To Whom Does Addis Ababa (Finfinné) Belong? To Oromia and/or Oropia!
By Fayyis Oropia
Nowadays, an intensive debate and discussion is going on regarding Addis Ababa (Finfinné). Surprisingly, Oromo elites are quarrelling on the issue more than the others. As far as I am concerned, there is no problem, if Finfinné be under Oromia or under the federation. Oromo elites better focus on the very important agenda of promoting Oromic as a primary working language of the federation, replacing Amharic. Ethiopian federation using Oromic as a primary working language is de facto Oropia (an Oromic-led country, which is equivalent to Great Oromia). In such case, Finfinné shall belong to Oromia and/or Oropia. What ever the decision will be (Finfinné under Oromia, Finfinné under the federation or Finfinné as city state), Finfinné belongs to the Oromo.
I do not understand why the OPP elites are trying to convince the pro-Amharic camp that Finfinne should be placed under the administration of Oromia. The issue of Finfinne is not a negotiation agenda; it is a liberation agenda of the Oromo people. The question of securing Finfinne as part of Oromia is part and parcel of Oromia’s liberation from a system of Amharic domination. Such liberation cannot come through an agreement with pro-Amharic forces. They can only be compelled to witness the liberation of Finfinne in particular and Oromia in general. Therefore, placing Finfinne under the administration of Oromia does not require national dialogue; it requires a political decision.
In light of recent discussions surrounding the status of Finfinne, it has become clear that the time has come for significant political changes. The persistent opposition by some Amhara elites to the teaching and use of Oromic in Finfinne, Ethiopia’s capital, demands decisive action. Rather than seeking to appease these voices, Oromo politicians should consider taking bold steps to address this challenge. These actions should include:
- Placing Finfinne under the administrative jurisdiction of Oromia.
- Establishing Oromic as the primary working language of the nation, effectively replacing Amharic.
- Enacting legislation requiring all individuals who wish to live and work in Oromia, including Finfinne, to learn Oromic as part of their integration into Oromo society.
It is noteworthy that Amhara elites and youth who are quick to learn English in the United Kingdom, French in France, and German in Germany cannot reasonably oppose learning Oromic if they intend to reside in Oromia, including Finfinne.
The Call for Self-Rule and Its Implications
Recently, several pro-Amharic political parties—those opposed to the Oromo nationalist cause—demonstrated a unified position in advocating self-rule for Addis Ababa (Finfinne). While the notion of self-rule is inherently democratic and worthy of consideration, two critical questions emerge:
- Should this self-rule exist within the framework of Oromia, or should it remain outside Oromia’s jurisdiction?
- Should the administration of Finfinne primarily use Amharic or Oromic?
It is clear that the six pro-Amharic parties advocate for self-rule outside Oromia’s borders, with Amharic as the dominant administrative language. The Oromo response to such a proposition should be unequivocal: this will not happen while we are alive. No Oromo who understands the national question would willingly accept such a plan. By pushing this agenda, these political forces have positioned themselves as adversaries of the Oromo people. Their continued presence and influence in Oromia, including Finfinne, would therefore remain highly contentious.
A better solution, however, may lie in compromise and mutual recognition.
The Dual-Naming Solution: A Way Forward
The idea of dual naming, in which both Finfinne and Addis Ababa are recognized as valid designations, has gained some degree of acceptance among both pro-Amharic and pro-Oromic factions. But why not extend this principle to the entire country by recognizing Oropia alongside Ethiopia?
The #OromoProtest clearly highlighted the deep-rooted mistrust between those loyal to Amharic political and cultural dominance and those advocating for the promotion of Oromic. The Oromo-led protests, which involved immense sacrifices in lives and livelihoods, faced opposition from pro-Amharic forces that spent more time questioning the motives of the movement than supporting it. Pro-Amharic elites appeared primarily concerned with preventing civil war and avoiding the dissolution of the Ethiopian state. Even the Ethiopianist rhetoric espoused by unionist Oromos failed to persuade other Ethiopianists to embrace the unity proposed by the Oromo people.
This division reflects a broader tension between two distinct national identities: Ethiopiawinet, in the sense of Amapia—an identity of being Ethiopian as defined by Amharic-speaking elites—and Oropiawinet—an identity of belonging to a multiethnic, Oromic-led nation. The question that remains unanswered is how these two identities can be reconciled within a unified struggle against an oppressive regime.
A Dual Vision for the Future: Oropia and Ethiopia
The Oromo, with their dual historical position in the formation of the Ethiopian state, have developed two distinct visions for the country’s future. Some Oromos see themselves as part of a conquered people and advocate for the liberation of Oromia. Others view themselves as having been part of the forces that built and consolidated the Ethiopian state and therefore struggle for the transformation of imperial Ethiopia into a democratic and more inclusive state—one that, in effect, would also become Oropia, an Oromic-led geo-federation.
Although these two groups may appear to be in conflict, they can potentially find common ground through a compromise: the recognition of two names for the country. Just as the capital is referred to as both Addis Ababa and Finfinne, Ethiopia could also be known as Oropia, acknowledging the centrality of the Oromo people in the formation and future of the modern Ethiopian state.
This dual naming would acknowledge the diverse identities of the people within Ethiopia while recognizing the historical significance of the Oromo people, who constitute the largest ethnic group in the country. Given that the name Ethiopia has, in the Oromo political narrative, been associated with colonial and imperial connotations and has often been used to justify the exclusion and exploitation of the Oromo and other nations, it is time to consider a new name that embodies a shared vision for the future.
Why the Name Oropia?
There are several compelling reasons why Oropia should be considered as an alternative to Ethiopia:
- Historical Significance: The Oromo people have historically played a central role in the formation of the country. Finfinne, the political and economic center of Ethiopia, is located within Oromia, the heartland of the Oromo nation.
- Demographic Majority: The Oromo are the largest ethnic group in Ethiopia, and Oromia constitutes the largest regional state by territory.
- Economic Contributions: A significant share of Ethiopia’s agricultural and export economy—including coffee, gold, and flowers—is connected to Oromia. The Oromo have long been central to the economic life of the country.
- Cultural and Linguistic Influence: The Oromo are a Cushitic people, and Oromic is one of the major languages of the country. Many argue that Ethiopia’s cultural identity is deeply intertwined with Oromo heritage and that the country’s Cushitic roots have often been overlooked.
The Oromo Role in Nation-Building: The Oromo have played a pivotal role in the establishment, transformation, and maintenance of the Ethiopian state. Many Ethiopian political figures, heroes, athletes, and other prominent personalities have Oromo roots.
Counterarguments and Reconciliation
Some critics may argue against adopting the name Oropia for several reasons:
- One ethnic name cannot adequately represent a multiethnic country.
- It could impose Oromo identity on the entire population.
- It could neglect the identities of other ethnic groups.
- It could be interpreted as a form of territorial expansion or ethnic chauvinism.
However, these concerns can be addressed through political dialogue, negotiation, and constitutional guarantees. If Ethiopia is to evolve into a genuine union of free peoples, it is essential that the Oromo feel fully included in the national identity and political order. A dual-naming system—Oropia for the future of the nation and Ethiopia for its historical legacy—could help bridge these divides.
Such an approach would allow the peoples of the country to identify with a new political union while respecting their distinct ethnic, cultural, and historical identities.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
Ultimately, the future of the Ethiopian state may lie in one of two possibilities: a genuine democratic union in which all peoples live as equals, or the eventual emergence of Oromia as an independent republic. Recognizing the country by the name Oropia could serve as a crucial step toward fostering unity while recognizing the centrality of the Oromo people in the country’s past and future.
The Oromo people should continue to advocate for the name Oropia because it represents both a vision for the future and a recognition of the Oromo contribution to the country’s historical development. At the same time, it is crucial that all ethnic groups in the country—whether they identify as Ethiopianists, Oropianists, or something else—be allowed to express their identities and participate in the political process in ways that foster mutual respect and cooperation.
By embracing a dual-naming solution, we can envision a future in which Ethiopia’s political order is more inclusive and its prosperity more widely shared, while acknowledging the historical and cultural significance of the Oromo people in shaping the nation’s identity.
Galatôma!
Read more:
https://orompia.wordpress.com/2022/12/1 ... er-oromia/