Self-Limiting MAC Politics of the OFC and Self-Mutilating MAP Politics of the OLF
By Fayyis Oromia*
Both the OFC and the OLF have yet to find an optimal solution to the unique political condition of the Oromo people. The unionist Ethiopia envisioned by the OFC—a multinational federation—is primarily beneficial for minorities at the center (MAC), while the independent Oromia proposed by the OLF is more favorable for minorities at the periphery (MAP). However, the Oromo nation is neither a MAC nor a MAP; it is the Majority Over All (MOA) within Ethiopia.
I argue that limiting the Oromo to Oromia within a federation is a form of self-limitation. The Oromo are a people who live throughout the country in particular and across the Horn of Africa in general. Likewise, an independent Oromia based on the current OLF map would amount to self-mutilation, since the Oromo can potentially shape and lead the entire country through an Oromic-led geofederation.
An optimal solution, therefore, would be for the Oromo to take control of the Ethiopian state and transform it into Oropia. Other nations should be free to exercise their right to self-determination—whether within the OFC’s federal model or through the OLF’s framework.
For the Oromo, MOA politics should focus on realizing Oropia: an Oromic-led Ethiopia in which Oromic becomes the primary working language of the union and the country itself is renamed from Ethiopia to Oropia. The Oromo strategy should be to dismantle the empire-state, build a union-state, and offer other nations the option of establishing their own states if they so choose. Secession should not be the Oromo agenda.
The Oromo are unique in the world: a majority nation spread throughout the country, whose political center—Finfinnee (Addis Ababa)—is also its own capital, yet one that remains politically marginalized. None of the five political approaches pursued by Oromo nationalists so far adequately addresses this unique condition:
- Dr. Negasso Gidada’s collaboration with hegemonist forces.
- Ob Andargachew Tsige’s alignment with Ethiopian unitarists.
- Ob. Galàsà Dilbo’s advocacy for an independent Oromia.
- Ob. Dawud Ibsa’s call for a referendum on “Independent Oromia vs. Union Ethiopia.”
- Ob. Lencho Leta’s support for a unionist Ethiopia.
None of these approaches offers the most effective solution. As the national majority, the Oromo should seek to take state power at Tullü Dàlatti Palace in Finfinné and dismantle the imperial system. The goal should be to build a union-state called Oropia while granting all other nations the right to self-determination, including full independence if they choose, whether in Amhara, Tigray, or elsewhere.
When comparing the Oromo condition with other national liberation struggles around the world, we can identify five broad categories of colonized or dominated peoples. All pursued liberation and self-determination, yet none shares the exact experience of the Oromo.
1. Nations Colonized by Overseas Powers
Examples include African nations colonized by European powers. Their solution was external self-determination through complete independence. Some Oromo nationalists, such as Ob. Galàsa Dilbo apply this model to Oromia and advocate independence without a referendum. However, the question remains: Is Oromia truly colonized by an overseas power?
2. Minority Nations at the Periphery
Examples include Eritrea, South Sudan, Kosovo, East Timor, and Ogaden. These nations pursued referendums to decide between independence and continued union. The OLF under Obbo Dawud Ibsa follows this model. Yet one may ask: Is Oromia simply a peripheral nation whose self-determination can be decided independently of the rest of Ethiopia?
3. Minority Nations at the Center
Examples include the Gurage, Harari, Hadiya, and Kambata peoples. For such groups, the preferred solution is internal self-determination through self-rule within a federal union. The OFC, under Dr. Merera Gudina, generally follows this path. But are the Oromo merely another minority nation at the center?
4. Major Nations Oppressed by Their Own Authoritarian Elites
These nations primarily struggle for democracy, justice, and equal citizenship rather than national self-determination. The political outlook represented by AG7 and Ob. Andargachew Tsige largely reflects this approach. Yet does this adequately address the historical marginalization of Oromo language, culture, and identity?
5. Minority Nations Dominating the Political Center
Examples include regimes that present themselves as multinational while maintaining centralized control. The TPLF-led order is often cited as an example. The OPDO under Dr. Negasso Gidada operated within this framework, which critics argue primarily served the interests of the dominant ruling elite.
The Oromo do not fit neatly into any of these categories. They are a major nation located at the center of the state, yet historically subjected to political domination by smaller neighboring elites. There is arguably no comparable case in which a large nation, whose own capital city serves as the center of state power, remains politically marginalized within that state. Such a unique reality requires a unique political solution.
The five approaches outlined above are therefore suboptimal. The more appropriate strategy, from this perspective, is to liberate the center—Tullü Dàlatti in Finfinnee—and take control of the state apparatus in order to transform the empire-state into a genuine union-state. Such a transformation may involve changing the flag, redefining the official working language, and even renaming the country from Ethiopia to Oropia.
In this framework, the Oromo would become the guarantors and providers of self-determination rights rather than recipients of them. Other nations, whether in Bahir Dar, Mekelle, or elsewhere, would be free to determine their own political futures.
Galatôma!
Read more: https://orompia.wordpress.com/mac-polit ... f-the-olf/