The Three Post-Freedom Alternatives for Oromo Sovereignty: Oromia, Orompia, and Oropia
By Fayyis Oromia*
It is encouraging to observe that ideological conflicts among Oromo nationalists have largely subsided. Thanks to our liberation struggle, Amapia (the Amharic-dominated geo-federation) of Mengistu Ayàna’s Derg has already perished, and Amarpia (the Amharic-dominated ethnic federation) of Meles Gobena’s Woyane lies on its deathbed. The next political configuration will inevitably emerge as one of three alternatives: Confepia (a confederation of free nations such as Amharia, Somali, Tigray, and Oromia), Orompia (an Oromic-led ethnic federation), or Oropia (an Oromic-led geo-federation).
Both clever adversaries and misguided allies have attempted to frame Oromia and Oropia as opposing visions of sovereignty in order to incite internal conflict among Oromo nationalists. In reality, these two concepts represent viable post-freedom alternatives from which the Oromo people may ultimately choose—or even adopt simultaneously, as the OFC currently envisions. Both must cooperate toward a shared goal: freedom. Our enemies have long sought to divide us by portraying the OFC and OLF as opponents. But where is the contradiction? The OFC’s objectives align closely with those of the OLF—and vice versa.
Two Main Political Lines Against Dictatorship
At present, two broad political lines oppose the current dictatorship:
- The OFC–OLF Line, which envisions a multinational federation as a step toward a free Oromia within a broader federal union.
- The Ezema–NaMA Line, which advocates a multiregional federation leading toward an integrative Oropia (an Oromummà-led Ethiopia), provided that Oromic becomes the primary working language of the federation.
For the second camp, adopting Oromic as the main working language is essential to demonstrate genuine inclusivity. Unfortunately, many politicians in both camps still display “V-minded” tendencies—antagonizing one another and exaggerating minor differences. We hope they will evolve into “Y-minded” personalities—constructive, cooperative, and democratic.
Understanding V-Minded vs. Y-Minded Politics
The letters V and Y can serve as metaphors for political behavior.
- The V represents rigid, antagonistic thinking. At the bottom of the V sit the Biltsigina dictators (the status quo). On the left and right tops stand dictatorial versions of the OFC–OLF and Ezema–NaMA lines, respectively—each seeking unconditional victory. Their mutual hostility benefits the regime by preventing a united opposition.
- The Y, in contrast, symbolizes a shared journey toward freedom, with space for diverging long-term visions. The bottom of the Y represents the current tyranny; the junction stands for the shared goal of liberation. From there, the left and right arms represent the two long-term paths: one leading to an independent Oromia via a multinational federation, the other to an integrative Oropia via a multiregional federation.
The message is clear: both camps must walk together until they reach the “freedom junction.” Afterward, the people—through a democratic referendum—should decide whether to pursue integration or independence. Cooperation now is essential; divergence can come later, through democracy.
The Ethiopian Identity Dilemma
Some pro-OLF nationalists remain suspicious of the OFC due to its continued use of the name Ethiopia in advocating for Oropia. Yet, ironically, the term Ethiopia—of Cushitic origin, meaning “land of burnt faces”—is historically more fitting for the Oromo than for the Semitic-claimed Habesha.
Over time, Habesha elites hijacked the name, turning it into a tool of domination:
- Recasting Ethiopia as a Semitic land, erasing its Cushitic roots.
- Marginalizing Cushitic cultures and languages, especially Oromic.
- Suppressing indigenous systems like Wàqeffanna and Odà, replacing them with Amhara-centric symbols, languages, and institutions.
Given this history, Oromo rejection of the Ethiopian identity is entirely legitimate. If the name Ethiopia is to survive, it must reclaim its Cushitic essence—its true Ethiopiawinet—centered on Oromo culture, leadership, and language. Otherwise, Oromia has every right to bid farewell to Pseudo-Ethiopia and move forward toward genuine sovereignty.
Timing Is Everything: Knowing Allies and Enemies
For pro-independence Oromo forces, it is crucial to identify allies and adversaries according to timing and context. The struggle unfolds in three stations:
- First Station (Now): All anti-dictatorship forces—pro-independence (like Jàl Marrô), pro-federalism (like Jawar Mohammed), and pro-integration (like Andargachew Tsige)—must unite against the regime.
- Second Station (After Freedom): Once the dictatorship falls, competition will emerge among Oropianists(integrationists), Unionists (federalists), and Oromianists (independencists). This conflict should be settled through consensus, referendum, or—if unavoidable—force.
- Third Station (Final Phase): The ultimate contest between federalists and independencists should be resolved democratically through a national referendum.
At each stage, allies and adversaries change. For now, pro-independence forces should not treat federalists or integrationists as enemies. The true enemy remains the dictatorial regime. Only those who reject consensus and democracy in the future may become opponents—and only then.
Three Paths to Resolving Political Conflict
There are three possible ways to resolve Ethiopia’s political crisis:
- Consensus – All political actors agree on one structure (independence, federation, or integration). This has repeatedly failed in practice.
- Democracy – The people decide via referendum. This is viable if all actors are mature and committed to stability.
- Force – The default approach so far—destructive and cyclical, leading back to square one.
Currently, Ethiopia’s political landscape consists of four camps:
- Dictators (ruling)
- Integrationists (pro-unity through regional federation)
- Federalists (pro-genuine multinational federation)
- Independencists (pro-sovereign Oromia)
Three Phases of the Struggle
- Phase One: All three freedom-seeking camps must unite against dictatorship. Force may be necessary, as the regime resists both consensus and democracy.
- Phase Two: Pro-sovereignty camps (federalists and independencists) will contest with integrationists—ideally resolved via referendum.
- Phase Three: The final contest between federalists and independencists should be settled through a democratic vote, determining whether to establish an independent Oromia or an integrated Oropia.
Conclusion: Unite Now, Compete Later
Now is the time for all freedom-seeking forces to unite in defeating dictatorship. Future disagreements should be resolved step by step—peacefully and democratically. Failure to achieve unity today would condemn our people to another century of tyranny.
As long as national sovereignty forces (federalists and independencists) remain divided from integrationists, the Biltsiginaregime will continue to exploit and inflame these divisions. Its agents already pretend to support one side while vilifying the other—trapping even genuine freedom fighters in cycles of mistrust.
May Wàqa guide us toward unity, clarity, and victory.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2023/04/1 ... edom-coin/