Mereja.Forum

[OPFist]

As politicians, Amhara elites often prioritize maintaining the empire, while Oromo freedom fighters aim to dismantle it and build a new union. As religious leaders, they are morally obligated to consider the needs of both sides. These dual roles often lead to internal contradictions. To understand the unity Amhara elites promote, they must distinguish between empire and union:
- An empire is unity by force.
- A union is unity by free will.
If Amhara forces genuinely support the latter, then they must accept that referenda on self-determination could result in the independence of nations, not just their continued inclusion in Ethiopia.

[OPFist]

There’s a vital distinction between unity and union. Unity is pre-modern—often coercive—while union is post-modern—voluntary and democratic. One English scholar categorized nations into three types:
- Pre-modern chaotic states (e.g., artificial constructs in Africa like the Abyssinian Empire, which Amhara elites favor),
- Modern nation-states (e.g., mono-ethnic states in Asia or Latin America),
- Post-modern unions of free nations (e.g., the European Union).
African countries—including Ethiopia—remain pre-modern due to colonial legacies and are preserved that way by authoritarian regimes, including those in the African Union. To evolve, Africans must move beyond artificial nations like Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nigeria, and Kenya, and instead build natural states like Oromia, Amhara, Tigrai, Hausa, or Somalia.

[OPFist]

These modern nation-states can then voluntarily form post-modern unions, such as a union of free peoples. This transformation—from pre-modern oppression through modern sovereignty to post-modern cooperation—is what Europe now enjoys. Africa deserves the same.

[OPFist]

I hope Amhara forces do not misunderstand me. I am not a representative of the OLF, though I’m often accused of being one. I am an independent thinker. While some of my views align with the OLF, my goal is not to support them unconditionally. My objective is Oromo self-determination, which may result in either:
- An independent Oromia within a union of free peoples, or
- An independent Oromia without a union.
Some Amhara forces accept the first option, but many reject the second. They prefer a larger, centralized Ethiopia over what they dismiss as “inferior mini-states” like Oromia or Amhara state. I too support a larger union—but only one based on free will, not coercion.

[OPFist]

To build a democratic union based on self-determination, we need an Amhara-Oromo alliance against Biltsiginna. I believe some Amhara forces also desire this future.

[OPFist]

Some Amhara voices have, at least in theory, acknowledged that the destiny of the Oromo should be decided solely by the Oromo people living in Oromia—who are also Ethiopians. But if that same Oromo population chooses independence without union, will Amhara forces accept it or fight against it? They must clarify: Do they support union by free will or unity by force?

[OPFist]

Some argue, citing U.S. history, that force saved American unity during the Civil War, and therefore Ethiopia can be “saved” the same way. But this comparison is flawed. The U.S. is a land of immigrants united by a single language and identity. Ethiopia is a multi-national empire with distinct native nations. Do they want all Ethiopian nations to be “melted” into one, speaking only Amharic?

[OPFist]

Even the liberal Ezema party advocates unconditional integration—a position not shared by Oromo fronts or other oppressed nations fighting for self-determination. I support a union based on free will, but I oppose any form of forced unity that disregards the sovereignty of nations like the Oromo.

[OPFist]

If Amhara orgs seek an alliance with Oromo fronts like the OLF, they must drop their insistence on unconditional unity and instead accept self-determination as a shared principle. I did read certain call for an alliance of Amhara and Oromo forces to topple Biltsiginna. I welcome that call, but I must ask: An alliance of whom—exactly—against Biltsiginna?

[OPFist]

Ethiopian politics currently balances between three main blocs:
- Biltsiginna—the ruling authoritarian force,
- Unity forces—those seeking to preserve the empire under the guise of democracy,
- Freedom fighters—nations struggling for liberation before discussing union.
The third bloc includes groups like the OLF, ONLF, SLF, and others. Their goal is to achieve national liberation first, then determine whether to form a union based on free will.

[OPFist]

When Amhara forces talk about forming an alliance against Biltsiginna, do they mean including only the second bloc? Or are they ready to include the third bloc as well? So far, some have insisted on Ethiopian unity as a precondition for alliance, effectively excluding the third bloc. If they are serious about forming a real alliance to defeat Biltsiginna, they must rethink this precondition and find a common denominator with those fighting for self-determination

[OPFist]

I believe the only true common ground lies in the acceptance of union based on the principle of national self-determination. If Amhara activists are truly democrats in practice—as they often claim—I hope they will embrace this principle. Nations must have the right to freely decide their own destiny, whether that means remaining within a union or choosing independence. The question is: does their rhetoric about democracy include the right of peoples to determine their own fate? Or are they merely unitarist foxes in sheep’s clothing? Or perhaps some are naive politicians, instrumentalized by extremists who seek to restore their domination at any cost? My hope is that, gradually, the Amhara people will begin to think and act independently of extremist-minded chauvinist conservatives.

[OPFist]

The two positions—Amhara forces advocating unconditional unity versus Oromo forces supporting union based on free will—must be openly debated before any alliance is forged against Biltsiginnà. Even if nations vote for union, it is still necessary to decide the type of federal arrangement. Amhara forces generally push for geography-based federalism, while most liberation movements favor language-based (ethnic) federalism. As democrats, all parties should commit to accepting the public verdict on this issue. This was, in fact, the approach of UDJ within Medrek: Article 39 was rejected, and any final decision regarding the federation would be left to the public if Medrek won elections. But Oromo federalists in Medrek ultimately lost in that compromise, since they did not insist on protecting the Oromo nation’s right to self-determination. They even risked Oromia’s existence, as geography-based federalism would dismantle it.

[OPFist]

So the question remains: can Amhara forces extend the same principle they applied in Medrek—accepting a public verdict on federation—to the broader issue of sovereignty itself? Can they accept that peoples have the right to decide, through referendum, whether they prefer self-rule within a union or independence outside it? If their democratic rhetoric is genuine, this must be included. And if a nation decides on self-rule, will they respect that decision—or resort to force to impose their vision of unity? So far, many Amhara elites have not even settled on what kind of federation they support.

[OPFist]

To be clear: I support union, but only when it is based on free will. Just as UDJ accepted the principle of public verdict on federation, Amhara forces must also accept the principle of self-determination regarding sovereignty. They may campaign for union, while others advocate for independence, and then let the people decide. This is democracy. Amhara forces can emphasize the advantages of unity; pro-independence groups can highlight the benefits of sovereignty. A compromise position could also be promoted: national freedom within a regional union. Both sides could work together to convince the public of this vision. Ultimately, the people—not elites—should decide.

[OPFist]

Some Amhara forces argue that people can be “brainwashed” to vote against their own interest. But democracy means living with that risk. If Americans could “mistakenly” elect George W. Bush, that was their right. To deny this principle by force, as Meles Zenawi once did, is profoundly undemocratic. Democracy cannot be half-baked: either one accepts it fully—including the right of nations to self-determination—or one stops pretending to be a champion of democracy. Otherwise, Amhara forces risk becoming just as dictatorial as the Woyane or Biltsiginnà.

[OPFist]

Influencing the public is part of politics. What some call “brainwashing” is, in truth, persuasion. In America, evangelicals persuaded the majority to elect Bush; progressives persuaded the majority to elect Obama. Likewise, in Ethiopia, all sides have the opportunity to campaign and persuade the people. The winning side will be the one that wins the majority’s hearts and minds. That is democracy.

[OPFist]

Dictatorial unifiers who insist on unconditional unity—“be andinet lay anideraderim!”—are in fact denying others their freedom. They do not say, “We advocate for unity, but let the people decide.” Their position is arrogant, dictatorial, and uncompromising. In response, Oromo fronts must equally say, “be netsanet lay anideraderim.” When both sides insist on “no compromise,” the inevitable result is bullets—as history has shown for the last 150 years. Forced “unity” is colonization, not union.

[OPFist]

The central question, then, is whether there can be common ground between Amhara forces and Oromo fronts in the struggle against Biltsiginnà. I believe the only possible denominator is acceptance of union based on the right of nations to self-determination. Based on this, Ethiopian political forces can be classified into three broad groups:
- Right-wing ethno-nationalists: Advocates of geography-based federalism who want to erase national regions like Oromia in favor of a [deleted] Ethiopia.
- Centrists (language-based federalists): Supporters of ethnic federalism who accept autonomous nations but stop short of recognizing their right to decide sovereignty by referendum.
- Left-wing ethno-nationalists: Advocates of full national self-determination, including the option of independence, such as the OLF.

[OPFist]

The OLF’s position is clear: a referendum for the Oromo, whose outcome could be either a union (via language-based federation) or independence. If Amhara elites truly seek an alliance, they must respect this principle. Otherwise, they repeat the mistakes of 2005, when CUD’s rejection of even TPLF’s limited ethnic federalism drove Oromo parties away. Without Oromo support, no unity movement can succeed.