Talking Political Correctness as Jawar Mohammed While Walking Political Reality Like Yaya Bashir
Posted: 25 Feb 2026, 15:15
Talking Political Correctness as Jawar Mohammed While Walking Political Reality Like Yaya Bashir
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 resistant to the re-emergence of the Semenawi-Neftegna (Seftegna) political order historically associated with northern Abyssinian elites from the Amhara, Tigray, and Eritrea regions.
Among prominent Oromo political actors, the rhetoric of Jawar Mohammed reflects a politically correct opposition to Biltsigina, centered on democratic discourse and resistance to authoritarian governance. In contrast, the stance attributed to Yaya Bashir emphasizes political realism, particularly in opposing the resurgence of Seftegna-style centralization.
Divergent Priorities Within Oromo Politics
The anti-Biltsigina camp defines itself primarily through resistance to authoritarian governance. In pursuit of this objective, some within this camp have sought alliances with northern political actors to challenge the ruling regime. Their approach underscores the urgency of democratic reform and institutional accountability.
Conversely, the anti-Neftegna camp prioritizes safeguarding Oromo political gains against any restoration of centralized structures historically perceived as marginalizing Oromo interests. For this group, preventing the reassertion of dominance over Finfinné and Oromia’s political and economic resources is paramount.
Both positions articulate legitimate concerns. However, the principal weakness within the contemporary Oromo political landscape lies in the antagonism between these camps. Fragmentation diminishes collective leverage and inadvertently strengthens forces resistant to Oromo political agency. Strategic coordination, rather than mutual confrontation, is therefore imperative.
Political Correctness and Political Realism
The anti-Biltsigina perspective often emphasizes the necessity of broad-based alliances against authoritarianism, reflecting a discourse grounded in inclusivity and democratic solidarity. The anti-Neftegna perspective, meanwhile, stresses vigilance regarding the long-term objectives of potential allies.
Tactical cooperation with northern elites is not inherently problematic in struggles against dictatorship. Nonetheless, historical experience counsels caution. Entrenched elites may seek to reassert control over Finfinné and Oromia under revised political narratives. A durable strategy must therefore balance openness to alliance-building with a firm commitment to protecting Oromo self-determination.
Toward Strategic Reconciliation
A sustainable Oromo political strategy requires reconciling these two approaches. Externally, Oromo political actors may articulate inclusive and alliance-oriented positions. Internally, however, they must remain attentive to structural risks that could undermine Oromo autonomy.
In practical terms, such a strategy entails:
- Supporting opposition to authoritarian governance, including tactical alliances where necessary;
- Simultaneously preventing any resurgence of forces seeking to re-establish centralized domination over Finfinné and Oromia.
As noted by the Oromo scholar Lencho Lata, political endorsements from historically dominant elites warrant careful scrutiny. In this context, the evolving relationship between Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and segments of northern elites has generated varied interpretations among Oromo nationalists. For some, his political estrangement from entrenched interests may appear strategically advantageous; for others, support must remain conditional upon clear commitments to safeguarding Oromia’s autonomy.
Cultural Exclusion and Belonging
Recent tensions surrounding the use of Oromic language in religious practice—particularly within Orthodox Christian contexts—highlight enduring debates over cultural inclusion and pluralism. Such incidents underscore broader questions about belonging, identity, and recognition within Ethiopia’s multinational framework.
Notably, nationalist voices that were previously subdued during the dominance of the Tigray People’s Liberation Fronthave become increasingly assertive under Oromo-led federal leadership. This development reflects shifts in political space and strategic tolerance. The challenge is not the existence of dissenting perspectives but ensuring that no single group monopolizes political power at the expense of others.
Competing National Visions
A segment of Amhara elites continues to resist Oromummà as a legitimate foundation for Ethiopia’s future, favoring instead a conception of Ethiopiawinet historically aligned with centralized national identity. This perspective often contests the deepening of multinational federalism.
Ethiopia’s long-term stability, however, may depend on embracing its demographic and cultural plurality within an inclusive federal framework. Oromummà has emerged as an organized and self-conscious political force, advancing its aspirations transparently rather than under universalist rhetoric.
Nevertheless, critics argue that the current administration has yet to fully align state symbolism and policy with demographic realities, citing the continued predominance of Amharic in federal institutions as an example. Addressing such concerns is essential for fostering trust among diverse constituencies.
The Contemporary Political Spectrum
Ethiopian politics today is shaped less by conventional ideological cleavages than by competing national visions. The spectrum can be broadly conceptualized as:
- Far Left: Amharic-dominated geographic federalism
- Center Left: Amharic-dominated ethnic federalism
- Center: Independent national republicanism with potential confederal evolution
- Center Right: Oromic-led ethnic federalism
- Far Right: Oromic-led geographic federalism
The trajectory Ethiopia will ultimately follow remains uncertain.
Historically, the Ethiopian state has faced two divergent possibilities: democratic transformation into a genuinely multinational polity or fragmentation into independent nation-states. Within Oromo political thought, both the vision of independence and the pursuit of democratic reform remain present. Each path derives legitimacy from the principle of democratic self-determination.
Complementary Political Trajectories
The apparent dichotomy between “liberating Oromia” and “democratizing Ethiopia” may be overstated. Oromo political thought encompasses both trajectories, reflecting a complex historical position shaped by participation in, and resistance to, imperial expansion. Liberation and democratic transformation need not be mutually exclusive; rather, they may represent sequential or complementary phases.
Conceptualizing Sovereignty in Phases
Oromo sovereignty may be understood as unfolding in three stages:
- Independent self-rule — liberation and potential statehood;
- Shared federal self-rule — transitional multinational federalism;
- Integrated democratic governance — a pluralistic and inclusive federal order.
Movements advocating integrative approaches argue that pragmatic engagement within federal structures need not negate long-term aspirations. Conversely, rigid adherence to exclusionary projects—whether centralist or separatist—risks perpetuating instability.
Ultimately, Ethiopia’s political future will likely be shaped by inclusive, democratic movements capable of reconciling national aspirations with shared governance. The challenge for Oromo political actors, and for all Ethiopian constituencies, lies in balancing political correctness with political reality while safeguarding democratic principles and collective dignity.
May wisdom guide this collective journey.
Galatôma
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/02/0 ... orthodoxy/
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 resistant to the re-emergence of the Semenawi-Neftegna (Seftegna) political order historically associated with northern Abyssinian elites from the Amhara, Tigray, and Eritrea regions.
Among prominent Oromo political actors, the rhetoric of Jawar Mohammed reflects a politically correct opposition to Biltsigina, centered on democratic discourse and resistance to authoritarian governance. In contrast, the stance attributed to Yaya Bashir emphasizes political realism, particularly in opposing the resurgence of Seftegna-style centralization.
Divergent Priorities Within Oromo Politics
The anti-Biltsigina camp defines itself primarily through resistance to authoritarian governance. In pursuit of this objective, some within this camp have sought alliances with northern political actors to challenge the ruling regime. Their approach underscores the urgency of democratic reform and institutional accountability.
Conversely, the anti-Neftegna camp prioritizes safeguarding Oromo political gains against any restoration of centralized structures historically perceived as marginalizing Oromo interests. For this group, preventing the reassertion of dominance over Finfinné and Oromia’s political and economic resources is paramount.
Both positions articulate legitimate concerns. However, the principal weakness within the contemporary Oromo political landscape lies in the antagonism between these camps. Fragmentation diminishes collective leverage and inadvertently strengthens forces resistant to Oromo political agency. Strategic coordination, rather than mutual confrontation, is therefore imperative.
Political Correctness and Political Realism
The anti-Biltsigina perspective often emphasizes the necessity of broad-based alliances against authoritarianism, reflecting a discourse grounded in inclusivity and democratic solidarity. The anti-Neftegna perspective, meanwhile, stresses vigilance regarding the long-term objectives of potential allies.
Tactical cooperation with northern elites is not inherently problematic in struggles against dictatorship. Nonetheless, historical experience counsels caution. Entrenched elites may seek to reassert control over Finfinné and Oromia under revised political narratives. A durable strategy must therefore balance openness to alliance-building with a firm commitment to protecting Oromo self-determination.
Toward Strategic Reconciliation
A sustainable Oromo political strategy requires reconciling these two approaches. Externally, Oromo political actors may articulate inclusive and alliance-oriented positions. Internally, however, they must remain attentive to structural risks that could undermine Oromo autonomy.
In practical terms, such a strategy entails:
- Supporting opposition to authoritarian governance, including tactical alliances where necessary;
- Simultaneously preventing any resurgence of forces seeking to re-establish centralized domination over Finfinné and Oromia.
As noted by the Oromo scholar Lencho Lata, political endorsements from historically dominant elites warrant careful scrutiny. In this context, the evolving relationship between Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and segments of northern elites has generated varied interpretations among Oromo nationalists. For some, his political estrangement from entrenched interests may appear strategically advantageous; for others, support must remain conditional upon clear commitments to safeguarding Oromia’s autonomy.
Cultural Exclusion and Belonging
Recent tensions surrounding the use of Oromic language in religious practice—particularly within Orthodox Christian contexts—highlight enduring debates over cultural inclusion and pluralism. Such incidents underscore broader questions about belonging, identity, and recognition within Ethiopia’s multinational framework.
Notably, nationalist voices that were previously subdued during the dominance of the Tigray People’s Liberation Fronthave become increasingly assertive under Oromo-led federal leadership. This development reflects shifts in political space and strategic tolerance. The challenge is not the existence of dissenting perspectives but ensuring that no single group monopolizes political power at the expense of others.
Competing National Visions
A segment of Amhara elites continues to resist Oromummà as a legitimate foundation for Ethiopia’s future, favoring instead a conception of Ethiopiawinet historically aligned with centralized national identity. This perspective often contests the deepening of multinational federalism.
Ethiopia’s long-term stability, however, may depend on embracing its demographic and cultural plurality within an inclusive federal framework. Oromummà has emerged as an organized and self-conscious political force, advancing its aspirations transparently rather than under universalist rhetoric.
Nevertheless, critics argue that the current administration has yet to fully align state symbolism and policy with demographic realities, citing the continued predominance of Amharic in federal institutions as an example. Addressing such concerns is essential for fostering trust among diverse constituencies.
The Contemporary Political Spectrum
Ethiopian politics today is shaped less by conventional ideological cleavages than by competing national visions. The spectrum can be broadly conceptualized as:
- Far Left: Amharic-dominated geographic federalism
- Center Left: Amharic-dominated ethnic federalism
- Center: Independent national republicanism with potential confederal evolution
- Center Right: Oromic-led ethnic federalism
- Far Right: Oromic-led geographic federalism
The trajectory Ethiopia will ultimately follow remains uncertain.
Historically, the Ethiopian state has faced two divergent possibilities: democratic transformation into a genuinely multinational polity or fragmentation into independent nation-states. Within Oromo political thought, both the vision of independence and the pursuit of democratic reform remain present. Each path derives legitimacy from the principle of democratic self-determination.
Complementary Political Trajectories
The apparent dichotomy between “liberating Oromia” and “democratizing Ethiopia” may be overstated. Oromo political thought encompasses both trajectories, reflecting a complex historical position shaped by participation in, and resistance to, imperial expansion. Liberation and democratic transformation need not be mutually exclusive; rather, they may represent sequential or complementary phases.
Conceptualizing Sovereignty in Phases
Oromo sovereignty may be understood as unfolding in three stages:
- Independent self-rule — liberation and potential statehood;
- Shared federal self-rule — transitional multinational federalism;
- Integrated democratic governance — a pluralistic and inclusive federal order.
Movements advocating integrative approaches argue that pragmatic engagement within federal structures need not negate long-term aspirations. Conversely, rigid adherence to exclusionary projects—whether centralist or separatist—risks perpetuating instability.
Ultimately, Ethiopia’s political future will likely be shaped by inclusive, democratic movements capable of reconciling national aspirations with shared governance. The challenge for Oromo political actors, and for all Ethiopian constituencies, lies in balancing political correctness with political reality while safeguarding democratic principles and collective dignity.
May wisdom guide this collective journey.
Galatôma
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/02/0 ... orthodoxy/