Can the Oromo Political Trinity (Jawar, Abiy, Lemma) Reunite to Undermine the Manipulations of the Habesha Elites?
Posted: 15 Jan 2026, 01:25
Can the Oromo Political Trinity (Jawar, Abiy, Lemma) Reunite to Undermine the Manipulations of the Habesha Elites?
By Fayyis Oromia*
In the early days of Ethiopia’s 2018 political transition, Jawar Mohammed made a poignant observation during an interview. To paraphrase, he stated:
“The Habesha elites are trying to sow discord between the three of us—Jawar, Abiy, and Lemma—much like they did with figures like Baro Tumsa, Haile Fida, and Senay Likke after the 1974 revolution.”
This insight has remained with me ever since, and it raises an important question: Were these elites successful in their efforts? Observing the fractured state of our once-unified political trinity—who, at times, seem to be in open conflict—one might be tempted to answer affirmatively. However, I hold onto hope that Jawar, Abiy, Lemma, and their respective supporters will recognize the gravity of the moment and set aside their differences. At present, three formidable adversaries of the Oromo people—the Nafxagna, Shabiya, and Woyane—are relentlessly conspiring to reclaim power, march on Finfinnee Palace, and exploit Oromia’s resources once again.
If Oromo leaders continue to engage in internal strife, it will be a tragedy to witness Jawar become just another polarizing figure, akin to Abiy Ahmed. The Oromo diaspora, once a unified force, is now sharply divided into pro- and anti-Jawar factions. His critics accuse him of aligning with the historic adversaries of the Oromo: the Semenawian forces from ATE (Amhara, Tigray, and Eritrea). While there is some truth in these concerns—given the historical animosities between the Amhara elites and the Oromo, the injustices committed by TPLF leaders against the Oromo, and the damaging role played by Shabiya in the 1992 Oromo Liberation Army debacle—the prospect of an ATE return to power in Finfinnee would be tantamount to a re-enslavement of the Oromo. Such an outcome must be avoided at all costs.
Personally, I would prefer a less than ideal Biltsiginna regime over the return of the Semenawian forces. This is why it is imperative that Jawar, and all Oromo nationalists, work to prevent the return of the Semenawian regime, even as we strive to remove the Biltsiginna oppressors.
The Question of the Oromo’s Current Enemy
In recent times, Dr. Abiy accused the leadership of the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) of refusing to engage in dialogue with their “brothers” in the Biltsiginna camp, while being willing to negotiate with the Oromo’s enemy—Fanno. This raises an essential question:
Who is the Oromo’s enemy today?
Oromo nationalists appear to be divided along two lines:
- Those who perceive Biltsiginna as the primary enemy and show less hostility toward Fanno.
- Those who view Fanno as the central threat, often aligning with Biltsiginna, provided the conflict between the two continues.
Fanno’s reckless rhetoric, which opposes Onegawinet (Oromo’s mindset of freedom), “Oromo migration,” and Oromummà (Oromo identity), has pushed some Oromo nationalists to side with Biltsiginna. However, if Fanno were to correct these ideological errors, there would be little reason for any Oromo to support the neo-Derg dictatorship of Biltsiginna.
The Three Major Adversaries of Oromummà and Oromic
For over 3,000 years, the Oromo people, their national identity (Oromummà), and their language (Oromic) have faced sustained suppression. Many Oromo in northern and eastern Ethiopia have been forced to abandon their language and identity, either becoming “Solomonized” (Amharic/Tigrayan) or “Somalianized.”
Today, three key adversaries continue to undermine Oromummà and Oromic:
- Amhara-Menelikites (A-Naftagna): Traditionalist elites who were defeated in 1991 but are still plotting a return to power through political intrigue.
- Tigrayan-Melesites (T-Naftagna): Ousted from Finfinnee in 2018 and pushed back into Tigray, but still a formidable threat.
- Hybrid-Meshreftites (H-Naftagna): The most dangerous of all, currently in power under Dr. Abiy Ahmed, masking themselves as Oromo while advancing an agenda of Amharic supremacy.
For Oromummà to survive and thrive, the Pro-Amharic domination elites must be replaced with Pro-Oromic leadership.
Oromo Resistance to the Naftagna System
The Oromo people have long resisted the Naftagna system—a political order that elevated Amharic language and culture while suppressing other identities. In a genuine democracy, the Oromic language would naturally rise to prominence as Ethiopia’s leading language. The Naftagna-style governance, however, is fundamentally undemocratic.
The A-Naftagnas and T-Naftagnas employed brute force and propaganda to uphold Amharic supremacy. The current H-Naftagna regime, however, is far more insidious—it uses the Oromo identity as a cover while advancing the same hegemonic agenda. They have succeeded in dividing Oromo nationalists:
- One faction opposes Abiy Ahmed’s regime.
- The other continues to support him.
This internal division has rendered the current phase of Oromo liberation particularly challenging and perilous. Unlike the Amhara and Tigrayans, who largely supported their respective Naftagna regimes, the Oromo overwhelmingly reject H-Naftagna rule.
Democracy Without Liberty Is a Lie
During the TPLF’s 27-year rule, elections were a tool for international deception, not for domestic accountability. “Reforms,” such as the 2010 electoral code of conduct, were designed to maintain power by co-opting unitarist opposition groups sympathetic to the old A-Naftagna Ethiopia.
Together, the T-Naftagnas and A-Naftagna allies worked to block the rise of genuine democratic movements both at home and in the diaspora, primarily because the Oromic-led national freedom movements threatened Abyssinian domination.
The Oromo and other oppressed nations have fought for over a century for basic rights. In contrast, the Naftagna regimes have only paid lip service to “unity” and “democracy” while disregarding the essential principle of liberty.
There can be no true unity or democracy without national and individual liberty. This is why pro-democracy organizations prioritize freedom first—freedom from tyranny, colonial-style rule, and exploitation.
The current regime deceives the public by claiming that Ethiopia already enjoys democracy. It speaks of unity while enforcing division, promises peace while wielding terror, and praises democracy while practicing dictatorship. We must distinguish between:
- Unitarists, who seek to preserve the imperial system.
- Unionists, who fight for democracy and liberty.
Only after securing liberty can we begin to discuss a union of free peoples—one based on mutual consent, not domination.
From Resistance to Rebirth
The Abyssinian empire cannot be democratized—it must be dismantled. From its ruins, a new democratic order can rise, beginning with liberated regions like Oromia. There are two types of unity we must differentiate:
Unity for Freedom: The alliance of national liberation movements against imperial oppression.
Union After Freedom: A voluntary federation of liberated nations.
To achieve the first type of unity, opposition groups must work together. If even the quasi-unionists abandon their obsession with unconditional unity and support the right to national self-determination, true cooperation may become possible.
Ultimately, only free citizens and free nations can build a legitimate union. Our first task must be to defeat the H-Naftagna regime. Only then can we begin constructing a true democracy. Reuniting our political trinity—Jawar, Abiy, and Lemma—becomes essential. They must function as both incumbent and opposition without animosity toward one another.
Thanks to Wàqa, we seem to be approaching the final stages of our national struggle. The next step is clear:
National freedom—Oromia’s liberty—must come before regional democracy.
Galatôma!
Read more:https://orompia.wordpress.com/2022/12/2 ... melesites/
By Fayyis Oromia*
In the early days of Ethiopia’s 2018 political transition, Jawar Mohammed made a poignant observation during an interview. To paraphrase, he stated:
“The Habesha elites are trying to sow discord between the three of us—Jawar, Abiy, and Lemma—much like they did with figures like Baro Tumsa, Haile Fida, and Senay Likke after the 1974 revolution.”
This insight has remained with me ever since, and it raises an important question: Were these elites successful in their efforts? Observing the fractured state of our once-unified political trinity—who, at times, seem to be in open conflict—one might be tempted to answer affirmatively. However, I hold onto hope that Jawar, Abiy, Lemma, and their respective supporters will recognize the gravity of the moment and set aside their differences. At present, three formidable adversaries of the Oromo people—the Nafxagna, Shabiya, and Woyane—are relentlessly conspiring to reclaim power, march on Finfinnee Palace, and exploit Oromia’s resources once again.
If Oromo leaders continue to engage in internal strife, it will be a tragedy to witness Jawar become just another polarizing figure, akin to Abiy Ahmed. The Oromo diaspora, once a unified force, is now sharply divided into pro- and anti-Jawar factions. His critics accuse him of aligning with the historic adversaries of the Oromo: the Semenawian forces from ATE (Amhara, Tigray, and Eritrea). While there is some truth in these concerns—given the historical animosities between the Amhara elites and the Oromo, the injustices committed by TPLF leaders against the Oromo, and the damaging role played by Shabiya in the 1992 Oromo Liberation Army debacle—the prospect of an ATE return to power in Finfinnee would be tantamount to a re-enslavement of the Oromo. Such an outcome must be avoided at all costs.
Personally, I would prefer a less than ideal Biltsiginna regime over the return of the Semenawian forces. This is why it is imperative that Jawar, and all Oromo nationalists, work to prevent the return of the Semenawian regime, even as we strive to remove the Biltsiginna oppressors.
The Question of the Oromo’s Current Enemy
In recent times, Dr. Abiy accused the leadership of the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) of refusing to engage in dialogue with their “brothers” in the Biltsiginna camp, while being willing to negotiate with the Oromo’s enemy—Fanno. This raises an essential question:
Who is the Oromo’s enemy today?
Oromo nationalists appear to be divided along two lines:
- Those who perceive Biltsiginna as the primary enemy and show less hostility toward Fanno.
- Those who view Fanno as the central threat, often aligning with Biltsiginna, provided the conflict between the two continues.
Fanno’s reckless rhetoric, which opposes Onegawinet (Oromo’s mindset of freedom), “Oromo migration,” and Oromummà (Oromo identity), has pushed some Oromo nationalists to side with Biltsiginna. However, if Fanno were to correct these ideological errors, there would be little reason for any Oromo to support the neo-Derg dictatorship of Biltsiginna.
The Three Major Adversaries of Oromummà and Oromic
For over 3,000 years, the Oromo people, their national identity (Oromummà), and their language (Oromic) have faced sustained suppression. Many Oromo in northern and eastern Ethiopia have been forced to abandon their language and identity, either becoming “Solomonized” (Amharic/Tigrayan) or “Somalianized.”
Today, three key adversaries continue to undermine Oromummà and Oromic:
- Amhara-Menelikites (A-Naftagna): Traditionalist elites who were defeated in 1991 but are still plotting a return to power through political intrigue.
- Tigrayan-Melesites (T-Naftagna): Ousted from Finfinnee in 2018 and pushed back into Tigray, but still a formidable threat.
- Hybrid-Meshreftites (H-Naftagna): The most dangerous of all, currently in power under Dr. Abiy Ahmed, masking themselves as Oromo while advancing an agenda of Amharic supremacy.
For Oromummà to survive and thrive, the Pro-Amharic domination elites must be replaced with Pro-Oromic leadership.
Oromo Resistance to the Naftagna System
The Oromo people have long resisted the Naftagna system—a political order that elevated Amharic language and culture while suppressing other identities. In a genuine democracy, the Oromic language would naturally rise to prominence as Ethiopia’s leading language. The Naftagna-style governance, however, is fundamentally undemocratic.
The A-Naftagnas and T-Naftagnas employed brute force and propaganda to uphold Amharic supremacy. The current H-Naftagna regime, however, is far more insidious—it uses the Oromo identity as a cover while advancing the same hegemonic agenda. They have succeeded in dividing Oromo nationalists:
- One faction opposes Abiy Ahmed’s regime.
- The other continues to support him.
This internal division has rendered the current phase of Oromo liberation particularly challenging and perilous. Unlike the Amhara and Tigrayans, who largely supported their respective Naftagna regimes, the Oromo overwhelmingly reject H-Naftagna rule.
Democracy Without Liberty Is a Lie
During the TPLF’s 27-year rule, elections were a tool for international deception, not for domestic accountability. “Reforms,” such as the 2010 electoral code of conduct, were designed to maintain power by co-opting unitarist opposition groups sympathetic to the old A-Naftagna Ethiopia.
Together, the T-Naftagnas and A-Naftagna allies worked to block the rise of genuine democratic movements both at home and in the diaspora, primarily because the Oromic-led national freedom movements threatened Abyssinian domination.
The Oromo and other oppressed nations have fought for over a century for basic rights. In contrast, the Naftagna regimes have only paid lip service to “unity” and “democracy” while disregarding the essential principle of liberty.
There can be no true unity or democracy without national and individual liberty. This is why pro-democracy organizations prioritize freedom first—freedom from tyranny, colonial-style rule, and exploitation.
The current regime deceives the public by claiming that Ethiopia already enjoys democracy. It speaks of unity while enforcing division, promises peace while wielding terror, and praises democracy while practicing dictatorship. We must distinguish between:
- Unitarists, who seek to preserve the imperial system.
- Unionists, who fight for democracy and liberty.
Only after securing liberty can we begin to discuss a union of free peoples—one based on mutual consent, not domination.
From Resistance to Rebirth
The Abyssinian empire cannot be democratized—it must be dismantled. From its ruins, a new democratic order can rise, beginning with liberated regions like Oromia. There are two types of unity we must differentiate:
Unity for Freedom: The alliance of national liberation movements against imperial oppression.
Union After Freedom: A voluntary federation of liberated nations.
To achieve the first type of unity, opposition groups must work together. If even the quasi-unionists abandon their obsession with unconditional unity and support the right to national self-determination, true cooperation may become possible.
Ultimately, only free citizens and free nations can build a legitimate union. Our first task must be to defeat the H-Naftagna regime. Only then can we begin constructing a true democracy. Reuniting our political trinity—Jawar, Abiy, and Lemma—becomes essential. They must function as both incumbent and opposition without animosity toward one another.
Thanks to Wàqa, we seem to be approaching the final stages of our national struggle. The next step is clear:
National freedom—Oromia’s liberty—must come before regional democracy.
Galatôma!
Read more:https://orompia.wordpress.com/2022/12/2 ... melesites/