Concern of Ato Ledetu Should not be Independent Oromia, but Integrative Oropia!

Concern of Ato Ledetu Should not be Independent Oromia, but Integrative Oropia!

I heard and read the main concern of Ato Ledetu Ayalew in his recent article and interviews. He is in fear about what would happen if Oromia will be independent. His worry is that an independent Oromia is tantamount to disintegration of Ethiopian. I think his concern is based on old Oromo politics. The Oromo had such vision of an independent Oromia at the time we were very insecure and powerless. Now, we are, to some extent, powerful and secure, so that we already made paradigm shift from following the goal of an independent Oromia towards persueing the vision of an integrative Oropia. We are convinced that Oromo led Ethiopia, where Afaan Oromo shall be promoted to primary working language of the federation, in the future will be defacto Great Oromia, which we also can call Oropia. I don’t see any reason why an Oromo of sound mind can opt for smaller Oromia, whereas we can own bigger Oropia with double size. Other nations at the periphery, like the Amhara of B/Dar, may choose an independence from our central government of Oropia in Finfinne, but not vice versa. That is why Ato Ledetu’s concern better be more about an integrative Oropia than an independent Oromia.

It is a known fact that Oromo elites have one common goal, i.e bilisummaa/freedom regarding the Oromo people and two options of walabummaa/sovereignty concerning Oromo land after achieving bilisummaa of the people. Now, we are free from domination of Abyssinian elites, but still we are oppressed by the Pro-Amharanet dictators from Prosperitan Oromo elites led by Abiy Ahmed, who are determined to keep the domination system of Amharanet/Amharigna. We are yet in liberation struggle to get bilisummaa of the Oromo from these dictators. After that, we will choose which type of sovereignty we want: democratic Oropia (democratic Ethiopia which will adopt modernized Gadaa system as its native democratic admnistration) or republic of Oromia as a neighbouring country to Abyssinia? I personally advocate democratic Oropia using Afaan Oromo as a primary working language, which will be de facto Great Oromia, i.e greater than republic Oromia.

We all have followed the once sad news of the Oromo in particular, and all Ethiopians in general, suffering in Saudi Arabia (in 2013). Jawar Mohammed reacted to these assaults on the immigrants in the Gulf states: “we must take back our homeland to end the Oromo national homelessness.” The conservative Habeshanized forces, on the other hand, tried to capitalize on this situation, as usual, and started their pro-Habeshanism/pro-unity by force propaganda – of course, again, attacking Oromo nationalists, including Jawar himself. This event persuaded us to shortly formulate Oromo people’s goal and look, especially, if it contradicts with genuine unity of nations and peoples in the country – Oropia. Oromo people’s political objective, regarding the type of Oromia’s sovereignty we want to have after achieving national freedom from any sort of alien rule, can be summarized in short as ‘self-rule of Oromia and/or shared-rule of Oropia.’

This summarized objective is goal of the people in general, but Oromo individuals and organizations can specify their aim by taking one of the three post-freedom sovereignty of Oromia and/or Oropia. For instance, the OFC wants to realize ‘self-rule of Oromia and shared-rule of Oropia’ (multi-national federation); the OLF wants to achieve ‘self-rule of Oromia’ (independent republic of Oromia); whereas Oromo nationals in multinational organizations like Ezema strive to foster ‘shared-rule of Oropia’ by making sure a transformation of the hitherto Abyssinian dominated Ethiopia to the henceforth Oromian-led Ethiopia (multi-regional federation). The three objectives are not as such disadvantageous for the Oromo, as long as the future rule of political game will be freedom and democracy (specially if modernized Gadaa system will be adopted in whole Ethiopia). That is why Oromo organizations can confidently forge any sort of alliance against the currently tormenting Biltsigina regime. The whole move of Oromo organizations should be with a purpose to corner this fascist regime in Finfinne palace, so that it will never have a peaceful life. Regarding the post-freedom sovereignty, we can look at six theoretical types of sovereignty. In political spectrum of the Oromo liberation struggle, there are the following theoretical post-freedom types of Oromia’s sovereignty:

1) An independent Oromia in a form of Gadaa republic of Oromo State

2) Confederation of free nations in a union, which we can further call Oropia

3) Multinational federation of Oropia (transformation of the present fake killil-federation to genuine federation)

4) Multi-regional federation of Oropia (formation of regional states based on many criteria, not only on languge)

5) Dis-federation of Oropia (Kenya’s model, in which districts, not regions, will have self-administration)

6) An integrated Oropia (a unitary state without self-rule of regions or districts)

Given the public will or popular sovereignty is the highest value, Oromo nation can have full right to choose one of the alternatives in the spectrum during the process of excercising our self-determination. But, from these theoretical possibilities, only three positions are entertained practically: the 1st, 3rd and 4th. Regarding the practical positions, there are organizations struggling in the name of Oromo – that are pursuing only the 1st and 3rd possibilities. The 4th position is entertained by certain Oromo individuals, who are organized under the name of Ethiopia within the so-called multinational (hibre-biher) parties. The classical examples are: for the 1st model, OLF; for the 3rd position, OFC; and for the 4th style, Oromo nationalists in Ezema. Common denominator for all the three positions is a struggle for freedom from Abyssinian system of domination. Their political difference on the type of post-freedom sovereignty can be solved per public verdict in a possible future referendum after liberation. That is why the pro-independence OLF, the pro-federation OFC and pro-unity parties can now work together against Biltsiginna’s domination and struggle for freedom in unison.

But, in short, we can actually put all the later 5 positions, from 2–6, as a goal for ‘an integrated Oropia.’ That means, in short, there are only two main types of post-freedom sovereignty: an independent republic Oromia chosen by the OLF and an integrated democratic Oropia opted by Ezema; the third possibility being the combination of the two – i.e. self-rule of Oromia and shared-rule of Oropia planned by OFC. Anyways, the question yet to be answered is: how can we achieve either of these types of sovereignty? By mere means of being part of the ritual – “elections”? On the process of preparation to chart the way to freedom, we did observe that Ethiopia’s repeated fraudulent “elections” did confirm the necessity of decolonization before democratization – the goal which we can never achieve per ballot under rule of the present fascist regime. Few years ago, there was a discussion going on regarding Ethiopian democratization (struggle for democracy) vs. Oromian decolonization (national freedom of the Oromo from any system of domination), which was firstly initiated by Addis Neger Online. The author of the article demanded that a certain Oromo Obama or Oromo Mandela take responsibility to democratize Ethiopia and give a lasting solution to problems of that region. What a nice wish and good demand! But is this a main objective of the Oromo? The author wrote his piece few days before the “election” 2010. He seemed to be optimistic about the possible “democratization and election in the country.”

Can such game of “election” lead us to ‘self-rule of Oromia and/or shared-rule of Oropia?’ To answer such questions, let me leave the oppression history in the country for historians and talk about the present situation under Biltsiginna’s rule. No question that the ruling dictators, the caricature of the original democratic orgs, is dominating all nations in the country with iron fist since 2018. What a pity for Oromos who died for the cause of freedom and democracy during their rebellion and struggled against the fascist Woyane! Which of them thought that certain Oromo organization, would be transformed into such a worse fascist rule than the regime they had fought against? Unfortunately, not only did the elites transform from liberation fighters into such fascist forces, but it also used to be an instrument for the only one dictatorial psychopath in the tip top. Now, there is noorganization from the Oromo as such ruling the country, but there is only one psychopath as brutal as Hitler and Stalin, who rules citizens and nations in the country with brute force and malicious manipulation. He gathered very submissive individuals with slave mentality from each nation in the country to use them as “representatives” of their respective nations. So, he got servants from Amhara, Oromo, Tegaru, Sidama, Afar, Somali, Benishangul-Gumuz, Gamballa, Harari and all Southern nations. Now, the current PM is doing the bidding of Amhara elites, who are manipulating him behind the screen. Is this a better condition for the Oromo to achieve our above mentioned objective – ‘self-rule of Oromia and/or shared-rule of Oropia’? Is taking part in the coming “elections” the right way to accomplish this objective?

The election in May 2021 was one of the situations where Biltsiginna could show the two bad methods (force and manipulation) for the sake of perpetuating its rule further. Individual citizens and national groups in the country have been intimidated by force, and manipulated by fraud in order to make the dictator and his followers “win” the election. It could “win almost 100%” of federal and regional parliamentary seats. This election was similar to those which took place under dictators like Stalin, Sadam Hussen, Mengistu and Meles. So, there was no surprise about the result. Why could not the country experience till now any sort of genuine democratic election? The answer may be as described below, in the following examples. Specially, elections in multinational countries like Ethiopia are competitions not only among political parties, but also among nations in the country for power and domination. In Ethiopia, the contest for power takes place particularly between the two Habeshanized nations (Amhara, Tegaru) and other oppressed nations, specifically the Oromo. The relationship between the Habeshanized ruling class and the Oromo nation is a relationship between colonizers and the colonized, whereas the relationship between the two Habeshanized nations is a competition between two colonizers, which is similar to the fight between England and France over Africa during their Scramble for Africa.

The past situation under TPLF rule or the status ante in Ethiopia was comparable, for instance, with a scenario that: a smaller nation Denmark would occupy Germany, France and other nations in West Europe, make Paris its capital city, choose German language as a working language of the “federation” it formed, call its whole empire as Federal Democratic Republic of Europe and foster a government, where only individuals from Denmark take key positions in government, military, civil service and security. Is this not absurd? Unfortunately, this was what Tigreans (our Danish) were doing today in Ethiopia (our Europe). They came to Oromia (our France); made their capital city Finfinne (our Paris); chose as their working language Amharinya (our German language) and tell us that the country they do now rule dictatorially is called Ethiopia. Then, let’s imagine Danish people, Germans, the French and all other nations in such “European empire” are going to election under government of the fascist dictator from Denmark. Can any one imagine that Germans, French citizens and other nations of Western Europe, under such a dictator, vote for the fascist regime dominated by oligarchs from Denmark? Can anyone think that such a fascist dictator from Denmark can allow the election to be fair and free? Can we really believe that democratization of such “European empire” dominated and ruled by minority group from Denmark be possible?

Ethiopia now is such a conglomerate of different neighboring nations, which actually deserve their independence, and it is only after such freedom of nations from alien rulers that democratization of nation-states can be easier and possible as already practically seen in Europe. The question we need to answer is why do European regimes want us to do, what they actually don’t do for themselves and their nations? How can they repeatedly come to observe such almost an impossible election in Ethiopia or the futile attempt of democratization in the colonized (occupied, subjugated and oppressed) nations? To use another example to describe this country with a system of domination, it is almost similar to Apartheid of the former South Africa. Was it expected that South Africa be democratic before dismantling the system? Why then is Oromo nation, in particular, and other oppressed nations, in general, suffering under the looting, subjugation and lording of Prosperitan oligarchs be expected to get our right per sham election orchestrated under such dictators? The only difference between South Africa and current Ethiopia is that, nations in South Africa were not colonized (dominated) by another nation from same region, but by white minority from Europe. That is why the answer to Apartheid was not necessarily decolonization in a form of autonomy for each nation. Being free from the system of Apartheid used by white minority regime was the sort of decolonization all nations together wanted to achieve. Can Oromo’s objective be the same to that of South Africans, which is devoid of national self-rule? Does opting for only shared-rule of Oropia be the same to South African model?

We can see that the first example of “European empire” is more appropriate to describe the situation in Ethiopia. If “Europe under Denmark oligarchs” needs to be democratized, no question that the subjugated nations like Germany and France should be liberated first. Then after, the liberated nation-states can have their fair and free democratic election. Of course, after that, the free and democratic nation-states can build union of free nations as they did in the form of the European Union (EU). I think this is a reason for the fact that they supported “disintegration” of Yugoslavia into free nation states, including the very small nations like Kosovo. These independent and democratic nation-states, with their own self-rule, are today part and parcel of European Union. If this method of achieving national freedom and multinational democracy is right for Europe, why do European regimes want us Africans move another way which didn’t work for them? The legacy of colonialism in the Horn of Africa, in particular, and Africa, in general, is artificial division of nations (ethnies), which they like to call “African tribes” per colonial borders. The colonialists either divided one nation to be included into more than two countries or clamped many nations together into one state (country). For instance, the only one nation (Somalia) was divided to be included into five countries (Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, British Somaliland and Italian Somalia) as well as many nations in the Horn like Agaw, Oromo, Afar, Sidama, etc. are put together in only one Ethiopia ruled by Habeshanized elites under protection of the Western regimes.

Almost all African countries are suffering under the consequences of such arrangement, and yet Africans are accused and blamed by these same self-righteous Western regimes for the lack of democracy. For African nations to be really democratic, they should first get rid of these artificial colonial borders; nation-states based on free will must be established. Only such relatively monolithic nation-states can vote freely during elections in a possible multiparty democracy of respective nations free from unhealthy competitions among different nations for domination. Otherwise, in multinational countries, where nations are put together by force like in Ethiopia, there will always be a competition of nations for dominance, not the necessary competition of political parties for power. There can be certain arguments against such suggestion to have nation-states as a prerequisite for genuine democratization, because of the presence of many small nationalities in Africa, which may not be in a position to foster a viable independent state. For such smaller nations, a federal arrangement like that of a genuine Killil-federation (ethnic federalism), which is formally tried in the present Ethiopia, is a good arrangement. It needs only to be genuine, not so fake as it is now. Each nationality can have its own autonomous province (state), zone, district or county within a voluntarily formed multination-country, based on its size.

Coming back to the circumstances in Ethiopia, it is just a pipe dream to expect democratization of the empire as long as colonial system of domination is intact. This system of domination was under absolute control of Tigrean elites from minority nation. Genuine and free democratization means loss of power for them, which further means lose of economical advantage they individually, as group of oligarchs and as minority nation did enjoy. It is simply a naivety to expect these individuals and the group allow genuine democratization, while they do know what the consequence of losing this power is for them. Taking part in elections under such regime is good only for using the process as one means of struggle against tyranny. The participation of Ezema and others in the past “elections” has got only this purpose. If there was anyone who expected the Biltsiginna to give up power per ballot, that was unrealistic. I personally have expected that a sort of peaceful public uprising had to follow the already programmed vote rigging. Unfortunately, neither Ezema nor any other political organization, be it “legal” or “illegal” was ready to call for such an uprising. This persuaded me to ask, what is then the purpose of taking part in “elections”? Was boycotting not better? Some would say, “it was better to expose the undemocratic nature of Biltsiginna.” Didn’t we do this during the elections in 1992 and 2005? Is this anti-democratic nature of the TPLF not known? Can it be different in any “election” in that country? If not different, then how can the Oromo materialize our objective – ‘self-rule of Oromia and/or shared-rule of Oropia’?

Actually, the best approach against such fascist dictators is only to fight them without any compromise. Beside the “legal parties,” which are accompanying the regime in sham elections, there should be underground organizations and armed forces, which are ready to force such a regime to give up grip of power it has in Finfinne palace. I had an expectation that the underground movement of rebel forces like the OLF and ONLF could make the public uprising possible following the already known vote rigging. Now it seems, this was just a wishful thinking of the few, including me. Where we know that Prosperitan oligarchs never allow democratization and even the reactionary unitarists are not ready to see the domination system destroyed, what should be the future approach? The few Habesha democrats, like those in Ezema should be determined to make an alliance covertly or overtly with liberation forces like the OLF and ONLF in order to dismantle the domination system (i.e. decolonization of all suffering nations, including the Amhara and Tegaru oppressed mass). Let me hope that very few from the conservative parties also follow the same procedure. Now, it is not a right time for opposition forces to talk about democratization, but for all to struggle for decolonization of oppressed nations together. Interestingly, Amhara nationals are starting to sense what it means to live under national oppression. Most Tegaru elites actually know it very well, that is why they fought against it until their struggle has been hijacked by the TPLF. Now, it is the time for such forces of decolonization from all nations to come together and figtht for freedom in unison.

What can be common ground for the decolonization forces from these different nations to forge a sort of alliance against Biltsiginna oligarchs? The common ground can not be either “unconditional independence without union,” which is propagated by certain liberation fronts or “unconditional unitary state without national independence,” the mantra which is always prayed by some patriotic forces. The way forward as common purpose can be a sort of consensus on the necessary union of free nations in Ethiopia, which is the goal of some democratic forces like the OFC. Hopefully, many of those from liberation fronts and patriotic fronts will give up their ultra-left and ultra-right positions, respectively, and come together in this middle position of democratic federalists. Unfortunately, Biltsiginna is still instrumentalizing both the left and right poles to make them fight each other and neutralize each other. This makes them not to be a challenge for Biltsiginna, so that it could balance the two poles for its own benefit. That is why we do hear, see and read Biltsiginna cadres being camouflaged as either of the two ultra forces to attack the other side so that it could seem as if the main struggle is between these two, instead of the fighting of all against the evil Bilitsiginna. I hope, at the end of the day, when these three freedom forces (pro-independence, pro-federation and pro-unity) agree on the above mentioned middle position, it will be very easy for such an alliance of all oppositions to engage Biltsiginna with appropriate methods to compel it to give up power, without unrealistically expecting that it will do this per ballot box. In case such consensus on the middle ground is impossible, then to pursue one’s program and leave final decision for the public verdict is an alternative, so that one of the three alternative goals in Oromo’s summary objective – ‘self-rule of Oromia and/or shared-rule of Oropia’ – can be realized. For the Oromo, even democratization of Ethiopia without an independence of Oromia per se, but with self-rule of the six traditional regions (Boorana, Baarentu, Arsi, Macca, Tullama and Wallo) is not a loss, as long as it will be decided based on the principle of respecting popular sovereignty of Oromo nation.

Such allied and united opposition can easily start a coordinated struggle using three best methods against the fascists: civil disobedience, armed struggle and public uprising. Taking part in elections should only be for the sake of facilitating these methods, not for the sake of taking power per ballot box as if elections are going on in a democratic nation-states. It can not be otherwise in the future “elections.” Democratization of an empire with colonized nations is practically impossible. Let’s first decolonize such nations, which are still suffering under the system of domination and, then we can talk about democratization of each nation in a possible union of free peoples. Trying to persuade us now to talk again about democratization process is simply one of the ways used by Biltsiginna oligarchs just in their attempt to fool us. So, we had enough election process to expose Biltsiginna in front of the “gullible” international community, which has either naively or deliberately accepted the Biltsiginna-led country as one of “African nations, which is on the noble road of democratization.” The OLF already exposed the undemocratic nature of TPLF in 1992, just a year after its takeover of power in Finfinne palace. CUD and UEDF did the same job of exposing TPLF in 2005; Medrek and AEUP repeated it in 2010; OFC did the same during 2015 “election”. The OLF and OFC exposed Biltsiginna in the last election process of 2021. From now on, we do not need this job of exposing Biltsiginna any more. This can not be the purpose of taking part in any future “election”. What we need is to come together, forge a necessary alliance based on the above mentioned common ground and then fight against the fascists, specially by using the above mentioned effective three methods (civil disobedience, armed struggle and public uprising).

Let’s first decolonize oppressed nations, i.e. get our freedom from Biltsiginna dictators, and then democratize all national areas of Ethiopia in the form of multiparty competition. Yes, democratization of the empire is impossible, decolonization should precede democratization, i.e. citizens’ and nations’ freedom should be achieved in order to exercise democracy. After decolonization (after achieving freedom from the system of domination), we can democratize all the decolonized nations, which can have a possibility to foster union of free peoples in Ethiopia on grave of the already existing Tigrean empire, based on the genuine free will of all concerned nations. Even if it is necessary, trying to democratize an empire is only a means to disintegrate its system, but not the end by itself. As a summary, in this struggle for freedom and democracy, the fact on the ground shows us that there are two lines of opposition movement against the fascist regime in the empire: the line of multinational federation as a prelude to an independent republic Oromia (the Leenco Lata line) and the line of multi-regional federation as a prelude to an integrated democratic Oropia (the Haile Fida line). If the two lines fail to foster a consensus in order to pursue one common line, they can agree on a struggle for freedom from Biltsiginna and for democracy (including referendum on the two lines) after the demise of Biltsiginna. Both routes and their results are not as such disadvantageous for the Oromo people. Can the two camps agree on these common factors (freedom and democracy) and cooperate to remove the current evil we faced in Ethiopia? Time will show us, but the Oromo polity must do every thing under the sun to coordinate the necessary cooperation of the two lines for there is nothing the Oromo people will lose if we follow both lines of freedom movements. At the end of the day, one of the components of Oromo’s summarized objective – ‘self-rule of Oromia and/or shared-rule of Oropia’ – can be fulfilled. We can finally achieve either democratic Ethiopia, i.e integrative Oropia or republic of Oromia. May Waaqa help us see these three alternative possibilities (an independent Oromia of the OLF, Oromia in Oropia of the OFC & an integrative Oropia (Ethiopia) of Haile Fida! Currently, it seems that the OLF already made paradigm shift from persueing the goal of an independent Oromia towards striving for the realization of an integrative Oropia!

Galatooma