The Inevitable Liberation from the System of Amharic Domination (SAD)
Posted: 23 Jan 2026, 11:32
The Inevitable Liberation from the System of Amharic Domination (SAD)
By Fayyis oromia*
The liberation struggle of the Oromo people remains incomplete, despite the initial optimism that followed the political shift in 2018. While the oppressive Habesha elites were removed, the System of Amharic Domination (SAD) has yet to be dismantled. This system persists, and even intensifies, under the leadership of the current administration led by Abiy Ahmed. Consequently, genuine Oromo nationalists must continue their struggle for freedom and unity, and ultimately determine the most suitable form of sovereignty to establish. Whether this leads to an independent Oromia, a federal Orompia (an Oromic-led ethnic federation), or an integrative Oropia (an Oromic-led geo-federation) remains to be seen.
There is increasing evidence that Ethiopia’s character is undergoing a slow but inevitable transformation. The once dominant “white Amapia” (an Amharic-led geo-federation) has already disintegrated, and the “yellow Amarpia” (an Amhara-led ethnic federation) is currently collapsing. The future of the nation seems to be moving toward one of three possible outcomes: a green, independent Oromia; a brown, federal Orompia; or a black, integrative Oropia.
The next likely phase of Ethiopia’s transformation is the emergence of a free Oromia—either as an independent state or as part of a genuine federation or confederation of free nations. If Ethiopia is to remain a united territorial state, it will inevitably shift towards becoming either Orompia or Oropia.
This may be difficult for both Oromo and non-Oromo political elites to accept, but it is an unavoidable truth that will, in time, become widely acknowledged. The Ethiopia we have known has been shaped largely by the dominance of Amharic and Amhara nationalism. However, the future of Ethiopia is steadily being redefined by Oromummaa (the essence of Oromo identity), and this transformation will continue, albeit gradually. The only way to halt this shift would be for all nations bordering Oromia to separate. As long as Ethiopia remains territorially intact and led by Oromummaa, its evolution into Oropia seems inevitable.
Ethiopia’s Future: Oromia, Orompia, or Oropia
The future of Ethiopia will culminate in one of the following three outcomes:
- An independent Oromia without Oropia.
- An autonomous Oromia within Oropia, i.e., Orompia.
- An integrative Oropia without a distinct Oromia.
The Oromo liberation movement consists of three distinct, yet united, core positions: two wings and a backbone. One wing advocates for a fully sovereign Oromia, emphasizing self-rule and regional leadership within the Horn of Africa. The backbone envisions a federal Orompia—an empowered Oromia within a democratic Ethiopia, combining both self-rule and shared rule. The other wing seeks the transformation of Ethiopia into a democratic Oropia, with Oromic as the primary federal language, prioritizing shared rule over self-rule and reducing regional autonomy.
Though these visions differ, all factions are united in their struggle against the current authoritarian regime. This convergence produces a wide array of Oromo political actors: parties, liberation fronts, and civic organizations. However, the lack of a cohesive national liberation front leaves one of the three possible post-liberation scenarios as inevitable. Importantly, none of these outcomes is inherently disadvantageous for the Oromo people.
Historical Narratives Behind the Visions
The three political visions stem from different interpretations of the historical relationship between the Oromo people and Abyssinia:
- Some view the histories of the two as parallel and in conflict, with Menelik’s conquest contrasted against what is referred to as the “Oromo expansion.”
- Others see these histories as both shared and marked by conflict.
- Still others highlight shared pride, exemplified by the Oromo contribution to the victory at the Battle of Adwa.
From these differing historical perspectives arise three possible post-liberation scenarios:
- Independent Oromia (Oromia without Oropia)
- Federal Orompia (Oromia within Oropia)
- Integrative Oropia (Oropia without Oromia)
- In order to achieve true freedom, it is essential for the Oromo people to unite, despite differing visions. Once this unity is achieved, the Oromo public must democratically decide the preferred form of sovereignty.
To illustrate these scenarios, consider the following global analogies:
- The Russian Model: Those who focus on conflict may prefer full separation, similar to how Russia dissolved the USSR to form a Russian federation. In this context, an independent Oromia could emerge as a regional power, as envisioned by figures like Ob. Galàsà Dilboo.
- The British Model: Those who see both shared and conflicting histories may prefer federalism, akin to England’s separation from Rome to form the United Kingdom. In this case, Oromia could achieve autonomy within a federal Orompia, as supported by Dr. Lénco Latà.
- The Indian Model: Those emphasizing shared pride might support an integrative Oropia. Just as India promoted Hindi as the national language and redefined its federal regions based on historical-cultural territories, Oromia could lead the liberation of the empire, rename the country Oropia, promote Oromic, and redefine federal regions based on historic centers of the Oromo people, such as Bisil, Bulluqi, Bultum, Garres, Makodi, Nabee, and Robà. This vision aligns with the ideas of Dr. Haile Fida.
Three Visions, One Nation in Struggle
Each Oromo individual has the right to choose the future they believe will best serve the nation. Ultimately, the majority’s will must prevail. The debate should focus on whether Oromia should pursue self-rule or whether Oropia should adopt shared rule. It is time to move beyond the simplistic dichotomy of separation versus federation, a framework often promoted by Tigrayan elites.
In contrast, Abyssinian political elites each favor one of the following models:
- Amhara elites support the Indian-type model, benefiting from Amharic’s privileged status.
- Eritrean elites, having been marginalized for so long, prefer the Russian-style path of full separation.
- Tigrayan elites, lacking demographic dominance or clear statehood, lean toward the British-style federalism.
The Oromo, with their demographic majority and central geographic position, are uniquely positioned to entertain all three models. Through democracy and freedom, Oromo forces can collaborate with all democratic actors in the region to dismantle the current Amharic-dominated system. Only after this can the Oromo people freely vote on their preferred future.
Conclusion: One Goal, Three Possible Outcomes
The three visions—independent Oromia, federal Orompia, and integrative Oropia—are all valid and viable paths forward. The final decision must be made by the politically conscious Oromo public, with the outcome ratified through a referendum at the appropriate time.
Those who celebrate the fragmentation of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) misunderstand its foundational objective: freedom. The three possible post-liberation outcomes reflect different interpretations of sovereignty after liberation, allowing the movement to adapt to changing circumstances and align its strategy with the spirit of the times.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/05/0 ... ve-oropia/
By Fayyis oromia*
The liberation struggle of the Oromo people remains incomplete, despite the initial optimism that followed the political shift in 2018. While the oppressive Habesha elites were removed, the System of Amharic Domination (SAD) has yet to be dismantled. This system persists, and even intensifies, under the leadership of the current administration led by Abiy Ahmed. Consequently, genuine Oromo nationalists must continue their struggle for freedom and unity, and ultimately determine the most suitable form of sovereignty to establish. Whether this leads to an independent Oromia, a federal Orompia (an Oromic-led ethnic federation), or an integrative Oropia (an Oromic-led geo-federation) remains to be seen.
There is increasing evidence that Ethiopia’s character is undergoing a slow but inevitable transformation. The once dominant “white Amapia” (an Amharic-led geo-federation) has already disintegrated, and the “yellow Amarpia” (an Amhara-led ethnic federation) is currently collapsing. The future of the nation seems to be moving toward one of three possible outcomes: a green, independent Oromia; a brown, federal Orompia; or a black, integrative Oropia.
The next likely phase of Ethiopia’s transformation is the emergence of a free Oromia—either as an independent state or as part of a genuine federation or confederation of free nations. If Ethiopia is to remain a united territorial state, it will inevitably shift towards becoming either Orompia or Oropia.
This may be difficult for both Oromo and non-Oromo political elites to accept, but it is an unavoidable truth that will, in time, become widely acknowledged. The Ethiopia we have known has been shaped largely by the dominance of Amharic and Amhara nationalism. However, the future of Ethiopia is steadily being redefined by Oromummaa (the essence of Oromo identity), and this transformation will continue, albeit gradually. The only way to halt this shift would be for all nations bordering Oromia to separate. As long as Ethiopia remains territorially intact and led by Oromummaa, its evolution into Oropia seems inevitable.
Ethiopia’s Future: Oromia, Orompia, or Oropia
The future of Ethiopia will culminate in one of the following three outcomes:
- An independent Oromia without Oropia.
- An autonomous Oromia within Oropia, i.e., Orompia.
- An integrative Oropia without a distinct Oromia.
The Oromo liberation movement consists of three distinct, yet united, core positions: two wings and a backbone. One wing advocates for a fully sovereign Oromia, emphasizing self-rule and regional leadership within the Horn of Africa. The backbone envisions a federal Orompia—an empowered Oromia within a democratic Ethiopia, combining both self-rule and shared rule. The other wing seeks the transformation of Ethiopia into a democratic Oropia, with Oromic as the primary federal language, prioritizing shared rule over self-rule and reducing regional autonomy.
Though these visions differ, all factions are united in their struggle against the current authoritarian regime. This convergence produces a wide array of Oromo political actors: parties, liberation fronts, and civic organizations. However, the lack of a cohesive national liberation front leaves one of the three possible post-liberation scenarios as inevitable. Importantly, none of these outcomes is inherently disadvantageous for the Oromo people.
Historical Narratives Behind the Visions
The three political visions stem from different interpretations of the historical relationship between the Oromo people and Abyssinia:
- Some view the histories of the two as parallel and in conflict, with Menelik’s conquest contrasted against what is referred to as the “Oromo expansion.”
- Others see these histories as both shared and marked by conflict.
- Still others highlight shared pride, exemplified by the Oromo contribution to the victory at the Battle of Adwa.
From these differing historical perspectives arise three possible post-liberation scenarios:
- Independent Oromia (Oromia without Oropia)
- Federal Orompia (Oromia within Oropia)
- Integrative Oropia (Oropia without Oromia)
- In order to achieve true freedom, it is essential for the Oromo people to unite, despite differing visions. Once this unity is achieved, the Oromo public must democratically decide the preferred form of sovereignty.
To illustrate these scenarios, consider the following global analogies:
- The Russian Model: Those who focus on conflict may prefer full separation, similar to how Russia dissolved the USSR to form a Russian federation. In this context, an independent Oromia could emerge as a regional power, as envisioned by figures like Ob. Galàsà Dilboo.
- The British Model: Those who see both shared and conflicting histories may prefer federalism, akin to England’s separation from Rome to form the United Kingdom. In this case, Oromia could achieve autonomy within a federal Orompia, as supported by Dr. Lénco Latà.
- The Indian Model: Those emphasizing shared pride might support an integrative Oropia. Just as India promoted Hindi as the national language and redefined its federal regions based on historical-cultural territories, Oromia could lead the liberation of the empire, rename the country Oropia, promote Oromic, and redefine federal regions based on historic centers of the Oromo people, such as Bisil, Bulluqi, Bultum, Garres, Makodi, Nabee, and Robà. This vision aligns with the ideas of Dr. Haile Fida.
Three Visions, One Nation in Struggle
Each Oromo individual has the right to choose the future they believe will best serve the nation. Ultimately, the majority’s will must prevail. The debate should focus on whether Oromia should pursue self-rule or whether Oropia should adopt shared rule. It is time to move beyond the simplistic dichotomy of separation versus federation, a framework often promoted by Tigrayan elites.
In contrast, Abyssinian political elites each favor one of the following models:
- Amhara elites support the Indian-type model, benefiting from Amharic’s privileged status.
- Eritrean elites, having been marginalized for so long, prefer the Russian-style path of full separation.
- Tigrayan elites, lacking demographic dominance or clear statehood, lean toward the British-style federalism.
The Oromo, with their demographic majority and central geographic position, are uniquely positioned to entertain all three models. Through democracy and freedom, Oromo forces can collaborate with all democratic actors in the region to dismantle the current Amharic-dominated system. Only after this can the Oromo people freely vote on their preferred future.
Conclusion: One Goal, Three Possible Outcomes
The three visions—independent Oromia, federal Orompia, and integrative Oropia—are all valid and viable paths forward. The final decision must be made by the politically conscious Oromo public, with the outcome ratified through a referendum at the appropriate time.
Those who celebrate the fragmentation of the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) misunderstand its foundational objective: freedom. The three possible post-liberation outcomes reflect different interpretations of sovereignty after liberation, allowing the movement to adapt to changing circumstances and align its strategy with the spirit of the times.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/05/0 ... ve-oropia/