“Idaw Gebs” or “Idaw Nebs”? The Oromo Liberation Front and the Quest for Freedom
Posted: 25 Jan 2026, 02:24
“Idaw Gebs” or “Idaw Nebs”? The Oromo Liberation Front and the Quest for Freedom
By Fayyis Oromia*
In the context of recent political and ethnic struggles within Ethiopia, certain prominent groups have expressed sentiments of both disdain and overconfidence toward the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the broader Oromo people’s fight for freedom. Three years ago, during the devastating war against the Tigray people, some elites from the Amhara region with a Neftegna mindset belittled the OLF, remarking that dealing with the OLF and the Oromo people would be as easy as “idaw gebs new”—an Ethiopian expression akin to brushing off grain husks. This perception, however, has drastically shifted. After encountering the resilience and intellectual resistance of the OLF, rooted in the Oromo philosophy of Bilisummà (freedom), these same elites have begun to realize the complexity and depth of the Oromo struggle, now fearing for their very survival (“idaw nebs”.
Similarly, some Tigrayan elites with hegemonistic attitudes once mocked the OLF and the Oromo people, asserting that “ye zinb bizat mesob ayikeftim” (many flies can’t open a basket, despite their number), implying that the Oromo, as Ethiopia’s largest ethnic group, lacked the power to challenge a minority-led Tigrayan regime. Today, however, both hegemonistic forces and Neftegna ideologues are fading from political relevance, having learned a painful lesson: underestimating the OLF and the Oromo people is a grave mistake.
The fundamental task before the Oromo people today is clear: their focus must be on dismantling the hybrid regime of Dr. Abiy Ahmed, which seeks to perpetuate the Amharic-centric legacy of Amaranet by obstructing the rightful rise of Oromic as the primary federal working language and self-determination.
The Fano Movement vs. The Qérrô Revolution: A Comparison of Struggles
An important question arises when comparing the current Fanno Movement (FM) to the Qérrô Revolution (QR) of 2018: Why has the FM failed to garner the same level of support from Oromo youth as the QR did from the Fanno? The answer lies in the foundational differences between the two movements. The QR focused its energy on dismantling the TPLF-led regime (Dagimawi Derg), not on attacking any particular ethnic group. It sought the removal of a brutal dictatorship without diminishing the dignity of any community, including the Amhara.
In stark contrast, the FM, which began its struggle by attacking key elements of Oromo identity—including the revered symbol of the Oromo liberation movement (Onegawinet), the derogatory term “Galla Invasion,” and Oromummà (the inclusive ideology of Oromo identity)—alienated itself from the very people it aimed to liberate. This political miscalculation has prevented the FM from building the kind of broad-based support necessary for significant national impact, especially in the political center of Finfinne (Addis Ababa). For the FM to succeed, it must reconsider its approach, seek collaboration with Oromo and Tigrayan democratic forces, and forge an inclusive strategy that embraces all of Ethiopia’s oppressed communities.
Historical Context and the Path Forward
For over fifty years, various nations and ethnic groups within Ethiopia have struggled for their human and national rights. From the feudal monarchs to three successive dictatorships—the Qedamawi Derg (Mengistu), the Dagimawi Derg (Meles), and now the Salisawi Derg (Abiy)—each regime has employed authoritarian tactics to favor one ethnic group over the others, while exploiting ethnic divisions to maintain control. In reality, none of these regimes have truly served the interests of the Ethiopian people.
Throughout these struggles, there have been many voices of resistance—from the Amharas opposing the Derg, to the Tigrayans challenging the TPLF, and the vast majority of Oromos fighting against Biltsigina (Salisawi Derg). These collective democratic forces have toppled two authoritarian regimes already, and there is no reason why the current regime should escape the same fate. It is crucial for forces such as the Amhara Popular Force (APF), the Tigray Defense Force (TDF), and the OLF to unite and collaborate in their opposition to the authoritarian rule of Dr. Abiy Ahmed.
Amhara Representation in Dr. Abiy’s Cabinet
It has been noted that certain Amhara elites have expressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Abiy’s cabinet reshuffling, accusing him of unfairly sidelining their interests. But is this truly a case of ethnic discrimination? The political reality is that Amhara elites, as Ethiopia’s second-largest ethnic group, deserve a significant presence in national leadership. While the balance of ministers—five Amhara ministers compared to six Oromo ministers—appears numerically fair, the real issue lies in the nature and significance of the positions held by Amhara representatives. If their roles lack real national influence, this imbalance must be addressed. Only a fair distribution of power, reflective of Ethiopia’s diverse demographic composition, can pave the way for lasting peace in the country.
The Elephant in the Room: Amhara Unitarism vs. Oromo Unionism
One of the most fundamental and unresolved issues in Ethiopian politics remains the tension between Amhara unitarism and Oromo unionism. Amhara unitarists envision a centralized Ethiopian state, while Oromo unionists seek genuine self-rule, either within a democratic federation or through full independence. Both sides seem to operate as though their vision is the only realistic path forward, but the Biltsigina regime expertly exploits this division, preventing any meaningful cooperation between these two key forces.
It is clear that for Ethiopia to transition into a democratic and inclusive society, both camps must confront their fundamental differences. The solution lies in dialogue, compromise, and respect for the will of the people—through a democratic referendum.
The Middle Ground: A Democratic Referendum
Can both pro-independence and pro-unity forces reach a common ground? A democratic referendum, allowing the people to decide Ethiopia’s future through free and fair elections, could offer a solution. Those advocating for unconditional independence must be prepared to accept the people’s decision, even if it favors continued unity. Similarly, those pushing for unwavering unity must accept the possibility that the people might choose self-determination.
The central principle is clear: a peaceful resolution can only be achieved through democratic processes, whether it leads to unity or independence. Ultimately, the peoples of Ethiopia are interconnected by culture, history, and economic ties, and their collective future must be decided with respect to these shared bonds.
Blind vs. Smart Nationalists
One of the challenges to Ethiopian democratization lies in the divide between blind and smart nationalists. Some nationalists, both from the Amhara and Oromo camps, focus exclusively on their long-term goals of either an independent Oromia or a united Ethiopia, often ignoring the immediate need for cooperation and collaboration to defeat the current regime.
Smart nationalists, in contrast, understand the importance of working together in the short term to challenge Biltsigina’s authoritarian rule. They recognize that democracy cannot be imposed from the top down; it must be grounded in the will of the people, who must be empowered to decide the future of Ethiopia through referenda.
The “Y” Model: A Visual Metaphor for Ethiopian Politics
To illustrate the political landscape of Ethiopia, consider a metaphor using the letter “Y,” which can represent the different paths that Ethiopian nations might follow:
- Bottom: Ethiopia under the tyranny of Biltsigina
- Middle junction: A joint fight for freedom by the Amhara and Oromo peoples
- Top left: Oromia’s independence as Oromo elites’ goal
- Top right: Democratic Ethiopian unity as Amhara elites’ objective.
The common struggle from the bottom to the junction represents the united fight of the Amhara and Oromo peoples against the oppressive regime. Once this joint struggle succeeds, each group can pursue its own long-term vision—whether it is Oromia’s sovereignty or a democratic, united Ethiopia. The decision must ultimately lie with the people, as reflected in the outcome of a democratic referendum.
Three Paths of Struggle for Freedom
Historically, three primary strategies have been employed in the struggle for freedom in Ethiopia:
- Armed struggle – This approach, adopted by the OLF and others, was powerful but lacked international support.
- Electoral struggle – Attempted by democratic federalists, this approach failed due to the absence of fair and free elections.
- Popular uprising – This has proven to be the most effective, as seen in the Qérrô movement and various regional protests.
Yet, these uprisings against Biltsiginna have not succeeded due to elite polarization and a lack of coordinated efforts. Unity between oppressed nations, as seen in the downfall of the TPLF, is the key to dismantling the current regime and achieving a democratic Ethiopia.
The Role of Abiy Ahmed’s Government
For Dr. Abiy Ahmed’s regime to genuinely pursue inclusive democratization, it must:
- Acknowledge the plurality of Ethiopia and the equal rights of all nations.
- Ensure fair representation in political structures, particularly in cabinet positions.
- Respect the Oromo people’s demand for freedom (Bilisummà), whether through a democratic union or a referendum.
If Dr. Abiy continues to act in a manner consistent with his predecessors, the Salisawi Derg may be remembered as the last regime to oppress Ethiopia’s people.
The Path Forward: Unity or Peaceful Separation
Ethiopia’s future does not have to be bleak. The Oromo and Amhara, as the two largest nations, have the power to shape Ethiopia’s future by choosing one of two paths:
- A democratic federal union, where all nations are self-governing and cooperative, respecting human and national rights.
- A peaceful separation, where each nation governs itself, similar to the Czech-Slovak split.
The goal should be a peaceful resolution that honors the will of the people, ensuring that Ethiopia’s diverse nations live with dignity, either as equal partners in a democratic union or as independent sovereign entities.
The Dangers of Inaction: Avoiding the Tragedy of Sudan
The consequences of failing to resolve Ethiopia’s deep-rooted political tensions could be catastrophic. The tragic lessons of Sudan, where millions of lives were lost before the peaceful secession of South Sudan, should serve as a dire warning. Why wait for bloodshed before respecting the right of the people to determine their future? Ethiopia can avoid this fate by embracing democratic solutions now, while the opportunity still exists.
The Final Appeal: A Future Rooted in Justice and Equality
In this critical moment of Ethiopia’s history, it is time for all democratic forces—whether Amhara, Oromo, Tigrayan, or from other ethnic communities—to come together and confront the regime of Biltsigina with a united vision for Ethiopia’s future. The time for division and mistrust must come to an end. The people of Ethiopia, from every nation and ethnic group, deserve to live in a country that respects their human rights, upholds their cultural identities, and allows them to determine their own destiny.
The path forward is clear: freedom first, democratization through the will of the people, and either a peaceful union or a dignified separation. This is the only way to honor the sacrifices of those who have fought and died for justice over the last five decades. It is the only way to ensure a future where Ethiopia’s diverse nations—Oromia, Amhara, Tigray, Sidama, Ogaden, and all others—can live with dignity and respect, either as equal partners in a democratic union or as peaceful neighbors after separation.
The Role of Dr. Abiy Ahmed and His Government
If Dr. Abiy Ahmed and his regime are truly interested in fostering an inclusive, democratic Ethiopia, they must:
- Acknowledge the pluralistic nature of Ethiopian society and the equal rights of all nations within the country.
- Ensure that political representation is fair, and that all ethnic groups have a meaningful say in national governance.
- Respect the Oromo people’s legitimate demand for Bilisummà (freedom), whether it manifests as participation in a democratic federation or through a referendum on self-determination.
If Dr. Abiy continues to pursue policies of exclusion and authoritarianism, his regime will be remembered as yet another chapter in the long history of centralized oppression that Ethiopia has endured. The legacy of the Salisawi Derg could well be its place in history as the final obstacle to Ethiopia’s democratic transformation.
Conclusion: Unity in Diversity or Division with Dignity
Ethiopia stands at a crossroads. The two largest nations, the Oromo and Amhara, have the power to either help save the country or contribute to its unraveling. The future lies in their hands, and they face a monumental choice:
A democratic federal union where all nations are self-governing but cooperative—respecting the human and national rights of all.
A peaceful, dignified separation where each nation governs itself, in the spirit of mutual respect and cooperation.
In the end, no nation can be ruled against its will, and no true unity can endure without the consent of all its people. Whether through democratic unity or peaceful separation, the ultimate goal must be justice, dignity, and the full realization of the democratic rights of all Ethiopians.
Let us reject blind nationalism and embrace a smart, democratic nationalism—rooted in justice, equality, and the respect for the will of the people. This is the path to dismantling Biltsigina’s fascism and laying the foundation for a future in which all Ethiopian nations can live in dignity, whether together or apart.
May Wàqà (God) help us see the truth, overcome our divisions, and fulfill the democratic dreams of our people.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/06/0 ... iltsigina/
By Fayyis Oromia*
In the context of recent political and ethnic struggles within Ethiopia, certain prominent groups have expressed sentiments of both disdain and overconfidence toward the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the broader Oromo people’s fight for freedom. Three years ago, during the devastating war against the Tigray people, some elites from the Amhara region with a Neftegna mindset belittled the OLF, remarking that dealing with the OLF and the Oromo people would be as easy as “idaw gebs new”—an Ethiopian expression akin to brushing off grain husks. This perception, however, has drastically shifted. After encountering the resilience and intellectual resistance of the OLF, rooted in the Oromo philosophy of Bilisummà (freedom), these same elites have begun to realize the complexity and depth of the Oromo struggle, now fearing for their very survival (“idaw nebs”.
Similarly, some Tigrayan elites with hegemonistic attitudes once mocked the OLF and the Oromo people, asserting that “ye zinb bizat mesob ayikeftim” (many flies can’t open a basket, despite their number), implying that the Oromo, as Ethiopia’s largest ethnic group, lacked the power to challenge a minority-led Tigrayan regime. Today, however, both hegemonistic forces and Neftegna ideologues are fading from political relevance, having learned a painful lesson: underestimating the OLF and the Oromo people is a grave mistake.
The fundamental task before the Oromo people today is clear: their focus must be on dismantling the hybrid regime of Dr. Abiy Ahmed, which seeks to perpetuate the Amharic-centric legacy of Amaranet by obstructing the rightful rise of Oromic as the primary federal working language and self-determination.
The Fano Movement vs. The Qérrô Revolution: A Comparison of Struggles
An important question arises when comparing the current Fanno Movement (FM) to the Qérrô Revolution (QR) of 2018: Why has the FM failed to garner the same level of support from Oromo youth as the QR did from the Fanno? The answer lies in the foundational differences between the two movements. The QR focused its energy on dismantling the TPLF-led regime (Dagimawi Derg), not on attacking any particular ethnic group. It sought the removal of a brutal dictatorship without diminishing the dignity of any community, including the Amhara.
In stark contrast, the FM, which began its struggle by attacking key elements of Oromo identity—including the revered symbol of the Oromo liberation movement (Onegawinet), the derogatory term “Galla Invasion,” and Oromummà (the inclusive ideology of Oromo identity)—alienated itself from the very people it aimed to liberate. This political miscalculation has prevented the FM from building the kind of broad-based support necessary for significant national impact, especially in the political center of Finfinne (Addis Ababa). For the FM to succeed, it must reconsider its approach, seek collaboration with Oromo and Tigrayan democratic forces, and forge an inclusive strategy that embraces all of Ethiopia’s oppressed communities.
Historical Context and the Path Forward
For over fifty years, various nations and ethnic groups within Ethiopia have struggled for their human and national rights. From the feudal monarchs to three successive dictatorships—the Qedamawi Derg (Mengistu), the Dagimawi Derg (Meles), and now the Salisawi Derg (Abiy)—each regime has employed authoritarian tactics to favor one ethnic group over the others, while exploiting ethnic divisions to maintain control. In reality, none of these regimes have truly served the interests of the Ethiopian people.
Throughout these struggles, there have been many voices of resistance—from the Amharas opposing the Derg, to the Tigrayans challenging the TPLF, and the vast majority of Oromos fighting against Biltsigina (Salisawi Derg). These collective democratic forces have toppled two authoritarian regimes already, and there is no reason why the current regime should escape the same fate. It is crucial for forces such as the Amhara Popular Force (APF), the Tigray Defense Force (TDF), and the OLF to unite and collaborate in their opposition to the authoritarian rule of Dr. Abiy Ahmed.
Amhara Representation in Dr. Abiy’s Cabinet
It has been noted that certain Amhara elites have expressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Abiy’s cabinet reshuffling, accusing him of unfairly sidelining their interests. But is this truly a case of ethnic discrimination? The political reality is that Amhara elites, as Ethiopia’s second-largest ethnic group, deserve a significant presence in national leadership. While the balance of ministers—five Amhara ministers compared to six Oromo ministers—appears numerically fair, the real issue lies in the nature and significance of the positions held by Amhara representatives. If their roles lack real national influence, this imbalance must be addressed. Only a fair distribution of power, reflective of Ethiopia’s diverse demographic composition, can pave the way for lasting peace in the country.
The Elephant in the Room: Amhara Unitarism vs. Oromo Unionism
One of the most fundamental and unresolved issues in Ethiopian politics remains the tension between Amhara unitarism and Oromo unionism. Amhara unitarists envision a centralized Ethiopian state, while Oromo unionists seek genuine self-rule, either within a democratic federation or through full independence. Both sides seem to operate as though their vision is the only realistic path forward, but the Biltsigina regime expertly exploits this division, preventing any meaningful cooperation between these two key forces.
It is clear that for Ethiopia to transition into a democratic and inclusive society, both camps must confront their fundamental differences. The solution lies in dialogue, compromise, and respect for the will of the people—through a democratic referendum.
The Middle Ground: A Democratic Referendum
Can both pro-independence and pro-unity forces reach a common ground? A democratic referendum, allowing the people to decide Ethiopia’s future through free and fair elections, could offer a solution. Those advocating for unconditional independence must be prepared to accept the people’s decision, even if it favors continued unity. Similarly, those pushing for unwavering unity must accept the possibility that the people might choose self-determination.
The central principle is clear: a peaceful resolution can only be achieved through democratic processes, whether it leads to unity or independence. Ultimately, the peoples of Ethiopia are interconnected by culture, history, and economic ties, and their collective future must be decided with respect to these shared bonds.
Blind vs. Smart Nationalists
One of the challenges to Ethiopian democratization lies in the divide between blind and smart nationalists. Some nationalists, both from the Amhara and Oromo camps, focus exclusively on their long-term goals of either an independent Oromia or a united Ethiopia, often ignoring the immediate need for cooperation and collaboration to defeat the current regime.
Smart nationalists, in contrast, understand the importance of working together in the short term to challenge Biltsigina’s authoritarian rule. They recognize that democracy cannot be imposed from the top down; it must be grounded in the will of the people, who must be empowered to decide the future of Ethiopia through referenda.
The “Y” Model: A Visual Metaphor for Ethiopian Politics
To illustrate the political landscape of Ethiopia, consider a metaphor using the letter “Y,” which can represent the different paths that Ethiopian nations might follow:
- Bottom: Ethiopia under the tyranny of Biltsigina
- Middle junction: A joint fight for freedom by the Amhara and Oromo peoples
- Top left: Oromia’s independence as Oromo elites’ goal
- Top right: Democratic Ethiopian unity as Amhara elites’ objective.
The common struggle from the bottom to the junction represents the united fight of the Amhara and Oromo peoples against the oppressive regime. Once this joint struggle succeeds, each group can pursue its own long-term vision—whether it is Oromia’s sovereignty or a democratic, united Ethiopia. The decision must ultimately lie with the people, as reflected in the outcome of a democratic referendum.
Three Paths of Struggle for Freedom
Historically, three primary strategies have been employed in the struggle for freedom in Ethiopia:
- Armed struggle – This approach, adopted by the OLF and others, was powerful but lacked international support.
- Electoral struggle – Attempted by democratic federalists, this approach failed due to the absence of fair and free elections.
- Popular uprising – This has proven to be the most effective, as seen in the Qérrô movement and various regional protests.
Yet, these uprisings against Biltsiginna have not succeeded due to elite polarization and a lack of coordinated efforts. Unity between oppressed nations, as seen in the downfall of the TPLF, is the key to dismantling the current regime and achieving a democratic Ethiopia.
The Role of Abiy Ahmed’s Government
For Dr. Abiy Ahmed’s regime to genuinely pursue inclusive democratization, it must:
- Acknowledge the plurality of Ethiopia and the equal rights of all nations.
- Ensure fair representation in political structures, particularly in cabinet positions.
- Respect the Oromo people’s demand for freedom (Bilisummà), whether through a democratic union or a referendum.
If Dr. Abiy continues to act in a manner consistent with his predecessors, the Salisawi Derg may be remembered as the last regime to oppress Ethiopia’s people.
The Path Forward: Unity or Peaceful Separation
Ethiopia’s future does not have to be bleak. The Oromo and Amhara, as the two largest nations, have the power to shape Ethiopia’s future by choosing one of two paths:
- A democratic federal union, where all nations are self-governing and cooperative, respecting human and national rights.
- A peaceful separation, where each nation governs itself, similar to the Czech-Slovak split.
The goal should be a peaceful resolution that honors the will of the people, ensuring that Ethiopia’s diverse nations live with dignity, either as equal partners in a democratic union or as independent sovereign entities.
The Dangers of Inaction: Avoiding the Tragedy of Sudan
The consequences of failing to resolve Ethiopia’s deep-rooted political tensions could be catastrophic. The tragic lessons of Sudan, where millions of lives were lost before the peaceful secession of South Sudan, should serve as a dire warning. Why wait for bloodshed before respecting the right of the people to determine their future? Ethiopia can avoid this fate by embracing democratic solutions now, while the opportunity still exists.
The Final Appeal: A Future Rooted in Justice and Equality
In this critical moment of Ethiopia’s history, it is time for all democratic forces—whether Amhara, Oromo, Tigrayan, or from other ethnic communities—to come together and confront the regime of Biltsigina with a united vision for Ethiopia’s future. The time for division and mistrust must come to an end. The people of Ethiopia, from every nation and ethnic group, deserve to live in a country that respects their human rights, upholds their cultural identities, and allows them to determine their own destiny.
The path forward is clear: freedom first, democratization through the will of the people, and either a peaceful union or a dignified separation. This is the only way to honor the sacrifices of those who have fought and died for justice over the last five decades. It is the only way to ensure a future where Ethiopia’s diverse nations—Oromia, Amhara, Tigray, Sidama, Ogaden, and all others—can live with dignity and respect, either as equal partners in a democratic union or as peaceful neighbors after separation.
The Role of Dr. Abiy Ahmed and His Government
If Dr. Abiy Ahmed and his regime are truly interested in fostering an inclusive, democratic Ethiopia, they must:
- Acknowledge the pluralistic nature of Ethiopian society and the equal rights of all nations within the country.
- Ensure that political representation is fair, and that all ethnic groups have a meaningful say in national governance.
- Respect the Oromo people’s legitimate demand for Bilisummà (freedom), whether it manifests as participation in a democratic federation or through a referendum on self-determination.
If Dr. Abiy continues to pursue policies of exclusion and authoritarianism, his regime will be remembered as yet another chapter in the long history of centralized oppression that Ethiopia has endured. The legacy of the Salisawi Derg could well be its place in history as the final obstacle to Ethiopia’s democratic transformation.
Conclusion: Unity in Diversity or Division with Dignity
Ethiopia stands at a crossroads. The two largest nations, the Oromo and Amhara, have the power to either help save the country or contribute to its unraveling. The future lies in their hands, and they face a monumental choice:
A democratic federal union where all nations are self-governing but cooperative—respecting the human and national rights of all.
A peaceful, dignified separation where each nation governs itself, in the spirit of mutual respect and cooperation.
In the end, no nation can be ruled against its will, and no true unity can endure without the consent of all its people. Whether through democratic unity or peaceful separation, the ultimate goal must be justice, dignity, and the full realization of the democratic rights of all Ethiopians.
Let us reject blind nationalism and embrace a smart, democratic nationalism—rooted in justice, equality, and the respect for the will of the people. This is the path to dismantling Biltsigina’s fascism and laying the foundation for a future in which all Ethiopian nations can live in dignity, whether together or apart.
May Wàqà (God) help us see the truth, overcome our divisions, and fulfill the democratic dreams of our people.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/06/0 ... iltsigina/