The Oromo Dilemma: Should the Horomos Fight Primarily the Hybrids or the Habeshas?
By Fayyis Oromia*
For the last three thousand years, the Oromo have struggled internally between two competing tendencies: the Habeshanized and the Horomonized. Broadly speaking, the Oromo can be divided into three categories: the Habeshanized, the Hybridized, and the Horomonized. The process of Habeshanization began as cultural and religious influences from the Middle East spread into the region. Over time, parts of the northern Oromo population lost aspects of their earlier identity and, in some cases, attempted to expand southward.
Today, the struggle of the Horomonized elites—who consistently act in what they consider to be the best interests of the Oromo people—is directed not only against the Habeshanized elites, who are often perceived as opposing Oromo interests, but also against the currently ruling Hybridized elites, who partially accommodate Oromo interests while pursuing broader political objectives. This raises a strategic question: Should the Horomos primarily confront the ruling Hybrids or the opposition Habeshas?
This article examines Ethiopia’s contemporary political crisis through the lens of elite fragmentation, with particular emphasis on the role of hybrid elites within the Prosperity Party under Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. It analyzes their interactions with democratic-oriented Horomo actors associated with Dr. Lemma Megersa, as well as their confrontation with northern-based Habesha political forces. The article argues that authoritarian consolidation in Ethiopia is sustained by triangular rivalry among Amhara, Tigrayan, and Oromo elites. In contrast, democratic cooperation across these groups represents the most viable pathway toward political transformation.
The article further explores competing federalist, confederalist, and nationalist projects shaping Oromo and Ethiopian politics, ultimately advocating for inclusive self-determination grounded in democratic principles, political pluralism, and interethnic cooperation.
Hybrid Elites and Authoritarian Consolidation
A significant segment of supporters of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed within the Prosperity Party (Biltsiginna) and its affiliated networks can be characterized as hybrid elites—actors whose identities are ethnically, socially, and ideologically composite. These elites frequently present themselves as defenders of Ethiopian unity (Ethiopiawinet), while simultaneously consolidating political authority in pursuit of class-based and economic interests.
Over time, this group has evolved into a privileged political class closely aligned with state power. Rather than serving as intermediaries among Ethiopia’s diverse communities, hybrid elites increasingly function as stabilizers of authoritarian rule, benefiting from political fragmentation and inter-elite rivalry.
Within this framework, Oromo elites face a profound strategic dilemma. One bloc adopts a strongly anti-Heftegna stance, opposing the ruling hybrid elite structure. Another bloc is firmly anti-Seftegna, resisting the resurgence of northern-dominated political forces associated with actors such as Fanno, Shabiya, and Woyane. A central question emerges: can the Oromo political movement effectively confront both perceived threats simultaneously? While both forces warrant opposition, some analyses suggest prioritizing the containment of northern Habesha forces, while continuing resistance against the ruling hybrid structures.
ATO Elites: Democratic Cooperation versus Authoritarian Confrontation
A critical distinction can be drawn among Amhara, Tigrayan, and Oromo (ATO) elites. One camp advocates democratic cooperation across national groups, while another remains committed to antagonistic, zero-sum competition. The former promotes triangular collaboration, whereas the latter perpetuates entrenched confrontation.
This confrontational dynamic ultimately benefits the incumbent regime, which relies on divide-and-rule strategies. Persistent polarization among ATO elites undermines collective opposition and reinforces authoritarian governance.
Strategic Divergence: Abiy Ahmed and Lemma Megersa
The divergence between Abiy Ahmed and Lemma Megersa can be understood within this broader framework. Abiy Ahmed appears to benefit from divisions among authoritarian-leaning ATO elites, leveraging inter-elite conflict to neutralize opposition.
Lemma Megersa, by contrast, appears to be advancing a strategy centered on democratic alliance-building across ATO actors. This approach emphasizes cooperation rather than confrontation as a mechanism for political change. The outcome of this divergence—whether cooperation or rivalry prevails—will significantly shape Ethiopia’s political trajectory.
Multi-Angular Politics and the Limits of Confrontation
Ethiopia’s political future increasingly depends on whether opposition forces adopt multi-angular cooperation or remain entrenched in multi-angular confrontation. The latter, often unintentionally, reinforces the dominance of the ruling party.
Despite widespread dissatisfaction with the government, opposition actors frequently remain divided. Rivalries among Amhara, Tigrayan, and Oromo elites have repeatedly undermined collective democratic efforts. Sustainable transformation requires unity across divisions of class, ethnicity, political affiliation, profession, and religion.
Confederalism versus Geofederalism in Oromo Politics
Recent developments indicate the emergence of a confederalist alliance, reportedly formed in Washington, D.C., with the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) as a central actor. This alliance positions itself against the current authoritarian system and challenges what critics describe as the ruling party’s nominal federalism.
Meanwhile, proponents of traditional geographical federalism have declined in influence, often mobilizing primarily in reaction to confederalist proposals. As confederalist forces gain prominence, a key unresolved issue remains the political future of Finfinne (Addis Ababa).
Historical precedents raise concerns that external actors could again dominate the city’s political fate. Oromo elites—including nationalist elements within the ruling party—may therefore need to coordinate strategically with the OLA to ensure that Finfinne’s future reflects Oromo political interests. The broader question of Oromia’s political trajectory, including the possibility of independence, remains central.
The Fourth Revolution and the Oromo National Struggle
The present moment has been framed as a potential fourth revolution in the Oromo national struggle. Historically, Oromo political advancement has progressed incrementally: approximately 25% self-rule in 1974, 50% in 1991, and 75% in 2018. The current phase is viewed as an opportunity to consolidate full self-determination and dismantle enduring structures of domination.
Ethiopia’s Political Spectrum: From Polarization to Pragmatism
Ethiopia’s political spectrum is shaped by the evolving relationship between Amhara and Oromo elites, characterized by both conflict and latent potential for cooperation. Five principal ideological positions can be identified:
- Far right: Amharic-dominated geographical federation
- Center-right: Amharic-dominated ethnic federation
- Center: Rainbow confederation of free nations
- Center-left: Oromic-led ethnic federation
- Far left: Oromic-led geographical federation
The Prosperity Party seeks to balance these competing tendencies in order to maintain the status quo. However, internal divisions are intensifying, with its Amhara wing shifting rightward and its Oromo wing moving leftward. The Oromo Liberation Front’s rainbow confederation proposal represents a centrist compromise within this spectrum.
Oromo liberation—and Ethiopian democratization more broadly—must be grounded in popular sovereignty rather than elite bargaining. A sustainable political order should reflect principles akin to the Gadà system, emphasizing inclusivity, equality, and mutual respect. Broad-based alliances across ideological divides offer the most viable path toward peace and justice.
The Dual Opposition Imperative
In addressing the contemporary Oromo dilemma, elites must balance normative legitimacy with political realism. This requires articulating positions that align with universally accepted democratic principles while simultaneously navigating the dual challenge of opposing both the Hybrids and the Habesha forces.
Oromo elites should avoid instrumental alliances that compromise strategic coherence—namely, supporting the Hybrid forces to counter Habesha actors, or vice versa. Instead, a consistent dual-opposition stance is required. While both forces are viewed as obstacles, some perspectives emphasize that the northern Habesha threat currently represents the more immediate structural challenge.
Conclusion
The emerging confederalist alliance, with the Oromo Liberation Army at its core, represents a significant challenge to Ethiopia’s authoritarian system and its hybrid elite structure. Its effectiveness, however, will depend on its capacity to foster democratic cooperation across national and ideological divisions.
Ultimately, Ethiopia’s future hinges not on continued elite confrontation, but on the construction of an inclusive democratic framework capable of accommodating diverse political aspirations.
Galatôma
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/06/1 ... operation/