Is Dr. Abiy’s Envisioned Geo-Federation an Amapia or an Oropia?
Posted: 02 Jul 2026, 04:21
Is Dr. Abiy’s Envisioned Geo-Federation an Amapia or an Oropia?
By Fayyis Oromia*
Jawar Mohammed has stated that Dr. Abiy and the Prosperity Party have already decided to dismantle the existing ethnic federation and replace it with a geo-federation. According to this proposal, Oromia would be divided into six regions: West Oromia (Wellega), Southwest Oromia (Ilu–Jimma), Central Oromia (Shoa), East Oromia (Hararge), Southeast Oromia (Arsi–Bale), and South Oromia (Borana–Guji).
The key question that needs to be answered is: What kind of geo-federation is being envisioned? Will it be Amapia—an Amharic-dominated geo-federation—or Oropia—an Oromic-led geo-federation? The Oromo response depends on the answer to this question. If the proposal represents a backward move toward Amapia, the Oromo should strongly oppose it. If, however, it is a forward step toward Oropia, then Dr. Abiy would deserve the full support of the Oromo.
About fifty years ago, two Ethiopian Oromo political figures—Col. Mengistu H. Ayàna and Haile Fida—were in conflict over the type of Ethiopia that should be fostered. This conflict undermined the Oromo contribution to the 1974 revolution. Taking advantage of the situation, Habesha political elites cracked down on Oromo nationalists, leading figures such as Dr. Baro Tumsa to abandon legal political struggle and either form or join the OLF.
Haile Fida’s vision was to foster Oropia, whereas Col. Mengistu sought to maintain Amapia. That is why Dr. Haile focused on development of Qubé letters rather than on forging ethnic federation or separation. Today, Dr. Abiy seems to play a role similar to that of Mengistu, while genuine Oromo nationalists advocate for Oromic to become the primary working language of the federation, thereby transforming Ethiopia into a de facto Oropia.
At present, the pro-independence movements within Ethiopia have significantly diminished, with no major group explicitly advocating for the dismantling of the Ethiopian state. In particular, the major pro-independence factions from Ogaden, Tigray, and Oromia have softened their rhetoric, indicating a potential shift towards coexistence within a genuine federal or confederal system.
Most political elites across the country now adhere to a pro-unity stance, identifying themselves as Ethiopianists. However, within this broader Ethiopianist framework, two distinct blocs have emerged, each with its own vision of Ethiopia’s future: Amapianists, who seek to preserve an Amharic-dominated Ethiopia and Oropianists, who advocate for an Oromic-led Ethiopia.
Amapianists vs. Oropianists: The Ideological Divide
The Amhara elite is unambiguously aligned with the Amapianist bloc. For these individuals, discussions around Ethiopia and its unity often implicitly refer to an Ethiopia where Amharic dominates, reflecting the Amhara’s historical centrality in Ethiopian governance. In fact, many elites from other ethnic groups, including the ruling Oromo Prosperity Party, also align themselves with this vision, albeit for varied reasons.
In contrast, the Oropianist bloc is predominantly composed of Oromo nationalists who support the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC). These groups, alongside elites from other nations who envision a future where Oromia and/or Oropia replaces Amharic-dominated Ethiopia, are committed to creating an Oromic-led Ethiopia.
At the heart of this division is a political struggle between two competing visions for Ethiopia’s future: Amapianism, which seeks the continuation of Amharic dominance within the Ethiopian federation, and Oropianism, which strives to establish an Oromic-led Ethiopia.
The Debate: Ethiofederalism vs. Ethnofederalism
Ethiopian politics, in its current state, is largely divided into two visions of governance: one rooted in Ethiofederalism (which emphasizes the integration of diverse ethnic groups within a unified Ethiopian state) and the other in Ethnofederalism (which advocates for greater autonomy or even independence for Ethiopia’s ethnic nations).
From the Amapianist bloc, Ezema represents a dictatorial approach to Ethiofederalism, while the Ethiopian Prosperity Party (EPP) leans toward an equally centralizing, yet more inclusive, form of governance. On the other side, Oropianists—particularly those aligned with the OLF and OFC—are committed to a democratic Ethnofederalism, which, while seeking the autonomy of Oromia, allows for broader cultural and political expression across Ethiopia’s diverse nations.
The Ethiopian political landscape is heavily shaped by the interests of its ruling elites. Amhara elites tend to favor Ethiofederalism due to their perceived advantage in cultural and lingual dominance. In contrast, Tigray elites have historically championed Ethnofederalism as a safeguard against the risk of assimilation into a dominant Ethiopian culture. Meanwhile, the Oromo elite has fluctuated between the two positions, with more confident leaders advocating for Ethiofederalism, while others, wary of external manipulation, have embraced Ethnofederalism as a form of security.
The Struggle for Oromo Liberation
The Oromo struggle for self-determination has manifested in two distinct ideological camps: one that seeks to position the Oromo people as the central force in a future Ethiopian state (the Cushitic narrative) and another that focuses on achieving Oromian independence from the central Ethiopian government (the Colonial narrative).
The Cushitic narrative connects the Oromo people to the broader Cushitic civilization, historically linked to ancient Egypt and the city of Meroe. Proponents of this narrative argue that the Oromo, as the foundational group of the Cushitic peoples, should lead the renaissance of Ethiopia, or Biyya-Kush, and reclaim their rightful place in the region’s political structure. On the other hand, the Colonial narrative emphasizes the Oromo’s long history of subjugation by the Habesha elite and the importance of establishing an independent Oromia, free from the historical forces of oppression.
Both perspectives share a common goal: the liberation of the Oromo people from all forms of domination. However, the approaches differ in their emphasis on historical identity versus future self-determination. The OPF (Oropian Patriotic Force) stance, which focuses on Oromo liberation within a union of free nations in Oropia (an Oromic led geo-federation), presents a vision that is both history-conscious and future-oriented. The OLF (Oromo Liberation Front), by contrast, advocates for immediate self-determination, including the possibility of an independent Oromia, based on the principle of a democratic referendum by the Oromo people.
A Complementary Approach: Bridging the Divide
While the two perspectives—OPF and OLF—appear at first glance to be in conflict, they are in fact complementary. The ongoing struggle for the liberation of Oromo-proper (those Oromos who have historically resisted external influence and maintained their indigenous religion and language) has been the cornerstone of Oromo resistance. Both the OPF and the OLF share the fundamental objective of liberating the Oromo people from domination, whether through Ethnofederalism or independence.
In a post-liberation context, both camps envision an Ethiopia where various nations, most of which are rooted in Oromo ancestry, will coexist peacefully. The OLF’s program has consistently included the possibility of Ethiopian union, but crucially, it must be an Oropian union, not an Amapian one. The ultimate goal of both blocs is the realization of an Ethiopia where the Oromo people are free from oppression, able to lead, and capable of shaping the future of the Horn of Africa.
The Path to Oromo Renaissance
The journey toward Oromo renaissance begins with the liberation of Oromo-proper, a people who have been systematically oppressed by both the Tigray and Amhara elites. Whether through Oromian independence or a reformed Oromic-led Ethiopian union, the key to regional prosperity lies in the liberation of the Oromo people, whose liberation is the cornerstone for peace, justice, and economic development in the Horn of Africa.
The Oromo renaissance is not limited to the Oromo-proper but also includes the various Oromo progenies, as well as other nations in the Horn that may not have emerged from the Oromo. In this vision, the ultimate goal is a union of free peoples that transcends historical divisions and promotes genuine equality and self-determination.
Conclusion
The future of Ethiopia rests upon the resolution of the ideological divide between Amapianism and Oropianism. The political struggle must be rooted in the liberation of the Oromo people, whose historical resilience and cultural significance remain foundational to any vision for a prosperous future. Whether through Ethnofederalism, Oromian independence, or a reformed Ethiopian union, the path to a just and prosperous future lies in the recognition and realization of Oromo rights and self-determination.
The time has come for Oromo intellectuals, activists, and historians to step forward and guide the community toward a collective vision. By embracing the Cushitic narrative and moving beyond colonial history, the Oromo can reclaim their place at the heart of Ethiopia’s future and lead the region toward an era of freedom, justice, and prosperity.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/1 ... opianists/
By Fayyis Oromia*
Jawar Mohammed has stated that Dr. Abiy and the Prosperity Party have already decided to dismantle the existing ethnic federation and replace it with a geo-federation. According to this proposal, Oromia would be divided into six regions: West Oromia (Wellega), Southwest Oromia (Ilu–Jimma), Central Oromia (Shoa), East Oromia (Hararge), Southeast Oromia (Arsi–Bale), and South Oromia (Borana–Guji).
The key question that needs to be answered is: What kind of geo-federation is being envisioned? Will it be Amapia—an Amharic-dominated geo-federation—or Oropia—an Oromic-led geo-federation? The Oromo response depends on the answer to this question. If the proposal represents a backward move toward Amapia, the Oromo should strongly oppose it. If, however, it is a forward step toward Oropia, then Dr. Abiy would deserve the full support of the Oromo.
About fifty years ago, two Ethiopian Oromo political figures—Col. Mengistu H. Ayàna and Haile Fida—were in conflict over the type of Ethiopia that should be fostered. This conflict undermined the Oromo contribution to the 1974 revolution. Taking advantage of the situation, Habesha political elites cracked down on Oromo nationalists, leading figures such as Dr. Baro Tumsa to abandon legal political struggle and either form or join the OLF.
Haile Fida’s vision was to foster Oropia, whereas Col. Mengistu sought to maintain Amapia. That is why Dr. Haile focused on development of Qubé letters rather than on forging ethnic federation or separation. Today, Dr. Abiy seems to play a role similar to that of Mengistu, while genuine Oromo nationalists advocate for Oromic to become the primary working language of the federation, thereby transforming Ethiopia into a de facto Oropia.
At present, the pro-independence movements within Ethiopia have significantly diminished, with no major group explicitly advocating for the dismantling of the Ethiopian state. In particular, the major pro-independence factions from Ogaden, Tigray, and Oromia have softened their rhetoric, indicating a potential shift towards coexistence within a genuine federal or confederal system.
Most political elites across the country now adhere to a pro-unity stance, identifying themselves as Ethiopianists. However, within this broader Ethiopianist framework, two distinct blocs have emerged, each with its own vision of Ethiopia’s future: Amapianists, who seek to preserve an Amharic-dominated Ethiopia and Oropianists, who advocate for an Oromic-led Ethiopia.
Amapianists vs. Oropianists: The Ideological Divide
The Amhara elite is unambiguously aligned with the Amapianist bloc. For these individuals, discussions around Ethiopia and its unity often implicitly refer to an Ethiopia where Amharic dominates, reflecting the Amhara’s historical centrality in Ethiopian governance. In fact, many elites from other ethnic groups, including the ruling Oromo Prosperity Party, also align themselves with this vision, albeit for varied reasons.
In contrast, the Oropianist bloc is predominantly composed of Oromo nationalists who support the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC). These groups, alongside elites from other nations who envision a future where Oromia and/or Oropia replaces Amharic-dominated Ethiopia, are committed to creating an Oromic-led Ethiopia.
At the heart of this division is a political struggle between two competing visions for Ethiopia’s future: Amapianism, which seeks the continuation of Amharic dominance within the Ethiopian federation, and Oropianism, which strives to establish an Oromic-led Ethiopia.
The Debate: Ethiofederalism vs. Ethnofederalism
Ethiopian politics, in its current state, is largely divided into two visions of governance: one rooted in Ethiofederalism (which emphasizes the integration of diverse ethnic groups within a unified Ethiopian state) and the other in Ethnofederalism (which advocates for greater autonomy or even independence for Ethiopia’s ethnic nations).
From the Amapianist bloc, Ezema represents a dictatorial approach to Ethiofederalism, while the Ethiopian Prosperity Party (EPP) leans toward an equally centralizing, yet more inclusive, form of governance. On the other side, Oropianists—particularly those aligned with the OLF and OFC—are committed to a democratic Ethnofederalism, which, while seeking the autonomy of Oromia, allows for broader cultural and political expression across Ethiopia’s diverse nations.
The Ethiopian political landscape is heavily shaped by the interests of its ruling elites. Amhara elites tend to favor Ethiofederalism due to their perceived advantage in cultural and lingual dominance. In contrast, Tigray elites have historically championed Ethnofederalism as a safeguard against the risk of assimilation into a dominant Ethiopian culture. Meanwhile, the Oromo elite has fluctuated between the two positions, with more confident leaders advocating for Ethiofederalism, while others, wary of external manipulation, have embraced Ethnofederalism as a form of security.
The Struggle for Oromo Liberation
The Oromo struggle for self-determination has manifested in two distinct ideological camps: one that seeks to position the Oromo people as the central force in a future Ethiopian state (the Cushitic narrative) and another that focuses on achieving Oromian independence from the central Ethiopian government (the Colonial narrative).
The Cushitic narrative connects the Oromo people to the broader Cushitic civilization, historically linked to ancient Egypt and the city of Meroe. Proponents of this narrative argue that the Oromo, as the foundational group of the Cushitic peoples, should lead the renaissance of Ethiopia, or Biyya-Kush, and reclaim their rightful place in the region’s political structure. On the other hand, the Colonial narrative emphasizes the Oromo’s long history of subjugation by the Habesha elite and the importance of establishing an independent Oromia, free from the historical forces of oppression.
Both perspectives share a common goal: the liberation of the Oromo people from all forms of domination. However, the approaches differ in their emphasis on historical identity versus future self-determination. The OPF (Oropian Patriotic Force) stance, which focuses on Oromo liberation within a union of free nations in Oropia (an Oromic led geo-federation), presents a vision that is both history-conscious and future-oriented. The OLF (Oromo Liberation Front), by contrast, advocates for immediate self-determination, including the possibility of an independent Oromia, based on the principle of a democratic referendum by the Oromo people.
A Complementary Approach: Bridging the Divide
While the two perspectives—OPF and OLF—appear at first glance to be in conflict, they are in fact complementary. The ongoing struggle for the liberation of Oromo-proper (those Oromos who have historically resisted external influence and maintained their indigenous religion and language) has been the cornerstone of Oromo resistance. Both the OPF and the OLF share the fundamental objective of liberating the Oromo people from domination, whether through Ethnofederalism or independence.
In a post-liberation context, both camps envision an Ethiopia where various nations, most of which are rooted in Oromo ancestry, will coexist peacefully. The OLF’s program has consistently included the possibility of Ethiopian union, but crucially, it must be an Oropian union, not an Amapian one. The ultimate goal of both blocs is the realization of an Ethiopia where the Oromo people are free from oppression, able to lead, and capable of shaping the future of the Horn of Africa.
The Path to Oromo Renaissance
The journey toward Oromo renaissance begins with the liberation of Oromo-proper, a people who have been systematically oppressed by both the Tigray and Amhara elites. Whether through Oromian independence or a reformed Oromic-led Ethiopian union, the key to regional prosperity lies in the liberation of the Oromo people, whose liberation is the cornerstone for peace, justice, and economic development in the Horn of Africa.
The Oromo renaissance is not limited to the Oromo-proper but also includes the various Oromo progenies, as well as other nations in the Horn that may not have emerged from the Oromo. In this vision, the ultimate goal is a union of free peoples that transcends historical divisions and promotes genuine equality and self-determination.
Conclusion
The future of Ethiopia rests upon the resolution of the ideological divide between Amapianism and Oropianism. The political struggle must be rooted in the liberation of the Oromo people, whose historical resilience and cultural significance remain foundational to any vision for a prosperous future. Whether through Ethnofederalism, Oromian independence, or a reformed Ethiopian union, the path to a just and prosperous future lies in the recognition and realization of Oromo rights and self-determination.
The time has come for Oromo intellectuals, activists, and historians to step forward and guide the community toward a collective vision. By embracing the Cushitic narrative and moving beyond colonial history, the Oromo can reclaim their place at the heart of Ethiopia’s future and lead the region toward an era of freedom, justice, and prosperity.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/1 ... opianists/