Oromo Elites Need to Talk the Anti-Biltsigina Political Correctness, but Walk the Anti-Neftegna Political Reality in Unison!
By Fayyis Oromia*
Interestingly, Oromo elites today are divided into two major camps: anti-Biltsigina and anti-Neftegna from the northern ATE (Amhara, Tigray, Eritrea). Those in the anti-Biltsigina group vehemently oppose Abiy Ahmed and his regime, even going so far as to seek alliances with northern forces. On the other hand, the anti-Neftegna group—especially those opposing the return of the Amhara’s Neftegna establishment—are using all their means to block rivals aiming to reclaim power in the Finfinné palace.
As far as I’m concerned, both groups have valid concerns. However, their major mistake lies in fighting each other, which only serves the interests of anti-Oromo forces who benefit from Oromo division. That’s why I urge both groups to be cautious and strive to act in unity.
The anti-Biltsigina group often talks about forming alliances with any force opposing the regime—this is political correctness. Meanwhile, the anti-Neftegna group walks political reality by being wary of the long-term intentions of their so-called allies. There is nothing inherently wrong with building tactical alliances, even with northern elites, to fight dictatorship. However, the reality on the ground is that no [ deleted ] Habesha elite should be trusted blindly. Their ultimate goal is to return to Finfinné and rescramble Oromia’s resources under a new guise.
Talk Correctness, Walk Reality
The best path forward for Oromo politics is for both camps to work together, talk political correctness outwardly, but walk political reality internally. In practice, this means:
Endorsing the fight against the current regime—even if it includes temporary alliances with northern elites.
Simultaneously checking and neutralizing any attempt by those same elites to reassert control over Finfinné and Oromia.
According to Dr. Lencô Lata’s principle, any Oromo politician supported by Amhara elites is likely doing the wrong thing—and vice versa. In that sense, Dr. Abiy, who is now opposed and even cursed by these elites, may be on the right track precisely because of their opposition. As long as extremist Amhara forces are against him, Oromo nationalists should support him cautiously, ensuring that anti-Oromummà forces never reclaim Finfinne.
The Blacklist of Oromia
It was striking to witness how certain groups, dressed in black, openly oppose Oromo Orthodox Christians just for using Oromic in worship. With this, they have placed themselves on the historical blacklist of Oromia. The Oromo people now clearly recognize who is on this list—and will undoubtedly hold them accountable in due time.
Interestingly, Amhara nationalists—who lived in fear during the 27-year TPLF rule—have become loud and defiant under Oromo-led leadership. Why? Because the Oromo leadership has allowed them this space—not out of weakness, but strategic tolerance. These noisy voices actually energize and unify the Oromo cause. The key is to ensure that these groups never gain the strength to bite. They may bark, but Oromo leaders must ensure they can never bite.
The Politics of Identity: Amharanet vs Oromummà
Today, some Amhara elites—and their pro-Amharanet allies—actively oppose Oromummà, because for them, only the older Ethiopiawinet (rooted in Amhara dominance) is legitimate. They reject a multinational, inclusive Ethiopia led by Oromo values and identity.
But the future of Ethiopia depends on transforming into a rainbow federation—a multicultural, multilingual union, roughly comprising:
- 40% Oromummà
- 20% Agawnet
- 10% Amharanet
- 6% Somalummà
- 5% Tegarunet
- 4% Sidamummà
…and so on.
This is the kind of genuine multinational federalism Ethiopia needs to survive. Any war waged against Oromummà will backfire. Oromo nationalism has reached a point of no return—it is organized, determined, and resilient.
Some [ deleted ] elites claim that ethnic politics began with the OLF and TPLF. But this is revisionist history. Ethiopian politics has always been ethnic—only that Amharanet was masked as Ethiopiawinet. Today, these elites continue to play that deceptive game.
In contrast, Oromummà is rising without a mask. No Oromo elite seeks to dominate under the name of Ethiopiawinet. Dr. Abiy, unfortunately, still gives preference to Amharanet over Oromummà—for instance, by prioritizing Amharic over Oromic, despite Oromo being the majority. In this way, he behaves like former Oromo elites subservient to Amharanet.
The Five-Point Political Spectrum
Ethiopian politics is no longer shaped by classic ideological binaries (left vs right, socialism vs capitalism). It is now a contest of national identities. The current political spectrum can be mapped as follows:
- Far-Left: Amharanet-dominated geo-federalism (e.g., Ezema)
- Center-Left: Amharanet-dominated ethnic federalism (e.g., Biltsigina)
- Center: Independent national republics (e.g., OLF’s original vision)
- Center-Right: Oromummà-led ethnic federalism (e.g., OFC and democratic ethno-federalists)
Far-Right: Oromummà-led geo-federalism (e.g., Meison-style, Fayyis Oromia’s vision)
Which path will prevail? Time will tell.
Historically, the Abyssinian empire has had two possible futures:
- Democratization → Integrative, multinational “Oropia”
- Disintegration → Independent nations like Oromia
This divergence is even reflected in the paths of two prominent Oromo brothers:
- Càlà Lata sought Oromia’s independence through the OLF.
- Lencô Lata pursued Ethiopian democratization via the ODF.
Both visions are legitimate—as long as the Oromo people choose democratically.
Oropia vs Oromia: Not a Contradiction
This is why it is pointless for Oromo factions to fight over a false dichotomy: “Democratization of Ethiopia” vs “Liberation of Oromia.”
The Oromo people uniquely carry a dual legacy—as both conquerors and the conquered—and therefore, have two legitimate visions:
- Liberation of Oromia
- Democratic transformation of Ethiopia into Oropia
These can coexist. Just as we now say Addis Ababa / Finfinne, we can envision Ethiopia / Oropia as interchangeable names—reflecting both heritage and change.
The Three Types of Sovereignty
Ultimately, for the Oromo, sovereignty can be envisioned in three stages:
- Self-rule of Oromia without shared Ethiopian rule (liberation) = independent Oromia.
- Self-rule of Oromia with shared Ethiopian rule (transitional federalism) = Orompia (Oromia in Oropia).
- Shared Ethiopian rule with integrated Oromummà leadership (integration) = integrative Oropia.
The first option served the liberation era. The second suits our current phase. The third will define Ethiopia’s democratic future. Fayyis Oromia now promotes this integrative vision.
Today, Oromianists who oppose the pragmatic approach of Oropianists unintentionally strengthen Abyssinian hardliners.
But Ezema’s and Biltsigina’s Amharanists will lose.
The future belongs to Oropianists from OFC, OLF, and like-minded movements.
May Waaqa guide us toward wisdom—toward the vision of Haile Fida, now carried forward by Fayyis Oromia.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/02/0 ... orthodoxy/