Mereja.Forum

[OPFist]

The two positions, i.e position of Amara forces (unconditional unity) vs position of Oromo fronts (union based on free will) should be discussed and debated before attempting to forge an alliance against EPP. Even when nations give their vote to freedom within union, then it is mandatory to decide secondly on which type of federal arrangement to be accepted. Amara forces are advocators of geography based federalism in contrast to language based federalism (“ethnic federalism”), which is preferred by most of freedom fighters. As “democrats”, all of them can live accepting the winner per public verdict. This is what UDJ wanted to achieve in Medrek. Actually UDJ got what it intended to achieve: §39 was rejected and if Medrek wins in any election, the issue regarding type of federation will be decided by public verdict. Here, it seems that federalist Oromo parties in Medrek lost in the compromise solution. They didn’t insist to achieve right of Oromo nation to self-determination and even they compromised the further existence of Oromia because of the fact that if geography based federation wins, this region will be dismantled.

[OPFist]

Now, the question to be directed to Amara forces is: can’t they extend this philosophy they do apply for deciding on which type of federation, based on public verdit as agreed in Medrek, also to the arguement: freedom within union vs independence without union? Doesn’t this require self-determination of nations to decide on which type of sovereignity peoples can have? Can’t they imagine that the public can also decide on this issue per referendum? Doesn’t their democracy rhetoric include this option? Can’t they accept and live, if certain public decides for self-rule without union? Or do they go to forest and fight for union they want to see? As I heard till now, AG7 didn’t even decide on the issue regarding which type of federation to support.

[OPFist]

Amara forces should not misunderstand me here. I do support union, when it is based on free will. My question to them is again just as UDJ accepted principle of public verdict on the decision regarding geography based federation vs language based federation, can’t they just in principle accept that people also can decide regarding type of sovereignity they want to have, i.e on self-rule within union vs independence without union? Concerning the benefit/cost discussion in comparing the two types of sovereignty, all stakeholders, of course, can try to convince the public so that majority may accept their respective wish before voting. Amara forces can advertise for the advantage of a union and the pro-liberty fronts can talk about the importance of an independence. Of cource the compromise and the common ground for both groups can be national freedom within regional union, which can be advocated by both forces if they make consensus on it. Then, alliance of both forces can try to convince the public about the importance and benefit of this common goal – union of free peoples. At last, the public should decide which to prefer.

[OPFist]

Yet interesting is to read some Amara forces fear that peoples can be brain washed and vote against their own interest. It is simply wrong to think that peoples decide against their own interest. If they do mistakenly vote against their own interset like the Americans elected Mr Bush by mistake, let it be. That is also part of democracy! Do Amara forces want that certain force should have been raised and prevented this election of Mr Bush or do they want that, just like Meles Zenawi did, certain forceful person would have taken away the victory and declare himself the winner? During elections, informing the public before making the decision is some thing good, but just taking away this possibility of decision making from the people is undemocratic. So, my message to Amara forces is that there is no half backed democracy. Either they accept it as it is, including the right of nations to self-determination or they just stop acting like pope of democracy and they should stop condemning those who are undemocratic, for it is known that they can be also the same or even worse if they get the chance to be in power. If they do reject such simple right of nations being an oppostiion, it is imaginable what they can do if they get power: they may do worse than what TPLF is doing.

[OPFist]

The mere fact that concerned people may be brain washed by interest groups to vote against their own interest is the reality we have to live with. All nations do have our own interest and each of us want to convince people that our respective position is right. By the way, why should we call it brain washing instead of calling it convincing? It is about influencing people, be it this way or that way. In America, the evangelicals were convinced and were successfull with Mr Bush and the quasi-socialists were successfull with Mr Obama. Where is brain washing? It is about convincing the majority. The one, who won hearts and minds of majority was the victor. In free and fair competition, for Amhara forces who struggle for unity, there is the same chance to that of Oromo fronts (advocators of union as result of self-determination). Their freedom of choice is mutually respected.

[OPFist]

The two positions, i.e position of Amara forces (unconditional unity) vs position of Oromo fronts (union based on free will) should be discussed and debated before attempting to forge an alliance against EPP. Even when nations give their vote to freedom within union, then it is mandatory to decide secondly on which type of federal arrangement to be accepted. Amara forces are advocators of geography based federalism in contrast to language based federalism (“ethnic federalism”), which is preferred by most of freedom fighters. As “democrats”, all of them can live accepting the winner per public verdict. This is what UDJ wanted to achieve in Medrek. Actually UDJ got what it intended to achieve: §39 was rejected and if Medrek wins in any election, the issue regarding type of federation will be decided by public verdict. Here, it seems that federalist Oromo parties in Medrek lost in the compromise solution. They didn’t insist to achieve right of Oromo nation to self-determination and even they compromised the further existence of Oromia because of the fact that if geography based federation wins, this region will be dismantled.

[OPFist]

Now, the question to be directed to Amara forces is: can’t they extend this philosophy they do apply for deciding on which type of federation, based on public verdit as agreed in Medrek, also to the arguement: freedom within union vs independence without union? Doesn’t this require self-determination of nations to decide on which type of sovereignity peoples can have? Can’t they imagine that the public can also decide on this issue per referendum? Doesn’t their democracy rhetoric include this option? Can’t they accept and live, if certain public decides for self-rule without union? Or do they go to forest and fight for union they want to see? As I heard till now, AG7 didn’t even decide on the issue regarding which type of federation to support.

[OPFist]

Amara forces should not misunderstand me here. I do support union, when it is based on free will. My question to them is again just as UDJ accepted principle of public verdict on the decision regarding geography based federation vs language based federation, can’t they just in principle accept that people also can decide regarding type of sovereignity they want to have, i.e on self-rule within union vs independence without union? Concerning the benefit/cost discussion in comparing the two types of sovereignty, all stakeholders, of course, can try to convince the public so that majority may accept their respective wish before voting. Amara forces can advertise for the advantage of a union and the pro-liberty fronts can talk about the importance of an independence. Of cource the compromise and the common ground for both groups can be national freedom within regional union, which can be advocated by both forces if they make consensus on it. Then, alliance of both forces can try to convince the public about the importance and benefit of this common goal – union of free peoples. At last, the public should decide which to prefer.

[OPFist]

Yet interesting is to read some Amara forces fear that peoples can be brain washed and vote against their own interest. It is simply wrong to think that peoples decide against their own interest. If they do mistakenly vote against their own interset like the Americans elected Mr Bush by mistake, let it be. That is also part of democracy! Do Amara forces want that certain force should have been raised and prevented this election of Mr Bush or do they want that, just like Meles Zenawi did, certain forceful person would have taken away the victory and declare himself the winner? During elections, informing the public before making the decision is some thing good, but just taking away this possibility of decision making from the people is undemocratic. So, my message to Amara forces is that there is no half backed democracy. Either they accept it as it is, including the right of nations to self-determination or they just stop acting like pope of democracy and they should stop condemning those who are undemocratic, for it is known that they can be also the same or even worse if they get the chance to be in power. If they do reject such simple right of nations being an oppostiion, it is imaginable what they can do if they get power: they may do worse than what TPLF is doing.

[OPFist]

The mere fact that concerned people may be brain washed by interest groups to vote against their own interest is the reality we have to live with. All nations do have our own interest and each of us want to convince people that our respective position is right. By the way, why should we call it brain washing instead of calling it convincing? It is about influencing people, be it this way or that way. In America, the evangelicals were convinced and were successfull with Mr Bush and the quasi-socialists were successfull with Mr Obama. Where is brain washing? It is about convincing the majority. The one, who won hearts and minds of majority was the victor. In free and fair competition, for Amhara forces who struggle for unity, there is the same chance to that of Oromo fronts (advocators of union as result of self-determination). Their freedom of choice is mutually respected.

[OPFist]

But regarding those dictatorial unifiers who are advocating unconditional unity without the option for public verdict, it should be known that they do take freedom of Oromo fronts by advocating such dictatorial position. For example, when they say “be andinet lay anideraderim!”, they are sending the message: you either accept this andinet or we will deal with you. They don’t say, we advocate for unity and then let the public decide. Their approach is arrogant, dictatorial and uncompromising! To such people, Oromo fronts also should say: “be netsanet lay anideraderim”. Now how can two groups who do say “anideraderim” deal with each other democratically? The only solution will be bullet, as it has been till now. Up to now, pro-unconditional-unity dictatorial forces won for the last 150 years and they “united” us by force. Oromo freedom fighters call this colonization, for it is not union based on free will. Some people with similar dictatorial ideology do now want to continue status quo at gun point. That is why Oromo fronts dare to say: such forces are not open for lasting solution, but they are still causes for misery in the Horn region.

[OPFist]

The question yet to be answered is again: do we see any possibility and any common denominator for an eventual alliance between the above mentioned bloc of Amara forces and Oromo fronts against Biltsiginna? I suggest that the only common denominator is acceptance of common strategical goal, i.e union based on nations’ right to self-determination. In relation to this common denominator, we can classify current political organizations in Ethiopia in to the following three roups: 1- on the right side are ethio-nationalists, who want to see Ethiopia with uniformily amharanized one people; they are geogeraphy based federalists who do advocate for “democratic federal Ethiopia” where there will be no visible danger for future distintegation, they actually plan to get rid of national areas like Oromia; 2- in middle are language based federalists, who are usually known as ethnic federalists. They want to see autonomous nations like Oromia determining their fate in their national area, but this group does exclude pushing for the right of nations to self-determination per referendum; 3- on the left side are ethno-nationalists, who want to excercise right of nations to self-determination and forge a sovereign, independent republics of their national areas like independent gadaa republic of Oromia without union.

[OPFist]

Till now, certain steps have been taken by the OLF to forge common ground with Amara forces and to kill TPLF in Ethiopian political history. The short sighted TPLF, who was good at winning battles, but could never win the war, thought that it was possible to destroy the OLF by persecuting and massacring its supporters. But these actions of TPLF gave the OLF even more Oromo support, which it actually didn’t have till 1991. Further more, interesting is that the OLF killed not supporters of TPLF, but it took away the existence of TPLF in Ethiopia in a long run. OLF did this by taking two very important steps. In 1992, OLF denied TPLF the legitimacy it needed in Oromia. With that, TPLF became eternal enemy of the Oromo. TPLF could have made the OLF its partner and would have enjoyed support of all Oromo, but it formed OPDO and made itself alien to the Oromo people. In 2006, the OLF formed AFD together with Amara parties like CUD and with that it took away the very important instrument TPLF used to rule over Ethiopians: designating Amara forces as centeralists and Oromo freedom fighters as separatists; so these two groups fight each other instead of struggling together against TPLF. Slowly, this instrument died and TPLF was under attack from both the Amara and Oromo. The same thing must happen now against Biltsiginna. Surely, take it only 1 year or as long as 10 years, Biltsiginna will die away like Isepa of Derg and EPRDF of Woyane. After losing power, Biltsiginna will be remembered in Ethiopia as bad a regime as Naizi is now remembered in Germany. The coming generation will distance itself from Biltsiginna and will be ashamed of its history just like the new generation of Germany is doing now regarding their forefather’s deed.

[OPFist]

Actually, I do appreciate the effort of Amara forces, who are trying to foster democratic unity of the country. It is not bad to advocate such unity. As I understood from their hitherto writings, they do use both religious and political methods to promote and keep the unity. This is actually very dangerous combination, specially when used by one and the same individual. I advise them as individuals to leave one method and persue the other. The problem is that as a politician, one can persue interest of the group he/she does support, e.g interest of Amara forces to keep the empire intact against interest of Oromo freedom fighters to dismantle the empire and build union. As a religous person, one is morally obliged to think inclusive, trying to satisfy both Amara forces and Oromo fronts, which will bring him/her in to difficult position. Otherwise in order to know what type of unity the Amara do advocate, they need to see difference between an empire and a union. Amara forces use the euphemy, unity, to mean keeping the empire intact. Just to put the difference in short, empire is “unity per force” and union is “unity based on free will”. If Amara forces are believers of this second premise, then they also do risk that “free will” of peoples to be expressed in referendum can lead to independence of nations without union instead of only to the unconditional unity which they want to achieve.

[OPFist]

Otherwise, it is good to see that there is also difference between unity and union. The first is pre-modern, whereas the second is post-modern. In summary here is the difference between pre-modern unity and post-modern union. I don’t remember his name, but certain English scholar classified countries in the world in to three: 1- pre-modern chaotic states like artificial constructs/countries in Africa, such as Abyssinian empire, which Amara forces seem to love, 2- modern nation-states like some mono-national-states in Asia and Latine America and 3- post-modern union of free nations like those in European union. So, Amhara forces should see that African nations, including those in Ethiopia, are kept as pre-modern due to the arrangement made by European colonizers and this is still being perpetuated further by AU dictators, who are dedicated not to change it. But Africans need to leave artificial nations like Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Djibouti, Somaliland, Somalia and Kenya behind and forge productive natural nation-states like Tigrai, Amara, Afar, Oromia, Hausa, Yoruba, Somalia…etc in order to be transformed from our present position (pre-modern), passing through the stage of modern status like an independent Oromia without union further to post-modern situation like free Oromia within union of free peoples, the most beneficial status which Europeans them selves are enjoying now.

[OPFist]

I hope Amara forces do not misunderstand my position here. I am not representative of the OLF as some accuse me often, but I am simple private person who tries to think independently. There can be certain views of mine which may be the same to that of OLF, but not always. Supporting OLF unconditionally and helping it to be on power is not my goal. My goal is self-determination of the Oromo which can lead to an independent Oromia within union of free peoples or to an independence of all nations without union. I know few Amhara forces do accept the first option, but many of them do reject the second goal. They do want larger unitary Ethiopia than the “inferior mini states” such as Amara state and Oromia state. I am also for the larger union based on free will of the Oromo, which can be result of referendum. But I don’t agree with idea of some Amara forces, who do advocate for unconditional unity, which is dictatorial. To forge the common goal, i.e democratic union based on self-determination, we need alliance of all Amara forces and Oromo fronts against Biltsiginna. I hope this is also the status, which some Amhara forces want to achieve. This form of alliance between Amara forces and Oromo fronts is a means to get rid of the dictator and the alliance can struggle for union of free peoples in the region as an END.

[OPFist]

Some Amara forces even, at least theoretically, do believe that destiny of Oromo people should be decided by only Oromo people who live in Oromia and “who are also Ethiopians”. If they really believe in what they some times write, that means they are ready to leave the decision on Oromo destiny for the Oromo. Then the question to be asked is: what will happen if the very Oromo they do mention as part of Ethiopians do decide against unity which they want, but opt to build an independent Oromia without union? Do Amara forces accept it and move on or do they fight against it? Further more, they should be clear on the type of unity they want to forge. Union based on free will or unity by force? Those who do advocate unity by force have their own arguements. Specially it is interesting to read that some of them are trying to instrumentalize the present American politics in order to push for success of their own type of unity, which is again an euphemy for keeping the empire. They do say just as American union was saved by force, we will struggle to save Ethiopian union. Can’t their “intellectual” mind grasp the difference between the two “unions”? America is the land of immigrants being melted together to take American identity speaking only English. Do they want all the native “Ethiopian” nationalities be melted to take such uniformity and speak only Amarinya?

[OPFist]

As far as I know, even the most liberal movements like Ezema advocates unconditional integration, which is not goal of Oromo fronts and not the wish of other oppressed people, who do fight for self-determination. I am not against union based on free will of all nations, but I am against forced unity of any kind, which disregards free will of nations like the Oromo. If Ezema wants alliance of purpose with Oromo fronts like the OLF, I just suggest that it accepts union based on self-determination of nations as common denominator, instead of talking about unconditional unity. I also read that Ezema was calling for an alliance of all Amara forces and Oromo fronts as means to get rid of Biltsiginna. I do accept this attempt, but my concern and the question I would like to ask is: alliance of whom against Biltsiginna?

[OPFist]

As I understood till now, Ethiopian politics is kept in balance due to fighting between the following three blocs: 1- bloc of the Biltsiginna domination force; 2- bloc of the so called “unity forces”, who do fight to keep the empire intact; this bloc does use different tactics in the name of democracy, but its message is simple and clear: save the empire from disintegration; 3- bloc of freedom fighters of all oppressed nations in the empire, who do first want to be liberated from the system of domination before trying to talk about unity. For this group, union must be only the result of self-determination of all nations in the empire. When Amhara forces do talk about alliance against Biltsiginna, do they mean alliance of only political and civic organizations in the second bloc? Or do they also want to include those in the third block? As I understood from the rhetoric of AG7 leaders till now, they already put precondition for alliance to be forged against the first bloc: i.e accepting Ethiopian unity unconditionally! With this precondition, they seem to exclude those in the third bloc such as the OLF, ONLF, SLF…etc, who want to achieve self-determination for their respective nations. In order to include the third bloc in to alliance they want to forge against Biltsiginna, the Ezema people need to change this precondition and should try to find common denominator with the third bloc.

[OPFist]

I think the only common denominator can be acceptance of union based on self-determination of nations. If Ezema activists are democrats in practice as they do say always, I hope they will accept this. Nations should decide on their own destiny based on free will, be it for freedom within union or for an independence without union. Does their rhetoric about democracy include such demand of peoples to decide on their destiny? Or are they smart unitarist foxes in sheep’s skin? Or are some of them just naive poleticians, being instrumentalized to fullfill intention of the extremists, who want to restore their domination at any cost? I hope, slowly, Amhara people will think and act independently from the hitherto extremist minded chauvinist conservatives.