Dr. Nagàso Gidàda’s Political Transformation: A Journey from Oromianism to Oropianism
Posted: 23 Jan 2026, 13:13
Dr. Nagàso Gidàda’s Political Transformation: A Journey from Oromianism to Oropianism
By Fayyis Oromia*
In recent years, the political shift of Dr. Nagàso Gidàda, former president of Ethiopia, has raised significant questions regarding his commitment to the liberation of the Oromo people. His decision to join the opposition party UDJ (Unity for Democratic Justice) prompted a range of reactions. Was this move beneficial or detrimental to the national liberation movement of the Oromo? Was it a progressive step, a regression, or merely a lateral shift? More specifically, did it represent a shift from his earlier advocacy for an independent Oromia (as supported by the OLF), to a vision of federal Orompia (ethnic federalism as advocated by the OPDO), and eventually toward a geo-federal Ethiopia—what some term an “Oropia” (led by the Oromo)?
To critically assess this transformation, it is necessary to explore the inherent tension between the aspirations of the Oromo nation and the broader political framework of Ethiopia, a country composed of many nations historically dominated by two Abyssinian ethnic groups for over 150 years. The key issue lies in the intersection and contradictions between the Oromo liberation movement and the democratization efforts within Ethiopia.
A Political Paradox: Progress or Reversal?
Years ago, I was reminded of a moment when, as a student, I was sitting on a bus with a friend, admiring the cityscape. We spotted one of our elderly teachers walking down the street. With his bald head and thick beard, his appearance was somewhat ambiguous, and my witty friend quipped, “Is he walking forward or backward?”—a comment that became an inside joke for situations where the direction of change is unclear.
This same question resurfaced when I learned of Dr. Nagàso’s decision to join the UDJ rather than the Oromo-centered OFC (Oromo Federalist Congress). Was this a forward or backward political move?
Looking back at his political journey, one sees a significant evolution:
- Initially, Dr. Nagàso was an active member of the OLF, advocating for the independence of Oromia.
- He then joined the OPDO, where he supported the model of ethnic federalism, a “federal Orompia.”
- Later, his stance appeared to evolve toward supporting self-determination through a referendum, which introduced the possibility of independence or greater autonomy for Oromia.
- Ultimately, he joined a party that rejected ethnic federalism in favor of a geo-federal Ethiopia—a vision for an “Oropia” which subtly threatens the distinct identity of Oromia.
This raises the question: was this trajectory a step forward, backward, or merely a shift in political perspective for a scholar and activist who had long championed the cause of Oromo self-determination?
Democratization or Distraction?
The Oromo liberation movement has been steadily gaining momentum, though slowly and steadily. This progress has alarmed several key stakeholders, including:
- Habesha elites, particularly those of the Amhara descent, who have historically favored a centralized Ethiopian state.
- Western allies, who have traditionally supported the centralizing forces within the Ethiopian empire.
- Elites from smaller ethnic groups, who harbor unfounded fears of potential Oromo domination in a post-liberation order.
These groups have employed various tactics to delay or undermine the Oromo liberation movement, with one of the most effective strategies being the promotion of a form of “democratization” that ultimately serves to perpetuate the status quo.
Their aim is to create an illusion of progress while maintaining a political structure that prevents genuine Oromo empowerment. This political tactic is especially evident in the language used by Ethiopian elites, who espouse democracy while resisting its true implementation—fearing that genuine democracy would empower the Oromo majority.
Handshakes That Spark Mixed Emotions
The image of political handshakes throughout Ethiopia’s modern history is a familiar one. One notable instance is the infamous handshake between Meles Zenawi of the TPLF and Hailu Shawel of the EPRP, which symbolized the union of two politically divergent forces. Similarly, handshakes between figures like Siye Abraha and Gizachew Shiferraw reflected the imperialist leanings that still persist in Ethiopia’s political landscape.
However, when Dr. Nagàso Gidàda shook hands with figures like Gizachew, it evoked a mixture of disappointment, confusion, and, for some, bitter amusement. Much like the ambiguity of the bald-and-bearded teacher, the gesture raised the question: was this a political step forward or a misstep?
Imperial Narratives in New Guise
The defenders of the Ethiopian Empire—whether conservatives or self-styled “modernists”—have long promoted various narratives aimed at undermining the Oromo’s quest for self-determination. These include:
- “All Ethiopians are Oromo”—a tactic aimed at diluting Oromo identity.
- “Oromos can rule through democracy”—an attempt to co-opt Oromo leadership by promoting false ideals of equality.
- “Ethiopia is already Oromia”—a statement that, while sometimes true, remains politically confusing and inaccurate.
- “Oromo people need food, not freedom”—a line often used by the TPLF and OPDO to pacify the masses.
- “OLF betrayed Oromia”—a divisive narrative propagated by radical factions seeking to discredit the OLF.
Despite the existence of these narratives, no Amhara party has seriously embraced ethnic federalism as a middle ground between unitarist Amharanism and Oromo independence. Furthermore, so-called “multi-national” parties often mask their true centralist ambitions by presenting token diversity, with little real commitment to the decentralization that would allow for meaningful Oromo self-determination.
Tokenism and the Language of Power
The political figures who tend to receive support from these “multi-national” parties are often those whose allegiance lies with a centralist agenda. Prominent figures include:
- Birtukan Mideksa: An Oromo by ethnicity, but politically aligned with Amhara-centric politics.
- Hailu Araya: A Tigrayan by ethnicity, yet advocating for Habesha-centric politics.
- Berhanu Nega and Muluneh Iyuel: Non-Amhara in ethnicity but fundamentally unitarist in ideology.
The shared ideological foundation among these figures is rooted in the concept of “Amharanet”—a centralizing force that seeks to suppress Ethiopia’s ethnic diversity.
The language used by these parties further exposes their ideological stance. They reject the term “peoples” in favor of the singular “Ethiopian people,” which erases the distinct identities of the various ethnic groups, including the Oromo. Even prominent Oromo intellectuals, such as Dr. Nagàso Gidàda and Merera Gudina, have succumbed to elite pressures and adopted the singular term “Ethiopian people.”
The Oromo Roadmap: Three Stages of Struggle
There is now a growing consensus among Oromo intellectuals and activists regarding the future of Oromia. This consensus can be summarized in three key stages:
- Defend the cultural autonomy of Oromia and resist any efforts to dismantle it.
- Advance toward full autonomy for Oromia through a federal system that genuinely reflects the diverse aspirations of the Oromo people (as advocated by the OFC).
Decide the fate of Oromia through a referendum, which would offer three potential futures:
- Independent Oromia,
- Federal Orompia (an ethnic federation), or
- Integrative Oropia (a geo-federated Ethiopia based on free choice).
Two Visions of Democracy
The key distinction lies in how democracy is perceived by different factions within Ethiopia:
- Abyssinian elites use democracy as a Trojan horse to dissolve Oromia through geo-federalism, ultimately centralizing power in a unified, Amharic-speaking state.
- Oromo elites view democracy as a tool for achieving self-determination—not as an end in itself, but as a means to reach liberation.
While Abyssinian elites preach democracy, they do so with an underlying fear that genuine democratic processes could empower the Oromo majority. In contrast, Oromo elites embrace democracy as a means to liberation and are open to whatever outcome arises, as long as it is voluntarily chosen by the Oromo nation.
Nagàso’s Final Shift: A Transformation or Regression?
The question remains: Was Dr. Nagàso’s political shift a betrayal of the Oromo cause, or was it a transformation of his political thought?
If the UDJ had genuinely embraced the principles of democratization while respecting Oromo self-determination, then the concept of geo-federalism might have emerged as a legitimate path forward for Ethiopia. In this case, Dr. Nagàso’s political evolution could be seen as a lateral transformation rather than a retreat.
It is worth noting that Dr. Nagàso might be the only prominent Oromo leader to have navigated three distinct political phases:
- Oromianist during the OLF era, advocating for full independence.
- Orompianist during the OFC era, supporting federal Orompia.
- Oropianist in the UDJ era, embracing a geo-federal Ethiopia led by the Oromo.
Final Reflections: The Oromo People Decide
Ultimately, what all political actors must recognize is this:
The Oromo people cannot be deceived. Our goal is clear—self-determination—and we remain open to whichever path leads to that goal, whether it is Oromia, Orompia, or Oropia, so long as it is a path freely chosen by the Oromo people themselves.
The ultimate power lies with the Oromo nation. We will not accept any political arrangement imposed upon us that undermines our identity, autonomy, or aspirations. The struggle for self-determination remains central to our collective vision, and we will continue to advocate for a political future where our rights are recognized and respected—whether through an independent Oromia, a federal Orompia, or an integrative Oropia that aligns with our aspirations as an equal and free nation.
In closing, it is essential that all parties involved—both within Ethiopia and in the broader international community—understand that the Oromo people’s will cannot be ignored. Our pursuit of self-determination is not merely a political ideal but a fundamental human right. We welcome dialogue, cooperation, and negotiation, but only on the condition that the Oromo people’s choices are honored and respected.
May Wàqà (God) guide our steps as we continue this journey, and may we, the Oromo people, ultimately find the path to true freedom and justice.
Galatòma! (Thank you!)
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/05/0 ... ropianist/
By Fayyis Oromia*
In recent years, the political shift of Dr. Nagàso Gidàda, former president of Ethiopia, has raised significant questions regarding his commitment to the liberation of the Oromo people. His decision to join the opposition party UDJ (Unity for Democratic Justice) prompted a range of reactions. Was this move beneficial or detrimental to the national liberation movement of the Oromo? Was it a progressive step, a regression, or merely a lateral shift? More specifically, did it represent a shift from his earlier advocacy for an independent Oromia (as supported by the OLF), to a vision of federal Orompia (ethnic federalism as advocated by the OPDO), and eventually toward a geo-federal Ethiopia—what some term an “Oropia” (led by the Oromo)?
To critically assess this transformation, it is necessary to explore the inherent tension between the aspirations of the Oromo nation and the broader political framework of Ethiopia, a country composed of many nations historically dominated by two Abyssinian ethnic groups for over 150 years. The key issue lies in the intersection and contradictions between the Oromo liberation movement and the democratization efforts within Ethiopia.
A Political Paradox: Progress or Reversal?
Years ago, I was reminded of a moment when, as a student, I was sitting on a bus with a friend, admiring the cityscape. We spotted one of our elderly teachers walking down the street. With his bald head and thick beard, his appearance was somewhat ambiguous, and my witty friend quipped, “Is he walking forward or backward?”—a comment that became an inside joke for situations where the direction of change is unclear.
This same question resurfaced when I learned of Dr. Nagàso’s decision to join the UDJ rather than the Oromo-centered OFC (Oromo Federalist Congress). Was this a forward or backward political move?
Looking back at his political journey, one sees a significant evolution:
- Initially, Dr. Nagàso was an active member of the OLF, advocating for the independence of Oromia.
- He then joined the OPDO, where he supported the model of ethnic federalism, a “federal Orompia.”
- Later, his stance appeared to evolve toward supporting self-determination through a referendum, which introduced the possibility of independence or greater autonomy for Oromia.
- Ultimately, he joined a party that rejected ethnic federalism in favor of a geo-federal Ethiopia—a vision for an “Oropia” which subtly threatens the distinct identity of Oromia.
This raises the question: was this trajectory a step forward, backward, or merely a shift in political perspective for a scholar and activist who had long championed the cause of Oromo self-determination?
Democratization or Distraction?
The Oromo liberation movement has been steadily gaining momentum, though slowly and steadily. This progress has alarmed several key stakeholders, including:
- Habesha elites, particularly those of the Amhara descent, who have historically favored a centralized Ethiopian state.
- Western allies, who have traditionally supported the centralizing forces within the Ethiopian empire.
- Elites from smaller ethnic groups, who harbor unfounded fears of potential Oromo domination in a post-liberation order.
These groups have employed various tactics to delay or undermine the Oromo liberation movement, with one of the most effective strategies being the promotion of a form of “democratization” that ultimately serves to perpetuate the status quo.
Their aim is to create an illusion of progress while maintaining a political structure that prevents genuine Oromo empowerment. This political tactic is especially evident in the language used by Ethiopian elites, who espouse democracy while resisting its true implementation—fearing that genuine democracy would empower the Oromo majority.
Handshakes That Spark Mixed Emotions
The image of political handshakes throughout Ethiopia’s modern history is a familiar one. One notable instance is the infamous handshake between Meles Zenawi of the TPLF and Hailu Shawel of the EPRP, which symbolized the union of two politically divergent forces. Similarly, handshakes between figures like Siye Abraha and Gizachew Shiferraw reflected the imperialist leanings that still persist in Ethiopia’s political landscape.
However, when Dr. Nagàso Gidàda shook hands with figures like Gizachew, it evoked a mixture of disappointment, confusion, and, for some, bitter amusement. Much like the ambiguity of the bald-and-bearded teacher, the gesture raised the question: was this a political step forward or a misstep?
Imperial Narratives in New Guise
The defenders of the Ethiopian Empire—whether conservatives or self-styled “modernists”—have long promoted various narratives aimed at undermining the Oromo’s quest for self-determination. These include:
- “All Ethiopians are Oromo”—a tactic aimed at diluting Oromo identity.
- “Oromos can rule through democracy”—an attempt to co-opt Oromo leadership by promoting false ideals of equality.
- “Ethiopia is already Oromia”—a statement that, while sometimes true, remains politically confusing and inaccurate.
- “Oromo people need food, not freedom”—a line often used by the TPLF and OPDO to pacify the masses.
- “OLF betrayed Oromia”—a divisive narrative propagated by radical factions seeking to discredit the OLF.
Despite the existence of these narratives, no Amhara party has seriously embraced ethnic federalism as a middle ground between unitarist Amharanism and Oromo independence. Furthermore, so-called “multi-national” parties often mask their true centralist ambitions by presenting token diversity, with little real commitment to the decentralization that would allow for meaningful Oromo self-determination.
Tokenism and the Language of Power
The political figures who tend to receive support from these “multi-national” parties are often those whose allegiance lies with a centralist agenda. Prominent figures include:
- Birtukan Mideksa: An Oromo by ethnicity, but politically aligned with Amhara-centric politics.
- Hailu Araya: A Tigrayan by ethnicity, yet advocating for Habesha-centric politics.
- Berhanu Nega and Muluneh Iyuel: Non-Amhara in ethnicity but fundamentally unitarist in ideology.
The shared ideological foundation among these figures is rooted in the concept of “Amharanet”—a centralizing force that seeks to suppress Ethiopia’s ethnic diversity.
The language used by these parties further exposes their ideological stance. They reject the term “peoples” in favor of the singular “Ethiopian people,” which erases the distinct identities of the various ethnic groups, including the Oromo. Even prominent Oromo intellectuals, such as Dr. Nagàso Gidàda and Merera Gudina, have succumbed to elite pressures and adopted the singular term “Ethiopian people.”
The Oromo Roadmap: Three Stages of Struggle
There is now a growing consensus among Oromo intellectuals and activists regarding the future of Oromia. This consensus can be summarized in three key stages:
- Defend the cultural autonomy of Oromia and resist any efforts to dismantle it.
- Advance toward full autonomy for Oromia through a federal system that genuinely reflects the diverse aspirations of the Oromo people (as advocated by the OFC).
Decide the fate of Oromia through a referendum, which would offer three potential futures:
- Independent Oromia,
- Federal Orompia (an ethnic federation), or
- Integrative Oropia (a geo-federated Ethiopia based on free choice).
Two Visions of Democracy
The key distinction lies in how democracy is perceived by different factions within Ethiopia:
- Abyssinian elites use democracy as a Trojan horse to dissolve Oromia through geo-federalism, ultimately centralizing power in a unified, Amharic-speaking state.
- Oromo elites view democracy as a tool for achieving self-determination—not as an end in itself, but as a means to reach liberation.
While Abyssinian elites preach democracy, they do so with an underlying fear that genuine democratic processes could empower the Oromo majority. In contrast, Oromo elites embrace democracy as a means to liberation and are open to whatever outcome arises, as long as it is voluntarily chosen by the Oromo nation.
Nagàso’s Final Shift: A Transformation or Regression?
The question remains: Was Dr. Nagàso’s political shift a betrayal of the Oromo cause, or was it a transformation of his political thought?
If the UDJ had genuinely embraced the principles of democratization while respecting Oromo self-determination, then the concept of geo-federalism might have emerged as a legitimate path forward for Ethiopia. In this case, Dr. Nagàso’s political evolution could be seen as a lateral transformation rather than a retreat.
It is worth noting that Dr. Nagàso might be the only prominent Oromo leader to have navigated three distinct political phases:
- Oromianist during the OLF era, advocating for full independence.
- Orompianist during the OFC era, supporting federal Orompia.
- Oropianist in the UDJ era, embracing a geo-federal Ethiopia led by the Oromo.
Final Reflections: The Oromo People Decide
Ultimately, what all political actors must recognize is this:
The Oromo people cannot be deceived. Our goal is clear—self-determination—and we remain open to whichever path leads to that goal, whether it is Oromia, Orompia, or Oropia, so long as it is a path freely chosen by the Oromo people themselves.
The ultimate power lies with the Oromo nation. We will not accept any political arrangement imposed upon us that undermines our identity, autonomy, or aspirations. The struggle for self-determination remains central to our collective vision, and we will continue to advocate for a political future where our rights are recognized and respected—whether through an independent Oromia, a federal Orompia, or an integrative Oropia that aligns with our aspirations as an equal and free nation.
In closing, it is essential that all parties involved—both within Ethiopia and in the broader international community—understand that the Oromo people’s will cannot be ignored. Our pursuit of self-determination is not merely a political ideal but a fundamental human right. We welcome dialogue, cooperation, and negotiation, but only on the condition that the Oromo people’s choices are honored and respected.
May Wàqà (God) guide our steps as we continue this journey, and may we, the Oromo people, ultimately find the path to true freedom and justice.
Galatòma! (Thank you!)
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/05/0 ... ropianist/