| Voice of Oromia |
Voice of Oromo News
Why was it easy for Meles' regime to rule over
Ethiopia?
Published 08/12/2009 -5:00 p.m.
By Fayyis Oromia
Why was it easy for Meles adminstration to rule over Ethiopians in the last 18 years? Why even
will it be easier to rule for further many decades? If we put it simplified, it is just because of the
misguided elites of the two BIG nations aka Amharas and Oromos. Meles regime managed to
corner these elites and made those of the Amharas to cry for unconditional unitary Imiye Ethiopia
and those of the Oromos to sing about unconditional independence of Ayo Oromia. With that the
ruling regime could reserve the middle ground aka Union of Autonomous Nations i.e language
based federalism as its own position, so that it can accuse Amharas as ceneralist chauvinists and
Oromos as narrow separatists and make them fight each other. Some politicians in the
opposition have tried to neutralize this effort of the regime. For example, I do appreciate the
position of the visionary Oromo leaders and some Amhara leaders who signed the formation of
the alliance called AFD (Alliance for Freedom and Democracy), which took a necessary step to
deal with the regime's tactic of devide and rule.
It was already written that the ruling party's leader, Meles Zenawi, must have said:
Amhara-Oromo conflict, i.e the historical face-off between Oromo and Amhara, is a unique
historical advantage for Weyane to perpetuate its rule. He also said regarding the dialogue
between Amhara forces and Oromo fronts within AFD, seemingly rightly, that it is a marriage
between "fire and water (isat ina wuha)". To some extent this is unfortunately true. It is really
pity that these two BIG nations do live in a conflict against each other, which is just caused by
the hitherto ruling class of the empire and by the sponsors of the ruling class aka the European
colonizers, the effect being the fate of both nations to live now under the subjugation by minority
group of the Tigrean ruling class.
Disregarding the hitherto Abesha ruling class, actually both the Amhara and Oromo peoples were
victims of the European colonizers. The main conflict and imbalance of power between the
Amharas and Oromos started at the end of 19th century at which time the Europeans had their
programm of the scramble for Africa. It is said that the French colonizers used to move horizontal
between Dakar and Djibouti, whereas the British colonizers' move was vertical between Cape
town and Cairo. These two forces were about to confront each other in the Horn of Africa. To
avoid the confrontation the British colonizers had to do their usual manipulation in Africa:
choosing one ethnic group as a "superior", and using it to suppress the others which they
consider as the "inferiors". They told the Amharas that they are "superior" semitics and christians
who had to "civilize" the "inferior animist" Oromos and others in the south. They gave them
weapons and helped them by giving military advice. So the britisch colonizers controlled indirectly
the area without confronting the French army. With such manipulation, both the Amharas and the
Oromos as nations became victims, since then both are not free. The Amhara rulers being the
ex-servants of the british colonizers (as suppressors of the Oromos), both the Amharas as a
people and the Oromos as the suppressed subjects are still lacking freedom.
Now a days the Tegarus' ruling class plays similar role as servant of the American imperialists
again to suppress the Oromos and of course at the moment the Amharas are as oppressed as
the Oromos. Theoretically now there is nothing which can hinder the alliance of the Amhara
pro-democracy forces and the Oromo pro-freedom fronts to come together and fight for their
freedom and democracy as they attempted in AFD, but still there are practical problems. Both of
them need yet to learn. Amharas to stop their striving for mere unconditional Ethiopian unity and
Oromos to reconsider their mere Oromian independence without a union. The Amhara
pro-democracy forces pushing for unconditional unity makes the Oromo freedom fighters only to
be sceptical for Oromos know what the pro-democracy Amhara forces want to achieve with this
pretext. At the same time the attempt of some of Oromo freedom fighters to forge an
independent Oromia without giving the possibility for a union and without giving a value for the
benefit of a union among neighbouring nations makes the Amhara pro-democracy forces to panic
because of their thinking that they will be driven out of Oromia. Such move of certain part of the
Oromo freedom fighters seems to be as counter productive as the vehement wish of the Amhara
pro-democracy forces for unconditional unity.
Beside that, the TPLF regime do manipulate this "difference" between the two BIG nations to
creat more discord and make them fight each other. In order to neutralize such deed of Meles'
administration, very important now for the two nations is to concentrate on the common agenda
aka struggle for freedom and democracy. If both of them come to their senses and do rally
behind these two ideals, the other two virtues they want to realize aka independent Oromia in
an integrated (united) Ethiopia will be fullfilled indirectly. Is this impossible? NO! It is possible if all
nations in the empire will be free from tyranny, killing, and looting which is now happening under
TPLF. So our main problem now a days is the lording, killing and looting that all the nations in the
empire do suffer under the dictatorial regime. The victims from the two BIG nations need to wake
up and say together: NO to the fascist regime!
To achieve the durable alliance of the two forces against Weyane, these two BIGs need to forge
one common ground as a common goal. I do recommend as a common goal: union of
independent nations aka independent Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia as a result of a
self-determination of each nation. Till now, it was very difficult to get a common purpose on which
the Oromo pro-freedom fronts and the Amhara pro-democracy forces could agree. The Oromo
freedom fighters argue that Oromos must be free and be separated from the domination by any
meanse and then build a union based on free will. Very few smart part of the Amhara pro-unity
forces argue that Abeshas are the semiticized Oromos and Agews speaking Amharinya and
Tigrinya, so that Oromos don't have to separate from their own people, but they should bring the
semitized Oromos back to their lost origin and rather Oromos should have an appropriate role in
the politics of the country that fits to their size.
One of the reason's why most of Amhara pro-democracy forces take such a position is for they do
fear the disintegration of the empire they did build. So they even seem to do every thing possible
so that Oromo freedom fighters never have an upper hand in Ethiopian politics for they fear that
these fronts may opt for independence of Oromia. On the contrary, Oromo freedom fighters do all
things possible to hinder the come back of Amhara pro-democracy forces to power, for they know
what these Amhara pro-democracy forces are going to do, i.e amharinization of the whole
nations in the empire. The two BIG nations simply sabotage each other's succeess. As an
example we can look at the political moves during and after election 2005. As CUD which is
dominated by the Amhara pro-democracy forces was almost on the verge of coming to power,
almost all Oromo freedom fighters didn't give support. As OLF was in its highest point of influence
and forged AFD to be an alternative for power in Finfinne, it was the Amhara pro-democracy
forces in UEDF and in other similar parties who vehemently opposed the alliance. Simply put, the
two BIGs seem to have agreed subconsciously in accepting TPLF rule as a better choice rather
than seeing one of them come to power.
This mistrust between the Amhara pro-democracy forces and the Oromo freedom fighters is the
God-given opportunity that the regime is using to rule over the country as long as possible.
Unless these two BIG groups come to term and cooperate against Meles adminstration, all
nations in the empire have to settle for the rule of the regime not only for few years, but for
many decades to come. I think the two groups aka the two giant nations of the region should
agree on the common ground. Union of independent Amhara, Tigrai, Afar, Oromia, Ogadenia,
Sidama, Gurage.....etc as a result of their respective self-determination and even the union
including Eritrea, Djibouti, Somaliland, Puntland and Somalia (if they agree based on free will) is
the noble cause for which all can fight together. Not accepting this model meanse unconditional
separation of these independent nations as an alternative.
The question to be asked is whether Amhara pro-democracy forces do choose to settle for this
last alternative or whether they should be compelled to accept such fact as an alternative to
their refusal of recognizing a union based on self-determination. I know the members of Meles'
regime will accept such alternative of separation of nation-states as soon as they sense that
they may loose power in Finfinne palace. To compell Amhara pro-democracy forces to accept such
a union based on national self-determination, we just have to demote Amharinya to be used only
in Amhara region and we promote Afaan Oromo to be the only federal language. Then Amharas
will see that Ethiopianity will not be equivalent to Amharanet (as it is now), but it will be the
same to Oromummaa. In such a scenario of Oromummaa being equivalent to Ethiopianity, the
Oromo freedom fighters will definetly start to be pro Ethiopianity against "ethnicity" and the
Amhara pro-democracy forces will begin to defend their identity by opting for self-determination
of Amhara people, so that they support "ethnicity" and reject Ethiopianity aka Oromummaa. This
way, they can comprehend what it meanse to struggle for national independence within or
without regional union.
Till now certain steps have been taken by OLF to forge the common ground with Amhara
pro-democracy forces and to kill the ruling party, TPLF, in Ethiopian political history. The short
sighted TPLFites who are good at winning battles, but can never win the war, think that they are
killing OLF by persecuting and massacring Oromos who do support OLF. But these measures of
the regime gave OLF even more mass support of Oromos, which it didn't have till 1991. Further
more interesting is that OLF killed not supporters of the ruling party, but it took away the
existence of Weyane in Ethiopia in a future political long run. OLF did this by taking two very
important measures. In 1992 OLF denied the regime the legitimacy it needed in Oromia. With this
TPLF became the eternal enemy of Oromos. The ruling party could have made OLF its partner and
would have enjoyed support of all Oromos, but it formed OPDO and made its self allien to Oromo
people. In 2006 OLF formed AFD together with the Amhara pro-democracy parties like CUD and
with that it took away the very important instrument TPLF used to rule over Ethiopians aka
designating Amhara pro-democracy forces as centeralist chauvinists and Oromo freedom fighters
as narrow separatists, so that they be polarized. Now this instrument is dead and Meles'
adminstration is under co-operated attack from both Amharas and Oromos. Surely take it only 1
year or as long as 10 years, TPLF will die away like Isepa of derg. After loosing power, Meles'
adminstration will be remembered in Ethiopia as bad a regime as the Naizi is now remembered in
Germany. The coming Tegaru generation will distance its self from TPLF and will be ashamed of
this regime`s history just like the new generation of Germany is doing now regarding its
forefather's deed.
Actually I do appreciate the effort of the pro-democracy Amhara forces, who are trying to foster
the democratic unity of the region called Ethiopia. It is not bad to advocate such unity. As I
understood from their hitherto writings, they do use both religious and political methods to
promote and keep the unity. This is actually very dangerous combination, specially when used by
one and the same individual. I advice them as individuals to leave one method and persue the
other. The problem is that as a politician, one can persue the interest of the group he/she does
support, e.g an interest of the Amhara pro-democracy forces to keep the empire intact against an
interest of the Oromo freedom fighters to dismantle the empire and build a union. As a religous
person, one is morally obliged to think inclusive, trying to satisfy both the Amhara democracy
forces and the Oromo freedom fighters, which will bring him/her in to difficult position. Otherwise
in order to know what type of unity the Amhara pro-democracy forces do advocate, they need to
see the difference between an empire and a union. The Amhara pro-democracy forces use the
euphemy, unity, to mean keeping the empire intact. Just to put the difference in short, empire is
"unity per force" and union is "unity per free will". If the Amhara pro-democracy forces are the
believers of this second premise, then they also do risk that "the free will" of the people to be
expressed in a referendum can lead to independence of nations without a union instead of only
to the unconditional unity which they want to achieve.
Other wise, it is good to see that there is also a difference between a unity and a union. The first
is pre-modern, whereas the second is post-modern. In summary here is the difference between
the pre-modern unity and the post-modern union. I don't remember his name, but certain British
scholar classified countries in the world in to three: 1- pre-modern chaotic states like the artificial
constructs/countries in Africa, such as the Ethiopian empire, which the Amhara pro-democracy
forces seem to love, 2- modern nation-states like some mono-national-states in Asia and Latine
America and 3- post-modern union of free nations like those in European union. So, the Amhara
pro-democracy forces should see that African nations, including those in the empire, are kept as
pre-modern due to the arrangement made by the European colonizers and this is still being
perpetuated further by AU-dictators, who are dedicated not to change it. But we Africans need to
leave the artificial nations like Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Djibouti, Somaliland, Somalia and Kenya
behind and forge the productive natural nation-states like Tigrai, Amhara, Afar, Oromia, Hausa,
Yoruba, Somalia...etc in order to be transformed our selves from the present position
(pre-modern), passing through the stage of modern status like an independent Oromia without a
union, further to the post-modern situation like an independent Oromia in a union with
neighbouring independent nations. This last status is the most beneficial one, which the
Europeans them selves are enjoying now.
I know Amhara pro-democracy forces do want larger unitary Ethiopia than the "inferior mini
states" such as Amharai and Oromia. I am also for the larger Ethiopian union based on the free
will of Oromos, which can be the result of a referendum. But I don't agree with the idea of some
Amhara pro-democracy forces, who do advocate for the unconditional unity of the empire, which
is dictatorial unity. On the contrary, the alliance between the Amhara pro-democracy forces and
the Oromo freedom fighters is the meanse to get rid of the dictator and the alliance can struggle
for the union of nations in the empire as a common END, i.e. as the goal to fight for together.
Some Amhara pro-democracy forces even, at least theoretically, do believe that the destiny of
the Oromo people should be decided by only the Oromo people who live in Ethiopia and "who are
also Ethiopians". If they really believe in what they some times write, that meanse they are
ready to leave the decision on Oromo destiny for Oromos. Then the question to be asked is:
what will happen if the very Oromos they do mention as part of Ethiopians do decide against the
unity which they want, but opt to build the independent state of Oromia without a union? Do the
Amhara pro-democracy forces accept it and move on or do they fight against it? Further more, the
pro-democracy forces should be clear on the type of unity they want to forge. Union based on
free will or unity based on force? Those who do advocate unity by force have their own
arguements. Specially it is interesting to read that some of them are trying to instrumentalize the
present American politics in order to push for the success of their own type of unity, which is
again an euphemy for keeping the empire. They do say just as American union was saved by
force, we will struggle to save Ethiopian union. Can't their "intellectual" mind grasp the difference
between the two "unions"? America is the land of immigrants being melted together to take the
American identity speaking only English. Do they want all the native "Ethiopian" nationalities be
melted to take such uniformity and speak only Amharinya?
As far as I know, even the most liberal movement aka Ginbot-7 advocates unconditional
Ethiopian unity, which is not the goal of the Oromo freedom fighters and not the wish of other
oppressed people who do fight for their respective self-determination. I am not against Ethiopian
union based on free will of all nations, but I am against forced unity of any kind, which disregards
the free will of nations like Oromo. If Ginbot-7 wants an alliance of purpose with the Oromo
freedom fighters like OLF, I just suggest that it accepts the above mentioned common
denominator, instead of talking about the unconditional unity. I also read that G.-7 is calling for
an alliance of all the Amhara pro-democracy forces and the Oromo pro-liberty fronts as a meanse
to get rid of the regime. I do appreciate this attempt, but my concern and the question I would
like to ask is: alliance of whom against Meles' administration?
As I understood till now, Ethiopian politics is kept in balance due to a fighting between the
following three blocs: 1- the bloc of the governing TPLF domination force; 2- the bloc of the so
called the pro-democracy forces, who do fight to keep the empire intact. This bloc does use
different tactics in the name of democracy, but its message is simple and clear i.e save the
empire from disintegration; 3- the bloc of freedom fighters of all oppressed nations in the empire,
who do first want to be liberated from the system of domination before trying to talk about unity.
For this group, Ethiopian union must be only the result of self-determination of all nations in the
empire. When the Amhara pro-democracy forces do talk about alliance against the regime, do
they mean alliance of only political and civic organizations in the second bloc? Or do they also
want to include those in the third block? As I understood from the rhetoric of G-7 leaders till now,
they already put a precondition for the alliance to be forged against the first bloc aka Weyane i.e
accepting Ethiopian unity unconditionally! With this precondition, they seem to exclude those in
the third bloc such as OLF, ONLF SLF...etc, who want to achieve a self-determination for their
respective nations. In order to include the third bloc in to the alliance they want to forge against
Meles' administration, G-7 people need to change this precondition and they should try to find a
common denominator with the third bloc. If G-7 activists are democrats in practice as they do say
always, I hope they will accept the common denominator and allow all nations in the empire to
decide on their own destiny based on free will, be it for an independence within a union or for an
independence without a union. Other wise the following questions will be raised: Does their
rhetoric about democracy include such demand of peoples to decide on their destiny? Or are they
the smart unitarist foxes in sheep's skin? Or are some of them just naive poleticians, being
instrumentalized to fullfill the intention of the extremists, who want to restore their domination at
any cost? I hope Amhara pro-democracy people will think and act independently from the hitherto
extremist minded conservatives.
The two positions, i.e the position of the Amhara pro-democracy forces (unconditional unity) vs
the position of the Oromo pro-liberty fronts (union based on free will) should be discussed and
debated before attempting to forge an alliance against the ruling party. Even when nations give
their vote to an independence within a union, then it will be mandatory to decide secondly on
which type of federal arrangement is to be accepted as suitable. The Amhara pro-democracy
forces are advocators of geography based federalism in contrast to a language based federalism
("ethnic federalism"), which is preferred by most of the freedom fighters. As "democrats", all of
them can live accepting the winner per public verdict. This is what UDJ wanted to achieve in
Medrek (FDD) . Actually UDJ got what it intended to achieve: §39 is rejected and if Medrek wins
the next election, the issue of the type of federation will be decided by the public verdict. Here it
seems the federalist Oromo parties in Medrek lost in the compromise solution. They didn't insist
to achieve the right of Oromo nation to self-determination and even they compromised the
further existence of Oromia because of the fact that if geography based federation wins, Oromia
will be dismantled. This acceptance of unconditional Ethiopian unity by federalist Oromo parties in
Medrek is like making a compromise on one's own wife, who is being raped daily by a neighbour
bully. If a certain bully from a neighbour goes in to some body's hause and rape daily the wife of
his helpless neighbour infront of her husband, the helpless man can only beg the bully to reduce
the rape action to help his wife get less pain. If the bully agrees to come every other day instead
of every day, that is the success for the helpless man. That is what Oromo parties in Medrek did
achieve by not insisting on the right of Oromo nation to self-determination, but just only
accepting the demand of Abeshas for unconditional Ethiopian unity. They are simply helpless vis a
vis the well armoured Abesha domination forces.
Now the question to be directed to the Amhara pro-democracy forces is: can't they extend this
philosophy they do apply for deciding on which type of federation, based on public verdit as
agreed in Medrek, also to the arguement: independence within a union vs independence without
a union? Doesn't this require self-determination of nations to decide on which type of
sovereignity peoples can have? Can't they imagine that the public can also decide on this issue
per a referendum? Doesn't their democracy rhetoric include this option? Can't they accept and
live, if certain public decides for independence without a union? Or do they go to the forest and
fight for the union they want to see? As I heard till now, G.-7 didn't even decide on the issue
regarding which type of federation to support. Benefit/cost discussion in cmparing the two types
of sovereignities, all the stakeholders of course can try to convince the public so that the majority
do accept their respective wish before voting. The Amhara pro-democracy forces can advertise for
the advantage of a union and the pro-liberty fronts can talk about the importance of an
independence. Of cource the compromise and the common ground for both groups can be
national independence with in regional union, which can be advocated by both forces if they
make a consensus on it. Then the alliance of both forces can try to convince the public about the
importance and benefit of this common goal aka union of independent nations. At last the public
should decide which to prefer.
Yet interesting is to read that some of Amhara pro-democracy forces fear that peoples can be
brain washed and vote against their own interest. It is simply wrong to think that peoples decide
against their own interest. If they do mistakenly vote against their own interset like the
Americans elected Mr Bush by mistake, let it be. That is also part of democracy! Do the Amhara
pro-democracy people want that certain force should have been raised and prevented this
election of Mr Bush or do they want that, just like Meles Zenawi did, certain forcefull person
would have taken away the victory and declare himself the winner? During elections, informing
the public before making the decision is some thing good, but just taking away this possibility of
decision making from the people is undemocratic. So my message to the Amhara pro-democracy
forces is that there is no half backed democracy. Either they accept it as it is, including the right
of nations to self-determination or they just stop acting like a pope of democracy and they should
stop condemning those who are undemocratic, for it is known that they can be also the same or
even worse if they get the chance to be in power. If they do reject such simple right of nations
being an oppostiion, it is imaginable what they can do if they get power: they may do worse than
what Meles is doing now. That the concerned people may be brain washed by interest groups to
vote against their own interest is the reality we have to live with. All nations do have our own
interest and each of us want to convince people that our respective position is right. By the way,
why should we call it brain washing instead of calling it convincing? It is about influencing people,
be it this way or that way. In America, the evangelicals were convinced and were successfull with
Mr Bush and now the quasi-socialists are successfull with Mr Obama. Where is brain washing? It
is about convincing the majority. The one who won the hearts and minds of the majority was the
victor. In the free and fair competition, for the Amhara pro-democracy forces who struggle for
unity, there is the same chance to that of the Oromo pro-liberty fronts (advocators of a union as
a result of self-determination). Their freedom of choice is mutually respected.
But regarding those dictatorial unifiers who are advocating unconditional unity without the option
for a public verdict, it should be known that they do take the freedom of Oromo pro-liberty fronts
by advocating such dictatorial position. For example, when they say "be Ethiopia andinet lay
anideraderim!", they are sending the message: you either accept this andinet or we will deal
with you. They don't say, we advocate for Ethiopian unity and then let the public decide. Their
approach is arrogant, dictatorial and uncompromising! To such people, Oromo pro-liberty fronts
also should say: "be Oromia netsanet lay anideraderim". Now how can the two groups who do
say "anideraderim" deal with each other democratically? The only solution will be a bullet, as it
has been till now. Till now the pro-unconditional-unity dictatorial forces won for the last 150
years and they "united" us by force. The Oromo freedom fighters call this as colonization, for it is
not a union based on free will. Some people with similar dictatorial ideology (TPLF seems to be
so) do now want to continue the status quo at gun point. That is why Oromo freedom fighters
dare to say: such forces are not open for the lasting solution, but they are still the causes for the
misery in the Horn region.
The question yet to be answered is again: do we see any possibility and any common
denominator for an eventual alliance between the above mentioned bloc of the Amhara unity
forces and bloc of the Oromo freedom fighters against the ruling party's camp? I suggested that
the only common denominator is acceptance of a common strategical goal aka a union based on
nations' right to self-determination. In relation to this common denominator, we can classify the
current political organizations in Ethiopia in to the following three roups: 1- on the right side are
"ethio"-nationalists, actually they are amharanists (covert ethno-nationalists) who want to see
Ethiopia with uniformily amharanized one people; they are geogeraphy based federalists who do
advocate for democratic federal Ethiopia where there will be no visible danger for future
distintegation, they actually plan to get rid of national areas like Oromia; 2- in middle are
language based federalists, who are usually known as ethnic federalists. They want to see
autonomous nations like Oromia determining their fate in their national area, but this group does
exclude pushing for the right of nations to self-determination per a referendum; 3- on the left
side are overt ethno-nationalists such as oromianists, who want to excercise the right of nations
to self-determination to forge a sovereign, independent republics of their national areas like
independent gadaa republic of Oromia within a union or without a union of nations in the
empire/region. I think the position of OLF is the third one i.e self-determination of Oromo people
per a referendum which can lead either to language based federation (a union of independent
nations) or to independent gadaa republic of Oromia without a union. Now coming to the call for
alliance by G-7, I think it is the alliance of all these three groups, who can agree on establishing
federal democratic Ethiopia per public verdict to decide firstly on the type of sovereignity: YES to
a union vs NO to a union and then if the choice is YES, secondly to decide on the type of
federation: language based federation vs geography based federation. OLF can be part of such
alliance for its vision of Oromo's right to self-determination leading to an independence within a
union or to an independence without a union based on a referendum among Oromos will be
accepted and respected.
Also in the Oromo liberation camp now a days there are three tendencies or directions: 1-
amharanist Oromos (amharanized Oromos) rallying behind UDJ/G-7 seem to claim that Ethiopia
belongs to Oromos or Oromos belong to Ethiopia and they say we have to fight for freedom of all
Ethiopians from any sort of domination, exploitation and subjugation. They are not against Afaan
Oromo beside Amhyarinya to be a working language of federal government as it is a language of
the majority. This group of Oromos are smart to claim some of Oromos' right in a diplomatic way.
2- federalist Oromos like those rallying behind OFC are supporters of the language based
federation, they want to see Oromia having its autonomy and its limited sovereignity, but this
group don't dare to push for the right of Oromos to self-determination, instead they seem to
accept the unconditional unity of the empire. Other wise they say other regions can be devided if
they want to forge geography based federalism, but this is not the vision of Oromos and should
not be the fate of Oromia. They look at the geography based federalism as a plot to dismantle
Oromia. That is why I do ask: can G-7 get support of this group? 3- oromianist national Oromos
include all Oromos rallying behind their different liberation fronts, specially behind OLF and they
want to achieve a self-determination of Oromo people leading to either an independence of
Oromia with in a union or an independence without a union based on the outcome of a
referendum among Oromos.
I hope the right oriented ethio-nationalists, who want to stablish Ethiopia with geography based
federalism and the middle positioned ethno-federalists, who want to establish a democratic
Ethiopia with language based federalism or with the assymetric federalism (having both
mononational states like Oromia and multinational states like SNNP at a time) will give up their
respective positions and they join the left oriented ethno-nationalists, who want to liberate their
respective national area and simultaneously forge a union of independent nations based on free
will expressed in their self-determination. To be clear, neither the vision to dismantle Oromia nor
the intention to dismember Ethiopia per force can lead to the lasting unity, which the Amhara
pro-democracy forces want to see. So I hope we can bring all the stakeholders to rally behind
the common goal of building language based federation or a union of independent nations based
on self-determination as a compromise solution.
Just as some of the Amhara pro-democracy forces seem to love the name Ethiopia, some Oromos
do suspect that this group does hate to see Oromia existing. When I do hear and read the
persistent rhetoric of G-7 leaders talking that acceptance of Ethiopian unity is the precondition for
the alliance they want to forge, I can just conclude that G-7 is simply an araada version of the
notorious chauvinists! They do exhibit the arrogant stand of "my way or high way", which doesn't
promot the Ethiopian unity they actually want to realize. I do believe that the only viable
Ethiopian unity should come from the free will of nations in the empire through
self-determination. Otherwise these people in G-7 can strive as long as they want, they can
never win the hearts and minds of Oromos and all other self-concsious oppressed nations
(excluding the mental slaves who are already acting to be more Abesha than the native
Abeshas).
Good is that G-7 fights against Weyane, but it seems to make no constructive compromise to
build an alliance with the Oromo freedom fighters. With that it already made a big obstacle even
for unity forces. Intentionally or unintentionally it is against the cause it seems to fight for. Sure is
that its bloc of pro democracy forces can not win against both the first (ruling party's forces) and
the third blocs (freedom fighters), who actually do have a potential to build a strategical alliance
against the second bloc of unity forces. Those forces in the second bloc should remember that
they lost the struggle in 2005 not only because of the action of the regime, but also because of
the support they lost from Oromos and other oppressed nations. As an e.g OFDM and UEDF
abandoned the alliance at the last minute, as they observed the danger CUD might bring by
reversing even the fake language based federation of the regime, in which at least a limited
cultural autonomy of nations is respected, if it comes to power.
Now G-7 seems to do the same mistake. That is why I dare to say, these people in G-7 are either
naive politicians or implants to sabotage the intention of the Amhara unitiy forces, for their
approach at strategically leads not to Ethiopian unity. If they realy want a lasting Ethiopian unity,
they have to agree to accept the verdict of the people. When the time comes, they can advocate
for the unity they do believe in, others will advertise the independence of their respective nation,
then let us leave the result for the people to decide. That is what we call the right to
self-determination. Further more if the parties in the alliance make a consensus to forge a union
of independent nations from the very beginning, all can propagate together their common vision
and allow the public to either accept or reject it. If this is the view of the Amhara pro-democracy
forces, there will be nothing to quarell on with the Oromo freedom fighters. Let the people decide
firstly on the type of sovereignity regarding independece within a union vs independence without
a union and then secondly after deciding for independece within a union based on free will,
people can yet decide on the type of federation we will have: language based federalism vs
geography based federalism. If this is the view of the bloc of Amhara unity forces, there is no
hinderance for the possible alliance with the bloc of Oromo liberation fronts against the bloc of
the ruling party aka fascist regime.
Other names for the language based federalism used by different autors on this topic are:
internal self-determination, national independence with regional union, self rule with shared rule,
national self determination with multi-national democracy, unity with liberty, union of
independent nations, united states of Ethiopia, genuine ethnic federalism, autonomous nations
in a federated Ethiopia, independent Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia...etc. Can this independent
Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia be fact or it remains to be fancy? To comprehend this, let's look
at the following facts.
Concentrating only on Oromo nation, Oromos' political move against Meles' admnistration is to be
grouped roughly in to three: 1- the struggle for individual freedom and democracy with in
Ethiopian context disregarding the national self-determination of Oromos. Oromos like those
rallying behind UDJ/G-7 belong to this group; 2- the struggle for freedom and democracy including
internal self-determination of Oromos (autonomous Oromia) in Ethiopian context, i.e accepting
the Ethiopian unity unconditionally. Oromos in OFDM and OPC seem to belong to this category; 3-
the struggle for independent gadaa republic of Oromia (external self-determination of Oromos)
either within a union or without a union of nations, which is represented by Oromos supporting
OLF and ULFO. After many years of struggle, now the trend is towards consolidating the struggle
in a coordinated move of the three groups. People in the first group started to recognize that
ignoring the right of Oromos to self-determination is no more possible because of the irreversible
growth of Oromo nationalism to demand self-rule of Oromia. Politicians in the second group
started to believe that they can not make elite-determination on the fate of the nation, at last
self-determination will be demanded by Oromo people be it this way or that way, what ever time
it may take. Those in the third group have learned to look at the importance of the first group in
a struggle of Oromo people and to accept the second option as the temporary compromise
solution, of course leading lately to self-determination deciding on an independence of Oromia,
be it within a union or without a union.
If rightly excercised, the genuine ethnic federalism is the good common ground for both the
Amhara pro-democracy forces and the Oromo freedom fighters. Therefore if G-7 gives up its stand
of having Ethiopian unity as a precondition for the possible alliance, the move of G-7 and OLF to
struggle together for freedom and democracy in Ethiopia is very smart and timely. Yet the two
organizations need to build a middle way compromise solution to their apparently irreconcilable
goals (OLF struggles for independent Oromia and G-7 wants to achieve an integrated Ethiopia). I
think any alliance similar to AFD is the best way to self-determination of Oromos as a nation and
to the democratization as well integration of the resulting union of nations in Ethiopia/Horn as a
region (a national independence with in a regional union). The result will be independent Oromia
in an integrated Ethiopia. This is not just a fancy, but a fact which can be realized
Last but not least, I would like to say: no empire in history has ever changed through reforms. It
was only the fall of empires that could set enslaved nations free. For democratic Oromia and
union of nations in Ethiopia to be realized, the Ethiopian empire must end and then Ethiopian
union can be forged. Sovereignty of Oromians over their country should be recognized. All
nations in the empire, big or small, should have equal rights to national self determination. It is
only if they are free that they can decide on their destiny. At the end, peoples of the empire and
many more can join in a union if they want so. There should be no other nation to decide on the
fate of the others, as Abeshas (Amharas and Tegarus) hitherto tended to do. The same is true
for all nations in Africa. Then even there will be a possibility for a united sate of Africa to be
established based on the free will of its entire nations and peoples. Even the two Abasha
nations, that have never had a say in the way they were governed, will get the opportunity to
excercise their own self-determination and elect leaders of their own choice freely. As long as
national domination persists, the struggle to liberate the dominated nations and peoples of Africa
shall continue. Now all nations including the two BIGs in the empire are suffering under the
domination of TPLF, just because of the political discord between the two nations. That is why I
would like to say the panacea for the current problem in Ethiopia is the co-operation of the two
forces having a language based federalism as their common ground and common purpose. In
short: the best way to get rid of the dictatorial regime is by forging the co-operation of Amhara
pro-democracy forces and Oromo freedom fighters!
Fayyis can be reached via e-mail: fayyis@yahoo.com
Ethiopia?
Published 08/12/2009 -5:00 p.m.
By Fayyis Oromia
Why was it easy for Meles adminstration to rule over Ethiopians in the last 18 years? Why even
will it be easier to rule for further many decades? If we put it simplified, it is just because of the
misguided elites of the two BIG nations aka Amharas and Oromos. Meles regime managed to
corner these elites and made those of the Amharas to cry for unconditional unitary Imiye Ethiopia
and those of the Oromos to sing about unconditional independence of Ayo Oromia. With that the
ruling regime could reserve the middle ground aka Union of Autonomous Nations i.e language
based federalism as its own position, so that it can accuse Amharas as ceneralist chauvinists and
Oromos as narrow separatists and make them fight each other. Some politicians in the
opposition have tried to neutralize this effort of the regime. For example, I do appreciate the
position of the visionary Oromo leaders and some Amhara leaders who signed the formation of
the alliance called AFD (Alliance for Freedom and Democracy), which took a necessary step to
deal with the regime's tactic of devide and rule.
It was already written that the ruling party's leader, Meles Zenawi, must have said:
Amhara-Oromo conflict, i.e the historical face-off between Oromo and Amhara, is a unique
historical advantage for Weyane to perpetuate its rule. He also said regarding the dialogue
between Amhara forces and Oromo fronts within AFD, seemingly rightly, that it is a marriage
between "fire and water (isat ina wuha)". To some extent this is unfortunately true. It is really
pity that these two BIG nations do live in a conflict against each other, which is just caused by
the hitherto ruling class of the empire and by the sponsors of the ruling class aka the European
colonizers, the effect being the fate of both nations to live now under the subjugation by minority
group of the Tigrean ruling class.
Disregarding the hitherto Abesha ruling class, actually both the Amhara and Oromo peoples were
victims of the European colonizers. The main conflict and imbalance of power between the
Amharas and Oromos started at the end of 19th century at which time the Europeans had their
programm of the scramble for Africa. It is said that the French colonizers used to move horizontal
between Dakar and Djibouti, whereas the British colonizers' move was vertical between Cape
town and Cairo. These two forces were about to confront each other in the Horn of Africa. To
avoid the confrontation the British colonizers had to do their usual manipulation in Africa:
choosing one ethnic group as a "superior", and using it to suppress the others which they
consider as the "inferiors". They told the Amharas that they are "superior" semitics and christians
who had to "civilize" the "inferior animist" Oromos and others in the south. They gave them
weapons and helped them by giving military advice. So the britisch colonizers controlled indirectly
the area without confronting the French army. With such manipulation, both the Amharas and the
Oromos as nations became victims, since then both are not free. The Amhara rulers being the
ex-servants of the british colonizers (as suppressors of the Oromos), both the Amharas as a
people and the Oromos as the suppressed subjects are still lacking freedom.
Now a days the Tegarus' ruling class plays similar role as servant of the American imperialists
again to suppress the Oromos and of course at the moment the Amharas are as oppressed as
the Oromos. Theoretically now there is nothing which can hinder the alliance of the Amhara
pro-democracy forces and the Oromo pro-freedom fronts to come together and fight for their
freedom and democracy as they attempted in AFD, but still there are practical problems. Both of
them need yet to learn. Amharas to stop their striving for mere unconditional Ethiopian unity and
Oromos to reconsider their mere Oromian independence without a union. The Amhara
pro-democracy forces pushing for unconditional unity makes the Oromo freedom fighters only to
be sceptical for Oromos know what the pro-democracy Amhara forces want to achieve with this
pretext. At the same time the attempt of some of Oromo freedom fighters to forge an
independent Oromia without giving the possibility for a union and without giving a value for the
benefit of a union among neighbouring nations makes the Amhara pro-democracy forces to panic
because of their thinking that they will be driven out of Oromia. Such move of certain part of the
Oromo freedom fighters seems to be as counter productive as the vehement wish of the Amhara
pro-democracy forces for unconditional unity.
Beside that, the TPLF regime do manipulate this "difference" between the two BIG nations to
creat more discord and make them fight each other. In order to neutralize such deed of Meles'
administration, very important now for the two nations is to concentrate on the common agenda
aka struggle for freedom and democracy. If both of them come to their senses and do rally
behind these two ideals, the other two virtues they want to realize aka independent Oromia in
an integrated (united) Ethiopia will be fullfilled indirectly. Is this impossible? NO! It is possible if all
nations in the empire will be free from tyranny, killing, and looting which is now happening under
TPLF. So our main problem now a days is the lording, killing and looting that all the nations in the
empire do suffer under the dictatorial regime. The victims from the two BIG nations need to wake
up and say together: NO to the fascist regime!
To achieve the durable alliance of the two forces against Weyane, these two BIGs need to forge
one common ground as a common goal. I do recommend as a common goal: union of
independent nations aka independent Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia as a result of a
self-determination of each nation. Till now, it was very difficult to get a common purpose on which
the Oromo pro-freedom fronts and the Amhara pro-democracy forces could agree. The Oromo
freedom fighters argue that Oromos must be free and be separated from the domination by any
meanse and then build a union based on free will. Very few smart part of the Amhara pro-unity
forces argue that Abeshas are the semiticized Oromos and Agews speaking Amharinya and
Tigrinya, so that Oromos don't have to separate from their own people, but they should bring the
semitized Oromos back to their lost origin and rather Oromos should have an appropriate role in
the politics of the country that fits to their size.
One of the reason's why most of Amhara pro-democracy forces take such a position is for they do
fear the disintegration of the empire they did build. So they even seem to do every thing possible
so that Oromo freedom fighters never have an upper hand in Ethiopian politics for they fear that
these fronts may opt for independence of Oromia. On the contrary, Oromo freedom fighters do all
things possible to hinder the come back of Amhara pro-democracy forces to power, for they know
what these Amhara pro-democracy forces are going to do, i.e amharinization of the whole
nations in the empire. The two BIG nations simply sabotage each other's succeess. As an
example we can look at the political moves during and after election 2005. As CUD which is
dominated by the Amhara pro-democracy forces was almost on the verge of coming to power,
almost all Oromo freedom fighters didn't give support. As OLF was in its highest point of influence
and forged AFD to be an alternative for power in Finfinne, it was the Amhara pro-democracy
forces in UEDF and in other similar parties who vehemently opposed the alliance. Simply put, the
two BIGs seem to have agreed subconsciously in accepting TPLF rule as a better choice rather
than seeing one of them come to power.
This mistrust between the Amhara pro-democracy forces and the Oromo freedom fighters is the
God-given opportunity that the regime is using to rule over the country as long as possible.
Unless these two BIG groups come to term and cooperate against Meles adminstration, all
nations in the empire have to settle for the rule of the regime not only for few years, but for
many decades to come. I think the two groups aka the two giant nations of the region should
agree on the common ground. Union of independent Amhara, Tigrai, Afar, Oromia, Ogadenia,
Sidama, Gurage.....etc as a result of their respective self-determination and even the union
including Eritrea, Djibouti, Somaliland, Puntland and Somalia (if they agree based on free will) is
the noble cause for which all can fight together. Not accepting this model meanse unconditional
separation of these independent nations as an alternative.
The question to be asked is whether Amhara pro-democracy forces do choose to settle for this
last alternative or whether they should be compelled to accept such fact as an alternative to
their refusal of recognizing a union based on self-determination. I know the members of Meles'
regime will accept such alternative of separation of nation-states as soon as they sense that
they may loose power in Finfinne palace. To compell Amhara pro-democracy forces to accept such
a union based on national self-determination, we just have to demote Amharinya to be used only
in Amhara region and we promote Afaan Oromo to be the only federal language. Then Amharas
will see that Ethiopianity will not be equivalent to Amharanet (as it is now), but it will be the
same to Oromummaa. In such a scenario of Oromummaa being equivalent to Ethiopianity, the
Oromo freedom fighters will definetly start to be pro Ethiopianity against "ethnicity" and the
Amhara pro-democracy forces will begin to defend their identity by opting for self-determination
of Amhara people, so that they support "ethnicity" and reject Ethiopianity aka Oromummaa. This
way, they can comprehend what it meanse to struggle for national independence within or
without regional union.
Till now certain steps have been taken by OLF to forge the common ground with Amhara
pro-democracy forces and to kill the ruling party, TPLF, in Ethiopian political history. The short
sighted TPLFites who are good at winning battles, but can never win the war, think that they are
killing OLF by persecuting and massacring Oromos who do support OLF. But these measures of
the regime gave OLF even more mass support of Oromos, which it didn't have till 1991. Further
more interesting is that OLF killed not supporters of the ruling party, but it took away the
existence of Weyane in Ethiopia in a future political long run. OLF did this by taking two very
important measures. In 1992 OLF denied the regime the legitimacy it needed in Oromia. With this
TPLF became the eternal enemy of Oromos. The ruling party could have made OLF its partner and
would have enjoyed support of all Oromos, but it formed OPDO and made its self allien to Oromo
people. In 2006 OLF formed AFD together with the Amhara pro-democracy parties like CUD and
with that it took away the very important instrument TPLF used to rule over Ethiopians aka
designating Amhara pro-democracy forces as centeralist chauvinists and Oromo freedom fighters
as narrow separatists, so that they be polarized. Now this instrument is dead and Meles'
adminstration is under co-operated attack from both Amharas and Oromos. Surely take it only 1
year or as long as 10 years, TPLF will die away like Isepa of derg. After loosing power, Meles'
adminstration will be remembered in Ethiopia as bad a regime as the Naizi is now remembered in
Germany. The coming Tegaru generation will distance its self from TPLF and will be ashamed of
this regime`s history just like the new generation of Germany is doing now regarding its
forefather's deed.
Actually I do appreciate the effort of the pro-democracy Amhara forces, who are trying to foster
the democratic unity of the region called Ethiopia. It is not bad to advocate such unity. As I
understood from their hitherto writings, they do use both religious and political methods to
promote and keep the unity. This is actually very dangerous combination, specially when used by
one and the same individual. I advice them as individuals to leave one method and persue the
other. The problem is that as a politician, one can persue the interest of the group he/she does
support, e.g an interest of the Amhara pro-democracy forces to keep the empire intact against an
interest of the Oromo freedom fighters to dismantle the empire and build a union. As a religous
person, one is morally obliged to think inclusive, trying to satisfy both the Amhara democracy
forces and the Oromo freedom fighters, which will bring him/her in to difficult position. Otherwise
in order to know what type of unity the Amhara pro-democracy forces do advocate, they need to
see the difference between an empire and a union. The Amhara pro-democracy forces use the
euphemy, unity, to mean keeping the empire intact. Just to put the difference in short, empire is
"unity per force" and union is "unity per free will". If the Amhara pro-democracy forces are the
believers of this second premise, then they also do risk that "the free will" of the people to be
expressed in a referendum can lead to independence of nations without a union instead of only
to the unconditional unity which they want to achieve.
Other wise, it is good to see that there is also a difference between a unity and a union. The first
is pre-modern, whereas the second is post-modern. In summary here is the difference between
the pre-modern unity and the post-modern union. I don't remember his name, but certain British
scholar classified countries in the world in to three: 1- pre-modern chaotic states like the artificial
constructs/countries in Africa, such as the Ethiopian empire, which the Amhara pro-democracy
forces seem to love, 2- modern nation-states like some mono-national-states in Asia and Latine
America and 3- post-modern union of free nations like those in European union. So, the Amhara
pro-democracy forces should see that African nations, including those in the empire, are kept as
pre-modern due to the arrangement made by the European colonizers and this is still being
perpetuated further by AU-dictators, who are dedicated not to change it. But we Africans need to
leave the artificial nations like Eritrea, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Djibouti, Somaliland, Somalia and Kenya
behind and forge the productive natural nation-states like Tigrai, Amhara, Afar, Oromia, Hausa,
Yoruba, Somalia...etc in order to be transformed our selves from the present position
(pre-modern), passing through the stage of modern status like an independent Oromia without a
union, further to the post-modern situation like an independent Oromia in a union with
neighbouring independent nations. This last status is the most beneficial one, which the
Europeans them selves are enjoying now.
I know Amhara pro-democracy forces do want larger unitary Ethiopia than the "inferior mini
states" such as Amharai and Oromia. I am also for the larger Ethiopian union based on the free
will of Oromos, which can be the result of a referendum. But I don't agree with the idea of some
Amhara pro-democracy forces, who do advocate for the unconditional unity of the empire, which
is dictatorial unity. On the contrary, the alliance between the Amhara pro-democracy forces and
the Oromo freedom fighters is the meanse to get rid of the dictator and the alliance can struggle
for the union of nations in the empire as a common END, i.e. as the goal to fight for together.
Some Amhara pro-democracy forces even, at least theoretically, do believe that the destiny of
the Oromo people should be decided by only the Oromo people who live in Ethiopia and "who are
also Ethiopians". If they really believe in what they some times write, that meanse they are
ready to leave the decision on Oromo destiny for Oromos. Then the question to be asked is:
what will happen if the very Oromos they do mention as part of Ethiopians do decide against the
unity which they want, but opt to build the independent state of Oromia without a union? Do the
Amhara pro-democracy forces accept it and move on or do they fight against it? Further more, the
pro-democracy forces should be clear on the type of unity they want to forge. Union based on
free will or unity based on force? Those who do advocate unity by force have their own
arguements. Specially it is interesting to read that some of them are trying to instrumentalize the
present American politics in order to push for the success of their own type of unity, which is
again an euphemy for keeping the empire. They do say just as American union was saved by
force, we will struggle to save Ethiopian union. Can't their "intellectual" mind grasp the difference
between the two "unions"? America is the land of immigrants being melted together to take the
American identity speaking only English. Do they want all the native "Ethiopian" nationalities be
melted to take such uniformity and speak only Amharinya?
As far as I know, even the most liberal movement aka Ginbot-7 advocates unconditional
Ethiopian unity, which is not the goal of the Oromo freedom fighters and not the wish of other
oppressed people who do fight for their respective self-determination. I am not against Ethiopian
union based on free will of all nations, but I am against forced unity of any kind, which disregards
the free will of nations like Oromo. If Ginbot-7 wants an alliance of purpose with the Oromo
freedom fighters like OLF, I just suggest that it accepts the above mentioned common
denominator, instead of talking about the unconditional unity. I also read that G.-7 is calling for
an alliance of all the Amhara pro-democracy forces and the Oromo pro-liberty fronts as a meanse
to get rid of the regime. I do appreciate this attempt, but my concern and the question I would
like to ask is: alliance of whom against Meles' administration?
As I understood till now, Ethiopian politics is kept in balance due to a fighting between the
following three blocs: 1- the bloc of the governing TPLF domination force; 2- the bloc of the so
called the pro-democracy forces, who do fight to keep the empire intact. This bloc does use
different tactics in the name of democracy, but its message is simple and clear i.e save the
empire from disintegration; 3- the bloc of freedom fighters of all oppressed nations in the empire,
who do first want to be liberated from the system of domination before trying to talk about unity.
For this group, Ethiopian union must be only the result of self-determination of all nations in the
empire. When the Amhara pro-democracy forces do talk about alliance against the regime, do
they mean alliance of only political and civic organizations in the second bloc? Or do they also
want to include those in the third block? As I understood from the rhetoric of G-7 leaders till now,
they already put a precondition for the alliance to be forged against the first bloc aka Weyane i.e
accepting Ethiopian unity unconditionally! With this precondition, they seem to exclude those in
the third bloc such as OLF, ONLF SLF...etc, who want to achieve a self-determination for their
respective nations. In order to include the third bloc in to the alliance they want to forge against
Meles' administration, G-7 people need to change this precondition and they should try to find a
common denominator with the third bloc. If G-7 activists are democrats in practice as they do say
always, I hope they will accept the common denominator and allow all nations in the empire to
decide on their own destiny based on free will, be it for an independence within a union or for an
independence without a union. Other wise the following questions will be raised: Does their
rhetoric about democracy include such demand of peoples to decide on their destiny? Or are they
the smart unitarist foxes in sheep's skin? Or are some of them just naive poleticians, being
instrumentalized to fullfill the intention of the extremists, who want to restore their domination at
any cost? I hope Amhara pro-democracy people will think and act independently from the hitherto
extremist minded conservatives.
The two positions, i.e the position of the Amhara pro-democracy forces (unconditional unity) vs
the position of the Oromo pro-liberty fronts (union based on free will) should be discussed and
debated before attempting to forge an alliance against the ruling party. Even when nations give
their vote to an independence within a union, then it will be mandatory to decide secondly on
which type of federal arrangement is to be accepted as suitable. The Amhara pro-democracy
forces are advocators of geography based federalism in contrast to a language based federalism
("ethnic federalism"), which is preferred by most of the freedom fighters. As "democrats", all of
them can live accepting the winner per public verdict. This is what UDJ wanted to achieve in
Medrek (FDD) . Actually UDJ got what it intended to achieve: §39 is rejected and if Medrek wins
the next election, the issue of the type of federation will be decided by the public verdict. Here it
seems the federalist Oromo parties in Medrek lost in the compromise solution. They didn't insist
to achieve the right of Oromo nation to self-determination and even they compromised the
further existence of Oromia because of the fact that if geography based federation wins, Oromia
will be dismantled. This acceptance of unconditional Ethiopian unity by federalist Oromo parties in
Medrek is like making a compromise on one's own wife, who is being raped daily by a neighbour
bully. If a certain bully from a neighbour goes in to some body's hause and rape daily the wife of
his helpless neighbour infront of her husband, the helpless man can only beg the bully to reduce
the rape action to help his wife get less pain. If the bully agrees to come every other day instead
of every day, that is the success for the helpless man. That is what Oromo parties in Medrek did
achieve by not insisting on the right of Oromo nation to self-determination, but just only
accepting the demand of Abeshas for unconditional Ethiopian unity. They are simply helpless vis a
vis the well armoured Abesha domination forces.
Now the question to be directed to the Amhara pro-democracy forces is: can't they extend this
philosophy they do apply for deciding on which type of federation, based on public verdit as
agreed in Medrek, also to the arguement: independence within a union vs independence without
a union? Doesn't this require self-determination of nations to decide on which type of
sovereignity peoples can have? Can't they imagine that the public can also decide on this issue
per a referendum? Doesn't their democracy rhetoric include this option? Can't they accept and
live, if certain public decides for independence without a union? Or do they go to the forest and
fight for the union they want to see? As I heard till now, G.-7 didn't even decide on the issue
regarding which type of federation to support. Benefit/cost discussion in cmparing the two types
of sovereignities, all the stakeholders of course can try to convince the public so that the majority
do accept their respective wish before voting. The Amhara pro-democracy forces can advertise for
the advantage of a union and the pro-liberty fronts can talk about the importance of an
independence. Of cource the compromise and the common ground for both groups can be
national independence with in regional union, which can be advocated by both forces if they
make a consensus on it. Then the alliance of both forces can try to convince the public about the
importance and benefit of this common goal aka union of independent nations. At last the public
should decide which to prefer.
Yet interesting is to read that some of Amhara pro-democracy forces fear that peoples can be
brain washed and vote against their own interest. It is simply wrong to think that peoples decide
against their own interest. If they do mistakenly vote against their own interset like the
Americans elected Mr Bush by mistake, let it be. That is also part of democracy! Do the Amhara
pro-democracy people want that certain force should have been raised and prevented this
election of Mr Bush or do they want that, just like Meles Zenawi did, certain forcefull person
would have taken away the victory and declare himself the winner? During elections, informing
the public before making the decision is some thing good, but just taking away this possibility of
decision making from the people is undemocratic. So my message to the Amhara pro-democracy
forces is that there is no half backed democracy. Either they accept it as it is, including the right
of nations to self-determination or they just stop acting like a pope of democracy and they should
stop condemning those who are undemocratic, for it is known that they can be also the same or
even worse if they get the chance to be in power. If they do reject such simple right of nations
being an oppostiion, it is imaginable what they can do if they get power: they may do worse than
what Meles is doing now. That the concerned people may be brain washed by interest groups to
vote against their own interest is the reality we have to live with. All nations do have our own
interest and each of us want to convince people that our respective position is right. By the way,
why should we call it brain washing instead of calling it convincing? It is about influencing people,
be it this way or that way. In America, the evangelicals were convinced and were successfull with
Mr Bush and now the quasi-socialists are successfull with Mr Obama. Where is brain washing? It
is about convincing the majority. The one who won the hearts and minds of the majority was the
victor. In the free and fair competition, for the Amhara pro-democracy forces who struggle for
unity, there is the same chance to that of the Oromo pro-liberty fronts (advocators of a union as
a result of self-determination). Their freedom of choice is mutually respected.
But regarding those dictatorial unifiers who are advocating unconditional unity without the option
for a public verdict, it should be known that they do take the freedom of Oromo pro-liberty fronts
by advocating such dictatorial position. For example, when they say "be Ethiopia andinet lay
anideraderim!", they are sending the message: you either accept this andinet or we will deal
with you. They don't say, we advocate for Ethiopian unity and then let the public decide. Their
approach is arrogant, dictatorial and uncompromising! To such people, Oromo pro-liberty fronts
also should say: "be Oromia netsanet lay anideraderim". Now how can the two groups who do
say "anideraderim" deal with each other democratically? The only solution will be a bullet, as it
has been till now. Till now the pro-unconditional-unity dictatorial forces won for the last 150
years and they "united" us by force. The Oromo freedom fighters call this as colonization, for it is
not a union based on free will. Some people with similar dictatorial ideology (TPLF seems to be
so) do now want to continue the status quo at gun point. That is why Oromo freedom fighters
dare to say: such forces are not open for the lasting solution, but they are still the causes for the
misery in the Horn region.
The question yet to be answered is again: do we see any possibility and any common
denominator for an eventual alliance between the above mentioned bloc of the Amhara unity
forces and bloc of the Oromo freedom fighters against the ruling party's camp? I suggested that
the only common denominator is acceptance of a common strategical goal aka a union based on
nations' right to self-determination. In relation to this common denominator, we can classify the
current political organizations in Ethiopia in to the following three roups: 1- on the right side are
"ethio"-nationalists, actually they are amharanists (covert ethno-nationalists) who want to see
Ethiopia with uniformily amharanized one people; they are geogeraphy based federalists who do
advocate for democratic federal Ethiopia where there will be no visible danger for future
distintegation, they actually plan to get rid of national areas like Oromia; 2- in middle are
language based federalists, who are usually known as ethnic federalists. They want to see
autonomous nations like Oromia determining their fate in their national area, but this group does
exclude pushing for the right of nations to self-determination per a referendum; 3- on the left
side are overt ethno-nationalists such as oromianists, who want to excercise the right of nations
to self-determination to forge a sovereign, independent republics of their national areas like
independent gadaa republic of Oromia within a union or without a union of nations in the
empire/region. I think the position of OLF is the third one i.e self-determination of Oromo people
per a referendum which can lead either to language based federation (a union of independent
nations) or to independent gadaa republic of Oromia without a union. Now coming to the call for
alliance by G-7, I think it is the alliance of all these three groups, who can agree on establishing
federal democratic Ethiopia per public verdict to decide firstly on the type of sovereignity: YES to
a union vs NO to a union and then if the choice is YES, secondly to decide on the type of
federation: language based federation vs geography based federation. OLF can be part of such
alliance for its vision of Oromo's right to self-determination leading to an independence within a
union or to an independence without a union based on a referendum among Oromos will be
accepted and respected.
Also in the Oromo liberation camp now a days there are three tendencies or directions: 1-
amharanist Oromos (amharanized Oromos) rallying behind UDJ/G-7 seem to claim that Ethiopia
belongs to Oromos or Oromos belong to Ethiopia and they say we have to fight for freedom of all
Ethiopians from any sort of domination, exploitation and subjugation. They are not against Afaan
Oromo beside Amhyarinya to be a working language of federal government as it is a language of
the majority. This group of Oromos are smart to claim some of Oromos' right in a diplomatic way.
2- federalist Oromos like those rallying behind OFC are supporters of the language based
federation, they want to see Oromia having its autonomy and its limited sovereignity, but this
group don't dare to push for the right of Oromos to self-determination, instead they seem to
accept the unconditional unity of the empire. Other wise they say other regions can be devided if
they want to forge geography based federalism, but this is not the vision of Oromos and should
not be the fate of Oromia. They look at the geography based federalism as a plot to dismantle
Oromia. That is why I do ask: can G-7 get support of this group? 3- oromianist national Oromos
include all Oromos rallying behind their different liberation fronts, specially behind OLF and they
want to achieve a self-determination of Oromo people leading to either an independence of
Oromia with in a union or an independence without a union based on the outcome of a
referendum among Oromos.
I hope the right oriented ethio-nationalists, who want to stablish Ethiopia with geography based
federalism and the middle positioned ethno-federalists, who want to establish a democratic
Ethiopia with language based federalism or with the assymetric federalism (having both
mononational states like Oromia and multinational states like SNNP at a time) will give up their
respective positions and they join the left oriented ethno-nationalists, who want to liberate their
respective national area and simultaneously forge a union of independent nations based on free
will expressed in their self-determination. To be clear, neither the vision to dismantle Oromia nor
the intention to dismember Ethiopia per force can lead to the lasting unity, which the Amhara
pro-democracy forces want to see. So I hope we can bring all the stakeholders to rally behind
the common goal of building language based federation or a union of independent nations based
on self-determination as a compromise solution.
Just as some of the Amhara pro-democracy forces seem to love the name Ethiopia, some Oromos
do suspect that this group does hate to see Oromia existing. When I do hear and read the
persistent rhetoric of G-7 leaders talking that acceptance of Ethiopian unity is the precondition for
the alliance they want to forge, I can just conclude that G-7 is simply an araada version of the
notorious chauvinists! They do exhibit the arrogant stand of "my way or high way", which doesn't
promot the Ethiopian unity they actually want to realize. I do believe that the only viable
Ethiopian unity should come from the free will of nations in the empire through
self-determination. Otherwise these people in G-7 can strive as long as they want, they can
never win the hearts and minds of Oromos and all other self-concsious oppressed nations
(excluding the mental slaves who are already acting to be more Abesha than the native
Abeshas).
Good is that G-7 fights against Weyane, but it seems to make no constructive compromise to
build an alliance with the Oromo freedom fighters. With that it already made a big obstacle even
for unity forces. Intentionally or unintentionally it is against the cause it seems to fight for. Sure is
that its bloc of pro democracy forces can not win against both the first (ruling party's forces) and
the third blocs (freedom fighters), who actually do have a potential to build a strategical alliance
against the second bloc of unity forces. Those forces in the second bloc should remember that
they lost the struggle in 2005 not only because of the action of the regime, but also because of
the support they lost from Oromos and other oppressed nations. As an e.g OFDM and UEDF
abandoned the alliance at the last minute, as they observed the danger CUD might bring by
reversing even the fake language based federation of the regime, in which at least a limited
cultural autonomy of nations is respected, if it comes to power.
Now G-7 seems to do the same mistake. That is why I dare to say, these people in G-7 are either
naive politicians or implants to sabotage the intention of the Amhara unitiy forces, for their
approach at strategically leads not to Ethiopian unity. If they realy want a lasting Ethiopian unity,
they have to agree to accept the verdict of the people. When the time comes, they can advocate
for the unity they do believe in, others will advertise the independence of their respective nation,
then let us leave the result for the people to decide. That is what we call the right to
self-determination. Further more if the parties in the alliance make a consensus to forge a union
of independent nations from the very beginning, all can propagate together their common vision
and allow the public to either accept or reject it. If this is the view of the Amhara pro-democracy
forces, there will be nothing to quarell on with the Oromo freedom fighters. Let the people decide
firstly on the type of sovereignity regarding independece within a union vs independence without
a union and then secondly after deciding for independece within a union based on free will,
people can yet decide on the type of federation we will have: language based federalism vs
geography based federalism. If this is the view of the bloc of Amhara unity forces, there is no
hinderance for the possible alliance with the bloc of Oromo liberation fronts against the bloc of
the ruling party aka fascist regime.
Other names for the language based federalism used by different autors on this topic are:
internal self-determination, national independence with regional union, self rule with shared rule,
national self determination with multi-national democracy, unity with liberty, union of
independent nations, united states of Ethiopia, genuine ethnic federalism, autonomous nations
in a federated Ethiopia, independent Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia...etc. Can this independent
Oromia in an integrated Ethiopia be fact or it remains to be fancy? To comprehend this, let's look
at the following facts.
Concentrating only on Oromo nation, Oromos' political move against Meles' admnistration is to be
grouped roughly in to three: 1- the struggle for individual freedom and democracy with in
Ethiopian context disregarding the national self-determination of Oromos. Oromos like those
rallying behind UDJ/G-7 belong to this group; 2- the struggle for freedom and democracy including
internal self-determination of Oromos (autonomous Oromia) in Ethiopian context, i.e accepting
the Ethiopian unity unconditionally. Oromos in OFDM and OPC seem to belong to this category; 3-
the struggle for independent gadaa republic of Oromia (external self-determination of Oromos)
either within a union or without a union of nations, which is represented by Oromos supporting
OLF and ULFO. After many years of struggle, now the trend is towards consolidating the struggle
in a coordinated move of the three groups. People in the first group started to recognize that
ignoring the right of Oromos to self-determination is no more possible because of the irreversible
growth of Oromo nationalism to demand self-rule of Oromia. Politicians in the second group
started to believe that they can not make elite-determination on the fate of the nation, at last
self-determination will be demanded by Oromo people be it this way or that way, what ever time
it may take. Those in the third group have learned to look at the importance of the first group in
a struggle of Oromo people and to accept the second option as the temporary compromise
solution, of course leading lately to self-determination deciding on an independence of Oromia,
be it within a union or without a union.
If rightly excercised, the genuine ethnic federalism is the good common ground for both the
Amhara pro-democracy forces and the Oromo freedom fighters. Therefore if G-7 gives up its stand
of having Ethiopian unity as a precondition for the possible alliance, the move of G-7 and OLF to
struggle together for freedom and democracy in Ethiopia is very smart and timely. Yet the two
organizations need to build a middle way compromise solution to their apparently irreconcilable
goals (OLF struggles for independent Oromia and G-7 wants to achieve an integrated Ethiopia). I
think any alliance similar to AFD is the best way to self-determination of Oromos as a nation and
to the democratization as well integration of the resulting union of nations in Ethiopia/Horn as a
region (a national independence with in a regional union). The result will be independent Oromia
in an integrated Ethiopia. This is not just a fancy, but a fact which can be realized
Last but not least, I would like to say: no empire in history has ever changed through reforms. It
was only the fall of empires that could set enslaved nations free. For democratic Oromia and
union of nations in Ethiopia to be realized, the Ethiopian empire must end and then Ethiopian
union can be forged. Sovereignty of Oromians over their country should be recognized. All
nations in the empire, big or small, should have equal rights to national self determination. It is
only if they are free that they can decide on their destiny. At the end, peoples of the empire and
many more can join in a union if they want so. There should be no other nation to decide on the
fate of the others, as Abeshas (Amharas and Tegarus) hitherto tended to do. The same is true
for all nations in Africa. Then even there will be a possibility for a united sate of Africa to be
established based on the free will of its entire nations and peoples. Even the two Abasha
nations, that have never had a say in the way they were governed, will get the opportunity to
excercise their own self-determination and elect leaders of their own choice freely. As long as
national domination persists, the struggle to liberate the dominated nations and peoples of Africa
shall continue. Now all nations including the two BIGs in the empire are suffering under the
domination of TPLF, just because of the political discord between the two nations. That is why I
would like to say the panacea for the current problem in Ethiopia is the co-operation of the two
forces having a language based federalism as their common ground and common purpose. In
short: the best way to get rid of the dictatorial regime is by forging the co-operation of Amhara
pro-democracy forces and Oromo freedom fighters!
Fayyis can be reached via e-mail: fayyis@yahoo.com
