Struggle in Ethiopia: Accommodative Oromummaa and Assimilative Amharanet
By Fayyis Oromia*
Ethiopia’s contemporary political crisis is shaped by the contestation between two dominant national ideologies: Amharanet and Oromummaa. Amharanet has historically been associated with cultural assimilation, linguistic centralization, and a unitary conception of statehood. Oromummaa, by contrast, is a modern political ideology that emphasizes cultural accommodation, linguistic equality, and territorial autonomy within a federal or confederal framework.
Under the rule of the Oromo Prosperity Party (OPP), Ethiopia’s federal system remains largely Amharic-dominated—often characterized by critics as Amarpia. Oromo nationalists, however, envision a transformation toward Orompia, in which Afaan Oromo becomes a principal federal working language and Finfinne (Addis Ababa) falls under the constitutional authority of Oromia. Whether the OPP under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is prepared to pursue such a transformation remains an open and contested question.
From Abyssinian Domination to Internal Oromo Divergence
The decline of Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) dominance marked the end of what many Oromo regard as prolonged Abyssinian political hegemony. However, the post-TPLF era has also exposed significant divisions within Oromo political leadership. These divisions broadly fall into two camps:
Prosperitans (OPP): A pragmatic and gradualist faction that prioritizes political stability and cautions against rapid changes to federal language policy and territorial arrangements.
Republicans (OFC, OLA, OLF): A coalition advocating the immediate elevation of Afaan Oromo to full federal working-language status and the restoration of Finfinne and Dire Dawa to Oromia’s jurisdiction.
This internal Oromo debate has become a central axis of Ethiopia’s broader national struggle.
The Triangular Balancing Act: Oromo, Amhara, and Tigray
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed initially enjoyed support from Oromo, Amhara, and segments of the Tigrayan population. Over time, opposition emerged in a sequential pattern. Tigrayan elites rejected reform efforts and accountability measures. Amhara political actors later opposed the government’s positions on issues related to Oromia, particularly Finfinne. Subsequently, Oromo republican movements accused the administration of compromising core Oromo national interests in order to secure approval from Habesha elites.
This evolution raises a critical political question: is the prime minister genuinely balancing competing national interests, or strategically leveraging interethnic rivalries to consolidate power?
Historical Attempts at Alliance-Building
Efforts to build alliances among historically marginalized nations—most notably the 2006 Alliance for Freedom and Democracy (AFD)—were met with intense resistance. The TPLF relied heavily on polarization between Oromo and Amhara elites to maintain political dominance. Through state narratives, both groups were portrayed as existential threats to national stability, fostering mutual suspicion and preventing sustained cooperation.
Rethinking Colonization: Were the Amhara Colonizers or Colonized?
A long-standing narrative within Oromo nationalist discourse has portrayed Amhara elites as historical colonizers. However, recent reflections by Amhara intellectuals, including Professor Daniel Kinde, challenge this framing. These perspectives emphasize that:
The TPLF annexed and administered parts of Amhara territories, including areas of Wollo and Gondar.
The Amhara experienced political marginalization and territorial dispossession during TPLF rule.
By widely accepted definitions, colonialism entails political domination, territorial annexation, cultural hierarchy, and economic exploitation. Under this framework, Tigrayan elites functioned as colonial rulers over both Oromo and Amhara populations.
Examples include the annexation of territories such as Raya and Azebo, preferential treatment for Tigrayan citizens, and the instrumental use of Amharic as a federal language to isolate Amhara communities from other marginalized nations. Recognition of this shared experience is essential for building future political alliances.
Language Politics and Manufactured Division
The TPLF’s refusal to grant Afaan Oromo federal working-language status was not accidental. It served multiple strategic objectives: fueling Oromo resentment toward perceived Amhara dominance, masking Tigrayan political control behind Amharic symbolism, and preventing Oromo–Amhara unity that could have threatened TPLF rule. Contemporary disputes over federal language policy must therefore be understood as the legacy of deliberate political engineering.
Ideological Orientations of Amhara and Oromo Nationalisms
The two largest nations in Ethiopia exhibit distinct political orientations. Amhara nationalism has tended to favor a unitary state, shaped by historical narratives and the centrality of Amharic language and culture. Oromo nationalism, by contrast, generally supports a decentralized ethnic federation or a voluntary union of autonomous nations. While these differences are substantive, they are not irreconcilable.
The Possibility of a New Democratic Alignment
A viable democratic alliance requires acknowledgment that both Oromo and Amhara experienced forms of colonization, albeit at different historical moments. National liberation must be recognized as a prerequisite for sustainable individual rights. Ethiopia’s political future should be determined through consensus or referendum on competing state models: a union of free peoples, a genuine ethnic federation, or a unitary state. Such an approach would reduce fear, mistrust, and zero-sum competition among national groups.
The Need for Honest Political Organization
Amhara political organizations have been weakened by attempts to form broad “Ethiopianist” parties that are vulnerable to infiltration, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD). A more viable strategy is for Amhara democrats to organize openly as Amhara, reject imperial nostalgia, and engage transparently with Oromo and other national movements.
Similarly, Oromo political actors must avoid portraying all Amhara as historical colonizers. Acknowledging the shared experience of oppression under TPLF rule is essential for building trust and unity.
Conclusion: Toward a Shared Democratic Future
Oromo and Amhara elites have previously cooperated to dismantle Tigrayan political domination. Renewed cooperation—grounded in mutual respect, recognition of national rights, and a clear democratic roadmap—offers the most credible path toward ending authoritarian governance and establishing a stable political order.
Failure to unite risks entrenching minority domination through recycled divisions. Success, however, could enable Ethiopia to move beyond a history of successive colonialisms toward a democratic future defined by equality among nations.
Galatoma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2019/03/1 ... -finfinne/