The ATO Political Triangle and the Lessons of National Humiliation in Ethiopia
By FayyisOromia*
Abstract
This article examines the historical and contemporary political experiences of Ethiopia’s three major political elites—Amhara, Tegaru, and Oromo—within what may be termed the ATO triangle. It argues that each elite group has, at different historical moments, experienced national humiliation and political exclusion, often after having failed to recognize or empathize with the oppression of others. Drawing on the metaphor of the “lamb and the wolves,” the article contends that sustainable unity in Ethiopia can only be achieved through liberty, equality, and genuine self-determination.
The Cyclical Experience of National Humiliation
In recent Ethiopian history, the political elites of the country’s three major groups—Amhara, Tegaru, and Oromo—have each, in turn, encountered the realities of national humiliation. These experiences reveal a recurring pattern: elites who once benefited from the political order often failed to understand the suffering of others until they themselves became victims of exclusion or repression.
During the Derg regime, Amharas were not systematically persecuted on the basis of national identity. Consequently, many Amhara elites struggled to comprehend the depth of suffering experienced by Tegaru and Oromo communities subjected to ethnic and political marginalization. Under the subsequent Woyane-led order, Tegaru elites—despite their own history of resistance and victimization—assumed a dominant position and became implicated in the repression of both Amhara and Oromo populations. In the current political era, Amharas are again experiencing persecution linked to national identity, reinforcing the cyclical nature of power and humiliation.
These repeated experiences should serve as a collective lesson. A meaningful political transformation requires elites within the ATO triangle to internalize what it means to be discriminated against, oppressed, and excluded on the basis of identity. Such understanding is a necessary precondition for addressing Ethiopia’s long-standing problem of national oppression and for pursuing a mutually beneficial political settlement.
Democracy, Power, and the Lamb–Wolf Analogy
Benjamin Franklin’s well-known observation—“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch; liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote”—offers a useful framework for understanding Ethiopia’s political dynamics.
For decades, political discourse among dominant elites has invoked concepts such as unity, democracy, justice, and peace. However, these ideals were often employed instrumentally, serving as rhetorical justifications for the control of state power, resources, and territory. In particular, assimilationist Amhara elites and bantustanist Tegaru elites, despite their ideological differences, alternated in dominating the political system, each acting as a “wolf” in Franklin’s metaphor.
During these periods, oppressed communities—including Oromos and marginalized populations from across Ethiopia—functioned as the “lamb,” formally included in political processes but structurally disadvantaged. Prior to 1991, assimilationist elites occupied the dominant position; after that, the TPLF assumed control. In both cases, power struggles revolved around control of the state and its resources, particularly Finfinne and Oromia.
Since 2018, however, the traditional dominance of these elites has weakened. Popular resistance and mass mobilization among oppressed peoples have altered the political balance, allowing the “lamb” to contest power more assertively.
Liberty as the Foundation of Unity
A central argument advanced by Oromo political movements has been the prioritization of liberty before unity. Liberty—not unity devoid of freedom—has been understood as the only goal worthy of sacrifice. Oromo political thought has long distinguished between unity as a means to achieve liberty (tokkummaa for bilisummaa) and union as a voluntary outcome of liberty.
This approach emphasizes that genuine unity must be based on free consent rather than coercion. Just as personal relationships require autonomy and mutual respect, relationships between nations must be grounded in liberty. Calls for unity that precede or bypass freedom merely reproduce domination in new forms.
As the frequently cited principle suggests: a society that prioritizes unity over liberty risks losing both, while one that secures liberty first may ultimately achieve sustainable unity.
Competing Political Visions for Oromia
Current political debates concerning Oromia can be broadly categorized into four competing visions:
- Dismantling Oromia, advocated by assimilationist unitarists who view Oromia as an obstacle to national unity.
- Nominal or pseudo-autonomy, supported by opportunistic elites who maintain federal structures primarily to extract resources.
- Genuine autonomy within a federal framework, promoted by moderate federalists and democratic coalitions as a transitional and pragmatic solution.
- Full independence, advocated by segments of Oromo nationalists, with varying degrees of political feasibility and international support.
The first two visions largely reflect the interests of dominant elites, while the latter two represent pathways toward self-determination. Cooperation between advocates of genuine autonomy and proponents of independence may offer a realistic path forward, particularly if autonomy is treated as a step toward freely chosen political arrangements.
Polarization, Division, and Elite Miscalculations
Ethiopia’s democratic forces have repeatedly been weakened by division. Opportunities for cooperation among opposition coalitions and liberation movements were undermined by elite rivalries and deliberate divide-and-rule strategies. At various moments, unitarist elites aligned with authoritarian forces out of fear of Oromo political mobilization, even when such alliances contradicted their stated democratic principles.
More recently, divisive strategies have succeeded in fragmenting Amhara political forces, polarizing Oromo movements, and weakening cross-community alliances. Nevertheless, resistance movements and democratic actors have continued to make gains, demonstrating the resilience of popular struggle despite elite miscalculations.
Conclusion: Liberty First, Unity Second
Elections in deeply unequal political systems cannot be treated as neutral or sufficient mechanisms for change. Organized political struggle, popular mobilization, and resistance to authoritarianism remain essential.
Franklin’s metaphor remains relevant: liberty requires a well-prepared and organized “lamb.” Ethiopia’s future unity, if it is to be genuine and lasting, must be built upon liberty, equality, and mutual respect. Historical forms of unity imposed through coercion—from imperial centralization to authoritarian federalism—have produced domination rather than solidarity.
The next chapter in Ethiopia’s political development must therefore be grounded in liberty first, with unity emerging as its voluntary and democratic consequence.
Galatôma.
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/2019/06/05/4028/