Is Biltsigina an Amapianist, Amarpianist, Confepianist, Orompianist, or Oropianist?
By Fayyis Oromia*
Introduction
It is increasingly evident that the Biltsigina (Prosperity) Party under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed does not align with any of the Oromo-centered political visions that have historically shaped Oromo political thought. It is neither committed to the liberation of Oromia as envisioned by the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF)—that is, it is not Confepianist—nor does it support an Oromo-led Ethiopian federation (Orompianism) as proposed by the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC). Likewise, it cannot be characterized as Oropianist, which seeks to establish an Oromo-led geo-federation grounded in democratic integration.
Instead, the party increasingly resembles earlier authoritarian regimes in Ethiopia. Specifically, it echoes either the Workers’ Party of Ethiopia (WPE) under the Derg—an ethno-fascist state operating under the guise of a geographic federation (Amapianism)—or the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), which maintained an ethnically structured yet Amharic-dominated federation (Amarpianism). In both cases, the underlying objective was the preservation of Amharic political and cultural dominance.
It is deeply concerning that segments of the Oromo elite appear, once again, to be complicit in undermining the Oromo struggle.
Three Historical Phases of Political Sabotage
The Oromo national struggle has repeatedly been diverted by elite collaboration at critical historical junctures.
- The 1974 Revolution: Initiated largely through Oromo popular mobilization, the revolution was ultimately undermined by Oromo elites led by Mengistu Hailemariam (Ayana). Despite his Oromo background, his regime consolidated a centralized, authoritarian Ethiopian state that marginalized Oromo aspirations.
- The 1991 Political Transition: The fall of the Derg created an opportunity for genuine federal restructuring. However, Oromo elites within the OPDO, alongside figures such as Meles Zenawi and Gobana Dacche, engineered a system that resulted in an Amharic-dominated ethnic federation—what may be termed Amharpia. Though formally ethnic in structure, real power remained centralized and culturally hegemonic.
- The 2018 Popular Movement: The most recent phase of Oromo-led resistance, which brought Abiy Ahmed to power, now appears to be following a similar trajectory. Once again, Oromo elites are presiding over a political project that strengthens Amharic dominance rather than advancing Oromo self-rule or leadership.
In all three cases, immense Oromo sacrifices yielded political outcomes that entrenched Amharic hegemony at the expense of Oromic political and cultural advancement.
The Political Direction of Biltsigina
There is little evidence that Biltsigina represents an Oromo-led political transformation. Rather, it appears committed to preserving Amharic dominance through one of two possible paths:
- EPRDF 2.0: Maintaining an Amharic-dominated ethnic federation; or
- WPE 2.0: Replacing ethnic federalism with a centralized, Amharic-dominated geographic federation.
Which of these trajectories will ultimately prevail remains uncertain, but neither aligns with Oromo aspirations for genuine self-determination and democratic leadership.
The Evolution of the Oromo Political Vision
The Oromo struggle has undergone a notable ideological evolution:
- Phase One: The OLF initially advocated for an independent Oromia, reflecting limited confidence in the possibility of exercising power at the Ethiopian center.
- Phase Two: As political confidence grew, the OFC proposed a federal Orompia, combining self-rule in Oromia with shared governance in Ethiopia.
- Phase Three: Today, a growing number of Oromo intellectuals and activists envision a fully integrated, Oromo-led Oropia—a political arrangement that transcends earlier separatist or federalist frameworks.
In light of this evolution, the OLF faces a strategic imperative to adapt—from independence, to federalism, and ultimately to democratic integration—if it is to remain politically relevant. The OFC occupies a critical transitional position but must continue advancing toward a vision of a democratic, inclusive political order.
Unity and the Transition to Democratization
Encouragingly, Oromo democratic forces are increasingly exploring unity. The emerging alliance between the OLF and OFC represents a significant step forward and could culminate in a merger—potentially forming a unified Oromo Republican Party capable of challenging the ruling Prosperity Party.
As the Oromo struggle moves from a liberation phase to a democratization phase, political pluralism becomes essential. Oromia, at minimum, requires two strong, competitive parties to sustain democratic governance.
Historically, Oromo society has endured domination by Abyssinian imperial elites and, more recently, by the TPLF-led political order. Today, remnants of both hegemonies appear intent on reclaiming power at the center. The critical question, therefore, is whether Oromo forces will continue internal संघर्ष (conflict) or consolidate unity.
Oromummà as the Basis for Unity
Opposition to Oromo unity has increasingly been articulated by individuals who identify as Oromo but actively undermine collective political efforts. Their arguments often include claims such as:
- “Unity that dismantles unity is not real unity.”
- “Unity led by specific leaders is illegitimate.”
- “Excluding certain actors constitutes betrayal.”
- “Armed struggle should be separated from political leadership.”
To address these claims, it is necessary to clarify foundational concepts:
- Federation: Derived from the Latin foedus (covenant), federation implies a voluntary agreement among diverse groups to pursue shared political goals.
- Oromummà: Oromo patriotism rooted in commitment to collective freedom, dignity, and self-determination.
Freedom:
- Collective freedom: The right of a people to self-determination under international law.
- Individual liberty: The rights to equality, expression, and dignity, attainable only through collective struggle.
Unity grounded in Oromummà is therefore indispensable. Opposition to such unity reflects either political misjudgment or deliberate sabotage.
The persistent resistance to Oromo unity raises important questions. Are these voices expressing legitimate ideological differences, or are they serving external interests—intentionally or otherwise?
While critical debate is necessary in any democratic movement, the recurring pattern of division aligns closely with the long-standing “divide and rule” strategies employed by successive Ethiopian regimes. Historically, Oromo elites have been co-opted first through coercion and now through political manipulation.
Conclusion
Despite these challenges, Oromo unity is gaining momentum both domestically and across the global diaspora. Cooperation among formerly fragmented political forces is becoming more tangible, and a deeper strategic alliance—particularly between the OLF and OFC—appears increasingly attainable.
The notion that Oromo movements pursue irreconcilable goals is steadily eroding. At its core, the Oromo struggle advances a single overarching objective: freedom through self-determination, articulated at three levels:
- Tactical goal: Autonomy within Ethiopia
- Core goal: Independence of Oromia
- Strategic goal: A voluntary union of free peoples in the region
This trajectory is neither secretive nor extremist; it is transparent, legitimate, and achievable.
The path to peace and stability in the Horn of Africa lies in the liberation of Oromia—an outcome that would benefit not only the Oromo people, but all nations in the region.
The time has come for Oromo across all social, religious, and political lines to enter a covenant grounded in Oromummà, committed to liberty and democracy. Once achieved, such unity will be an unstoppable force for regional transformation.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2018/11/2 ... e-new-odp/