Sunday, August 29, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Oromia: All Hands on Deck for the Stepwise and ‘Home Run’ Approach for Oromo Liberation
Aboma said (August 19, 2010):
Thank you, Gumaa Guddaa, for your insightful essay. The Oromo liberation movement should be protected by all means if those in the movement are advocating for changing course contrary to the interests of the Oromo nation. However, I do not think those advocating for a “paradigm shift” are really against the interests of the Oromo nation. In many ways, the “paradigm shift” is actually needed to show that they’re not against the interests of the Oromo nation; therefore, one Oromo group should not attack the other group since all are working on the same project of freeing the Oromo people and liberating Oromia – in a complementary way each enhancing the other to realize the Oromo nation’s quest for freedom.
As I see it, there are two camps in the Oromo liberation movement – each struggling to get to the mountain top where the Oromo people are free and Oromia is sovereign – and harmoniously existing with others in the Horn of Africa. One group of Oromo liberators want to get to the mountain top with one big step (the “big bang” camp, such as the writer of the above essay, Gumaa Guddaa). The other group, i.e. the 2nd group of Oromo liberators, want to get to the mountain top with several steps, which I call the “gradualists”. The gradualist steps include:
1) a step of solidifying the status quo, where Oromia is recognized as a federal region even though those administrating Oromia have not got there by the Oromo people – these are the genuine Oromos in OPDO
2) a step of changing the status quo to have a real federal arrangement in Oromia where those in power in Oromia will be voted by the people and do work for the people – these are those in OFC
3) a step where Oromia becomes sovereign and the Oromo people free – these are those in ULFO (the most important thing to note here is the “big bang” camp of the Oromo liberation movement is included in this step – including the writer of the above essay).
4) a step where Oromia, as a country with its own state, forms a Union with other independent countries in the region to form a Union of independent countries in the Horn
Now, it is important things to note are:
1) the “big bang” camp (the camp that wants to liberate the Oromo people and Oromia in one step) should see no problem if Oromia has a more autonomous status than what’s currently in place (i.e. why would the “big bang” camp oppose OFC? – I see no reason).
2) the “big bang” camp should never drop the struggle to get to the mountain top with one giant jump. If there’s anyone who advocates that the “big bang” camp should be opposed, I’ll be the first to denounce that group, so does each and every Oromo person. Each and every Oromo will rise up to defeat the defeatists because I do not want, and the Oromo people do not desire, the mountain top to be where OFC wants to get us to. Our mountain top is where the Oromo people are free, Oromia is sovereign, and Oromia is a regional player in the Horn by uniting with others in a Union.
The paradigm shift is really not an attempt by some quarters to make Oromo wear the Abyssinian mask. Not at all. The paradigm shift being requested is for all Oromo man or woman, young or old, rich or poor, Christian or Muslim, East or West or South or North, to line up to defend the interests of the Oromo nation in the ways that they see fit – by coordinating the struggle through the genuine OPDO holding fake power (but defending the base regardless), through the OFC federalists now opposing the racist colonialist at home, through the ULFO liberators rebelling against the Abyssinian System of Domination for whom victory is the complete dismantling of the Abyssinian System of Domination in Oromia to be realized with one “big bang” process (i.e. revolution), and through the Unionists who are advocating for the post independence Oromia to become a regional player in the Horn of Africa by forming alliances with others that will culminate with a Union of independent nations.
The paradigm shift that’s being requested is for the “big bang” group to acknowledge the achievements so far registered by the gradual, but sure steps taken by the Oromo liberation movement: the land reform of 1975 (in which Oromo leaders Baro Tumsa, Zegeye Asfaw and Abiyu Geleta played tremendous roles), the 1991 power sharing with TPLF (in which Oromia was put on the map, the Qubee was instituted as an alphabet and Afan Oromo was started to be used as the official language of Oromia – Oromo leaders Ibsa Gutama and others played tremendous roles in instituting Afan Oromo as an official language of Oromia and introducing Qubee in 1991/92). These crucial steps were the results that gave the Oromo people the confidence to walk tall with chins up! The 100-years of demoralization by the enemy has left the Oromo with eroded self-confidence as Oromo – without the land reform and the realization of Oromia, the Qubee generation – the generation with utmost confidence in being Oromo – would not have been realized today.
The small steps we, as the Oromo nation, take today may seem a betrayal of the cause for which thousands unselfishly gave up their lives – but the Oromo struggle should go through a paradigm shift of having several steps that are achievable given the political conditions in the Empire, the Horn of African region and the world. By having these several steps, we’ll be a step closer to the mountain top (not a step behind). Was the 1975 land reform a step behind because Oromia did not become independent right there and then? Was the 1991 realization of Oromia and Qubee a step behind because Oromia did not become independent right there and then? Once we get a step closer to the mountain top, no one will force us to go back because the people will rise up to defend the status quo (at minimum) and/or to further advance the struggle towards the mountain top. Any group taking the Oromo a step closer should, therefore, be supported even though we may not necessarily support how small a leap they want to take us … in other words, genuine Oromos in OPDO have no leap (they are defending the status quo thus far achieved for Oromia), the OFC wants to make a leap towards an autonomous Oromia (great, let us not oppose an autonomous Oromia), the ULFO wants to make a giant leap towards the mountain top of free Oromia (great, let us not oppose the free Oromia), and the Unionists want to make the final leap to the mountain top (great, once we have an independent Oromia, the next step is naturally becoming a regional player, doing so with the Unionists should not be opposed).
Let us all rally behind the all those who struggle for the interests of the Oromo nation; let no Oromo condemn another Oromo unless regression is seen in them. The paradigm shift is on how we look at the struggle, not on where the struggle should go. The struggle has the target to take us to ONE MOUNTAIN TOP – we should not fight over how we get to that mountain top (the “big bang” camp should acknowledge, and coordinate with, those struggling to take the Oromo to the top using several intermediary steps.)
Thank you for your time.
Aboma said (August 21, 2010):
First, thank you Gadaa.com for emphasizing some of the statements I made in my previous post. You guys rock!
Hordofaa Dhugaa, I apologize if I used the term ‘camp’ to mean anything, but ‘group.’ I am not a big fan of political jargon, which obscures communicating with all members of the society. That said, let me get back to some of the points you raised regarding my comment.
Why do the different groups in the Oromo liberation movement oppose each other?
- The way I understand the ‘paradigm shift’ (or you can say the ‘paradigm shift’ I advocate for) is for the different Oromo groups to see that each group is struggling to secure the interests of the Oromo nation, but with varied scopes, such as the genuine OPDO working to secure the cultural/linguistic liberation so far achieved (even though, politically Oromos are still in slavery and colonization), the federalists in OFC working to secure partial political liberation through real federalism (autonomous status for Oromia), and then the liberators in ULFO (and also a faction of OLF called QC) working to secure full political liberation through rebellion (sovereign Oromia), and finally the unionists in a faction of OLF called Shane working to secure a Union of independent nations in the Horn (thus creating a strong Oromia that’s also a key regional player).
Now, those in ULFO/QC_OLF group (the one I called the “big bang” group in my earlier post) do see the two steps as diversions from the real struggle of the Oromo people (i.e. securing a sovereign Oromia). The two steps seen as diversions by the “big bang” group are: 1) OFC’s struggle for Oromia’s autonomy, and 2) Shane_OLF’s moves to secure a regional alliance (here, let me be clear that I don’t know the scope of the alliance Shane_OLF is seeking – is it a Union of independent nations or an autonomy of Oromia in the Ethiopian context?)
It is totally understandable if the ULFO/QC_OLF group sees the two steps as diversions only if these steps were meant to work AGAINST the interests of the Oromo people. However, the two steps given above are not diversions, but are actually needed to conduct a full-fledged (mature) struggle — in other words, the two steps are must have’s.
The conflict in the Oromo liberation movement (i.e. Shane vs. QC), I think, arises:
1) from ULFO/QC_OLF – not fully understanding the real intentions of the Shane (i.e. make the Oromo struggle one that plays on all fields (i.e. autonomy, sovereignty, and regional player for a free Oromia/Union) rather than only be limited to one step of struggle for ’sovereignty’), and
2) from Shane – for trying to rewrite one step of the struggle (i.e. the sovereignty step) that is the base of the Oromo liberation movement. Shane wanted to play on all fields (including the sovereignty step), but forgot to NEVER lose its base (which is the sovereignty step). Remember what happened to Senator McCain during the presidential election in 2008 in U.S.A., Senator McCain was impressing most fields of the Republican party and even some nonpartisan independents at the expense of the base of the Republican party (i.e. the conservatives) in the years leading to 2008. What happened to McCain on election day in 2008? – the base of the Republican party did not go out to vote for him. Being a Republican party candidate (loved by independents and some moderate Republicans) alone was not enough for him to secure the presidency. Never, never, never lose your base!
3) from some egotistical infighting – When the air of discourse is filled with major politicians who have dedicated their entire lifetimes (with the memories of their fallen comrades in their minds), a discussion on changing tactics could quickly be misunderstood as changing kaayyoo.
That is why I think what Gadaa.com is doing here should be acknowledged as it created a forum where we iron out, not only our differences, but also our misunderstandings about one another. So far, I have been a non-aligned observer; from now on, I will pitch in my views and opinions as the stakes are high for the Oromo this time around. We can not, WE MUST NOT, let petty misunderstandings, that we have about each other, get in the way of securing steps that will get us closer to the mountain top.
Having said that, those in QC_OLF should join ULFO and secure the base of the Oromo liberation movement. I do not believe that if Shane wants to play on all fields as it’s proposing now that QC_OLF should unite with Shane. I think ULFO has gained enough political assets in the 2000’s (in the decade following its formation) as the base of the Oromo liberation movement it can now operate side by side with Shane (the group that should coordinate the liberation struggle on all fronts: autonomy, sovereignty and Union). By doing this, we address the concern of QC (i.e. OLF should now become a pan-Oromo organization, by “pan” I mean ‘embracing all political options available at a given time and situation’); we also address the reckless move of Shane (i.e. we secure the base with a strong ULFO).
I totally understand QC would like to continue as ‘OLF’ as it has also won the case in the Minnesotan court, but the court of public opinion says QC should join ULFO and strength the base of the Oromo liberation movement.
I think I’ve addressed all of the questions raised by Hordofaa Dhugaa in one or another way. But, I just want to make one point clearer.
Make no mistake, I have already mentioned it in my previous post, any group that wants the “big bang” (ULFO/QC) group of the Oromo liberation movement to disband commits treason against the Oromo people. The ultimate goal of the Oromo liberation movement is not to be an autonomy (State) in Ethiopia, but to make Oromia become a sovereign state.
However, because the Oromo liberation movement, as a whole, is weak militarily (by design or by unforeseen circumstances), we need to have a politically versatile tactic in which we get up the mountain top inch by inch, yard by yard, foot by foot, mile by mile (that is to say:
1) we moved to the base called “OPDO Oromia” in 1991 and is now secured that with genuine OPDO’s (don’t get me wrong, this base was first secured by the OLF tactical move to join the power sharing TGE in 1991),
2) then we need to move to the base called “OFC Oromia” and secure that,
3) then we MUST move to the base called “ULFO Oromia” and secure that, and
4) ultimately, we need to transform Oromia into a Horn of African regional player by SEEKING a Union with all other WILLING nations – which, I think, is Shane’s vision, so I’ll call it “OLF OROMIA”.
In short, QC and Shane are both correct, let us all call what has so far transpired between these two groups as a mere misunderstanding, and MOVE ON – in the future, we’ll constructively criticize each other, and most importantly, coordinate the OROMO CAUSE.
Why should ULFO/QC cooperate with Shane/OLF? (Posing a question to myself and trying to take a stab at it, if you allow me):
You remember what I referred as the “big bang” group and the “gradualists”?
1) The “big bang” group (ULFO/QC) would like to see a freed Oromo nation and a sovereign Oromia accomplished in one big major step (similar to a revolution). Do we really want that kind of drastic change in the Horn of Africa – the most conflict prone region of the world, I mean, HORN OF AFRICA is what you’ll see in the dictionary under “conflict”. I am not saying it’s not achievable, just saying it’s not sustainable. Enemies surrounding Oromia will play us against each other along clan lines, religious lines, and what not. I rather have gradual changes that will result in a sustainable outcome instead of a revolution.
2) The “gradualist” group (genuine OPDO/OFC/Shane) will take them time (I’m talking about ‘excruciating time’ that may drive some folks to think the Oromo liberation movement is dead); the reason being the enemy does not want to morph (change) into an advocate for the Oromo cause. The enemy will be changed only by FORCE or imminent danger to the status quo. The enemy will not hand over the key to Oromia however gradual we make the struggle. Therefore, we need the “big bang” group to bring about imminent danger to the enemy’s status quo.Malcolm X & MLK: Two Men, One Vision!
Source: Google Video Do you know where I’m getting at? Yes, the “big bang” (ULFO/QC) group and the “gradualists” (genuine OPDO/OFC/Shane) should work hand in glove with each other in order to bring about a change (i.e. move to a step closer to the mountain top), and then grab and secure the newly acquired base, respectively. Let me throw another example of mine: without Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King would have been a dove without wings during the American Civil Rights movement. Purposely or unknowingly, Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King both waged the struggle in a ’squeeze and grab’ fashion (let’s not go into detail of who the squeezer was, and who the grabber was – I think that’s clear!); and Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream was able to fly to the White House some 40 years later because it has had wings.
Over the last 20 years, we squeezed the enemy, but failed to grab achievements along the way because the struggle was designed in such a way that we grabbed all of it, but not some of it. So far, over the last 20 years since the fascist TPLF came to power, we have simply wasted time securing the same base, which I called it above, as “OPDO Oromia.” We have not moved an inch to “OFC Oromia” because the enemy has worked us up to divide and colonize us. Isn’t it in 2008 there even came about the “OFC” step? Very late in the game. The reason for this is the enemy was distracting us by dividing the Oromo liberation movement, by trying to undermine the current base (here, I am referring to the Finfinne debacle as the capital of Oromia or not), and by constantly throwing obstacles while we are on our way to “OFC Oromia.” The era of the enemy defining the course of actions MUST END NOW! The ULFO/QC and Shane groups in the Oromo liberation movement should wise up to drive the enemy (both the old and the neo) into total disarray by securing the base firmly (ULFO/QC) and by allowing Shane/OLF to play on all fields leading to the mountain top.
One more analogy to describe the base-by-base (inch by inch) approaches of conducting the struggle in steps (genuine OPDO, OFC, and OLF) and also in full swing (ULFO/QC) – this is for those who are fans of Baseball:
*** Baseball – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball– in baseball, victory comes by going from base to base (first base, then second base, and then third base – and finally, home). One player stands at the home base with a bat and with a determined mind to dash for the first base as soon as he hits the ball coming from the pitcher (who stands at the center of the diamond-shaped arrangement for the bases.) How far the batting player moves to secure bases depends on how far he hits the ball and how fast the field players (who’re on the side of the pitcher) bring back the ball to the pitcher. He can run to first base, secure it, then make his move to the second base if the ball has not come back to the pitcher, and so on. He may also be lucky and make a “home run” – which is the ball is outside of the field, and the field players can not get to it, so the batting player just dashes from first base, to second, to third, and then home.
== The reason I brought up the baseball game here is to show that “home run” (the “big bang” proponents – ULFO/QC) do advocate for the spectacular finish of the Oromo struggle, similar to the “home run” of the Eritrean case (remember that Eritrea did not have to worry about autonomy as part of the option in 1991 – they just made a ‘home run’ for complete liberation from Ethiopia, but it took 30 years of unabated war and a determined core Central Committee with a dictator in charge). But, what most people forget in the Eritrean case is Shabia was not completely opposed to ‘autonomy’ – it was Mengistu who saw ‘autonomy’ as a defeat of “ETHIOPIA.” The Oromo liberation movement is completely different from that of the Eritrean case – we do not believe in the “core” dictatorship – our struggle is based on the Gadaa system, thus consensus of those in charge is encouraged and ALLOWED; in the Eritrean case, any critical view of their struggle may land you six feet under.
== But, just because a ‘home run’ is what makes the struggle spectacular should not prevent us from getting to an intermediary base (just like baseball) and securing that base at all cost, and then dashing to the next base leading us to the home base (i.e. the mountain top). Let’s hit the ball as far as we can get it, and make a dash for the home (the ‘mountain top’) in a ‘home run’, if possible, or by moving from base to base, if that’s what we must do.
Let ULFO/QC secure the Oromo liberation movement; and let Shane as OLF play in all fields with or without alliance with or without Abyssinian forces.
May Waqaa wise up all groups in the Oromo liberation movement and give them the courage to make the inevitable dash for the ‘mountain top’ step by step, and/or in a ‘home run.’
I think what makes my view different from Fayyis Oromia’s view is he’d like QC to stop calling a spade a spade. I say calling a spade a spade is QC/ULFO’s job, but only if the spade is Abyssinian. NO more intra-Oromo liberation movement vilification, but constructive criticism should be
Aboma’s comments were posted under the article by Gumaa Guddaa
Thank you, Gumaa Guddaa, for your insightful essay. The Oromo liberation movement should be protected by all means if those in the movement are advocating for changing course contrary to the interests of the Oromo nation. However, I do not think those advocating for a “paradigm shift” are really against the interests of the Oromo nation. In many ways, the “paradigm shift” is actually needed to show that they’re not against the interests of the Oromo nation; therefore, one Oromo group should not attack the other group since all are working on the same project of freeing the Oromo people and liberating Oromia – in a complementary way each enhancing the other to realize the Oromo nation’s quest for freedom.
As I see it, there are two camps in the Oromo liberation movement – each struggling to get to the mountain top where the Oromo people are free and Oromia is sovereign – and harmoniously existing with others in the Horn of Africa. One group of Oromo liberators want to get to the mountain top with one big step (the “big bang” camp, such as the writer of the above essay, Gumaa Guddaa). The other group, i.e. the 2nd group of Oromo liberators, want to get to the mountain top with several steps, which I call the “gradualists”. The gradualist steps include:
1) a step of solidifying the status quo, where Oromia is recognized as a federal region even though those administrating Oromia have not got there by the Oromo people – these are the genuine Oromos in OPDO
2) a step of changing the status quo to have a real federal arrangement in Oromia where those in power in Oromia will be voted by the people and do work for the people – these are those in OFC
3) a step where Oromia becomes sovereign and the Oromo people free – these are those in ULFO (the most important thing to note here is the “big bang” camp of the Oromo liberation movement is included in this step – including the writer of the above essay).
4) a step where Oromia, as a country with its own state, forms a Union with other independent countries in the region to form a Union of independent countries in the Horn
Now, it is important things to note are:
1) the “big bang” camp (the camp that wants to liberate the Oromo people and Oromia in one step) should see no problem if Oromia has a more autonomous status than what’s currently in place (i.e. why would the “big bang” camp oppose OFC? – I see no reason).
2) the “big bang” camp should never drop the struggle to get to the mountain top with one giant jump. If there’s anyone who advocates that the “big bang” camp should be opposed, I’ll be the first to denounce that group, so does each and every Oromo person. Each and every Oromo will rise up to defeat the defeatists because I do not want, and the Oromo people do not desire, the mountain top to be where OFC wants to get us to. Our mountain top is where the Oromo people are free, Oromia is sovereign, and Oromia is a regional player in the Horn by uniting with others in a Union.
The paradigm shift is really not an attempt by some quarters to make Oromo wear the Abyssinian mask. Not at all. The paradigm shift being requested is for all Oromo man or woman, young or old, rich or poor, Christian or Muslim, East or West or South or North, to line up to defend the interests of the Oromo nation in the ways that they see fit – by coordinating the struggle through the genuine OPDO holding fake power (but defending the base regardless), through the OFC federalists now opposing the racist colonialist at home, through the ULFO liberators rebelling against the Abyssinian System of Domination for whom victory is the complete dismantling of the Abyssinian System of Domination in Oromia to be realized with one “big bang” process (i.e. revolution), and through the Unionists who are advocating for the post independence Oromia to become a regional player in the Horn of Africa by forming alliances with others that will culminate with a Union of independent nations.
The paradigm shift that’s being requested is for the “big bang” group to acknowledge the achievements so far registered by the gradual, but sure steps taken by the Oromo liberation movement: the land reform of 1975 (in which Oromo leaders Baro Tumsa, Zegeye Asfaw and Abiyu Geleta played tremendous roles), the 1991 power sharing with TPLF (in which Oromia was put on the map, the Qubee was instituted as an alphabet and Afan Oromo was started to be used as the official language of Oromia – Oromo leaders Ibsa Gutama and others played tremendous roles in instituting Afan Oromo as an official language of Oromia and introducing Qubee in 1991/92). These crucial steps were the results that gave the Oromo people the confidence to walk tall with chins up! The 100-years of demoralization by the enemy has left the Oromo with eroded self-confidence as Oromo – without the land reform and the realization of Oromia, the Qubee generation – the generation with utmost confidence in being Oromo – would not have been realized today.
The small steps we, as the Oromo nation, take today may seem a betrayal of the cause for which thousands unselfishly gave up their lives – but the Oromo struggle should go through a paradigm shift of having several steps that are achievable given the political conditions in the Empire, the Horn of African region and the world. By having these several steps, we’ll be a step closer to the mountain top (not a step behind). Was the 1975 land reform a step behind because Oromia did not become independent right there and then? Was the 1991 realization of Oromia and Qubee a step behind because Oromia did not become independent right there and then? Once we get a step closer to the mountain top, no one will force us to go back because the people will rise up to defend the status quo (at minimum) and/or to further advance the struggle towards the mountain top. Any group taking the Oromo a step closer should, therefore, be supported even though we may not necessarily support how small a leap they want to take us … in other words, genuine Oromos in OPDO have no leap (they are defending the status quo thus far achieved for Oromia), the OFC wants to make a leap towards an autonomous Oromia (great, let us not oppose an autonomous Oromia), the ULFO wants to make a giant leap towards the mountain top of free Oromia (great, let us not oppose the free Oromia), and the Unionists want to make the final leap to the mountain top (great, once we have an independent Oromia, the next step is naturally becoming a regional player, doing so with the Unionists should not be opposed).
Let us all rally behind the all those who struggle for the interests of the Oromo nation; let no Oromo condemn another Oromo unless regression is seen in them. The paradigm shift is on how we look at the struggle, not on where the struggle should go. The struggle has the target to take us to ONE MOUNTAIN TOP – we should not fight over how we get to that mountain top (the “big bang” camp should acknowledge, and coordinate with, those struggling to take the Oromo to the top using several intermediary steps.)
Thank you for your time.
Aboma said (August 21, 2010):
First, thank you Gadaa.com for emphasizing some of the statements I made in my previous post. You guys rock!
Hordofaa Dhugaa, I apologize if I used the term ‘camp’ to mean anything, but ‘group.’ I am not a big fan of political jargon, which obscures communicating with all members of the society. That said, let me get back to some of the points you raised regarding my comment.
Why do the different groups in the Oromo liberation movement oppose each other?
- The way I understand the ‘paradigm shift’ (or you can say the ‘paradigm shift’ I advocate for) is for the different Oromo groups to see that each group is struggling to secure the interests of the Oromo nation, but with varied scopes, such as the genuine OPDO working to secure the cultural/linguistic liberation so far achieved (even though, politically Oromos are still in slavery and colonization), the federalists in OFC working to secure partial political liberation through real federalism (autonomous status for Oromia), and then the liberators in ULFO (and also a faction of OLF called QC) working to secure full political liberation through rebellion (sovereign Oromia), and finally the unionists in a faction of OLF called Shane working to secure a Union of independent nations in the Horn (thus creating a strong Oromia that’s also a key regional player).
Now, those in ULFO/QC_OLF group (the one I called the “big bang” group in my earlier post) do see the two steps as diversions from the real struggle of the Oromo people (i.e. securing a sovereign Oromia). The two steps seen as diversions by the “big bang” group are: 1) OFC’s struggle for Oromia’s autonomy, and 2) Shane_OLF’s moves to secure a regional alliance (here, let me be clear that I don’t know the scope of the alliance Shane_OLF is seeking – is it a Union of independent nations or an autonomy of Oromia in the Ethiopian context?)
It is totally understandable if the ULFO/QC_OLF group sees the two steps as diversions only if these steps were meant to work AGAINST the interests of the Oromo people. However, the two steps given above are not diversions, but are actually needed to conduct a full-fledged (mature) struggle — in other words, the two steps are must have’s.
The conflict in the Oromo liberation movement (i.e. Shane vs. QC), I think, arises:
1) from ULFO/QC_OLF – not fully understanding the real intentions of the Shane (i.e. make the Oromo struggle one that plays on all fields (i.e. autonomy, sovereignty, and regional player for a free Oromia/Union) rather than only be limited to one step of struggle for ’sovereignty’), and
2) from Shane – for trying to rewrite one step of the struggle (i.e. the sovereignty step) that is the base of the Oromo liberation movement. Shane wanted to play on all fields (including the sovereignty step), but forgot to NEVER lose its base (which is the sovereignty step). Remember what happened to Senator McCain during the presidential election in 2008 in U.S.A., Senator McCain was impressing most fields of the Republican party and even some nonpartisan independents at the expense of the base of the Republican party (i.e. the conservatives) in the years leading to 2008. What happened to McCain on election day in 2008? – the base of the Republican party did not go out to vote for him. Being a Republican party candidate (loved by independents and some moderate Republicans) alone was not enough for him to secure the presidency. Never, never, never lose your base!
3) from some egotistical infighting – When the air of discourse is filled with major politicians who have dedicated their entire lifetimes (with the memories of their fallen comrades in their minds), a discussion on changing tactics could quickly be misunderstood as changing kaayyoo.
That is why I think what Gadaa.com is doing here should be acknowledged as it created a forum where we iron out, not only our differences, but also our misunderstandings about one another. So far, I have been a non-aligned observer; from now on, I will pitch in my views and opinions as the stakes are high for the Oromo this time around. We can not, WE MUST NOT, let petty misunderstandings, that we have about each other, get in the way of securing steps that will get us closer to the mountain top.
Having said that, those in QC_OLF should join ULFO and secure the base of the Oromo liberation movement. I do not believe that if Shane wants to play on all fields as it’s proposing now that QC_OLF should unite with Shane. I think ULFO has gained enough political assets in the 2000’s (in the decade following its formation) as the base of the Oromo liberation movement it can now operate side by side with Shane (the group that should coordinate the liberation struggle on all fronts: autonomy, sovereignty and Union). By doing this, we address the concern of QC (i.e. OLF should now become a pan-Oromo organization, by “pan” I mean ‘embracing all political options available at a given time and situation’); we also address the reckless move of Shane (i.e. we secure the base with a strong ULFO).
I totally understand QC would like to continue as ‘OLF’ as it has also won the case in the Minnesotan court, but the court of public opinion says QC should join ULFO and strength the base of the Oromo liberation movement.
I think I’ve addressed all of the questions raised by Hordofaa Dhugaa in one or another way. But, I just want to make one point clearer.
Make no mistake, I have already mentioned it in my previous post, any group that wants the “big bang” (ULFO/QC) group of the Oromo liberation movement to disband commits treason against the Oromo people. The ultimate goal of the Oromo liberation movement is not to be an autonomy (State) in Ethiopia, but to make Oromia become a sovereign state.
However, because the Oromo liberation movement, as a whole, is weak militarily (by design or by unforeseen circumstances), we need to have a politically versatile tactic in which we get up the mountain top inch by inch, yard by yard, foot by foot, mile by mile (that is to say:
1) we moved to the base called “OPDO Oromia” in 1991 and is now secured that with genuine OPDO’s (don’t get me wrong, this base was first secured by the OLF tactical move to join the power sharing TGE in 1991),
2) then we need to move to the base called “OFC Oromia” and secure that,
3) then we MUST move to the base called “ULFO Oromia” and secure that, and
4) ultimately, we need to transform Oromia into a Horn of African regional player by SEEKING a Union with all other WILLING nations – which, I think, is Shane’s vision, so I’ll call it “OLF OROMIA”.
In short, QC and Shane are both correct, let us all call what has so far transpired between these two groups as a mere misunderstanding, and MOVE ON – in the future, we’ll constructively criticize each other, and most importantly, coordinate the OROMO CAUSE.
Why should ULFO/QC cooperate with Shane/OLF? (Posing a question to myself and trying to take a stab at it, if you allow me):
You remember what I referred as the “big bang” group and the “gradualists”?
1) The “big bang” group (ULFO/QC) would like to see a freed Oromo nation and a sovereign Oromia accomplished in one big major step (similar to a revolution). Do we really want that kind of drastic change in the Horn of Africa – the most conflict prone region of the world, I mean, HORN OF AFRICA is what you’ll see in the dictionary under “conflict”. I am not saying it’s not achievable, just saying it’s not sustainable. Enemies surrounding Oromia will play us against each other along clan lines, religious lines, and what not. I rather have gradual changes that will result in a sustainable outcome instead of a revolution.
2) The “gradualist” group (genuine OPDO/OFC/Shane) will take them time (I’m talking about ‘excruciating time’ that may drive some folks to think the Oromo liberation movement is dead); the reason being the enemy does not want to morph (change) into an advocate for the Oromo cause. The enemy will be changed only by FORCE or imminent danger to the status quo. The enemy will not hand over the key to Oromia however gradual we make the struggle. Therefore, we need the “big bang” group to bring about imminent danger to the enemy’s status quo.Malcolm X & MLK: Two Men, One Vision!
Source: Google Video Do you know where I’m getting at? Yes, the “big bang” (ULFO/QC) group and the “gradualists” (genuine OPDO/OFC/Shane) should work hand in glove with each other in order to bring about a change (i.e. move to a step closer to the mountain top), and then grab and secure the newly acquired base, respectively. Let me throw another example of mine: without Malcolm X, Dr. Martin Luther King would have been a dove without wings during the American Civil Rights movement. Purposely or unknowingly, Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King both waged the struggle in a ’squeeze and grab’ fashion (let’s not go into detail of who the squeezer was, and who the grabber was – I think that’s clear!); and Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream was able to fly to the White House some 40 years later because it has had wings.
Over the last 20 years, we squeezed the enemy, but failed to grab achievements along the way because the struggle was designed in such a way that we grabbed all of it, but not some of it. So far, over the last 20 years since the fascist TPLF came to power, we have simply wasted time securing the same base, which I called it above, as “OPDO Oromia.” We have not moved an inch to “OFC Oromia” because the enemy has worked us up to divide and colonize us. Isn’t it in 2008 there even came about the “OFC” step? Very late in the game. The reason for this is the enemy was distracting us by dividing the Oromo liberation movement, by trying to undermine the current base (here, I am referring to the Finfinne debacle as the capital of Oromia or not), and by constantly throwing obstacles while we are on our way to “OFC Oromia.” The era of the enemy defining the course of actions MUST END NOW! The ULFO/QC and Shane groups in the Oromo liberation movement should wise up to drive the enemy (both the old and the neo) into total disarray by securing the base firmly (ULFO/QC) and by allowing Shane/OLF to play on all fields leading to the mountain top.
One more analogy to describe the base-by-base (inch by inch) approaches of conducting the struggle in steps (genuine OPDO, OFC, and OLF) and also in full swing (ULFO/QC) – this is for those who are fans of Baseball:
*** Baseball – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball– in baseball, victory comes by going from base to base (first base, then second base, and then third base – and finally, home). One player stands at the home base with a bat and with a determined mind to dash for the first base as soon as he hits the ball coming from the pitcher (who stands at the center of the diamond-shaped arrangement for the bases.) How far the batting player moves to secure bases depends on how far he hits the ball and how fast the field players (who’re on the side of the pitcher) bring back the ball to the pitcher. He can run to first base, secure it, then make his move to the second base if the ball has not come back to the pitcher, and so on. He may also be lucky and make a “home run” – which is the ball is outside of the field, and the field players can not get to it, so the batting player just dashes from first base, to second, to third, and then home.
== The reason I brought up the baseball game here is to show that “home run” (the “big bang” proponents – ULFO/QC) do advocate for the spectacular finish of the Oromo struggle, similar to the “home run” of the Eritrean case (remember that Eritrea did not have to worry about autonomy as part of the option in 1991 – they just made a ‘home run’ for complete liberation from Ethiopia, but it took 30 years of unabated war and a determined core Central Committee with a dictator in charge). But, what most people forget in the Eritrean case is Shabia was not completely opposed to ‘autonomy’ – it was Mengistu who saw ‘autonomy’ as a defeat of “ETHIOPIA.” The Oromo liberation movement is completely different from that of the Eritrean case – we do not believe in the “core” dictatorship – our struggle is based on the Gadaa system, thus consensus of those in charge is encouraged and ALLOWED; in the Eritrean case, any critical view of their struggle may land you six feet under.
== But, just because a ‘home run’ is what makes the struggle spectacular should not prevent us from getting to an intermediary base (just like baseball) and securing that base at all cost, and then dashing to the next base leading us to the home base (i.e. the mountain top). Let’s hit the ball as far as we can get it, and make a dash for the home (the ‘mountain top’) in a ‘home run’, if possible, or by moving from base to base, if that’s what we must do.
Let ULFO/QC secure the Oromo liberation movement; and let Shane as OLF play in all fields with or without alliance with or without Abyssinian forces.
May Waqaa wise up all groups in the Oromo liberation movement and give them the courage to make the inevitable dash for the ‘mountain top’ step by step, and/or in a ‘home run.’
I think what makes my view different from Fayyis Oromia’s view is he’d like QC to stop calling a spade a spade. I say calling a spade a spade is QC/ULFO’s job, but only if the spade is Abyssinian. NO more intra-Oromo liberation movement vilification, but constructive criticism should be
Aboma’s comments were posted under the article by Gumaa Guddaa
Friday, August 20, 2010
Is the Paradigm Shift in Oromo Struggle the Shift of Karaa or the Shift of Kaayyoo?
By Fayyis Oromia*
I read today an article written by Obbo Gumaa Guddaa condemning a possible “paradigm shift” in the Oromo liberation struggle. He tells us that the suggested paradigm shift was a shift of kaayyoo from an independent Oromia to unitary (united) Ethiopia. I didn’t know that the suggested shift was a shift of kaayyoo. In one of my last articles, I asked a question: is the suggested paradigm shift a shift of karaa to the kaayyoo-Oromo (self-determination) or the shift of kaayyoo as Obbo Gumaa wrote? I didn’t still get an answer for my question. I also didn’t understand that the suggested “national self-determination with multinational democracy” is a shift of kaayyoo.
I think Obbo Gumaa still thinks with a “parallel framework” of ‘either-or’ mechanism. To him, there is simply either Oromian independence or Ethiopian unity (think in black and white, without grey zone). He still didn’t try to think in a “series framework”, which could help him conceive that we, as a nation, can move from the status quo of occupied Oromia, first to a genuinely autonomous Oromia within the Ethiopian union as a prelude to an independent Oromia within the African union. I still didn’t understand why some people like him couldn’t learn to think in a “series framework” in order to support the Oromo nationalists who are emphasizing first to achieve Oromian autonomy within the Ethiopian union, which is a mid-goal on the way towards the goal, which Obbo Gumaa do pursue. Do such people think it is constructive to curse those nationalists who want to move forward half of the way with them?
I have tried to help such people with the following three metaphors, so that they may change their mechanism of thinking. I hope such people can enjoy it again and try to learn that those whom they do vilify are on the same track moving with them towards an independent Oromia:
1) I do hope that we will come slowly, but surely, to the position of clarity as far as the Oromo cause, kaayyoo-Oromo or the Oromo question in general is concerned. The above metaphor I brought here, putting the different terms/outcomes of kaayyoo-Oromo in a form of either “parallel circuit” or “series circuit” can make immense difference in our way of thinking and may make big effect on our contribution to the Oromo liberation movement. Putting the three terms/outcomes of the kaayyoo-Oromo (Ethiopian federation/Oromian autonomy, Oromian independence and union of independent nations) in a “parallel circuit” makes the three terms of the kaayyoo to be seen as if they are very contradictory goals to each other from which we must choose one. Putting them in a “series circuit” as if we can achieve them one after another (first achieve the federation/autonomy, then independence, and then further a union if we want), makes it clear, so we can see that there is no conflict among the three terms of the only ONE kaayyoo-Oromo. I hope in due time all of the concerned Oromo nationalists will start to think in this form of the “series framework” instead of thinking in the “parallel framework”.
2) It is also good to remember here again the metaphor I used previously, i.e. the liberation journey from Djibouti = garbummaa (status quo) —– through Diredhawa = federation (autonomous Oromia) —– and through Adaama = independent gadaa republic of Oromia —– to Finfinne = a union of independent nations, be it the union will be at the Horn level or at the African level. I thought these two metaphors (electric circuit and train journey) may work a wonder to heal the perceived and/or real conflict produced and transmitted by those thinking with the “parallel framework”, intentionally to produce a conflict or unintentionally without knowing the consequence of their way of thinking. Unfortunately, still there are some who just couldn’t be free from the perceived conflict as we read in Obbo Gumaa’s article. That is why I added recently the following third metaphor.
3) We like it or not, all Oromo individuals and Oromo institutions do pass through a certain political evolution process, from the following level one to level five. Obbo Gumaa seems to move at the fourth level, and he denounces those who want to move from the status quo/second level to the third (who want to move forward half of the way with him). He and those who move at the fourth level still need to evolve to the fifth level in order to think global, not only local, even though they should act locally (concentrating on only the interest of Oromo people):
- the first level of the evolution is that of those who do support the unitary Abyssinian colonial empire as Oromo and others in the Habesha dominated organizations like UDJ of Aadde Birtukan Midhagsaa. They do deny the existence of Oromia, but cry only about imiye Ethiopia.
- the second level of those acting like OPDO of Obbo Junedin Sadoo, who do claim to be Oromo and believe in the existence of Oromia, but do accept and adore Abyssinian rule over the occupied Oromia.
- the third level of those acting like OFC of Obbo Bulcha Damksa, who do claim to be Oromo and demand Oromian autonomy at least within Ethiopian union.
- the fourth level of those acting like ULFO of Obbo Jaarra Abbagadaa and do claim the unconditional Oromian independence in a form of Gadaa Republic, disregarding the possibility for a union of independent nations.
- the fifth level of those searching to foster the Oromian/Horn union as planned by AFD of Obbo Daud Ibsaa, i.e. a union of independent nations in the Horn for common economical benefit, which brings all Oromo in the Horn together.
Now coming to the paradigm shift, was there really any suggestion to shift our move back to the first level of the evolution? If there was such a suggestion, I am with those who condemn it! Was there a suggestion to accept the status quo/second level and to give up our liberation struggle? If yes, I am with those who denounce this. Was the suggestion to facilitate a move from the status quo to the third level, probably with the help of a possible alliance of all forces which want to support this move, including the Habesha democratic forces? If this is the case, why does this disturb some pro-independence Oromo nationalists? I thought this move disturbs only the unitarist Amharas, who are moving at the first level and the hegemonist Tigreans, who are moving at the second level. Why couldn’t the intelligent brains of such pro-independence nationalists grasp that this move to the third level is a prelude for a move to the fourth level of independent Oromia?
As far as I am concerned, let alone Oromo nationalists, even Abyssinians can not be free from this political evolution, even though it may take them many many years to evolve. The lasting final solution for that cursed empire is, as Obbo Gumaa suggested, a good separation of Abyssinia and Oromia, be it peacefully like the Czech republic and Slovakia or forcefully as that of Serbia and Croatia, but with the last option for a union of independent Abyssinia and independent Oromia within the context of the Horn/African union. So I would like to suggest that we just learn to think in a “series framework”, so that we can believe in and live out our tactical kaayyoo (Oromian autonomy within the Ethiopian union, the third level of our political evolution), our CORE-kaayyoo (Oromian independence, the fourth level) and our strategical kaayyoo (a union of independent nations in the Horn/Africa, the fifth level).
On the other hand, the article of Obbo Gumaa at this particular time is a gift for Weyane and its cadres. The move of the Oromo unionist liberators like OLF and the Amhara unitarist patriots like G-7 to forge an alliance against the fascist regime is nowadays the nightmare for Meles Zenawi and his followers. Now, Weyane cadres are very busy to camouflage like the pro-unconditional-Oromian-independence forces in order to curse Amhara “nefxenyas” and like the pro-unconditional-Ethiopian-unity forces in order to blame Oromo “goosenyas”. Their move is just to polarize the Oromo democratic liberators and Amhara democratic patriots so that no challenging opposition against their regime will emerge. Unfortunately they are getting now unexpected help from some genuine nationalists from both camps: from some Oromo nationalists like Obbo Gumaa and from some Amhara ethiopianists, who do continue to curse Oromo liberators as separatists. Weyane is enjoying this polarizing position of such nationalists from both sides for they are doing the job of its cadres. These nationalists simply act like the chimpanzee-politicians who didn’t yet learn to think and act in a sophisticated way, but always pray the mantra of a ’spade is a spade.’
That is why I dare to advise such Oromo nationalists, who do tend always to say a ’spade is a spade’ that they learn drinking vodka from water bottle. To understand what I mean, here is the story. I once met two Russians in a subway in the city where I do live. Each of them has got a bottle of drink. One was using the bottle named vodka; the other one using the bottle named water. Both of them were drinking from their own bottle, respectively. I just observed them and could see that the one using the water bottle is more drunk than the other one using vodka bottle. I was surprised and asked them: how can this be?
How can it be that the one using water bottle was drunk? Then they laughed at me and told me that both were drinking vodka, but the name of the bottles each of them were using differs. This is the difference between Oromo politicians like Obbo Gumaa and the cunning Habesha politicians. Most Oromo politicians like him use only vodka bottle and always say a ’spade is a spade’ (talk about Oromo rights directly), whereas the politicians of the two Habesha nations (Tegaru and Amhara) use water bottle (use the name ‘Ethiopia’ to promote the interests of their respective nations indirectly). They do play the same game of “ethnicity” (promote Tegaru hegemony and Amhara dominance, respectively), by using the bad deceptive method in comparison to the good direct liberation struggle of the Oromo which the nationalists like Obbo Gumaa persist to do. Can such Oromo nationalists learn the Habesha way of doing business, having Oromo interest at heart? Time will tell us.
Last but not least, I would like to say: let’s kill together the ambition and intention of Weyane and its cadres, who do try to fool Oromo people by crying about unconditional independent Oromia in Oromo forums/Paltalks, and at the same time try to cheat Amhara people by singing about unconditional unitary Ethiopia in Amhara forums/Paltalks, their purpose being to polarize the two camps in order to hinder the all-inclusive alliance which might emerge against their fascist regime in Finfinne palace. Let’s not fall into their traps. I know the success of an all-inclusive alliance based on a common good is very painful to them, so that they do every thing under the sun to hinder its formation. Let’s watch and walk. Waaqayyo/Rabbi bless us all!
Galatooma.
* Fayyis Oromia can be reached at fayyis@yahoo.de.
I read today an article written by Obbo Gumaa Guddaa condemning a possible “paradigm shift” in the Oromo liberation struggle. He tells us that the suggested paradigm shift was a shift of kaayyoo from an independent Oromia to unitary (united) Ethiopia. I didn’t know that the suggested shift was a shift of kaayyoo. In one of my last articles, I asked a question: is the suggested paradigm shift a shift of karaa to the kaayyoo-Oromo (self-determination) or the shift of kaayyoo as Obbo Gumaa wrote? I didn’t still get an answer for my question. I also didn’t understand that the suggested “national self-determination with multinational democracy” is a shift of kaayyoo.
I think Obbo Gumaa still thinks with a “parallel framework” of ‘either-or’ mechanism. To him, there is simply either Oromian independence or Ethiopian unity (think in black and white, without grey zone). He still didn’t try to think in a “series framework”, which could help him conceive that we, as a nation, can move from the status quo of occupied Oromia, first to a genuinely autonomous Oromia within the Ethiopian union as a prelude to an independent Oromia within the African union. I still didn’t understand why some people like him couldn’t learn to think in a “series framework” in order to support the Oromo nationalists who are emphasizing first to achieve Oromian autonomy within the Ethiopian union, which is a mid-goal on the way towards the goal, which Obbo Gumaa do pursue. Do such people think it is constructive to curse those nationalists who want to move forward half of the way with them?
I have tried to help such people with the following three metaphors, so that they may change their mechanism of thinking. I hope such people can enjoy it again and try to learn that those whom they do vilify are on the same track moving with them towards an independent Oromia:
1) I do hope that we will come slowly, but surely, to the position of clarity as far as the Oromo cause, kaayyoo-Oromo or the Oromo question in general is concerned. The above metaphor I brought here, putting the different terms/outcomes of kaayyoo-Oromo in a form of either “parallel circuit” or “series circuit” can make immense difference in our way of thinking and may make big effect on our contribution to the Oromo liberation movement. Putting the three terms/outcomes of the kaayyoo-Oromo (Ethiopian federation/Oromian autonomy, Oromian independence and union of independent nations) in a “parallel circuit” makes the three terms of the kaayyoo to be seen as if they are very contradictory goals to each other from which we must choose one. Putting them in a “series circuit” as if we can achieve them one after another (first achieve the federation/autonomy, then independence, and then further a union if we want), makes it clear, so we can see that there is no conflict among the three terms of the only ONE kaayyoo-Oromo. I hope in due time all of the concerned Oromo nationalists will start to think in this form of the “series framework” instead of thinking in the “parallel framework”.
2) It is also good to remember here again the metaphor I used previously, i.e. the liberation journey from Djibouti = garbummaa (status quo) —– through Diredhawa = federation (autonomous Oromia) —– and through Adaama = independent gadaa republic of Oromia —– to Finfinne = a union of independent nations, be it the union will be at the Horn level or at the African level. I thought these two metaphors (electric circuit and train journey) may work a wonder to heal the perceived and/or real conflict produced and transmitted by those thinking with the “parallel framework”, intentionally to produce a conflict or unintentionally without knowing the consequence of their way of thinking. Unfortunately, still there are some who just couldn’t be free from the perceived conflict as we read in Obbo Gumaa’s article. That is why I added recently the following third metaphor.
3) We like it or not, all Oromo individuals and Oromo institutions do pass through a certain political evolution process, from the following level one to level five. Obbo Gumaa seems to move at the fourth level, and he denounces those who want to move from the status quo/second level to the third (who want to move forward half of the way with him). He and those who move at the fourth level still need to evolve to the fifth level in order to think global, not only local, even though they should act locally (concentrating on only the interest of Oromo people):
- the first level of the evolution is that of those who do support the unitary Abyssinian colonial empire as Oromo and others in the Habesha dominated organizations like UDJ of Aadde Birtukan Midhagsaa. They do deny the existence of Oromia, but cry only about imiye Ethiopia.
- the second level of those acting like OPDO of Obbo Junedin Sadoo, who do claim to be Oromo and believe in the existence of Oromia, but do accept and adore Abyssinian rule over the occupied Oromia.
- the third level of those acting like OFC of Obbo Bulcha Damksa, who do claim to be Oromo and demand Oromian autonomy at least within Ethiopian union.
- the fourth level of those acting like ULFO of Obbo Jaarra Abbagadaa and do claim the unconditional Oromian independence in a form of Gadaa Republic, disregarding the possibility for a union of independent nations.
- the fifth level of those searching to foster the Oromian/Horn union as planned by AFD of Obbo Daud Ibsaa, i.e. a union of independent nations in the Horn for common economical benefit, which brings all Oromo in the Horn together.
Now coming to the paradigm shift, was there really any suggestion to shift our move back to the first level of the evolution? If there was such a suggestion, I am with those who condemn it! Was there a suggestion to accept the status quo/second level and to give up our liberation struggle? If yes, I am with those who denounce this. Was the suggestion to facilitate a move from the status quo to the third level, probably with the help of a possible alliance of all forces which want to support this move, including the Habesha democratic forces? If this is the case, why does this disturb some pro-independence Oromo nationalists? I thought this move disturbs only the unitarist Amharas, who are moving at the first level and the hegemonist Tigreans, who are moving at the second level. Why couldn’t the intelligent brains of such pro-independence nationalists grasp that this move to the third level is a prelude for a move to the fourth level of independent Oromia?
As far as I am concerned, let alone Oromo nationalists, even Abyssinians can not be free from this political evolution, even though it may take them many many years to evolve. The lasting final solution for that cursed empire is, as Obbo Gumaa suggested, a good separation of Abyssinia and Oromia, be it peacefully like the Czech republic and Slovakia or forcefully as that of Serbia and Croatia, but with the last option for a union of independent Abyssinia and independent Oromia within the context of the Horn/African union. So I would like to suggest that we just learn to think in a “series framework”, so that we can believe in and live out our tactical kaayyoo (Oromian autonomy within the Ethiopian union, the third level of our political evolution), our CORE-kaayyoo (Oromian independence, the fourth level) and our strategical kaayyoo (a union of independent nations in the Horn/Africa, the fifth level).
On the other hand, the article of Obbo Gumaa at this particular time is a gift for Weyane and its cadres. The move of the Oromo unionist liberators like OLF and the Amhara unitarist patriots like G-7 to forge an alliance against the fascist regime is nowadays the nightmare for Meles Zenawi and his followers. Now, Weyane cadres are very busy to camouflage like the pro-unconditional-Oromian-independence forces in order to curse Amhara “nefxenyas” and like the pro-unconditional-Ethiopian-unity forces in order to blame Oromo “goosenyas”. Their move is just to polarize the Oromo democratic liberators and Amhara democratic patriots so that no challenging opposition against their regime will emerge. Unfortunately they are getting now unexpected help from some genuine nationalists from both camps: from some Oromo nationalists like Obbo Gumaa and from some Amhara ethiopianists, who do continue to curse Oromo liberators as separatists. Weyane is enjoying this polarizing position of such nationalists from both sides for they are doing the job of its cadres. These nationalists simply act like the chimpanzee-politicians who didn’t yet learn to think and act in a sophisticated way, but always pray the mantra of a ’spade is a spade.’
That is why I dare to advise such Oromo nationalists, who do tend always to say a ’spade is a spade’ that they learn drinking vodka from water bottle. To understand what I mean, here is the story. I once met two Russians in a subway in the city where I do live. Each of them has got a bottle of drink. One was using the bottle named vodka; the other one using the bottle named water. Both of them were drinking from their own bottle, respectively. I just observed them and could see that the one using the water bottle is more drunk than the other one using vodka bottle. I was surprised and asked them: how can this be?
How can it be that the one using water bottle was drunk? Then they laughed at me and told me that both were drinking vodka, but the name of the bottles each of them were using differs. This is the difference between Oromo politicians like Obbo Gumaa and the cunning Habesha politicians. Most Oromo politicians like him use only vodka bottle and always say a ’spade is a spade’ (talk about Oromo rights directly), whereas the politicians of the two Habesha nations (Tegaru and Amhara) use water bottle (use the name ‘Ethiopia’ to promote the interests of their respective nations indirectly). They do play the same game of “ethnicity” (promote Tegaru hegemony and Amhara dominance, respectively), by using the bad deceptive method in comparison to the good direct liberation struggle of the Oromo which the nationalists like Obbo Gumaa persist to do. Can such Oromo nationalists learn the Habesha way of doing business, having Oromo interest at heart? Time will tell us.
Last but not least, I would like to say: let’s kill together the ambition and intention of Weyane and its cadres, who do try to fool Oromo people by crying about unconditional independent Oromia in Oromo forums/Paltalks, and at the same time try to cheat Amhara people by singing about unconditional unitary Ethiopia in Amhara forums/Paltalks, their purpose being to polarize the two camps in order to hinder the all-inclusive alliance which might emerge against their fascist regime in Finfinne palace. Let’s not fall into their traps. I know the success of an all-inclusive alliance based on a common good is very painful to them, so that they do every thing under the sun to hinder its formation. Let’s watch and walk. Waaqayyo/Rabbi bless us all!
Galatooma.
* Fayyis Oromia can be reached at fayyis@yahoo.de.
The Politics of Oromo National Identity: In need of paradigm shift?
By Gumaa Guddaa
Identity
Identity has a strong connection with individual sense of self. In psychology, the self is often used for the set of attribute that a person attaches to himself or herself most firmly, the attributes that a person finds it difficult or impossible to imagine himself or herself without. One’s nationality is a prime example of one’s identity. The primacy or importance of national identity is another quality that affects its contribution to the perception of the self.
Developing a sense of self is an essential part of every individual becoming a mature person. Each person's self-conception is also collective - identities extend to countries and ethnic communities, so that people feel injured when other persons sharing their identity are injured or killed. Sometimes people are even willing to sacrifice their individual lives to preserve their identity group(s). Palestinian suicide bombers are a well-publicized example. People who share the same collective identity think of themselves as having common interest and fate.
In the case of subjugated people, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestoes, or party affiliation. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination.
This essay examines Oromo identity politics in the context of the recent discourse by some suggesting that the Oromo need to make a paradigm shift vis-à-vis Oromia and Ethiopia.
Oromo National Identity
Before answering whether Oromo people can be Ethiopian it is necessary to examine the difference between being Oromo and being Ethiopian in the first instance. Oromo national identity refers to the identity of the Oromo people, the representation of their country Oromia as a whole, encompassing its culture, traditions, language, and politics contrary to the Ethiopian discourse that tends to present Oromo national identity as part of the multiple identities that the Oromo people enjoy with the greater Ethiopian identity.
The Ethiopian identity on the other hand means different things depending on if you are Abyssinian or not. For an Abyssinian the term Ethiopian means the same. For the rest, however, Ethiopian is filled with ambiguity and dissonance. This confusion emanates not only from difference in cultural and ethnic identity but also from politics. The political history of Ethiopia for the non-Abyssinians is nothing but exploitation, subjugation and cultural genocide. The current Ethiopian regime has raised the stake further from cultural genocide to real genocide that one Oromo social scientist dubbed it as ‘the final solution’.
Since no one has ever suggested that the so called Ethiopianess is biological, one has to look for its evidence in the spheres of political identity. Unfortunately, so far the political system in Ethiopia has not been one of inclusion. Simply put, the system the Abyssinians and their foreign supporters created is an extremely repressive regime. Ethiopia is a prison house if you happen to be non-Abyssinian. It would be impossible for anyone to develop affinity to this type of identity let alone loyalty and allegiance, except through dehumanization and self-denial, both very unhealthy for the people that tender the identity and the receiver.
Ethiopian is not a national identity. Ethiopia is a state, the worst man kind has ever seen. Ethiopia as a political entity is a forced marriage. If one allowed freedom, Ethiopia will cease to exist immediately. The same thing that happened in former Yugoslavia will manifest itself. Oromia will definitely be a fully independent country. Ogandenians might merge with Somalia. Abyssinia will revert back to its former size in the north. Others in the south will either merge with Oromia, Abyssinia or declare independence. This outcome would be so natural and offer the best chance for lasting peace and development.
Some allege that the Oromo people have no noticeable national identity that set them apart from Abyssinians as they have intermixed with others through intermarriages and culturally influenced each other. Let us examine the demerit of such a claim.
Findings from population genetic studies conform to data from linguistic, cultural and social history of distinct Oromo national identity. Population genetic studies show no evidence of significant intermarriage between Oromo and Amhara or primordial closeness at all. The Oromo are homogenous as a genetic group. The Oromo are genetically much more close to other Cushitic, including Afar, Agaw and Somali. The Oromo and Abyssinians are genetically distinct. They occupy distinct geographical areas of Oromia and Abyssinia respectively.
The Oromo people have a distinct national cultural identity of well established democratic system known as Gada. The Abyssinians who dominate the Ethiopian political system have never known democracy in their entire history, and they do not seem to be receptive to the idea of free and democratic society either. The Oromo use force as a last resort, whereas the Abyssinians are warlike.
For an Oromo to assume Abyssinian identity would not only mean a total change of identity so different that will be unrecognizable but simply unachievable. Those who advocate Ethiopianess to the Oromo are swimming against the tide. Moreover, today the Oromos are forcibly evicted from their ancestral land and their land is being given away to foreigners and the proceeds line up the Tigre ruling class pockets; millions of Oromos are dying of manmade famine – a green famine created to reduce the number of Oromos. It is under these circumstances that some are suggesting a paradigm shift from Oromia to Ethiopia in the guise of multiethnic democracy. In any case, what is multiethnic democracy? I am afraid no one can tell you what the model would look like.
The sense of national identity has already reached the national collective consciousness of the Oromo. A paradigm shift seems to be at least two decades behind the curve. The idea of struggle for independence has passed the point of no return for the Oromo. The Oromo society has changed beyond recognition. Children born in Oromia over the last two decades have grown up knowing very little about Ethiopia. Paradigm shift makes no sense to them. Charles Taylor argues that the modern identity is characterized by an emphasis on its inner voice and capacity for authenticity — that is, the ability to find a way of being that is somehow true to oneself (Taylor in Gutmann, ed. 1994).
As Sonia Kruks also puts it:
What makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier, pre-identarian forms of the politics of recognition is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied that groups demand recognition. The demand is not for inclusion within the fold of “universal humankind” on the basis of shared human attributes; nor is it for respect “in spite of” one's differences. Rather, what is demanded is respect for oneself as different (2001, 85).
Likewise the Oromo national question is not a request for respect for recognition as equal partner or acquiring Ethiopian identity but demand for liberation of Oromia. There are some who either pretend they do not understand the aim of Oromo national movement or attempt to misrepresent it as a demand for democratic governance.
Adversarial Identities
Certain conflict's intractability depends upon the identities of the adversary. Identities can mesh with each other in ways that are more or less destructive. Two groups with ethno-nationalist identities and with attachment to some of the same land are prone to engage in an intractable conflict. Moreover, a group with an ethno-nationalist identity and even a high sense of superiority may attempt to eliminate the other. The recent example of the tragic genocide attempt by the Hutu against the Tutsi in Rwanda is a grime reminder of what can happen. The Ethiopian Empire sits on a volcano. The eruption, when it happens, will certainly dwarf the Rwandan conflict. The author strongly believes that these conflicts are avoidable by allowing separation of adversarial identities. The Oromo and Ethiopian identities are adversarial and I have not come across, yet, any sociologist who argues otherwise. Hence, it is in the best interest of all concerned to disentangle the two mutually exclusive adversarial identities of Oromia and Ethiopia.
Above all, over the past four decades the Oromo nation, as a whole, has and is paying a heavy sacrifice in terms of human life in the fight for liberation. Thousands of freedom fighters have lost their lives, fighting against Hailesillase, Mengistu and Meles. Thousands more have been subjected to exile and destitution. Moreover, as we speak, Oromia is bleeding in terms of economic exploitation, eviction from land, underdevelopment, epidemic diseases and famine.
Meles Zenawi, in particular, is conducting genocide against the Oromo through systematic destruction of the livelihood of Oromos. He has reduced the entire Oromo country to hell on Earth perpetuating untold repression, killings and exploitation of the natural resource of the Oromo. It would appear that he has a sinister plan in mind.
Furthermore, the Oromo insist on using their own language but successive Ethiopian regimes insist that Amharic, the language of the minority, be the official language. Abyssinian heroes such as Tewodros, Yohanis, Menelik, Halesellasie, Mengistu, Zenawi etc are viewed as criminal mass murders by the Oromo since that is exactly what these warlords did to the Oromo. Qubee is anathema to Ge’ez for the Abyssinians, albeit they have started using it widely learning from the Oromo. The Ethiopian flag is seen not only as a national symbol but a religious icon for an Abyssinian but is a nasty reminder of Abyssinian chauvinism to the Oromo. The OLF is a symbol of, freedom, emancipation, unity and revered as an ideology by the Oromo; whereas it is a threat to an Abyssinian ideology.
The fallacy of the so called multi-ethnic democracy in Ethiopia is epitomized by the only African female political party leader in prison, Birtukan Midhegsa. She has sadly no public sympathy let alone followers. She is seen as an Oromo and attract nominal support from the ‘multi-nationalists’ and at the same time wholly forsaken by the 40 million strong Oromos for not leading an independent Oromo movement. Imagine if she went to prison for being one of the OLF leaders. She would have been our Aung San Suu Kyi. Her apparently ignored immense sacrifice remains a stark warning for the advocates of multi-ethnic democracy as a remedy for the Ethiopian empire.
Several books have been written on the differences between the Oromo and the Abyssinian nationalism but I have not seen any book or article on the similarities or common interest between them in favour of forging closer ties. It is preposterous to suggest a paradigm shift without exploring a common denominator between the two peoples. It is a suggestion that someone’s national identity is dispensable. In any case, it would be cost effective for the minority to make the shift rather than the majority. Why do they think that the majority has to conform? One would ask why not the Abyssinians adopting Oromo identity, if it is democracy. The unification between Oromo and the Abyssinians would only benefit the latter and it is logical for them to change in search of that advantage. Not the other way round. I challenge those who suggest a paradigm shift to come up with a single potential benefit for the Oromo nation from the marriage they recommend.
Whether and how identities contribute to intractable conflicts depends on their particular qualities. Of course, identities can and do change in ways that may help prevent, limit, and end intractable conflicts. These changes are brought about by the way the adversaries interact, and by the conduct of persons and groups who intervene or otherwise affect the primary adversaries. However, I have not seen any meaningful change of attitude within the Abyssinian culture that might suggest they can make a shift of any kind any time soon. They continue to cold-bloodedly attempt to destroy the Oromo identity, livelihood and existence. I do not sense change of heart from their allies, so far, in making the necessary intervention to stop the conflict either.
Harsh Political Treatment
The proponents of the notion that the Oromo must abandon their quest for an independent homeland of their own tend to evoke the example of the closer economic union in Europe. They tend to tell us that in the era of unity we should not move apart. The reality that their rhetoric seems to have conveniently ignored is the political reality on the ground that works against nurturing friendship and trust. Ethiopia is the most repressive regime in the entire universe. The reality is that the Oromo, due to the paranoia of the Abyssinian elite, are treated as potential threats. The current Ethiopian regime is ruling Oromia by means of state terrorism, no different from its predecessors. Oromia is an occupied territory and the people are demanding independence. According the International Crisis Group report the Zenawi regime has deployed 1 million spies in the state of Oromia alone to suffocate and terrorize the Oromo people (Africa Report No. 153; September 2009).
The current Ethiopian regime is busy passing death penalties and life long imprisonment against the Oromo almost exclusively. These innocent Oromo people suffer for no other reason than being Oromo – their identity. Arbitrary detentions, killings, rape and torture are common place. The majority of prisoners in the hell on earth Ethiopian prisons and jail houses speak ‘Afaan Oromoo’ as attested to by even some Abyssinians. You could say Oromia itself has become and open air prison. The Oromia Support Group (OSG), a UK based human rights group, has compiled credible reports of 4,185 extra-judicial killings and 944 reports of disappearance, since 1994 (http://oromo.org). The systematic attempt by the Tigrean dominated regime to reduce the number of the Oromo can only be correctly characterized as genocide (HERE). This is a product of adversarial identity politics in its naked form.
Now, those who call for a paradigm shift from Oromia to Ethiopia fail to acknowledge the fundamental reality on the ground of lack of favourable political environment that may foster any shift towards unification rather than polarization. History teaches us those who try to appease evil will only strengthen the hands of the evil. The proponents of the so called paradigm shift seem to think that they might save life by abandoning Oromoness. They need urgent critical appraisal of the premises of their change of heart. In the meanwhile, the rest of us should continue building the Oromo nation.
Conclusion
Identities can greatly contribute to conflict intractability. The history of conflict between Oromia and Ethiopia dates back to the 11th century. How adversaries think about who they are and who and what their enemies are profoundly influences the course of any conflict between them. The way the Oromos and the Abyssinians think of each other has irreparably changed and being maintained to date, by the support from the world powers to the Abyssinians since the end of the nineteenth century. Their sense of identity and conceptions of each other contribute to their conflict's destructive quality as well as to its long duration.
I do not think the conflict between Oromia and Ethiopia ends by paradigm shift by the Oromo. The author argues that the conflict is likely to have a lasting solution if the paradigm shift was made by the Ethiopians to stop claiming that the Oromo are Ethiopians and let them go. Those who call for the Oromo to convert to Ethiopia are not only condoning our loss of freedom but invite us to even loose our national identity and it must be resisted by Oromos by any means necessary. What saddens me most is that some of our own have jumped on the bandwagon of multi-ethnic democracy without bothering to clarify what it means, not to mention a well thought out strategic vision to achieve it. Clichés such as paradigm shift are barrier to clear thinking. Forget multi-ethnic democracy – as an Oromo, its survival against genocide that one must worry about.
Have your say!
Identity
Identity has a strong connection with individual sense of self. In psychology, the self is often used for the set of attribute that a person attaches to himself or herself most firmly, the attributes that a person finds it difficult or impossible to imagine himself or herself without. One’s nationality is a prime example of one’s identity. The primacy or importance of national identity is another quality that affects its contribution to the perception of the self.
Developing a sense of self is an essential part of every individual becoming a mature person. Each person's self-conception is also collective - identities extend to countries and ethnic communities, so that people feel injured when other persons sharing their identity are injured or killed. Sometimes people are even willing to sacrifice their individual lives to preserve their identity group(s). Palestinian suicide bombers are a well-publicized example. People who share the same collective identity think of themselves as having common interest and fate.
In the case of subjugated people, identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context rather than organizing solely around belief systems, programmatic manifestoes, or party affiliation. Members of that constituency assert or reclaim ways of understanding their distinctiveness that challenge dominant oppressive characterizations, with the goal of greater self-determination.
This essay examines Oromo identity politics in the context of the recent discourse by some suggesting that the Oromo need to make a paradigm shift vis-à-vis Oromia and Ethiopia.
Oromo National Identity
Before answering whether Oromo people can be Ethiopian it is necessary to examine the difference between being Oromo and being Ethiopian in the first instance. Oromo national identity refers to the identity of the Oromo people, the representation of their country Oromia as a whole, encompassing its culture, traditions, language, and politics contrary to the Ethiopian discourse that tends to present Oromo national identity as part of the multiple identities that the Oromo people enjoy with the greater Ethiopian identity.
The Ethiopian identity on the other hand means different things depending on if you are Abyssinian or not. For an Abyssinian the term Ethiopian means the same. For the rest, however, Ethiopian is filled with ambiguity and dissonance. This confusion emanates not only from difference in cultural and ethnic identity but also from politics. The political history of Ethiopia for the non-Abyssinians is nothing but exploitation, subjugation and cultural genocide. The current Ethiopian regime has raised the stake further from cultural genocide to real genocide that one Oromo social scientist dubbed it as ‘the final solution’.
Since no one has ever suggested that the so called Ethiopianess is biological, one has to look for its evidence in the spheres of political identity. Unfortunately, so far the political system in Ethiopia has not been one of inclusion. Simply put, the system the Abyssinians and their foreign supporters created is an extremely repressive regime. Ethiopia is a prison house if you happen to be non-Abyssinian. It would be impossible for anyone to develop affinity to this type of identity let alone loyalty and allegiance, except through dehumanization and self-denial, both very unhealthy for the people that tender the identity and the receiver.
Ethiopian is not a national identity. Ethiopia is a state, the worst man kind has ever seen. Ethiopia as a political entity is a forced marriage. If one allowed freedom, Ethiopia will cease to exist immediately. The same thing that happened in former Yugoslavia will manifest itself. Oromia will definitely be a fully independent country. Ogandenians might merge with Somalia. Abyssinia will revert back to its former size in the north. Others in the south will either merge with Oromia, Abyssinia or declare independence. This outcome would be so natural and offer the best chance for lasting peace and development.
Some allege that the Oromo people have no noticeable national identity that set them apart from Abyssinians as they have intermixed with others through intermarriages and culturally influenced each other. Let us examine the demerit of such a claim.
Findings from population genetic studies conform to data from linguistic, cultural and social history of distinct Oromo national identity. Population genetic studies show no evidence of significant intermarriage between Oromo and Amhara or primordial closeness at all. The Oromo are homogenous as a genetic group. The Oromo are genetically much more close to other Cushitic, including Afar, Agaw and Somali. The Oromo and Abyssinians are genetically distinct. They occupy distinct geographical areas of Oromia and Abyssinia respectively.
The Oromo people have a distinct national cultural identity of well established democratic system known as Gada. The Abyssinians who dominate the Ethiopian political system have never known democracy in their entire history, and they do not seem to be receptive to the idea of free and democratic society either. The Oromo use force as a last resort, whereas the Abyssinians are warlike.
For an Oromo to assume Abyssinian identity would not only mean a total change of identity so different that will be unrecognizable but simply unachievable. Those who advocate Ethiopianess to the Oromo are swimming against the tide. Moreover, today the Oromos are forcibly evicted from their ancestral land and their land is being given away to foreigners and the proceeds line up the Tigre ruling class pockets; millions of Oromos are dying of manmade famine – a green famine created to reduce the number of Oromos. It is under these circumstances that some are suggesting a paradigm shift from Oromia to Ethiopia in the guise of multiethnic democracy. In any case, what is multiethnic democracy? I am afraid no one can tell you what the model would look like.
The sense of national identity has already reached the national collective consciousness of the Oromo. A paradigm shift seems to be at least two decades behind the curve. The idea of struggle for independence has passed the point of no return for the Oromo. The Oromo society has changed beyond recognition. Children born in Oromia over the last two decades have grown up knowing very little about Ethiopia. Paradigm shift makes no sense to them. Charles Taylor argues that the modern identity is characterized by an emphasis on its inner voice and capacity for authenticity — that is, the ability to find a way of being that is somehow true to oneself (Taylor in Gutmann, ed. 1994).
As Sonia Kruks also puts it:
What makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier, pre-identarian forms of the politics of recognition is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied that groups demand recognition. The demand is not for inclusion within the fold of “universal humankind” on the basis of shared human attributes; nor is it for respect “in spite of” one's differences. Rather, what is demanded is respect for oneself as different (2001, 85).
Likewise the Oromo national question is not a request for respect for recognition as equal partner or acquiring Ethiopian identity but demand for liberation of Oromia. There are some who either pretend they do not understand the aim of Oromo national movement or attempt to misrepresent it as a demand for democratic governance.
Adversarial Identities
Certain conflict's intractability depends upon the identities of the adversary. Identities can mesh with each other in ways that are more or less destructive. Two groups with ethno-nationalist identities and with attachment to some of the same land are prone to engage in an intractable conflict. Moreover, a group with an ethno-nationalist identity and even a high sense of superiority may attempt to eliminate the other. The recent example of the tragic genocide attempt by the Hutu against the Tutsi in Rwanda is a grime reminder of what can happen. The Ethiopian Empire sits on a volcano. The eruption, when it happens, will certainly dwarf the Rwandan conflict. The author strongly believes that these conflicts are avoidable by allowing separation of adversarial identities. The Oromo and Ethiopian identities are adversarial and I have not come across, yet, any sociologist who argues otherwise. Hence, it is in the best interest of all concerned to disentangle the two mutually exclusive adversarial identities of Oromia and Ethiopia.
Above all, over the past four decades the Oromo nation, as a whole, has and is paying a heavy sacrifice in terms of human life in the fight for liberation. Thousands of freedom fighters have lost their lives, fighting against Hailesillase, Mengistu and Meles. Thousands more have been subjected to exile and destitution. Moreover, as we speak, Oromia is bleeding in terms of economic exploitation, eviction from land, underdevelopment, epidemic diseases and famine.
Meles Zenawi, in particular, is conducting genocide against the Oromo through systematic destruction of the livelihood of Oromos. He has reduced the entire Oromo country to hell on Earth perpetuating untold repression, killings and exploitation of the natural resource of the Oromo. It would appear that he has a sinister plan in mind.
Furthermore, the Oromo insist on using their own language but successive Ethiopian regimes insist that Amharic, the language of the minority, be the official language. Abyssinian heroes such as Tewodros, Yohanis, Menelik, Halesellasie, Mengistu, Zenawi etc are viewed as criminal mass murders by the Oromo since that is exactly what these warlords did to the Oromo. Qubee is anathema to Ge’ez for the Abyssinians, albeit they have started using it widely learning from the Oromo. The Ethiopian flag is seen not only as a national symbol but a religious icon for an Abyssinian but is a nasty reminder of Abyssinian chauvinism to the Oromo. The OLF is a symbol of, freedom, emancipation, unity and revered as an ideology by the Oromo; whereas it is a threat to an Abyssinian ideology.
The fallacy of the so called multi-ethnic democracy in Ethiopia is epitomized by the only African female political party leader in prison, Birtukan Midhegsa. She has sadly no public sympathy let alone followers. She is seen as an Oromo and attract nominal support from the ‘multi-nationalists’ and at the same time wholly forsaken by the 40 million strong Oromos for not leading an independent Oromo movement. Imagine if she went to prison for being one of the OLF leaders. She would have been our Aung San Suu Kyi. Her apparently ignored immense sacrifice remains a stark warning for the advocates of multi-ethnic democracy as a remedy for the Ethiopian empire.
Several books have been written on the differences between the Oromo and the Abyssinian nationalism but I have not seen any book or article on the similarities or common interest between them in favour of forging closer ties. It is preposterous to suggest a paradigm shift without exploring a common denominator between the two peoples. It is a suggestion that someone’s national identity is dispensable. In any case, it would be cost effective for the minority to make the shift rather than the majority. Why do they think that the majority has to conform? One would ask why not the Abyssinians adopting Oromo identity, if it is democracy. The unification between Oromo and the Abyssinians would only benefit the latter and it is logical for them to change in search of that advantage. Not the other way round. I challenge those who suggest a paradigm shift to come up with a single potential benefit for the Oromo nation from the marriage they recommend.
Whether and how identities contribute to intractable conflicts depends on their particular qualities. Of course, identities can and do change in ways that may help prevent, limit, and end intractable conflicts. These changes are brought about by the way the adversaries interact, and by the conduct of persons and groups who intervene or otherwise affect the primary adversaries. However, I have not seen any meaningful change of attitude within the Abyssinian culture that might suggest they can make a shift of any kind any time soon. They continue to cold-bloodedly attempt to destroy the Oromo identity, livelihood and existence. I do not sense change of heart from their allies, so far, in making the necessary intervention to stop the conflict either.
Harsh Political Treatment
The proponents of the notion that the Oromo must abandon their quest for an independent homeland of their own tend to evoke the example of the closer economic union in Europe. They tend to tell us that in the era of unity we should not move apart. The reality that their rhetoric seems to have conveniently ignored is the political reality on the ground that works against nurturing friendship and trust. Ethiopia is the most repressive regime in the entire universe. The reality is that the Oromo, due to the paranoia of the Abyssinian elite, are treated as potential threats. The current Ethiopian regime is ruling Oromia by means of state terrorism, no different from its predecessors. Oromia is an occupied territory and the people are demanding independence. According the International Crisis Group report the Zenawi regime has deployed 1 million spies in the state of Oromia alone to suffocate and terrorize the Oromo people (Africa Report No. 153; September 2009).
The current Ethiopian regime is busy passing death penalties and life long imprisonment against the Oromo almost exclusively. These innocent Oromo people suffer for no other reason than being Oromo – their identity. Arbitrary detentions, killings, rape and torture are common place. The majority of prisoners in the hell on earth Ethiopian prisons and jail houses speak ‘Afaan Oromoo’ as attested to by even some Abyssinians. You could say Oromia itself has become and open air prison. The Oromia Support Group (OSG), a UK based human rights group, has compiled credible reports of 4,185 extra-judicial killings and 944 reports of disappearance, since 1994 (http://oromo.org). The systematic attempt by the Tigrean dominated regime to reduce the number of the Oromo can only be correctly characterized as genocide (HERE). This is a product of adversarial identity politics in its naked form.
Now, those who call for a paradigm shift from Oromia to Ethiopia fail to acknowledge the fundamental reality on the ground of lack of favourable political environment that may foster any shift towards unification rather than polarization. History teaches us those who try to appease evil will only strengthen the hands of the evil. The proponents of the so called paradigm shift seem to think that they might save life by abandoning Oromoness. They need urgent critical appraisal of the premises of their change of heart. In the meanwhile, the rest of us should continue building the Oromo nation.
Conclusion
Identities can greatly contribute to conflict intractability. The history of conflict between Oromia and Ethiopia dates back to the 11th century. How adversaries think about who they are and who and what their enemies are profoundly influences the course of any conflict between them. The way the Oromos and the Abyssinians think of each other has irreparably changed and being maintained to date, by the support from the world powers to the Abyssinians since the end of the nineteenth century. Their sense of identity and conceptions of each other contribute to their conflict's destructive quality as well as to its long duration.
I do not think the conflict between Oromia and Ethiopia ends by paradigm shift by the Oromo. The author argues that the conflict is likely to have a lasting solution if the paradigm shift was made by the Ethiopians to stop claiming that the Oromo are Ethiopians and let them go. Those who call for the Oromo to convert to Ethiopia are not only condoning our loss of freedom but invite us to even loose our national identity and it must be resisted by Oromos by any means necessary. What saddens me most is that some of our own have jumped on the bandwagon of multi-ethnic democracy without bothering to clarify what it means, not to mention a well thought out strategic vision to achieve it. Clichés such as paradigm shift are barrier to clear thinking. Forget multi-ethnic democracy – as an Oromo, its survival against genocide that one must worry about.
Have your say!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)