Salisawi Menelik (Abiy Ahmed) Despising the Oromo Just Like His Father (Dagimawi Menelik) Did!

Salisawi Menelik (Abiy Ahmed) Despising the Oromo Just Like His Father (Dagimawi Menelik) Did!

Nowadays, there is an argument in Oromo community about Menelik. Is he our hero? Is he an Oromo? Was he our colonizer? I used to write about him in my hitherto articles. Based on my readings of Ethiopian and Oromo history, I came to the conclusion that all Habeshas are basically and mainly from either Agaw or Oromo origin. Especially, most of the ruling monarchs from Yekuno Amlak to Haile Sillasie were the well Amaranized Oromos. Menelik also belongs to this group. But, no question that he was brutal killer and despised the Oromo. His main mistake was neglecting Afaan Oromo and revering Amarigna, so that the state became an enemy of the Oromo. The same mistake is going on now by Abiy Ahmed (Salisawi Menelik). No question that both of them are biological Oromos, but surely psychological Amaras. They kept Amapia (Amaranet dominated Ethiopia) rather than fostering Oropia (Oromumma Led Ethiopia). No wonder to see Salisawi Menelik (also Oromo killer) celebrating Dagimawi Menelik. Fact on the ground is just like Germans don’t identity themselves with the German Hitler, Oromos rejecting Menelik is legitimate, even though he is biological Oromo.

Once upon a time, Hermann Cohn gave us a nice diagnosis describing Oromo elites, who prefer to rever Amharanet, instead of respecting Oromumma. This disease of Oromo elites is now rightly given the name Menelik syndrom. Surprisingly, Oromo rulers were despising Afaan Oromo and revering Ge’ez as well as Amharinya in the last about 3000 years. It started to happen  because of the beginning of writing in Ge’ez and translation of the holy books to this language. It is logical and natural for human being to respect and value language of literature, especially when it is associated with the worshiped divinity. This is the previlage which Amharinya got vis a vis Afaan Oromo. Thus, Oromo rulers and elites wished to learn Amharinya and neglect Afaan Oromo. Such tendency of being Ge’ezized as well Amharanized continued till the emergence of the OLF about 50 years back. It was the OLF, who attempted to reverse this process and taught Oromo peaple to be proud of our language – Afaan Oromo. It also promoted Afaan Oromo to be language of literature and that of holy books. Now, our people started to respect and revere Afaan Oromo. But, our rulers (Dr. Abiy et al) are still commiting the same mistake done by previous rulers like Mengistu, H/Silassie, Menelik, Yekuno-Amlak….etc. They all promoted Amharinya at the cost of Afaan Oromo. I think, the main cause we have to struggle for must be promotion of Afaan Oromo to the primary working language of Ethiopia replacing Amharinya. The main working language of the palace, the parlament, the cabinet, the court and other institutions need to be Afaan Oromo. All Oromo nationals can have this issue as our common agenda. All other issues are secondary to this cause of promoting Afaan Oromo.

Now, no question that Oromo nation is free from both assimilative Amhara elites and hegemonist Tegaru elites. The problem we do have is the very procrastinating approach of the OPP in answering Oromo questions, being very cautious not to offend its Abyssinian partners (APP and TPLF). Our hitherto main issue was that of bilisummaa/freedom. That is now already answered. Our here forth focus will be mainly on promoting Afaan Oromo to federal primary language. There is no justifiable reason to hinder this process. All other Oromo questions are subordinate to this issue. We can even opt for geo-federalism and for Finfinne as only capital of Ethiopia, not necessarily under Oromia; the common flag can be green-golden-red and the name of our country can continue to be called Ethiopia. As long as Afaan Oromo will be the primary working language of Ethiopia, surely the whole country will be de facto Oropia. The Oromo should not necessarily fight for self-adminstration of Oromia. Others can ask the Oromo for their either autonomy or independence. We need to fokus on consolidating Aangoo Oromo in Cafe Araaraa palace and promoting Afaan Oromo to federal level.

I started writing in cyber-world years back as I heard the disagreement between the “two camps” in Oromo liberation movement; there was a hot debate and discussion on the issue: “what is our goal: Ethiopian democratization or Oromian decolonization?” I was surprised as I heard at OSA conference around 1999, the debate between Obbo Sisay Ibsaa et al. (pro “decolonization”) and Obbo Lencoo Lataa et al. (pro “democratization”), who vehemently argued and quarreled. Then came to my mind: are these two groups and views really contradictory? I discussed in forums and through e-mails with the proponents and opponents of both sides.

I tried to take “neutral position” and look at the issue from impartial point of view. We discussed, and our discussion led to the formation of ULFO; we continued to discuss and contributed to the forging of AFD, and again we debated and gave our suggestion in fostering and consolidating the appearance of OFC as well as Medrek. I supported the formation of these major alliances and coalitions. Of course, I also tried to promote the merger into ULFO and the attempted re-unification of the OLF factions. Why did I try to promote such alliances, coalitions and unities?

I experienced difficulties and problems in the struggle of Oromo people since my childhood as some of my relatives were rallying behind MEISON, ICI’AT and OLF. I have seen how many of them paid with their lives and limbs for the cause of Oromo freedom. Unfortunately, I also observed how certain Oromo individuals and groups have been instrumentalized by our enemies to suppress our national liberation movement. A lot of them had served Derg; and nany were slave-servants of TPLF, who were acting against liberation cause of their own people and nation.

Specially, very damaging to our liberation struggle were the discord and division among our conscious Oromo nationalists based on minor perceived and real differences. These differences have been exploited by our enemies to make us fight each other and weaken our liberation forces. One of these perceived or imagined or real differences which hindered us from moving forward was the division of our liberators into “pro Ethiopian democratization” and “pro Oromian decolonization” nationalists.

Some nationalists seemed to believe that there is an irreconcilable difference between the two groups. I personally used to argue that this is fancy, rather than fact, if the conflict is really based on only such “difference of ideology.” I believe that these two groups were complementary and could work together, contrary to the attempt and suggestion of our enemies to make them contradictory and manipulate them to fight each other. I tried to explain the reasons why I do think so in my hitherto articles, essays and opinions. How far could I clearly put my opinion forward so that the concerned Oromo individuals and groups get what I mean is a legitimate question to be answered by the readers.

I specially tried to show our polity that they did have no “difference of goal”, as they tried to convince us, but there may be some other problems which hindered them from working together in a form of building alliance, coalition or unity. Theoretically, there was no reason why they didn’t try to accommodate both ‘decolonization of Oromia’ and ‘democratization of Ethiopia’ in promoting our cause. Oromo public (despite the “conflict” among our polity) was in a position to know that we had only one Oromo goal, and this objective has got three parts which could be considered as a possible three outcomes based on public verdict:

– strategical goal
– CORE goal and
– tactical goal

Democratization of Ethiopia leading to a true Oromia’s autonomy, if possible, was a good means to promote decolonization of Oromia. It was our tactical goal. So some Oromo nationalists, who were advocates of this could try to help us in democratizing the country. Our core objective was, to put clearly, an indispensable Oromia’s independence. Of course, we could have also strategical goal optionally, i.e. a possible union of free peoples in the region, which can be materialized after achieving our core goal. This is regional integration following our national independence for the sake of common economical benefit for all stakeholders in the region.

That is why I did argue that there is no need of paradigm shift in a sense of changing a goal as some people tried to preach us, but we can be in need of shift in a sense of changing tactic and strategy to achieve specially our core goal. What we desperately in need was an attaining and a possible consolidation of the effective and efficient means to achieve the Oromo common goal – freedom. I think one of the best means or one of the very efficient instruments we had to try to attain by any possible method was unity of Oromo activists. Most friends of Oromo struggle agreed with this, but there were few who seemed not to be happy in such move of Oromo nationalists.

For instance, I once got a constructive opposition against my push with promoting unity for liberty from a renowned Oromo friend, Professor Megalommatis, the opposition which was expressed in one of his articles. He asserted that Oromo is now more in need of dynamics as a priority over unity. As I got this message, I asked questions like: why does he try to equate unity with lack of dynamics or with inaction or with apathy? Can’t we have unity with dynamics? Why is unity seen as a vice rather than a virtue, which can help to achieve Oromo people’s freedom? Additionally, I expressed myself clearly that I am personally an advocate not for inactive unity, but for a very dynamic and efficient one.

Then followed a prompt reply from the Professor in an article with a title “The Only Path to Independent Oromia: How to Make A Dream Come True” which was published on Oromo Parliamentarians Council’s website. The Professor tried to show that unity in principle is not a vice in Oromo liberation struggle, but he argues that, at the current global reality, trying to forge unity is a futile exercise, and even if unity takes place, it will not work or function. His arguments and explanations for his assertion were as follows:

“… Now, I must admit that I have one additional reason to come up with an analytical explanation of the reasons I find it necessary for the Oromos to proceed in … unorthodox way in order to achieve their ultimate goal. An Oromo intellectual and political analyst, to whose earlier article I referred in my most recent of the aforementioned articles, noticed my approach and came up with another article that I certainly do recommend to anyone interested to understand the modern Oromo Kushitic political ideology, and to learn in-depth the Abyssinian practices of political division of the oppressed nations in Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia). Mr. Fayyis Oromia’s new presentation is indeed an across-the-board overview.

In his “Two Approaches in Dealing with the Gridlock of Oromo Liberation Movement,” Mr. Fayyis Oromia asked me why I equated tokkummaa with lack of dynamics … At this point, I will first clarify my purpose. I don’t know Mr. Fayyis Oromia personally, and therefore, I would be wrong to describe him as delusional. Through his texts, he appears to be an idealist patriot with strong background on topics of the Oromo culture and political ideology, and with firm devotion to issues of sociopolitical integrity and national identity. This does not make anyone delusional. Neither did I characterize Mr. Fayyis Oromia as such. In my article, I spoke of “a delusional understanding of politics, political realities, and national liberation struggle.”

There is a vast difference between a “delusional thinker” and the “delusional understanding of” some issues. The said issues (namely “politics, political realities, and national liberation struggle”) do not monopolize Mr. Fayyis Oromia’s mindset, knowledge, concerns, and interests. 9His understanding of the Oromo culture, sociopolitical values, the overall Oromo political ideology are very realistic indeed. Considering him altogether delusional, one would suggest that Mr. Fayyis Oromia has misunderstood his culture and tradition, and this certainly would be very wrong and unnecessarily prejudicial.

From Local Values to Global Non-Values
Neither do I suggest that the Oromo concept of tokkummaa (unity) is delusional and unrealistic. Actually, no delusional concept can ever be found in the traditional socio-behavioural system and political ideology of an indigenous nation; these systems emanated out of centuries long civilization and experience; they were every now and then thoroughly modified to sustain the societies they belonged in; this reflects an enormous experience and must, therefore, be viewed as a great asset, with all its constituent elements (every single concept, principle and value) being absolutely realistic and up-to-the-point.

Here comes, however, the great hiatus; the colonial expansionism of the Western European countries, the emergence of the modern Western societies (in striking opposition not only to the various indigenous systems, but to Medieval Europe, too), the diffusion of the Industrial Revolution, the rise of the Modernism, and the phenomenon of globalization reduced the said traditional socio-behavioural system and political ideology to nonexistence, and some cases to total oblivion.

This unfortunate development does not concern Oromo region only, but the vast Ottoman Caliphate, Safavid/Qajar Iran, Mughal India, Imperial China, and Tsarist Russia. Furthermore, it does concern even the countries that championed the aforementioned radical and unnecessary changes: the traditional socio-behavioural system and political ideology of the Ancien Régime in France have been obliterated.

Today, the Oromos (like the Azeris, the Quechua of Peru, the Albanians in Europe, and the Chinese along with so many others) are constrained to situate their struggle for National Identity and Cultural Integrity within a global system variably superimposed on the different local systems. Notice that I don’t make of the vital issue of National Independence a condition in this approach. Subjugated peoples like the Oromos and the Baluch are threatened with extinction by the non-values of the global system as much as sovereign nations (for instance, the Uzbeks, the Bosnians and Somalis) are.

And, here appears the “delusional understanding of politics, political realities, and national liberation struggle;” any effort of understanding (not Mr. Fayyis Oromia’s only) the aforementioned issues that does not come after an earlier accurate perception of the Modern Western world and its global expansion is delusional.

As the correct approach to any system is the same, namely to analyze it on the basis of its own elements’ historicity and evolution; you should not attempt to analyze the modern global system by means of Oromo criteria in the same way; it is wrong to try to understand Oromo values through use of Ottoman, English or Chinese viewpoints. Every culture and every civilization is accurately understood only on the basis of its inherent values, concepts, elements and their historicity and evolution.

But no culture, no system, and no people can avoid the impact of the prevailing global system, which greatly modified and altered the various local and regional systems. No people, no tribe, no religious group, no political organization remained intact and devoid of the global system’s infiltration. Failing to understand this critical subject constitutes a real delusion, too. And this is precisely the delusion I was talking about, namely a delusion in understanding politics, political realities, and national liberation struggle.

Unity Assaulted by the Prevailing Global System
To be more precise, certainly unity is a valuable concept, but it will not work now because it has been effectively targeted and successfully outmaneuvered by the infiltrating forces of the global system. If you want, unity could work in the late 19th century and the last decades of an Oromo kingdom because the Amhara colonialism was at its introductory phase of the colonialism system’s diffusion in Oromo region, and the modern global system had not yet emerged.

Why unity does not work among the existing Oromo political leaderships is very easy to explain, thus confirming my earlier statement. The global system has little to do with Telecom, IT, Finance and High-tech Defense; these are the paraphernalia. The global system with its paraphernalia would not affect the late 19th century Oromo leaders because they were empowered by a formidable immunity system, namely their personal and moral integrity.

The global system, of course, had not emerged at those days, but in the hypothetical case of an attempt of interference among the Oromos, undertaken by a global institution at those days, we can be certain that it would have failed. The reason is simple.

Before anything else, today’s prevailing global system is a mindset, an entire array of concepts, attitudes, considerations, behaviours, convictions and ideas that have been diffused worldwide by means of imitation, inducement, thoughtlessness, enticement, dissimulation, generalized tolerance, and moral apathy.

This aptly superimposed array or layer of concepts, attitudes and prefab common sense makes every act of political manipulation very easy because it is materialized on the earlier prepared layer which generates an advanced degree of relativism toward one’s own traditional values and mindset.

Multiple Divergent End Point Game
Consequently, when you have already ceased viewing the world through the eyes of an early 19th century Oromo, and you confidently become greatly assimilated into the global system, you will thoughtlessly tie yourself and your political group or association with the promises given to you by an American Congressman about Oromia’s liberation.

But, quite unhappily, another Oromo, who also believes frankly that he and his movement’s struggle for the benefit of their subjugated nation, will make a bond with the president of a small and marginalized country, who will be promising similar “delivery.” As it happens, behind the American Congressman and the marginal president, there are people belonging in the same decision making center, who by practicing the multiple divergent end point game, ensure that unity will never take place among the Oromos.

If they are successful in their evil game, it is not due to any deficiency of the Oromo system or values, but to the earlier diffusion of the above described global system (an array of mindsets and attitudes). Certainly, there are bribes, material goods, monies and other corruption techniques involved, but this matters little; if the same corruption techniques had been performed by representatives of two or more foreign powers before 150 years, the then-targeted Oromo leaders would not have reacted in the way today all the leaders of major Oromo movements react.

These are the political realities I was talking about. It must become very clear to all Oromos, and to so many other subjugated nations allover the world that, in order to succeed, a liberation movement in 2010 must be something totally different from the traditional form of liberation fronts back in the 1950s and 1960s. There isn’t going to be any Che Guevara revolutionary anymore; and if he existed, he would fail.

Today, you can hope to liberate your country, only if you, as a liberation leader, are out of reach for the world’s major powers and their dependencies. You must be unknown, unidentified and, if by coincidence reported to them, viewed as unimportant.

It is not out of a willingness to flatter the Oromo people that 19 months ago I wrote articles with titles like “Every Oromo: A Leader in the Oromia Liberation Struggle.” In fact, a great part of the infrastructure work (which is disastrously missing now) must be carried out before any leader becomes known to secret services and diplomacies of the Western powers. This is the reason for which unity with the present useless organizations is the first thing to avoid for patriotic Oromos. These organizations’ leaders may have all possible good intentions, but this is not enough. They have been corrupted by those who want them to insist on what each one of them pledges to the rest; and they will never unite because their financiers will not allow them. Imagining the opposite is sheer delusion …”

According to my understanding of the Professor, unity per se was not considered by him as a vice. But his argument was that the world power players and their regional servants, like the TPLF, used every possible way of manipulation in the global system of their domination and in their regional policy to make sure that the liberation forces (which are not in service of the interest of power players) like that of Oromo could never unite or even if they unite, make sure that the unity definitely would not work. I personally thought that I hadno “delusional political understanding” as described by the Professor, so that I did tend to de-globalize the realities which were affecting Oromo liberation movement. I was also full aware of the fact that leaders of Oromo liberation movement were under both material and mental influences as well as under possible manipulation of all big global power players and/or small regional players, who were also stakeholders in the Horn of Africa.

My only hitherto effort was to help Oromo nationalists be aware of the importance of this very important virtue (unity for freedom) and to persuade them to promote it, despite all the odds described by the Professor. But, I must admit that approach of the Professor was an eye opener for those, who were in a puzzle to get an answer for the repeatedly raised questions directed to our leaders such as “where is the hindrance or where is the conflict not to unite”? We now almost know that “difference of objective” which the leaders used as a cover was a farce. Can hindrances for them not to forge unity be the factors given here by the Professor?

Otherwise, despite such possible global hindrances, I was an advocate for a very dynamic and functioning Oromo unity for freedom. The alliances like ULFO and OFC have worked to some extent against the manipulation of both the West and the TPLF in dividing our liberation groups. Formation of the alliances like PAFD and Medrek was a nice move of farsighted leaders of oppressed nations against the dividing manipulation of TPLF in its game of divide and rule.

I hoped that the future leaders of Oromo liberation movement will try to think autonomously and will try to make themselves free from possible manipulation of global system of Western dominance as well as from local manipulation of Biltsigina and other forces in order to lead us to Oromo’s national freedom with territorial independence, be it within or without a beneficial union of free peoples in the region. I was not too naive not to register the fact that it was not as such simple to be free from such influences and manipulations, but I encouraged our leaders to do their best under the dire circumstances in promoting Oromo cause by forging and using unity for freedom. So, despite the global hindrances and in spite of the local dysfunctions told by the Professor, I considered unity for freedom as a virtue, not as a vice, for our movement!. Now, after freedom, the only thing Oromo nationalists should strive to achieve is Afaan Oromo as the primary working language of Ethiopia, Amharinya being secondary based on the number of speakers.  May Waaqa bless Oropia and the Oromo!

Galatoomaa!