NO to ATE (Amhara, Tegaru, and Eritrean) Elites’ Style of Sovereignty for the Oromo; YES to Our Own Way!
By Fayyis Oromia*
The Abesha style of sovereignty is inherently dictatorial—whether it is the Amhara’s centralized authoritarianism, the Tigrayan imperial federalism, or the Eritrean separatist authoritarianism. In contrast, the Oromo approach is fundamentally democratic, allowing the people to choose freely among centralism, federalism, or separatism.
Within Oromo nationalist circles, it is understood that these three forms of sovereignty—represented by the Amhara (assimilationist), Tigrayan (imperial), and Eritrean (exclusionary) models—are not inherently wrong if they arise through a democratic process. Nevertheless, the most preferred vision remains the Oromic-led rainbow union, rooted in Oromummà.
We say NO to:
- the separated Oromia (Eritrean elites’ model),
- the federated but mutilated Oromia (Tegaru elites’ model), and
- the colonized and occupied Oromia (Amhara elites’ model).
We say YES to our own beneficial path of sovereignty—either by forging Orompia (an Oromic-led ethnic federation) or by fostering Oropia (an Oromic-led geo-federation).
Amhara elites seek to erase Oromia; Tegaru elites have already mutilated it from its historic expanse to today’s reduced size; and Eritrean elites aim to dismantle Oromia in particular, and Ethiopia in general, into fragments.
The Oromo Approach to Sovereignty
In Oromo terms, the Amhara model could be seen as a form of democratic assimilation, where Oromic would be freely developed and used at the federal level. This could encourage neighboring linguistic groups to integrate into the Oromo cultural and linguistic framework—ultimately leading to the vision that Ethiopia = Oropia, an Oromic-led state. This approach must be distinguished from the dictatorial assimilation imposed in the past.
Meanwhile, Tigrayan imperialism—where the Oromo might rule others while maintaining state autonomy—differs sharply from the democratic autonomy for all nations envisioned in the Oromo model. Eritrea’s exclusive nationalism parallels the concept of an independent Oromo state, a path the Oromo may consider only if others reject the rainbow union.
A Strategic Shift: From Separation to Optimal Sovereignty
Today, Oromo organizations and people are embracing a more nuanced strategy. Rather than focusing solely on independence, there is a growing recognition that sovereignty can take multiple democratic forms.
Hence, the persistent labeling of the OLF (Oromo Liberation Front) as a “secessionist organization” by Habesha cadres is inaccurate. The Gadà tradition of democracy and freedom guides the Oromo toward negotiated and inclusive sovereignty.
We wish to give the rainbow union a chance. However, if this ideal is sabotaged by Abyssinian authoritarianism, the Oromo people will have no choice but to reconsider separation. At present, Oromo liberation forces are even open to exploring the unity long promoted by so-called “pro-unity” groups—so long as that unity is grounded in fairness.
Language, Identity, and Historical Amnesia
Any genuine unity must begin by correcting the linguistic imbalance. The federal language must include Oromic, not only Amharic.
Some Oromo nationalists remain optimistic that pro-unity forces may accept this fair solution. Historically, Amharic (Lisane Negus) was shaped by Oromo nobility around 1270 as a language distinct from the common Oromo tongue. Thus, Amharic and Oromic should both be recognized as forms of Afan Oromo—though with different historical functions. Oromic is the language of resistance and liberation, while Amharic remains associated with imperial domination.
The Three Generations of OLF: One Cause, Many Roads
The Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) has evolved through three generations, each expanding the vision of sovereignty:
First-generation OLF – Pursued independence as the final goal.
Second-generation OLF – Considered independence or autonomy within a union.
Third-generation OLF – Embraces all three possibilities: independence, federal Orompia, or an Oromic-led geo-federation (Oropia).
All three share the same core value: freedom for the Oromo people.
Context and timing determine which model takes priority. As long as the Oromo remain oppressed, independence remains a valid and non-negotiable option. Yet, overemphasizing it could inadvertently strengthen the Biltsigina regimeby dividing democratic forces. Strategically, the union option should be emphasized for now—while independenceremains the fallback.
Historical Mistakes and Political Realities
A major historical failure of both Amhara and Oromo elites has been their inability to form a strategic alliance, which allowed the Biltsigina regime to dominate by pitting them against each other.
While Amhara elites often act as though they still hold power in Finfinne, Oromo elites tend to underestimate their own influence. This false perception of weakness has hindered Oromo agency. Recent changes within the OLF signal growing confidence and pragmatism in the Oromo movement.
Three Strategic Cards for Oromo Nationalists
Unlike the Amhara (who are limited to integration) and the Tigrayans (who oscillate between imperialism and independence), Oromo nationalists hold three political cards:
- Independent Oromia
- Autonomous Oromia within a Union
- Integrative Oropia (a reformed, democratic Ethiopia)
This flexibility is a major strategic advantage. As long as Oromo unity is maintained and anchored in democratic values, any of these models could serve the people’s interests.
Final Thoughts
While independence remains a legitimate path, the Oromo are not a peripheral group like Eritrea or South Sudan. With their demographic majority and geographic centrality, the Oromo have the capacity to transform the center—not merely separate from it.
An Integrative Oropia—democratic, pluralistic, and Oromic-led—is a compelling vision for the future. Oromia’s sovereignty can be realized through:
- Independent Oromia within the African Union
- Autonomous Oromia within an Oropian Union
- Integrative Oropia, transforming Abyssinian Ethiopia into a Cushitic democracy
What must remain unconditional is the freedom and dignity of the Oromo people. The specific form that freedom takes—whether independence (Oromia), autonomy (Orompia), or integration (Oropia)—should ultimately be determined by a democratic referendum.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2017/06/1 ... mos-way-2/
Re: NO to ATE (Amhara, Tegaru, and Eritrean) Elites’ Style of Sovereignty for the Oromo; YES to Our Own Way!
The Abesha style of sovereignty is inherently dictatorial—whether it is the Amhara’s centralized authoritarianism, the Tigrayan imperial federalism, or the Eritrean separatist authoritarianism. In contrast, the Oromo approach is fundamentally democratic, allowing the people to choose freely among centralism, federalism, or separatism.