If he holds Menelik’s version of Ethiopia in his heart and mind, he is an Amapianist, so it is no wonder that Amhara elites support his move. In that case, the Oromo should stop giving him any support. Oromo Prosperitans currently rallying behind him should also reconsider if they truly have Oromo interests at heart. However, if he has Haile Fida’s version in his heart and mind, he deserves Oromo support, though surely he will lose the existing help from Amhara elites. The fact on the ground is that he cannot serve the visions of both Amapia and Oropia simultaneously. It is clear that at the moment, Ethiopia led by Dr. Abiy is dominated by Amharanet. Are the Oromo elites in OPP still willing to maintain this status quo, or are they bold enough to persuade him to promote Afan Oromo to the primary language of the federation—replacing Amarigna—and give Oromummaa its legitimate leadership position in the entire country?

I believe the ruling Oromo elites (Prosperitans), led by Dr. Abiy, are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable dual contents of Ethiopian identity (Amharanet and Oromummaa). Before the Oromo Prosperitans took power in the Finfinne palace, Ethiopian identity was synonymous with Amharanet, and all ruling Abyssinian elites declared Oromummaa the main enemy of Ethiopia and Ethiopianism. Thus, any Oromo was considered a good Ethiopian only when they denied Oromummaa and were ready to be Amharized. Now, the Oromo Prosperitans are trying to change this, but by keeping Amarigna as the primary working language of the federation and promoting Oromiffa only to a secondary position. This is yet another way of equating Ethiopianism with Amharanet. The Oromo Prosperitans are trying to deceive the Oromo by using Oromiffa merely as a secondary federal language. Actually, Oromiffa should legitimately be promoted to the primary position, replacing the present status of Amarigna. Therefore, there seems to be no compromise solution if Ethiopia is to survive. Ethiopia will continue either as usual, with Ethiopianism synonymous with Amharanet, or Ethiopia will have Oromiffa as the primary working language and transform into a status where Ethiopianism will be synonymous with Oromummaa. Having both identities side by side can only happen in a confederation, where Amhara and Oromo regions are quasi-independent from each other. In that case, Ethiopia will practically be dismantled. The burning question now is: which version of Ethiopia do the Oromo Prosperitans serve? Ethiopia as Amapia (with Amarigna as primary language), or Ethiopia as Oropia (with Oromiffa as primary federal language)? They cannot promote both versions simultaneously and thus cannot serve two masters!

It is a fact on the ground that every politically minded individual and organization in Ethiopia prefers a federation as the appropriate administrative structure for the country. The question is only about choosing the type of federation. Especially, both OPP of Abiy and OFC of Jawar claim to prefer a language-based federation (“ethnic federation”). What is their difference? As I see it, OPP merely replaced the TPLF but continues to promote an ‘Amharigna-dominated dictatorial federation,’ whereas OFC strives to foster an ‘Oromiffa-led democratic federation.’ There is no question that domination by Amarigna can only continue dictatorially, because if the status of languages were determined democratically, Oromiffa would have the chance to be the primary language of the federation. This dictatorial maintenance of Amarigna’s dominance is what Abiy’s OPP is doing now, thus losing the support of the Oromo majority. Surely, Jawar’s OFC, joined by the OLF and other genuine Oromo nationalists, will prevail in the future.

Abiy’s administration imprisoning Jawar and others, as well as banning OMN—the symbol of Oromo protest against tyranny—was simply the beginning of the end for his advocated Ethiopian union. The only question is: what will follow? An independent Oromia or an integrative Oropia? Dr. Abiy’s maintaining the dominance of Amharanet at the expense of Oromummaa is already a failed project. No doubt that Oromo protests will come back again and will send the Amharized Oromo elites now ruling in Finfinne palace to their appropriate place—but it will not keep them in power. Surely, Abiy’s Ethiopia of Amharanet will either be replaced by Jawar’s Ethiopia of Oromummaa (Oropia) or it will give birth to Oromia. It seems that, as far as the Oromo are concerned, Abiy’s regime is finished. Time will tell what and who will follow!

It is also interesting to observe that certain Amhara elites are fighting against Jawar’s inclusive Ethiopian federal union (de facto inclusive Oropia, i.e., Oromian-led Ethiopia on the grave of Abyssinian-dominated Ethiopia). This is the grave mistake Amhara elites can make now, at a time when they have to fight on multiple fronts. In future inclusive Oropia, all nations in northern Ethiopia (Awi, Qemant, Himra, Woyto, Gafat, Shinasha, Kunama, Tembien, Wolqayit, Erob, Argoba, Raya, Lalibela, etc.) will get their God-given self-rule. Of course, this union will be a very good prelude for the possible future independent Oromia or integrative Oropia.

In the past, at the Oromo consensus convention in Washington DC, we decided for union Oropia (federal Ethiopia), in which we could promote: 1. Afan Oromo as the working language of the union; 2. the Cushitic Black-Red-White as the flag of the union; and 3. Oropia, instead of Ethiopia, as the name of the union. This was our common slogan in the ongoing discourse. It is a known fact that the Oromo national liberation movement has a general objective of freedom with two alternative types of post-freedom sovereignty, which could be fostered after achieving freedom from the system of Amharanet domination. The post-freedom objectives are: an independent Oromia (600,000 sq km) as planned by the OLF, and an integrated Oropia (1,130,000 sq km) with self-rule of Oromia as opted by the OFC. This is a simplistic way of attributing the two objectives to these two organizations, respectively, as we also read in the mission statement of the OLF:

“The fundamental objective of the Oromo liberation movement is to exercise Oromo people’s inalienable right to national self-determination to terminate a century of oppression and exploitation, and to form, where possible, a political union with other nations on the basis of equality, respect for mutual interests and the principle of voluntary associations. … OLF’s commitment to this objective is based on a democratic principle, that the Oromo people are endowed with the right to decide the type of sovereignty they want to live under and the type of political union they want to form with other peoples. … In fact, the OLF and the Oromo people are committed to the noble cause of laying a foundation for union of free peoples on the basis of their freely expressed will.”

As shown in the statement, even the OLF is committed to forging “a political union where possible.” The OFC already puts in its program that it struggles for a “multi-national federation within Ethiopia.” The difference I see between the two approaches is that OFC gave the name Ethiopia to the union it will build and specified the type of union as a multi-national federation, whereas OLF kept the name and type of union open for future decisions. Just looking at the last sentence of the OLF’s mission statement, is it not possible to consider OFC as an agent to accomplish that message? If this is the case, then why should we worry about the two different approaches to the same goal of freedom, which we have now achieved? For OFC and OLF to be explicitly on the same page, it is necessary that OLF names the future union as Oropia and that OFC changes the name of the union it wants to foster from Ethiopia to Oropia.

As Ob. Ibsaa Gutama wrote in one of his articles, it is already written in the original program of the OLF that an objective of the struggle is “…where possible to foster a political union with other neighboring nations.” This same expression is still in the mission statement of the Front. When we look at statements of all Oromo organizations, there are two main principles in the Oromo national liberation struggle: (1) concerning the means of struggle: where possible nonviolent struggle – otherwise armed struggle for freedom; (2) regarding the end of the struggle: where possible political union – otherwise national independence after freedom. Based on this principle, OFC chose nonviolent struggle and political union; whereas OLF initially opted for armed struggle and national independence. But as a nation, the Oromo combined both armed struggle and nonviolent struggle to achieve freedom. The question of independence vs. union will be answered by referendum, after we gain our freedom.

According to the programs of these two lines of thought, a possible union with free neighboring nations is not excluded. The goal of exclusive independent state is an appropriate solution for certain minorities at the periphery—like the Tigray nation—and an autonomous state within the Ethiopian union is optimal for any minority at the center—for example, the Gurage nation. Parallel to this, an independent Oromia as a solution by default considers the Oromo nation as a minority at the periphery, whereas Oromia’s autonomy within the Ethiopian union puts the Oromo in the category of minority at the center. These two solutions seem not optimal for the Oromo nation, which is a majority in the whole empire and in the possible future union. The Oromo’s condition as a colonized majority at the political center of the country is unique—which requires a correspondingly unique solution. Finfinne (political center of the Oromo) being the brain and heart of Ethiopia, a lasting and proper solution for the Oromo is better as integrative Oropia (1,130,000 sq km). What does this concept mean?

Oropia is a modified Indian model of sovereignty: the Hindi people liberated themselves together with all nations and nationalities in their region, named the whole country India, made Hindi the working language of the Indian federation, and divided the national area of Hindi into multiple federal regions. Why not the Oromo people be liberated together with other nations and nationalities in Ethiopia, call the whole country ‘Oropia,’ promote Afan Oromo to the working language of the federation, with the historical local Odà’s of Oromia (Odaa-Bisil, -Bultum, -Gaarres, -Makodi, -Nabee, and -Roobaa) as future separate federal regions? I think it is not beneficial at the moment to divide the nominally existing Oromia region into such Odà’s, thus it is possible to have the Oromo national area as an autonomous “Oromo regional state” within the union Oropia. That is why the concept of union Oropia is said to be a modified form of the Indian model of sovereignty. Can Abiy realize such union Oropia? It seems unlikely, but Jawar can do it.

This idea of Oropia is a synthesis of the two existing post-freedom sovereignties—independent Oromia and union Ethiopia. Why is this synthesis necessary? I think the aim of ‘independent Oromia’ faces international obstacles from most neighboring nations as well as from the international community, and the objective ‘union Ethiopia’ faces internal objections from Oromo nationalists. That is why our leaders find it difficult to openly promote the idea of an independent Oromia to the diplomatic community; so they usually speak about self-determination, freedom, and democracy, instead of clearly stating that “we want to foster an independent Oromia.” At the same time, unionist Oromo nationalists face problems getting support from the Oromo, who have been told for the last 40 years that “Ethiopia is a system to be dismantled, thus we need to reject also the name Ethiopia.”

Accordingly, those with the agenda of union Ethiopia are usually labeled by pro-independence nationalists as “enemies of the Oromo struggle.” Can we change the name Ethiopia in “union Ethiopia” to Oropia and replace the independence goal of “independent Oromia” by a union, synthesizing these two goals into ‘union Oropia’? In this synthesis, Oropia will be in the U.N. as an inclusive union, instead of “exclusive independence.” Such combination of the two objectives into one synthesis can help reduce internal Oromo conflicts and international concerns about the fate of the region. Just as union Oropia is a good synthesis of both an independent Oromia and union Ethiopia, an attempt by Abyssinian elites from both Amhara and Tigray nations to bring back imperial Ethiopia is the antithesis of these two.

In short: Imperial Ethiopia (Abyssinian-dominated Ethiopia) ⇒ Union Ethiopia vs Independent Oromia ⇒ Union Oropia

I once wrote an article showing the importance of naming, which is the main factor in identifying a nation: The Wonderful Cushitic Oromia: Naming Is Identifying. Naming the union as Oropia solves the conflict between pro-independence fronts and pro-unity forces: we will have both the desired independence and the required unity, if other nations accept this recommendation as a compromise solution. As far as the Oromo-proper are concerned, we renamed our nation from “Galla” to Oromo and our capital city from Addis Ababa to Finfinne without waiting for permission or recognition from anyone else. So why not rename the country from Ethiopia to Oropia? Anybody can call the country Abyssinia or Ethiopia, but the Oromo people should unanimously agree to call it Oropia from now on. That country is neither the land of the mixed (Abyssinia, as the Portuguese called it) nor the land of the burnt face (Ethiopia, as the Greeks named it), but the land of the brave (Oropia), as both Oromo-proper and Oromo-progeny (other Cushitic nations as offshoots from the Oromo) call ourselves. Such Cushitic Oropia, where freedom of citizens, liberty of nations, genuine democracy, justice, and human rights are respected, will be our future common home—if other nations in the empire voluntarily accept and endorse this suggestion.

If Oromo neighbours are not ready to accept union Oropia, they are the ones who should seek acknowledgment from the Oromo or Oropia and ask for recognition from the international community to gain their own independence. The Oromo national liberation struggle of both the ODF and OLF lines needs to focus on how to gain state power in the Caffé Aràrà palace of Finfinne, as well as offer such a union of Oropia for others to stay with us, if they want. This is a union on our own terms, which can benefit the Oromo and others. It is somewhat similar to the opinion of Ob. Bàrô Tumsà, given 40 years ago, where he suggested:

“We, the Oromo, must capture state power by any means necessary. In order to do this, we must clandestinely organize all sectors of our society. It is the responsibility of young educated Oromo like you to disseminate the spirit of Oromo nationalism when you return to your respective communities. We can only change the deplorable condition of our people by being tolerant to one another and reestablishing the necessary Oromo national unity. In this way, we can build a strong organization, capture state power, and take actions that facilitate fundamental social transformation.”

I would like to suggest the implementation of the following five points in the phase of “taking actions that will facilitate transformation”: (1) freedom of citizens and nations in the union; (2) Afan Oromo as the primary working language of the union; (3) democracy as the rule of the game in the union; (4) Oropia as the name of the union; and (5) the Cushitic Black-Red-White as the flag of the union. If all our neighbouring nations are interested in living with the Oromo in a common home (union), they have to take this offer seriously; otherwise, I think the birth of an independent Oromia is inevitable, and this surely will divide Ethiopia into at least four parts: North Ethiopia, Ogadenia, Oromia, and South Ethiopia.

As far as the Oromo are concerned, putting it metaphorically, an integrative Oropia is like a gross salary, while an independent Oromia is similar to the net salary of a certain professional. In case other nations reject this offer from the Oromo and go their own way to become neighbouring states, we will have our independent Oromia with its capital city Finfinne, just like Russia with Moscow was left behind when other states of the Soviet Union decided for their independence, and like Serbia with Belgrade had the same fate during the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

In short, both pro-union and pro-independence Oromo nationalists can consider Oropia as a common synthetic objective to be expressed boldly and clearly, both internally to our people as well as internationally to others, so that we can unanimously struggle—whether by nonviolent means or armed struggle—to liberate our nation from 150 years of subjugation. This approach of the Oromo, as a majority in the whole country, can face fewer obstacles from internal national friction and milder rejection from the international stakeholders of the Horn region.

Is this synthesis helpful to promote an indispensable unity of purpose among Oromo nationalists and an important alliance with other anti-Biltsignà forces, so that we can have an effective and efficient force against our main foe—the Abyssinian dictators? I hope this attempt to seek a common focus for all Oromo liberation forces can be developed further in the future with better ideas. The writer of this opinion is ready to hear and read any possible—whether negative or positive—feedback. But one thing is almost certain: an inclusive federal union, as proposed by Jawar, is a very good prelude for an independent Oromia or an integrative Oropia. There is no turning back to Empire Abyssinia (Abyssinian-dominated Ethiopia). Abiy’s attempt to keep Ethiopia dominated by Amharanet at the cost of Oromummaa shall also fail. May Wàqa help us all in the region to foster a common home as suggested here—a federal union as a prelude to Oromia or Oropia!

Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2020/07/0 ... at-oromia/