The Oromo Accept neither Teddy Afro’s nor Abiy Ahmed’s Ethiopia, but Lemma Megersa’s
By Fayyis Oromia*
Interestingly, we are observing different versions of Ethiopianists criticizing and fighting each other. It is important to distinguish between these perspectives: Teddy Afro’s Ethiopia as Amapia (an Amharic-dominated geo-federation), Abiy Ahmed’s Ethiopia as Amarpia (the status quo Amharic-dominated ethnic federation), Lemma Megersa’s Ethiopia as Orompia (an Oromic-led ethnic federation), and Fayyis Oromia’s Ethiopia as Oropia (an Oromic-led geo-federation). The Oromo people vehemently reject the first two, but clearly accept the latter two.
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed frequently emphasizes the importance of “Ethiopia,” often framing his political project around national unity and territorial integrity. While this emphasis is widely presented as a commitment to stability, it raises a fundamental and unresolved question: which conception of Ethiopia does the Prime Minister seek to preserve?
Is it the traditional Ethiopia associated with Mengistu Ayana’s legacy—an Amharic-dominated state in which Amharanet defines national identity and Amharic functions as the sole working language? This model may be described as Amapia: an Amharic-dominated, centralized, geo-federal Ethiopia.
Alternatively, does Prime Minister Abiy envision an Ethiopia closer to Haile Fida’s progressive framework—one in which Oromummà provides ideological leadership and Oromic serves as the primary federal working language, reflecting the demographic reality that the Oromo constitute the largest population group? Such a model may be termed Oropia: an Oromic-led, genuinely geofederal political order.
A third possibility is that the current administration is merely continuing the system established under Meles Z. Gobena: an Amharic-dominated ethnic federation characterized by symbolic federalism but substantive central control—here referred to as the Amarpia of Meles Z. Gobena.
Other alternatives also exist. These include Confepia, as articulated by Daud Ibsa, which envisions a confederation of sovereign nations operating primarily in English, or the Orompia model advanced by Lenco Lata, proposing an Oromic-led ethnic federation.
Competing National Visions and Political Alignments
If Prime Minister Abiy is fundamentally committed to Menelik II’s conception of Ethiopia, then his project aligns with Amapianism. In such a case, continued support from Amhara political elites is unsurprising. However, this would require Oromo constituencies to reassess their political support. Oromo members of the Oromo Prosperity Party (OPP), in particular, would need to critically examine whether their participation genuinely advances Oromo collective interests.
Conversely, if the Prime Minister embodies Haile Fida’s vision of Ethiopia, he may lose the backing of entrenched Amhara elites but would likely gain legitimacy among the Oromo majority. What is increasingly evident, however, is that no political project can simultaneously sustain both Amapia and Oropia. These visions are structurally incompatible.
At present, Ethiopia remains institutionally dominated by the Amharic language. This reality raises a critical question: are Oromo elites within the OPP prepared to preserve this linguistic and political status quo, or are they willing to advocate for Oromic to assume its rightful place as the primary working language of the federation?
The Attempt to Reconcile Incompatible Identities
The current governing elite—particularly Oromo leaders within the Prosperity Party—appear to be attempting to reconcile two historically antagonistic frameworks of Ethiopian identity: Amharanet and Oromummà. Historically, Ethiopian national identity has been constructed almost exclusively through Amharanet. Oromo inclusion was conditional upon cultural and linguistic assimilation.
While the Oromo Prosperity leadership claims to challenge this paradigm, its continued reliance on Amharic as the dominant federal language undermines that claim. Oromic remains institutionally secondary, reinforcing Amharic dominance under the guise of inclusivity. This approach does not represent transformation; rather, it reproduces hierarchy through rebranding.
Symbolic recognition without structural change is insufficient. If Oromic is not elevated to primary federal status, claims of equity and inclusion remain hollow.
Ethiopia therefore faces a binary outcome: it will either persist as a centralized state dominated by Amharanet or transform into a federation in which Ethiopian identity is reconstituted around Oromummà. Genuine coexistence between these visions is only possible within a confederation of quasi-sovereign nations—a scenario that would effectively dissolve the Ethiopian state as it currently exists.
OPP and OFC: Two Federalisms, One Core Dispute
There is broad consensus across Ethiopian political forces on the necessity of federalism. The disagreement lies in its content and direction.
The OPP under Prime Minister Abiy appears to maintain a centralized, Amharic-dominated federation, effectively replacing TPLF dominance with a new ruling elite.
The Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC) advocates for a democratic, multinational federation in which Oromic holds federal primacy and political power reflects demographic realities.
From a democratic standpoint, language policy should reflect population distribution. By this logic, Oromic would naturally assume primary federal status. The continued dominance of Amharic is therefore inherently undemocratic. This contradiction explains the declining support for the OPP among Oromo constituencies and the growing appeal of the OFC, the OLF, and other Oromo nationalist movements.
The imprisonment of figures such as Jawar Mohammed and the suppression of Oromo media institutions marked a decisive rupture between the Abiy administration and Oromo public opinion. These actions signaled the limits of the current political project and accelerated its loss of legitimacy.
Why Oropia? Toward an Inclusive Federal Union
Resistance from segments of the Amhara political elite to an Oromic-led federation represents a strategic miscalculation. An inclusive federal union—Oropia—would not marginalize other nations but instead empower historically oppressed communities such as the Awi, Qemant, Himra, Shinasha, Kunama, Wolqayit, Raya, and others to exercise meaningful self-rule.
At a previous Oromo convention in Washington, DC, the concept of Oropia was advanced with three defining features:
- Oromic as the working language of the union
- A Cushitic Black–Red–White national flag
- The adoption of Oropia as the name of the union
Renaming the state reflects a deeper transformation of identity, similar to the replacement of “Galla” with Oromo and “Addis Ababa” with Finfinne. Retaining the name “Ethiopia”—a Greek exonym meaning “land of burnt faces”—is neither culturally neutral nor historically inevitable. Oropia, meaning “Land of the Brave,” offers an indigenous, inclusive alternative.
Independent Oromia or Integrative Oropia?
The primary divergence between the OLF and the OFC lies in strategy rather than ultimate objectives.
The OLF prioritizes independent Oromia while remaining open to voluntary union.
The OFC supports Orompia (a multinational federation within the existing state framework).
The concept of Oropia provides a synthesis of these positions. It offers a shared political destination capable of unifying Oromo nationalists across ideological lines, reducing internal fragmentation, and addressing international concerns about state disintegration.
A Practical Model for the Future
The Indian federal model provides a relevant comparative example. Hindi-speaking populations formed the demographic core, Hindi became the working language, and federal autonomy was granted to diverse regions. A similar framework could guide Oropia:
Oromic as the federal working language
Oropia as the name of the union
Democratic governance
Genuine autonomy for all nations
This model represents a viable middle path between exclusive secessionism and imperial restoration.
Conclusion: Toward Liberation, Justice, and Dignity
There is no viable return to empire or to an Ethiopia dominated by Amharic. Any attempt to preserve such a system—whether under Prime Minister Abiy or any future leader—will ultimately fail.
The future lies in offering a credible alternative: either a sovereign Oromia or an inclusive federal union grounded in Oromummà—Oropia. Oromo political forces must unite around this shared vision, which embodies decades of struggle for justice, dignity, and self-determination.
As Obbo Baro Tumsa asserted, fundamental social transformation requires decisive political action. That transformation must include:
Freedom for all nations and citizens
Oromic as the primary federal language
Democracy as the foundation of governance
Oropia as the name of the union
The Cushitic Black–Red–White as the national flag
If other nations choose to join this project, a just and voluntary union can be built. If not, the pursuit of an independent Oromia remains a legitimate and unavoidable outcome.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2020/07/0 ... at-oromia/
Re: The Oromo Accept neither Teddy Afro’s nor Abiy Ahmed’s Ethiopia, but Lemma Megersa’s
Interestingly, we are observing different versions of Ethiopianists criticizing and fighting each other. It is important to distinguish between these perspectives: Teddy Afro’s Ethiopia as Amapia (an Amharic-dominated geo-federation), Abiy Ahmed’s Ethiopia as Amarpia (the status quo Amharic-dominated ethnic federation), Lemma Megersa’s Ethiopia as Orompia (an Oromic-led ethnic federation), and Fayyis Oromia’s Ethiopia as Oropia (an Oromic-led geo-federation). The Oromo people vehemently reject the first two, but clearly accept the latter two.