Talking Anti-Biltsigina Political Correctness While Walking Anti-Neftegna Political Reality
By Fayyis Oromia*
Contemporary Oromo political elites appear broadly divided into two principal camps: those opposed to Biltsigina and the current administration led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, and those opposed to the return of the Neftegna political order historically associated with northern Abyssinian elites from the Amhara, Tigray, and Eritrea regions.
The anti-Biltsigina camp defines itself primarily through resistance to authoritarian governance and has, in some cases, pursued alliances with northern political actors in opposition to the ruling regime. In contrast, the anti-Neftegna camp prioritizes preventing the re-emergence of political structures that previously centralized power in Finfinné and marginalized Oromo interests, particularly through the restoration of Amhara-dominated elites.
Both positions raise legitimate concerns. However, the principal weakness of the current Oromo political landscape lies in the antagonism between these two camps. Such internal divisions ultimately serve forces hostile to Oromo political agency, as fragmentation weakens collective leverage. Strategic unity, rather than mutual confrontation, is therefore imperative.
The anti-Biltsigina camp frequently emphasizes the necessity of broad alliances against authoritarianism, reflecting a discourse of political correctness. Meanwhile, the anti-Neftegna camp emphasizes political realism by scrutinizing the long-term objectives of potential allies. Tactical cooperation with northern elites is not inherently problematic, particularly in the struggle against dictatorship. Nevertheless, historical experience cautions against uncritical trust. Many entrenched elites ultimately seek to reassert dominance over Finfinné and to reclaim control over Oromia’s resources under revised political narratives.
Reconciling Political Correctness with Political Reality
A sustainable Oromo political strategy requires the reconciliation of these two perspectives. Externally, Oromo actors may articulate inclusive, alliance-oriented political positions. Internally, however, they must remain vigilant against attempts to undermine Oromo self-determination. In practical terms, this approach entails:
Supporting opposition to authoritarian governance, including tactical alliances where necessary;
Simultaneously preventing any resurgence of political forces seeking to re-establish domination over Finfinné and Oromia.
As articulated by Dr. Lencô Lata, Oromo politicians who enjoy enthusiastic backing from Amhara elites often warrant scrutiny—and the inverse holds as well. In this context, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s estrangement from these elites may partly explain why some Oromo nationalists view his position as strategically preferable, albeit with caution. Support, where given, should remain conditional upon safeguarding Oromia from anti-Oromo political restoration.
Cultural Exclusion and the Politics of Belonging
Recent incidents involving opposition to Oromo Orthodox Christians using Afaan Oromo in religious practice underscore persistent cultural exclusion. Groups engaging in such actions have positioned themselves against the historical and cultural pluralism of Oromia. These actions have not gone unnoticed, and collective memory will likely hold such actors accountable.
It is noteworthy that Amhara nationalist voices—previously subdued during the TPLF-dominated period—have become increasingly assertive under Oromo-led federal leadership. This shift reflects not weakness but strategic tolerance. Such tolerance has paradoxically energized Oromo political cohesion. The challenge lies not in suppressing dissenting voices but in ensuring that they never acquire disproportionate political power.
Identity Politics: Amharanet and Oromummà
A segment of Amhara elites and their allies continue to reject Oromummà as a legitimate foundation for Ethiopia’s future, favoring instead a conception of Ethiopiawinet historically aligned with Amhara dominance. This perspective resists the transformation of Ethiopia into a genuinely multinational federation.
Yet Ethiopia’s long-term stability depends on embracing diversity through an inclusive federal structure—one that recognizes the country’s demographic realities and cultural plurality. Oromummà has emerged as a confident, organized political force, no longer concealed behind universalist rhetoric. Unlike earlier forms of domination masked as national unity, Oromo nationalism advances its vision transparently.
Nevertheless, the current administration has yet to fully realign state symbolism and policy with demographic realities, as evidenced by continued privileging of Amharic over Afaan Oromo. Such practices echo historical patterns of subordination and risk alienating Oromo constituencies.
The Contemporary Political Spectrum
Ethiopian politics today is shaped less by ideological divisions than by competing national identities. The political landscape can be broadly mapped as follows:
- Far Left: Amharanet-centered geographic federalism
- Center Left: Amharanet-dominated ethnic federalism
- Center: Independent national republicanism
- Center Right: Oromummà-led ethnic federalism
- Far Right: Oromummà-led geographic federalism
Which trajectory will prevail remains uncertain.
Historically, the Abyssinian state has faced two divergent futures: democratization into a multinational polity or fragmentation into independent nation-states. These alternatives are reflected in the intellectual and political paths of prominent Oromo leaders—one advocating independence, the other democratic transformation. Both visions remain legitimate, provided they reflect the democratic will of the Oromo people.
Oropia and Oromia: Complementary Visions
The dichotomy often posed between “liberating Oromia” and “democratizing Ethiopia” is ultimately misleading. Oromo political thought encompasses both trajectories, shaped by a unique historical position as both participants in and victims of imperial expansion. Liberation and democratic transformation are not mutually exclusive; rather, they can coexist within a phased political evolution.
Sovereignty in Three Phases
Oromo sovereignty can be conceptualized in three stages:
- Independent self-rule — liberation and statehood;
- Shared federal self-rule — transitional multinational federalism;
- Integrated democratic governance — a pluralistic, inclusive Oropia.
The first stage defined the liberation era, the second characterizes the present, and the third represents a possible democratic future. Movements such as Fayyis Oromia advocate this integrative approach.
Opposition to such pragmatism risks inadvertently strengthening hardline Abyssinian centralists. Ultimately, exclusionary nationalist projects will falter. The political future lies with inclusive, Oromo-led democratic movements capable of reshaping Ethiopia—or Oropia—on equitable terms.
May wisdom guide this collective journey.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/02/0 ... orthodoxy/