Oromo’s Colonial Narrative to Liberate Oromia and the Cushitic Narrative to Lead Oropia
By Fayyis Oromia*
It is now the right time for Oromo elites to shift their rhetoric regarding the Oromo movement from a colonial narrativeto a Cushitic narrative. Oromia is already free from the tyrannical rule of Abyssinian elites. The colonial narrative was essential during the struggle for liberation, but that phase is over. Oromo elites have now gained a historic opportunity not only to liberate Oromia but also to lead the entire Oropia (Oromic-led Ethiopia) on the ruins of Amapia (Amharic-dominated Ethiopia). To fulfill this leadership role successfully, it is important to promote the Cushitic narrative, which demonstrates that true Ethiopia is Cushitic, not Solomonic as former Abyssinian rulers tried to portray. Almost all nations in Ethiopia—including the Habesha—have Cushitic roots, and thus we can build a supra-national identity of being Cush(Ethiopian in the true sense).
I once read an article condemning a possible “paradigm shift” in the Oromo liberation struggle. It claimed that the suggested shift was a transformation of the goal—from an independent Oromia to a united Ethiopia. I never said that the shift must involve abandoning the goal of freedom. In one of my recent articles, I asked a question: Is this paradigm shift a change in the way toward the goal (self-determination), or a change of the goal itself? I still have not received an answer. I also did not understand that “national self-determination with multinational democracy” was meant to be a shift of the goal.
The author seems to think within a parallel framework of an “either-or” mechanism: to him, there is either Oromia’s independence or Ethiopian unity—everything is black or white, without any grey zone. He does not consider a series framework, which allows us to understand that a nation can move from the status of an occupied Oromia to a genuinely autonomous Oromia within an Ethiopian union, and from there toward an independent Oromia or an integrative Oropia within the African Union. I do not understand why some people still refuse to think in this series framework, which would allow them to support Oromo nationalists who emphasize achieving autonomy within a union as a mid-goal on the path toward the final goal of independence. Why do such people believe it is constructive to attack nationalists who want to walk half the journey with them?
To help such people, I presented the following three metaphors, hoping they would recognize that those they criticize are in fact on the same path toward an independent Oromia:
1. Parallel vs. Series Electric Circuits
Putting the three possible outcomes of the Oromo struggle—Oromia’s autonomy, Oromia’s independence, and a union of free peoples—in a “parallel circuit” makes them appear mutually exclusive, as if we must choose only one. But arranging them in a “series circuit” shows that one can be achieved after another: first autonomy, then independence, and finally a union if desired. I hoped that Oromo nationalists would eventually adopt this series framework instead of a parallel one.
2. The Train Journey Metaphor
I also used a second metaphor: the liberation journey from
Djibouti (Amapia = Amharic-dominated geo-federation) →
Ayisha (Amarpia = Amharic-dominated ethnic federation) →
Dire Dawa (Confepia = English-using confederation including Oromia) →
Adama (Orompia = Oromic-led ethnic federation) →
Finfinne (Oropia = Oromic-led geo-federation),
whether the union is at the Horn level or African level.
I hoped these metaphors would help heal the perceived or manufactured conflict created by those who insist on thinking in a “parallel framework,” whether deliberately or unintentionally. Unfortunately, some still remain trapped in this conflict, which is why I added a third metaphor.
3. The Five-Level Political Evolution
All Oromo individuals and institutions pass through a political evolution with five levels:
- First level: Oromos in Habesha-dominated organizations (e.g., EPRP) who support a unitary Abyssinian empire and deny the existence of Oromia.
- Second level: Those like the former OPDO, who acknowledge Oromia’s existence but accept Abyssinian rule over it.
- Third level: Those like the OFC, who demand Oromia’s autonomy within a union.
- Fourth level: Those like the ONP, who demand unconditional independence of Oromia as a Gadaa Republic, rejecting the possibility of a future union of free peoples.
- Fifth level: Those who seek to foster a union of free peoples for common economic benefit, as envisioned by the OLF.
Now, regarding the paradigm shift: was anyone suggesting a return to the first level? If so, I agree with those who condemn it. Was there a suggestion to accept the second level and abandon the liberation struggle? If that was the case, I would also denounce it. But if the suggestion was simply to move to the third level—with the help of possible alliances, including democratic Habesha forces—why would that disturb pro-independence Oromo nationalists? Such a move should disturb only dictatorial Amhara elites (stuck at level one) and hegemonist Tigrean elites (stuck at level two). Why can’t pro-independence Oromo nationalists see that moving to the third level is a necessary step toward the fourth level of an independent Oromia?
Even Abyssinians cannot escape this political evolution, although it may take them many years. The final solution for the empire is, as the author suggested, a peaceful or forceful separation between Abyssinia and Oromia, similar to Czech-Slovak or Serbia-Croatia separations, with the possibility of a later union of the two independent states. Therefore, we must learn to think in a series framework, believing in and practicing our tactical goal (autonomy within a union), our core goal (independence), and our strategic goal (a union of free peoples).
On the other hand, the article I referred to earlier was a gift to the TPLF and its cadres. The attempt by Oromo unionists like the ODF and Amhara unitarists like AG7 to form an alliance against the fascist regime was a nightmare for the TPLF. Their cadres tried to disguise themselves as supporters of unconditional independence in Oromo spaces and as supporters of unconditional unity in Amhara spaces, with the intention of polarizing the two camps and preventing an inclusive opposition from emerging. Sadly, they received unexpected assistance from some genuine nationalists on both sides—Oromo who mistrust Amhara elites as centralists, and Amhara who accuse Oromo liberators of separatism. The TPLF benefited from this polarization.
This is why I advised Oromo nationalists who always insist that “a spade is a spade” to learn the metaphor of “drinking vodka from a water bottle.” Once, I met two Russians in a subway, each holding a bottle: one labeled “vodka,” the other “water.” Yet the one drinking from the water bottle was more drunk. They laughed and explained that both bottles contained vodka—the only difference was the label.
This is the difference between Oromo politicians and the [ deleted ] Habesha politicians. Oromo politicians often speak directly about Oromo rights (“vodka bottle”), whereas Habesha politicians (both Tegaru and Amhara) use the label “Ethiopia” (“water bottle”) to indirectly promote ethnic interests. They play the same ethnic game—Tegaru hegemonism and Amhara dominance—using deceptive methods, while Oromo nationalists pursue direct liberation. Can Oromo nationalists learn this tactic while keeping Oromo interests at heart? Time will tell.
Finally, I thank Waqa that we defeated the ambitions of the TPLF and its cadres, who tried to deceive Oromo audiences with unconditional independence rhetoric while preaching unconditional unity to Amhara audiences—just to polarize us and prevent a unified opposition. Fortunately, we did not fall into their trap. The Oromo achieved the liberation of Oromia using the colonial narrative, but we now need the Cushitic narrative to guide our leadership of the country.
Waqa bless us all!
Galatoma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/oromos-co ... at-oromia/
Re: Oromo’s Colonial Narrative to Liberate Oromia and the Cushitic Narrative to Lead Oropia
It is now the right time for Oromo elites to shift their rhetoric regarding the Oromo movement from a colonial narrativeto a Cushitic narrative. Oromia is already free from the tyrannical rule of Abyssinian elites. The colonial narrative was essential during the struggle for liberation, but that phase is over. Oromo elites have now gained a historic opportunity not only to liberate Oromia but also to lead the entire Oropia (Oromic-led Ethiopia) on the ruins of Amapia (Amharic-dominated Ethiopia). To fulfill this leadership role successfully, it is important to promote the Cushitic narrative, which demonstrates that true Ethiopia is Cushitic, not Solomonic as former Abyssinian rulers tried to portray. Almost all nations in Ethiopia—including the Habesha—have Cushitic roots, and thus we can build a supra-national identity of being Cush(Ethiopian in the true sense).