Two Blocs of Competing Ethiopianists: Amapianists vs Oropianists!
By Fayyis Oromia*
Currently, the voice of pro-independence movements in Ethiopia is minimal. There is no group explicitly determined to separate any nation in order to dismantle Ethiopia. The main pro-independence forces from Ogaden, Tigray, and Oromia have already minimized their rhetoric, and it seems they have made a paradigm shift toward living together in a genuine federation or confederation. Almost all political elites in the country are now pro-unity Ethiopianists. However, we observe two blocs of these Ethiopianists: 1. the Amapianists, who want to preserve the Amhara-dominated Ethiopia (ADE), and 2. the Oropianists, who are dedicated to fostering an Oromummà-led Ethiopia (OLE). All Amhara elites are, without question, Amapianists. When they cry about Ethiopia and Ethiopiawinet, they actually mean an Amhara-dominated Ethiopia. There are many elites from other nations, including the ruling Oromo Prosperity Party, who are also Amapianists. On the other hand, all genuine Oromo nationalists rallying behind the OLF (Oromo Liberation Front) and OFC (Oromo Federalist Congress), as well as elites from other nations ready to accept the future Oropia replacing Amapia, are Oropianists.
The political struggle in Ethiopia is now crystallizing into a clear division between these two Ethiopianist groups: Amapianists vs Oropianists. Oromo nationalists are taking steps toward realizing Oropia. Our short-term goal is Oromian autonomy within Amapia, our medium-term objective is Oromian independence as a Gadaa republic, and our long-term vision is Oropian union—a union of free nations led by Oromummà.
Ethiopian politics is characterized by two blocs or two visions: pro-Amharanet, which supports the domination of Amharic as promoted by Ezema and EPP, and pro-Oromummà, which supports the leadership of Oromiffa at the federal level as envisioned by the OLF and OFC. Again, these two blocs have two lines of politics: Ethiofederalism (including integration) vs Ethnofederalism (including independence). From the pro-Amharanet bloc, Ezema is a dictatorial Ethiofederalist, and EPP is a dictatorial Ethnofederalist. From the pro-Oromummaa bloc, both the OLF and OFC are democratic Ethnofederalists, whereas no genuine pro-Oromummà organization is Ethiofederalist. Previously, Meison, under Dr. Haile Fida, was a pro-Oromummà Ethiofederalist. The Ethiofederalist line is heavily promoted by Amhara elites, while the Ethnofederalist line is strongly supported by Tigray elites. Both do so based on their respective advantages and interests. Amhara elites think of assimilating the entire country due to the still-dominant Amharanet (Amharic), while Tigray elites seek to secure their minority status and prevent the danger of assimilation. Oromo elites seem to entertain both lines: the more confident they are in leading the country, the more they opt for Ethiofederation, and the less confident they are in facing Abyssinian elites’ manipulations, the more they prefer security through Ethnofederation. As an example, Haile Fida was in favor of the first line, whereas Baro Tumsa promoted the second. Now, it seems the majority are leaning toward the second line. The few, like Dr. Abiy Ahmed, who seem to support the first line, are suspected of being pro-Amara (pro-Nafxanya) for they still maintain the system of Amharanet domination.
In reality, both Dr. Haile Fida and Dr. Abiy Ahmed tried to place the Oromo at the center of Ethiopian politics and show how Ethiopia belongs to the Oromo, countering the historical alienation of this large nation by the Habesha ruling class. The key difference between the two is that Dr. Abiy Ahmed is an Amapianist, while Dr. Haile Fida was an Oropianist. The Habesha ruling class attempted to portray the Oromo as anti-Ethiopia, wanting to separate from other nations. Besides these two Oromo politicians, the famous Colonel Alemu Qixessa also once said: “Ethiopia yemān honā new? Oromo yemigenetelew?” suggesting that Ethiopia belongs to the Oromo, so there is no need for separation politics for the Oromo. However, Oromo politics always has two sides of the same coin, and here are two interesting perspectives regarding our history and destiny.
As I have read and understood, one perspective (the Cushitic narrative) attempts to show the connection between the Oromo and Egypt, the origin of Cushitic civilization, the city of Meroe, and suggests that the Oromo’s destiny should include the renaissance of Ethiopia (Biyya-Kush). It teaches us that Oromo-proper is the “stalk” for all Cushitic nations in Northeast Africa. The other perspective focuses on achieving the freedom of the Oromo, including the liberation of Oromia (Biyya-Oromo) from Abyssinian subjugation, regardless of the Oromo’s historical background, and it concentrates on the colonial narrative. The main difference between these two perspectives (Cushitic narrative vs. Colonial narrative) is that the first is more history-oriented, while the second is destiny-oriented. The first digs into the history of the Oromo from different perspectives, while the second promotes a sovereign Oromia at any cost. However, both share the common goal of liberating the Oromo from any form of domination.
To me, the first perspective is a smart approach to our liberation movement. I would call it the OPF (Oropian Patriotic Force) stance, which strives for Oromo liberation within a union of peoples in Oropia, and which will then influence other nations to embrace their Oromo roots. The second perspective, more clearly represented by the OLF, advocates for self-determination through a referendum of the Oromo public on the issue of a free Oromia within or outside a union of peoples.
Just acknowledging Oromo’s modern history, which positions the Oromo as an indigenous nation in the region and the origin of most other nations, I can say that the Oromo has historically engaged in self-destruction under the influence of forces from the Middle East and the Western world. For example, the Axumite Oromos (Habeshanized and Christianized) destroyed the traditional Oromo of Meroe, and the Amharized Oromo, like Emperors Theodros, Menelik, Haile Selassie, and the dictator Mengistu, as well as Tigrayanized Oromo individuals like Emperor Yohannes and the tyrant Meles Zenawi, destroyed the well-preserved and resistant Oromo-proper. Here, it is important to note that Oromo-proper is the most dissenting force that resisted external influences and maintained its indigenous religion and language. Some scholars even suggest that this is why the name “Gàllà” was given to the Oromo, derived from the Arab word “Qallà,” meaning “said NO.” The Arabs named the Oromo this way because they resisted accepting Islam at the cost of their indigenous religion, Wāqeffannā. Later, Abesha elites (the Habashanized Oromo-progeny) gave it more negative connotations.
The question to raise now is: how can we, the Oromo-proper, who have fought for our liberation from domination by the “ignorantly arrogant” Oromo-progeny (TPLF elites), achieve this goal? What is the implication of having these two positions (OPF’s and OLF’s perspectives) in Oromo society? Are the two positions irreconcilable? Is the OPF position a prerequisite for promoting the OLF’s position or vice versa? I write this opinion and ask these questions to provoke thought and action in the Oromo community. My stand here is not necessarily final or definitive.
As far as I am concerned, the two positions are complementary, not contradictory. The fact on the ground is that the Oromo nation (Oromo-proper) was under the tyranny of TPLF and needed unconditional liberation. For this struggle, both OPF and OLF had noble positions on the political rights of the Oromo-proper to self-determination (whether for Ethnofederalism and an independent Oromia by OLF or for Ethiofederalism and an integrated Oropia by OPF). This ensured our liberation at any cost, without compromise. As long as there is Abesha domination (keep in mind that Abesha are part of the Oromo progeny) over the Oromo-proper, there will be an Oromo liberation movement, and surely, there will be a viable front to fight for freedom. After achieving the goals of either the OPF or the OLF—after liberating Oromo-proper from any form of oppression—we can move forward to realize the common position of both organizations: the integration of all nations (most of which are actually Oromo progenies) with Oromo-proper in a union of free peoples in Ethiopia.
I think this is why the OLF included in its program not only the necessity of Oromian independence but also the possibility of Ethiopian union—of course, an Oropian union, not an Amapian union. In short, we, the Oromo, have three goals to achieve in succession. The next stop on our liberation journey, which began in Djibouti (as a colony) and passed through Ayisha (limited cultural autonomy), will be Diredhawa (true federation in Amapia). That’s why we need to support the OFC. Then, true federation can lead us to the goal of the OLF—Adama (total independence of the Oromo from external influence)—and to the common goal of both positions: Finfinné (a union of free peoples in Oropia, and even further in the Horn). This is the final step to achieve the Ethiopian (Cushitic) renaissance.
Moreover, it is certain that if there is true freedom and democracy, we will eventually achieve the final common goal: Oromo renaissance, in which both the Oromo-proper and the various Oromo progenies, including other nations in the Horn that may not have emerged from the Oromo, will grow together. Again, without the imperative liberation of Oromo-proper, the entire region will continue to suffer under present poverty and tyranny. So, the key to prosperity in the region is the liberation of Oromo-proper, whether within or without the desired union of free peoples. In short, let all Oromo nations (both the proper and progeny) move from self-destruction to self-determination. Let us continue to say NO to slavery, injustice, and tyranny.
I think this idea is the motivating force behind Dr. Abiy Ahmed’s “Ethiopian Kénya” movement, which was actually supported by well-known Oromo politicians like Haile Fida, Alemu Qixessa, Léncô Latà, Mararà Gudina, Bulchà Damaqsà, and others. The difference between the pioneer Haile Fida and the present Abiy Ahmed is the timing and the emphasis: Haile for Oropia nd Abiy for Amapia. Haile fought when we had low confidence in identifying ourselves as Oromo, and he became a victim. In contrast, Abiy is enjoying an era when the Oromo have high confidence in their identity and can claim that, in fact, Ethiopia belongs to the Oromo—thus, he can be a victor! It is up to all Oromo political groups from across the spectrum to stand with Abiy (in case he is an Oropianist, not an Amapianist), whose time seems to have come, and help him succeed.
Finally, I appeal to Oromo historians, geologists, anthropologists, politicians, ethnologists, and other social science students to write what they know on this issue and educate the Oromo public (in the broadest sense, including all Oromo progenies). Do not leave the topic of “Ethiopian (Kush) Kénya” to amateur writers. Now is the time to give up the Colonial narrative, which has already done its job of liberation, and embrace the more beneficial Cushitic narrative to promote the Oromo renaissance (including both the proper and progeny) in the Horn of Africa. Whether the first line of Oropian integration or the second line of Oromian independence, neither position is disadvantageous for the Oromo. May Wāqa help us!
Galatôma!
Read more:https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/1 ... opianists/