The Three Post-Freedom Alternatives for Oromo Sovereignty: Oromia, Orompia, and Oropia
By Fayyis Oromia*
It is encouraging to observe that ideological conflicts among Oromo nationalists have significantly diminished. This is a direct consequence of our liberation struggle, which has led to the demise of the Amapia (the Amharic-dominated geo-federation) under Mengistu Ayana’s Derg regime, and the imminent collapse of the Amarpia (the Amharic-dominated ethnic federation) under Meles Gobena’s Woyane regime. The political configuration that will emerge in the post-freedom era is expected to take one of three forms: Confepia (a confederation of free nations such as Amharia, Somali, Tigray, and Oromia), Orompia (an Oromic-led ethnic federation), or Oropia (an Oromic-led geo-federation).
The Dynamics of Oromia and Oropia: Complementary Alternatives, Not Opposites
There have been attempts, both by strategic adversaries and misguided allies, to present Oromia and Oropia as opposing visions of sovereignty. These efforts are aimed at creating internal discord among Oromo nationalists. In reality, Oromia and Oropia represent two viable alternatives that the Oromo people may choose from in the post-freedom landscape. It is even possible for both alternatives to coexist, as currently envisioned by the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC). Both approaches must work in tandem toward the common goal of freedom. Historically, our enemies have sought to divide us by framing the OFC and the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) as opposing forces. However, there is no contradiction between these two organizations. The objectives of the OFC align closely with those of the OLF, and vice versa.
The Two Main Political Lines Against Dictatorship
At present, two major political lines stand in opposition to the current dictatorship:
- The OFC–OLF Line: This vision advocates for a multinational federation as a means to achieve a free Oromia within a broader federal union.
- The Ezema–NaMA Line: This approach supports a multiregional federation leading to an integrative Oropia, with Oromic as the primary working language of the federation.
For proponents of the second camp, the adoption of Oromic as the main working language is critical to ensuring inclusivity. Unfortunately, political figures in both camps often exhibit “V-minded” tendencies—entrenching divisions and magnifying minor differences. It is hoped that these individuals will evolve into “Y-minded” political leaders—focused on constructive cooperation and democratic principles.
V-Minded vs. Y-Minded Politics: A Framework for Understanding
The letters V and Y serve as metaphors for different political mindsets:
- V-Minded Politics: The V symbolizes rigid, antagonistic thinking. At the base of the V are the Biltsigina dictators (the status quo), while the two upper points represent the OFC–OLF and Ezema–NaMA lines, respectively. These factions, each seeking absolute victory, foster mutual hostility, ultimately benefiting the dictatorial regime by preventing a unified opposition.
- Y-Minded Politics: In contrast, the Y represents a shared journey toward freedom, accommodating differing long-term visions. The base of the Y symbolizes the current tyranny, with the junction representing the common goal of liberation. The two arms of the Y symbolize the two potential paths: one leading to an independent Oromia through a multinational federation, and the other toward an integrated Oropia through a multiregional federation. The key message is that both camps must unite in their efforts to reach the “freedom junction,” after which the people, through a democratic referendum, will decide whether to pursue integration or independence.
The Ethiopian Identity Dilemma: Revisiting the Historical Context
Some pro-OLF nationalists remain wary of the OFC due to its continued use of the name “Ethiopia” in advocating for Oropia. However, this suspicion overlooks the historical context of the term Ethiopia, which is of Cushitic origin, meaning “land of burnt faces.” This term is more historically aligned with the Oromo people than with the Semitic-claimed Habesha.
Over time, Habesha elites appropriated the name Ethiopia, transforming it into a symbol of domination by:
- Recasting Ethiopia as a Semitic land and erasing its Cushitic roots.
- Marginalizing Cushitic cultures and languages, particularly Oromic.
- Replacing indigenous Oromo systems, such as Wàqeffanna and Odà, with Amhara-centric symbols, languages, and institutions.
- Given this history, the Oromo people’s rejection of the Ethiopian identity is entirely legitimate. If the name Ethiopia is to endure, it must reclaim its Cushitic roots, centered on Oromo culture, leadership, and language. Otherwise, Oromia has every right to reject the current Pseudo-Ethiopia and move forward toward genuine sovereignty.
The Importance of Timing: Identifying Allies and Enemies
For pro-independence Oromo forces, it is essential to identify allies and adversaries according to the evolving phases of the struggle:
- First Phase (Now): All anti-dictatorship forces—whether pro-independence (like Jàl Marrô), pro-federalism (like Jawar Mohammed), or pro-integration (like Andargachew Tsige)—must unite against the current regime.
- Second Phase (After Freedom): Once the dictatorship falls, competition will arise among Oropianists (integrationists), Unionists (federalists), and Oromianists (independents). This contest should be resolved through consensus, a referendum, or, if necessary, force.
- Third Phase (Final Phase): The ultimate contest between federalists and independents should be settled through a democratic national referendum, determining whether to establish an independent Oromia or an integrated Oropia.
At each stage, the roles of allies and adversaries shift. For now, pro-independence forces must not treat federalists or integrationists as enemies. The true adversary is the dictatorial regime. Future opposition may arise only from those who reject consensus and democracy.
Three Potential Paths to Resolving Ethiopia’s Political Crisis
Three potential paths are available to resolve Ethiopia’s political crisis:
- Consensus: All political actors agree on one structure (independence, federation, or integration). However, this approach has repeatedly failed in practice.
- Democracy: The people decide through a referendum. This approach is feasible if all political actors are mature and committed to stability.
- Force: The current default approach, which has led to cycles of destruction and regression.
At present, Ethiopia’s political landscape is divided into four camps:
- Dictators (the ruling regime).
- Integrationists (advocates for unity through a regional federation).
- Federalists (advocates for a genuine multinational federation).
- Independents (advocates for a sovereign Oromia).
The Three Phases of the Struggle
- Phase One: All freedom-seeking camps must unite against the dictatorship. Force may be necessary, as the regime resists both consensus and democracy.
- Phase Two: Pro-sovereignty camps (federalists and independents) will compete with integrationists. Ideally, this conflict will be resolved through a referendum.
- Phase Three: The final contest between federalists and independents should be resolved through a democratic vote, determining whether to establish an independent Oromia or an integrated Oropia.
Conclusion: Unity Now, Competition Later
The immediate priority for all freedom-seeking forces is to unite in the struggle against dictatorship. Future disagreements should be resolved peacefully and democratically, step by step. Failing to achieve unity today will only doom our people to another century of tyranny.
As long as the forces for national sovereignty (federalists and independents) remain divided from integrationists, the dictatorial regime will continue to exploit and deepen these divisions. Its agents are already pretending to support one side while vilifying the other, thereby trapping even genuine freedom fighters in cycles of mistrust.
May Wàqa guide us toward unity, clarity, and victory.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/1 ... edom-coin/