Jawar Should Make Sure That the Semenawian do not Return to the Palace, Replacing Biltsigina!
By Fayyis Oromia*
It is a pity to see Jawar becoming another polarizing Oromo figure, alongside Abiy Ahmed. Especially in the diaspora, Oromos are divided into pro- and anti-Jawar camps. Those who oppose him accuse him of cooperating with the historical enemies of the Oromo—namely the Semenawian (the northerners) from ATE (Amhara, Tegaru, and Eritrea).
It is true that many Amhara elites are anti-Oromo, some Tegaru elites in the TPLF committed crimes against the Oromo, and Shabia was one of the saboteurs during the 1992 debacle involving the Oromo Liberation Army. The ATE taking power in Finfinne would be tantamount to the re-enslavement of the Oromo people by foreign forces. This must be prevented at all costs.
Personally, I prefer the bad Biltsigina over the worse Semenawian. That is why Jawar in particular, and Oromo nationalists in general, must ensure that the Semenawian do not return to power in the Finfinne Palace once we remove the Biltsigina oppressors.
Dr. Abiy once accused OLA leaders of refusing to engage in dialogue with the “brotherly” Biltsiginna, while being willing to speak with the Oromo’s enemy, i.e., Fanno. This allegation from Abiy raises a legitimate question: Who is the current enemy of the Oromo?
It appears that Oromo nationalists are divided into two camps based on whom they consider to be the main threat. Those who believe Biltsiginna is the current primary enemy are not vehemently opposed to the Fanno movement. On the other hand, those who consider Fanno as the main strategic enemy of the Oromo tend to support Biltsiginna—as long as the war between Fanno and Biltsiginna continues.
Fanno’s reckless rhetoric—opposing Onegawinet (Oromo nationalism), Oromo migration, and Oromummaa—has contributed to some Oromo nationalists siding with Biltsiginna. If Fanno were to correct these ideological mistakes, there would be no justification for any Oromo to support the dictatorial, neo-Derg regime led by Biltsiginna.
For the last 3,000 years, the Oromo people, our national identity (Oromummaa), and our language (Afaan Oromo) have faced continuous opposition. These adversaries have fought against Oromummaa in general and Afaan Oromo in particular, causing many Oromo in northern and eastern Ethiopia to lose their identity and language. In the north, they became Habeshanized—assimilated into Amhara or Tigrayan identities—and in the east, they were largely Somalianized.
Even today, there are three major adversaries who, in essence, act as modern Naftagnas (imperial elites), trying to undermine Oromummaa and Afaan Oromo:
- Amhara-Menelikites (A-Naftagnas) – These traditionalist Amhara elites were defeated in 1991, but they continue to maneuver for a comeback through political intrigue.
- Tigrayan-Melesites (T-Naftagnas) – Considered more dangerous, these forces were removed from Finfinne in 2018 and are now being pushed back in Tigray.
- Hybrid-Meshreftites (H-Naftagnas) – These are seen as the most dangerous. Currently in power under Abiy Ahmed, they disguise themselves as Oromo liberators while promoting Amharan supremacy at the expense of Oromummaa.
If we are serious about seeing Oromummaa prevail, these Pro-Amaranet Elites (PAE) must be replaced by Pro-Oromummaa Elites (POE).
The Oromo have long resisted the Naftagna system—a system designed to promote Amharic language and culture at the cost of Oromiffa. In a truly democratic system, Afaan Oromo would naturally emerge as the leading language in Ethiopia. That is why Naftagna-style governance is inherently undemocratic; it enforces Amharic supremacy and suppresses other national identities.
The previous A-Naftagnas and T-Naftagnas did exactly that. The current H-Naftagna regime does the same, but under a deceptive guise of Oromo identity. They have successfully divided Oromo nationalists into two camps: those who oppose Abiy and those who still support him. This makes the current struggle against H-Naftagnas the most difficult and dangerous phase in the Oromo liberation movement.
Unlike the Amhara and Tigrayans, who largely supported their respective Naftagna regimes, the Oromo overwhelmingly reject the H-Naftagna rule.
Thank you for reading my views—whether or not they contribute constructively to the Oromo liberation cause and the broader struggle of all oppressed nations in Ethiopia (or “Oropia,” as I prefer to call it). Over many years, I have tried to contribute. One of the rewards has been witnessing the growing consensus among Oromo nationalists around the importance of unity. Thanks to Waaqa, we’ve somewhat silenced both the EPP cadres and a few naïve Oromos who sought to divide us by region, party, religion, or generational identity.
It seems that most Oromo nationalists—whether in the ruling party, in opposition groups like the Oromo Democratic Federalists, or in rebel movements such as the Oromo Liberation Front—have agreed on the necessity of unity as the key to liberation. The Oromo, being the third-largest native nation in Africa (after the Berbers and Hausa), can set a precedent for the self-determination of all African national groups.
During the 27 years under TPLF rule, elections were used primarily to secure international legitimacy—not domestic accountability. TPLF’s so-called electoral reforms, such as the “Codes of Conduct” agreement in 2010 with unitarist opposition parties, were mere tools for sustaining power.
These parties, sympathetic to the old Ethiopia of the A-Naftagnas, collaborated with the T-Naftagnas to prevent the rise of genuine democratic unionist movements like Medrek (at home) and PAFD (in the diaspora). Why did this unlikely alliance occur? Likely because the growing movement for national freedom by the Oromo and other oppressed peoples was seen as a threat to the Abyssinian domination system.
It’s clear: the Oromo people and other oppressed nations have been fighting for over a century for basic rights. Meanwhile, the Naftagna regimes—whether Amhara or Tigrayan—spoke endlessly about “unity” and “democracy” without ever honoring liberty.
True unity and democracy can never exist without recognizing the inherent rights of both individuals and national groups. That is why organizations like PAFD emphasized liberty first—freedom from tyranny, oppression, and exploitation—before trying to implement any meaningful democratic system.
The current regime’s propaganda—claiming that we already enjoy democracy and unity—is a grand lie. The EPP talks of freedom while practicing tyranny; speaks of unity while applying divide-and-rule tactics; promises peace but uses state terror; praises democracy while imposing dictatorship.
In contrast, we must differentiate between unitarists like Ezema—who seek to preserve the imperial system—and unionists like Medrek, who fight for both democracy and liberty. Only after achieving liberty can we discuss forming a union of free peoples—based on consent, not domination.
That is why democratizing the Abyssinian empire is futile. First, we must dismantle its structures of oppression. Then we can build democracy from the ground up in liberated regions like Oromia. National freedom must precede regional democracy.
There are two types of unity we must understand:
- Unity for Freedom – The alliance of national liberation movements fighting against the empire’s oppression.
- Union After Freedom – The voluntary federation of liberated nations based on mutual consent.
To achieve the first, it is vital that opposition groups—like Medrek and PAFD—work together. If quasi-unionist groups like Ezema are willing to abandon their insistence on “unconditional unity” and instead support liberty and the right of nations to choose, then meaningful cooperation may become possible.
In conclusion, only free citizens and free nations can make legitimate decisions about the kind of union they want. We must continue the struggle to defeat the H-Naftagna regime, and then—and only then—can we build a democratic, multi-national Ethiopian federation.
Thanks to Waaqa, we appear to be in the final stages of our national struggle. Our next step is to remove the H-Naftagnas and to establish true democracy. That’s why we say: National freedom, such as Oromia’s liberty, must come before regional democracy.
Galatooma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2022/12/2 ... melesites/