The Fourth Revolution of All Citizens and Nations in Ethiopia, to Cast Off the Fascists, is About to Erupt!
By Fayyis Oromia*
It is encouraging to see forces and scholars from almost all nations of Ethiopia coming together in the diaspora to cooperate against the incumbent fascist regime. We overthrew successive feudal regimes through an all-inclusive revolution by all citizens and nations in 1974. Since then, we have endured three fascist regimes—each favoring one ethnic elite at the expense of others. The Derg favored Amhara elites; the TPLF (Woyane) privileged Tigrayan elites; and now Biltsiginna promotes Oromo elites. Yet none of these regimes genuinely benefited the very nations they claimed to represent.
It is striking: Amhara elites were indifferent to the suffering of Tigrayans and Oromos under the Derg. Tigrayan elites ignored the oppression of Amhara and Oromo during the TPLF era. Today, some Oromo elites remain unmoved by the suffering of Amhara and Tigrayans caused by Biltsiginna. Enough is enough. All nations in Ethiopia must recognize this repeated pattern of “divide and destroy” orchestrated by fascist regimes. We must rise together and revolt against fascism.
For this to happen, each major opposition bloc must break free from outdated ideologies: the Amhara opposition from Derg mentalities, the Tigrayan bloc from TPLF’s divisive mindset, and the Oromo front from Biltsiginna’s ethnocentric policies. We need a common denominator—a united front fighting for freedom and democracy, to build a shared homeland grounded in liberty, equality, and fraternity.
The Trap of Dictatorship: A Repeating Pattern
Amhara and Oromo elites, in particular, have repeatedly fallen into the trap set by Ethiopia’s dictatorial regimes. These regimes have long survived by polarizing and dividing these two powerful blocs. Today, many Amhara elites make three critical mistakes:
- Framing their struggle as anti-Oromummà (Oromo identity),
- Using derogatory terms like the “G-word” to refer to Oromos,
- Clinging to a colonial-era narrative of being “civilizers” of other nations.
Biltsiginna and Abiy Ahmed are exploiting this dynamic for the same old strategy: divide and rule.
Why Is It So Easy for Biltsiginna to Rule?
Because misguided elites from the two largest nations—Amhara and Oromo—are still trapped in battles over history, ideology, and identity. Biltsiginna has successfully positioned itself as the “moderate center”—advocating a union of autonomous nations—while portraying Amhara elites as chauvinists and Oromo elites as narrow nationalists. This manipulation keeps the two camps locked in conflict.
Ironically, there were visionary leaders from both groups who once overcame these divisions. The formation of the Alliance for Freedom and Democracy (AFD) in 2006 was a landmark step to counter TPLF’s divide-and-rule tactic. It even paved the way for the Oromara movement and the regime change in 2018. Can we now build an AFD-2 to confront Biltsiginna’s current tactics?
Divide and Rule: A Colonial Legacy
It was once quoted that Meles Zenawi described the historical tension between Amhara and Oromo as a “unique advantage” for TPLF. Regarding their unity within AFD, he called it “a marriage between fire and straw.” It’s tragic that these two great nations remain divided—victims of Ethiopia’s ruling elites and their European colonial backers.
In reality, both the Amhara and Oromo were victims of European imperial manipulation. At the end of the 19th century, as European powers scrambled for Africa, the British and French avoided direct confrontation by empowering local proxies. They labeled the Amhara as “superior Semites” and armed them to suppress the “inferior animist” Oromo and other southern nations. Both the rulers and the ruled became captives of this colonial manipulation.
Later, Tigrayan elites played a similar role, this time under American influence—again to suppress the Oromo and eventually the Amhara. Despite their differences, there is no theoretical barrier preventing a genuine alliance between Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo pro-freedom fronts. But practical challenges persist.
Overcoming Mutual Sabotage
Both sides need to abandon their respective nationalist agendas:
- Amhara forces must drop the drive for Amharanet Domination.
- Oromo fronts must let go of exclusive Oromummà Leadership.
When Amhara elites push Amharanet domination, Oromo fighters see it as a threat to their freedom. When Oromo fronts push Oromummà Leadership without accommodating unionist aspirations, Amhara elites fear displacement and marginalization. This mutual mistrust is counterproductive.
TPLF and now Biltsiginna have exploited this mistrust to divide and rule. To overcome this, both nations must rally around a shared agenda: freedom and democracy. With that, both Oromia and Amhara can enjoy self-determination within a union.
A Common Vision: Union of Free Peoples
To build a lasting alliance, the two major nations must unite around a shared purpose. I propose:
- A union of free peoples with Afàn Oromo and Amharic as the working languages of a federal Ethiopia.
- A free Oromia and a free Amaraland within this union, based on self-determination.
Oromo fighters argue that freedom must come first, then union by free will. A few enlightened Amhara voices argue that Habesha (Amhara and Tigrayans) are Abyssinized Cushites—essentially Oromo and Agaw descendants—who must reconnect with their roots and allow the Oromo a leadership role in shaping the future.
However, many Amhara forces fear the disintegration of the empire and resist any Oromo leadership. Likewise, many Oromo fronts resist the return of Amhara power, fearing renewed cultural domination. Both camps are sabotaging each other—just as they did during and after the 2005 elections. When the Amhara-led CUD was about to win, Oromo groups withheld support. When the OLF formed AFD, Amhara forces opposed it.
The Cost of Mistrust
This deep mistrust is now the main reason Biltsiginna remains in power. Until Amhara and Oromo forces forge a shared platform, Ethiopians will continue to suffer under dictatorship—not for years, but for decades.
A union of free peoples based on the right to self-determination could be the middle ground. Let’s envision a federation of free nations—Amhara, Tigray, Afar, Oromo, Ogaden, Sidama, Gurage, and beyond. Perhaps even including Eritrea, Djibouti, Somaliland, Puntland, and Somalia—if they choose to join. The alternative? Unconditional separation.
The Question Yet to Be Asked
The question yet to be asked is: Do Amhara forces choose to accept the alternative of separation, or must they be compelled to face that reality? We already know that the TPLF accepted the idea of separation as soon as it sensed its grip on power in the Finfinne palace was slipping. To compel Amhara forces to accept a union based on national self-determination, we would simply need to demote Amharic to a regional language used only in Amhara and promote Afaan Oromo as the sole federal working language. Then, Amhara elites would come to understand that Ethiopianness is no longer synonymous with Amharanet (as it is now), but rather with Oromummà.
In such a scenario—where Oromummà becomes equivalent to Ethiopianness—Oromo freedom fighters would likely shift to support Ethiopian identity against ethnicity-based politics, while Amhara elites might begin to defend their own identity by opting for the self-determination of the Amhara people. Ironically, they would then support “ethnicity” and reject Ethiopianness = Oromummà. In doing so, they would finally grasp what it means to struggle for national independence—whether within a union or outside of one.
OLF’s Strategic Moves Against TPLF
The OLF has already taken some significant steps to create common ground with Amhara forces and to defeat the TPLF politically. The short-sighted TPLF—skilled at winning battles but unable to win the broader war—believed it could eliminate the OLF by persecuting and massacring its supporters. But this backfired. These brutal tactics only increased the OLF’s support among Oromos, which it lacked prior to 1991.
More significantly, the OLF didn’t eliminate TPLF’s supporters but gradually removed the TPLF’s presence and legitimacy in Ethiopia. Two key steps were instrumental:
- In 1992, the OLF denied the TPLF political legitimacy in Oromia, turning the TPLF into an eternal enemy of the Oromo.
- In 2006, the OLF formed the Alliance for Freedom and Democracy (AFD) with Amhara parties like the CUD, dismantling the TPLF’s central tool for division: labeling Amhara forces as centralists and Oromo freedom fighters as separatists. This tactic had long kept both groups fighting each other rather than uniting against the TPLF.
As this narrative lost power, the TPLF came under pressure from both Oromo and Amhara sides. The same approach must now be applied against Biltsiginna. Whether it takes one year or ten, Biltsiginna will eventually fall—just as the Derg and the Woyane did. In the future, Biltsiginna will be remembered in Ethiopia as a dark regime—like the Nazis in Germany. A new generation will disown its legacy, just as today’s Germans reject their fascist past.
On Amhara Forces and Democratic Unity
I appreciate the efforts of Amhara forces attempting to foster democratic unity. Advocating for unity is not inherently wrong. However, many use both religious and political methods to promote it—often by the same individuals or organizations. This combination is dangerous. I advise them to choose one: either act as religious leaders committed to moral inclusivity or as political actors pursuing the specific interests of their group.
As politicians, Amhara elites often prioritize maintaining the empire, while Oromo freedom fighters aim to dismantle it and build a new union. As religious leaders, they are morally obligated to consider the needs of both sides. These dual roles often lead to internal contradictions. To understand the unity Amhara elites promote, they must distinguish between empire and union:
- An empire is unity by force.
- A union is unity by free will.
If Amhara forces genuinely support the latter, then they must accept that referenda on self-determination could result in the independence of nations, not just their continued inclusion in Ethiopia.
Unity vs. Union: Pre-modern vs. Post-modern
There’s a vital distinction between unity and union. Unity is pre-modern—often coercive—while union is post-modern—voluntary and democratic. One English scholar categorized nations into three types:
Pre-modern chaotic states (e.g., artificial constructs in Africa like the Abyssinian Empire, which Amhara elites favor),
Modern nation-states (e.g., mono-ethnic states in Asia or Latin America),
Post-modern unions of free nations (e.g., the European Union).
African countries—including Ethiopia—remain pre-modern due to colonial legacies and are preserved that way by authoritarian regimes, including those in the African Union. To evolve, Africans must move beyond artificial nations like Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nigeria, and Kenya, and instead build natural states like Oromia, Amhara, Tigrai, Hausa, or Somalia.
These modern nation-states can then voluntarily form post-modern unions, such as a union of free peoples. This transformation—from pre-modern oppression through modern sovereignty to post-modern cooperation—is what Europe now enjoys. Africa deserves the same.
Clarifying My Position
I hope Amhara forces do not misunderstand me. I am not a representative of the OLF, though I’m often accused of being one. I am an independent thinker. While some of my views align with the OLF, my goal is not to support them unconditionally. My objective is Oromo self-determination, which may result in either:
An independent Oromia within a union of free peoples, or
An independent Oromia without a union.
Some Amhara forces accept the first option, but many reject the second. They prefer a larger, centralized Ethiopia over what they dismiss as “inferior mini-states” like Oromia or Amhara state. I too support a larger union—but only one based on free will, not coercion.
To build a democratic union based on self-determination, we need an Amhara-Oromo alliance against Biltsiginna. I believe some Amhara forces also desire this future.
The Real Question: Alliance With Whom?
Some Amhara voices have, at least in theory, acknowledged that the destiny of the Oromo should be decided solely by the Oromo people living in Oromia—who are also Ethiopians. But if that same Oromo population chooses independence without union, will Amhara forces accept it or fight against it? They must clarify: Do they support union by free will or unity by force?
Some argue, citing U.S. history, that force saved American unity during the Civil War, and therefore Ethiopia can be “saved” the same way. But this comparison is flawed. The U.S. is a land of immigrants united by a single language and identity. Ethiopia is a multi-national empire with distinct native nations. Do they want all Ethiopian nations to be “melted” into one, speaking only Amharic?
Even the liberal Ezema party advocates unconditional integration—a position not shared by Oromo fronts or other oppressed nations fighting for self-determination. I support a union based on free will, but I oppose any form of forced unity that disregards the sovereignty of nations like the Oromo.
If Amhara orgs seek an alliance with Oromo fronts like the OLF, they must drop their insistence on unconditional unity and instead accept self-determination as a shared principle. I did read certain call for an alliance of Amhara and Oromo forces to topple Biltsiginna. I welcome that call, but I must ask: An alliance of whom—exactly—against Biltsiginna?
Ethiopia’s Political Triangle
Ethiopian politics currently balances between three main blocs:
- Biltsiginna—the ruling authoritarian force,
- Unity forces—those seeking to preserve the empire under the guise of democracy,
- Freedom fighters—nations struggling for liberation before discussing union.
The third bloc includes groups like the OLF, ONLF, SLF, and others. Their goal is to achieve national liberation first, then determine whether to form a union based on free will.
When Amhara forces talk about forming an alliance against Biltsiginna, do they mean including only the second bloc? Or are they ready to include the third bloc as well?
So far, some have insisted on Ethiopian unity as a precondition for alliance, effectively excluding the third bloc. If they are serious about forming a real alliance to defeat Biltsiginna, they must rethink this precondition and find a common denominator with those fighting for self-determination
I believe the only true common ground lies in the acceptance of union based on the principle of national self-determination. If Amhara activists are truly democrats in practice—as they often claim—I hope they will embrace this principle. Nations must have the right to freely decide their own destiny, whether that means remaining within a union or choosing independence. The question is: does their rhetoric about democracy include the right of peoples to determine their own fate? Or are they merely unitarist foxes in sheep’s clothing? Or perhaps some are naive politicians, instrumentalized by extremists who seek to restore their domination at any cost? My hope is that, gradually, the Amhara people will begin to think and act independently of extremist-minded chauvinist conservatives.
The two positions—Amhara forces advocating unconditional unity versus Oromo forces supporting union based on free will—must be openly debated before any alliance is forged against Biltsiginnà. Even if nations vote for union, it is still necessary to decide the type of federal arrangement. Amhara forces generally push for geography-based federalism, while most liberation movements favor language-based (ethnic) federalism. As democrats, all parties should commit to accepting the public verdict on this issue. This was, in fact, the approach of UDJ within Medrek: Article 39 was rejected, and any final decision regarding the federation would be left to the public if Medrek won elections. But Oromo federalists in Medrek ultimately lost in that compromise, since they did not insist on protecting the Oromo nation’s right to self-determination. They even risked Oromia’s existence, as geography-based federalism would dismantle it.
So the question remains: can Amhara forces extend the same principle they applied in Medrek—accepting a public verdict on federation—to the broader issue of sovereignty itself? Can they accept that peoples have the right to decide, through referendum, whether they prefer self-rule within a union or independence outside it? If their democratic rhetoric is genuine, this must be included. And if a nation decides on self-rule, will they respect that decision—or resort to force to impose their vision of unity? So far, many Amhara elites have not even settled on what kind of federation they support.
To be clear: I support union, but only when it is based on free will. Just as UDJ accepted the principle of public verdict on federation, Amhara forces must also accept the principle of self-determination regarding sovereignty. They may campaign for union, while others advocate for independence, and then let the people decide. This is democracy. Amhara forces can emphasize the advantages of unity; pro-independence groups can highlight the benefits of sovereignty. A compromise position could also be promoted: national freedom within a regional union. Both sides could work together to convince the public of this vision. Ultimately, the people—not elites—should decide.
Some Amhara forces argue that people can be “brainwashed” to vote against their own interest. But democracy means living with that risk. If Americans could “mistakenly” elect George W. Bush, that was their right. To deny this principle by force, as Meles Zenawi once did, is profoundly undemocratic. Democracy cannot be half-baked: either one accepts it fully—including the right of nations to self-determination—or one stops pretending to be a champion of democracy. Otherwise, Amhara forces risk becoming just as dictatorial as the Woyane or Biltsiginnà.
Influencing the public is part of politics. What some call “brainwashing” is, in truth, persuasion. In America, evangelicals persuaded the majority to elect Bush; progressives persuaded the majority to elect Obama. Likewise, in Ethiopia, all sides have the opportunity to campaign and persuade the people. The winning side will be the one that wins the majority’s hearts and minds. That is democracy.
Dictatorial unifiers who insist on unconditional unity—“be andinet lay anideraderim!”—are in fact denying others their freedom. They do not say, “We advocate for unity, but let the people decide.” Their position is arrogant, dictatorial, and uncompromising. In response, Oromo fronts must equally say, “be netsanet lay anideraderim.” When both sides insist on “no compromise,” the inevitable result is bullets—as history has shown for the last 150 years. Forced “unity” is colonization, not union.
The central question, then, is whether there can be common ground between Amhara forces and Oromo fronts in the struggle against Biltsiginnà. I believe the only possible denominator is acceptance of union based on the right of nations to self-determination. Based on this, Ethiopian political forces can be classified into three broad groups:
Right-wing ethno-nationalists: Advocates of geography-based federalism who want to erase national regions like Oromia in favor of a [deleted] Ethiopia.
Centrists (language-based federalists): Supporters of ethnic federalism who accept autonomous nations but stop short of recognizing their right to decide sovereignty by referendum.
Left-wing ethno-nationalists: Advocates of full national self-determination, including the option of independence, such as the OLF.
The OLF’s position is clear: a referendum for the Oromo, whose outcome could be either a union (via language-based federation) or independence. If Amhara elites truly seek an alliance, they must respect this principle. Otherwise, they repeat the mistakes of 2005, when CUD’s rejection of even TPLF’s limited ethnic federalism drove Oromo parties away. Without Oromo support, no unity movement can succeed.
Today, some elites risk repeating history. By insisting on unconditional unity as a precondition for alliance, they alienate Oromo forces and undermines the very unity they claim to seek. If they genuinely value democracy, they must agree to let the people decide. Then, unity and independence can be debated openly, with the public holding the final word.
The compromise solution is clear: a union of free nations, built on the right to self-determination. This approach provides common ground for Amhara and Oromo democratic forces alike. Some elites must abandon their “my way or the highway” approach. If they do, a strategic alliance between Amhara and Oromo elites—similar to the former AFD—could both advance Oromo self-determination and move Ethiopia toward democratization and regional integration.
History teaches us: no empire has ever been reformed into justice. Only when empires collapse do oppressed nations achieve freedom. Ethiopia’s imperial structure must end before a true democratic union can be built. Only then will all nations—large or small—enjoy equal rights, freely decide their future, and even choose to voluntarily join a wider African union.
As long as domination continues, the struggle for liberation will remain. That is why the best solution lies in cooperation between Amhara pro-democracy forces and Oromo liberation movements around a common platform: a union of free peoples through language-based federalism, built on the right of nations to self-determination. To agree on this common denominator is the best precondition for the coming eruption of the fourth revolution to dismantle the current oppressive Biltsigina.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2018/10/0 ... nd-amhara/