Saturday, June 28, 2025

O-Dispatch #16 - Oromo Unity: A Call for Shared Principles Over Symbolic Gestures

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (11.5 minutes)

Throughout modern Oromo history, the call for unity has echoed across generations. Yet time and again, well-intentioned alliances have faltered, not due to a lack of patriotism or sacrifice, but because they were built on symbolism rather than substance. Today, in a moment of deep crisis and historic opportunity, we must renew our pursuit of unity, but this time, grounded in shared principles, strategic clarity, and coordinated struggle.

The Problem with Symbolic Unity

Too often, declarations of Oromo unity have come in the form of press statements, temporary coalitions,  or public events that 

celebrate common heritage while sidestepping uncomfortable strategic differences. These gestures offer fleeting hope but crumble under pressure, particularly when faced with repression, political co-optation, or internal mistrust. Unity built on photo opportunities and vague slogans cannot sustain a national liberation movement.

History offers painful lessons. A clear example is the formation of the United Liberation Forces of Oromia (ULFO) in the early 2000s. Announced with great fanfare as a coalition of armed and political groups committed to the Oromo cause, ULFO raised significant expectations among the Oromo public and diaspora. But beneath the surface, the alliance lacked ideological cohesion, a clear chain of command, and a unified political strategy. Within a few years, the coalition had unraveled, and the hope it symbolized gave way to disillusionment. It remains a cautionary tale of unity pursued for appearance rather than purpose.

A more recent case unfolded post 2018, when the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and several exiled Oromo political organizations returned to Ethiopia during a wave of political openings. The moment was historic and charged with symbolic power. Prominent Oromo figures helped facilitate the effort, and Lemma Megersa, then seen as a rising political star, was expected to lead a new chapter of unified Oromo leadership - "Gaaddisa Hoggansa Oromoo".  But again, the unity lacked a common political program, a shared position on the structure of the Ethiopian state, or a functioning mechanism to resolve internal disagreements. Personal rivalries, ideological contradictions, and external manipulation quickly unraveled the effort. Within months, the coalition that was in its infancy had disintegrated into infighting and organizational drift.

Symbolic unity is not only insufficient, it can be harmful. It creates the illusion of cohesion while masking deep disagreements and discouraging honest political dialogue. Worse still, it can be weaponized by opportunists who use the rhetoric of unity to advance personal agendas. In doing so, they silence legitimate debate by accusing those who disagree with them of causing division among the Oromo.

Just three years ago, those who advocated for armed struggle were branded as bloodthirsty extremists sowing the seeds of Oromo disunity. Today, those who call for strategic clarity by raising the question of Oromia’s independence are similarly accused of creating division. For some, the Oromo are considered united only when everyone accepts their narrow definition of symbolic unity.

Unity Based on Shared Principles

True Oromo unity must rest on foundational agreements, principles that define both the goal and the path of our collective journey.

First and foremost, there must be a firm and unambiguous commitment to dismantling the imperial structures of the Ethiopian state. These structures have historically denied the Oromo people freedom, dignity, and the right to shape their own destiny.

Second, unity must include a collective affirmation of the right to self-determination. This right must extend not just to cultural autonomy or regional self-rule, but to the possibility of full independence if the Oromo people so choose. Any alliance that avoids this principle weakens the moral and legal foundation of the liberation struggle.

Third, the movement must recognize the legitimacy of both armed resistance and mass-based civilian struggle. These are not contradictory paths but complementary tools in the broader fight against colonial domination. Attempts to delegitimize either path only serve the interests of the oppressor.

Finally, Oromo unity must be rooted in inclusive governance models that reflect Gadaa values, with accountability, popular participation, deliberative decision-making, and cultural affirmation at their core. Without these principles as its backbone, unity becomes an empty word.

These values are not mere ideals, they are operational imperatives that must shape organizational conduct, strategic choices, and public messaging.

From Rhetoric to Coordinated Action

Unity without action is a mirage. For example, the early 2000 formation of United Oromo Liberation Forces (ULFO) created the appearance of unity among Oromo armed and political groups. Yet, in the absence of joint operations, shared planning, or concrete collaboration, the alliance quickly became irrelevant. It projected strength but lacked substance, ultimately dissolving without achieving any strategic gains.

On the other hand, action without unity leads to fragmentation. Consider the aftermath of the OLF’s and other opposition groups return to Oromia in 2018. While various Oromo political and armed actors engaged actively, mobilizing supporters, organizing rallies, and contesting local power, they did so without a coordinated framework. Competing agendas, mutual suspicion, and lack of unified leadership led to internal rivalries, contradictory messaging, and missed opportunities. The momentum of that critical moment was squandered not for lack of action, but for lack of cohesion.

What we should call for now is neither empty declarations nor scattered initiatives, but unity through coordinated struggle, political, diplomatic, military, and cultural, toward a shared end: the full liberation and self-governance of Oromia.

This means that those who have chosen the path of peaceful political engagement, as loyal opposition within the system, must go beyond rhetoric and actively conduct peaceful struggle. Merely proclaiming loyalty to nonviolent methods is not enough; they must organize, mobilize, educate, and challenge the system with clarity and consistency. Similarly, those engaged in armed struggle must strengthen their discipline, unity, and operational effectiveness. Whether peaceful or armed, all branches of the liberation effort must be judged not by declarations, but by actions and measurable impact. The Oromo people deserve a movement that delivers results, not just speeches.

The Cost of Disunity

The price of disunity is no longer theoretical. It has already been paid, repeatedly, by the Oromo people.

First, disunity has led to a serious loss of credibility in the eyes of regional and international actors. In both 1991 and again after 2018, many embassies, humanitarian agencies, and policy institutions initially sought to engage Oromo representatives, only to find themselves confused by infighting, factionalism, and contradictory messaging. The absence of a coherent front undermined external trust and hampered diplomatic leverage.

Second, our political narrative has been diluted. Some factions promote federal reform while others advocate for full independence, at least when addressing Oromo audiences, and many avoid articulating a long-term vision at all. This lack of clarity has enabled adversaries to mischaracterize the movement as incoherent or extremist, and it has weakened our capacity to rally national and international solidarity.

Third, disunity results in wasted resources, human, material, and financial. Multiple diaspora fundraising structures operate independently, with no oversight or coordination. In some cases, funds are duplicated, misallocated, or even used to undermine rival groups. The operational difficulties and conflict between the WBO Task Force, Tumsa WBO, and Utubaa WBO, which seems to have been resolved now after causing great damage to diaspora support for OLA, is a case in point, where overlapping mandates, rivalries, and lack of coordination have undermined efficiency and unity in supporting the armed struggle.

Finally, and perhaps most dangerously, disunity has demoralized our people. Many Oromos who once celebrated the return of liberation leaders and cheered the promise of a united front are now disillusioned. Internal accusations, organizational splits, and even armed clashes between Oromo factions have led to despair. Who could forget the sea of Oromos who flooded Finfinne’s Meskel Square to welcome the OLF leadership back home? Where are they today? Their energy, their hope, their belief in the promise of unity has faded, not because they were wrong to hope, but because their leaders failed to deliver. The energy of the people has not disappeared, it has been paralyzed by disappointment.

A Strategic Vision for Oromo Liberation

To break this cycle, we need a shared roadmap, one that defines the end goal, clarifies the route, and builds consensus around the means.

The goal must be clearly stated: not merely resisting domination but achieving liberation and self-rule. That clarity will sharpen our diplomacy, strengthen our messaging, and inspire our people.

The route forward must include internal consensus on the major strategic question: Is the Oromo struggle aimed at federal reform or national independence? The failure to answer this question collectively has created a dangerous ambiguity.

Furthermore, we must invest in political education. The next generation must understand not just what we oppose, but what we stand for. Political education rooted in Gadaa values, liberation history, and democratic norms will prepare future leaders and inoculate our movement against manipulation.

Lastly, unity must include mechanisms for internal conflict resolution. Disagreements are natural. But they must be addressed through institutionalized processes, rooted in Gadaa principles of deliberation, accountability, and restorative justice, rather than public feuds or quiet withdrawals.

Conclusion: Unity Through Struggle, Not Ceremony

Oromo unity cannot be a ritual we perform; it must be a political project we build. The liberation of Oromia will not be delivered by declarations or dreams. It must be won through principled alliances, disciplined struggle, and unwavering clarity of purpose.

This is a moment of reckoning. Either we rise to the challenge with the maturity and vision history demands of us, or we consign our people to another generation of unfulfilled promises.

Let us choose the harder path, the principled path. Let us build unity not on symbols, but on shared struggle. Let us make the dream of a free and self-governing Oromia not just imaginable, but inevitable.

 

Sunday, June 22, 2025

O-Dispatch #15: Can the Ethiopian State Be Reformed from Within? The Oromo Loyalist Experience

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (8 minutes)

For decades, a fundamental question has shaped Oromo political discourse: Can the Ethiopian state be reformed from within, or must it be dismantled and replaced altogether? The stories of four influential Oromo figures, Taye Dendea, Lemma Megersa, Jawar Mohammed, and Bekele Gerba, offer a resounding and painful answer.

Though their methods and moments differed, each attempted to enact change from inside the system. Each hoped, or perhaps believed, that reform was possible. And each, ultimately, was betrayed by the very state they sought to reform.

Reform from Within: A Common Beginning

Taye Dendea entered the Prosperity Party with a vision of peace and transformation. Appointed State Minister for Peace in 2021, he became complicit in the criminalization of Oromo identity, particularly through the designation of the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) as a terrorist organization. When he finally broke ranks in 2023, publicly criticizing the regime’s repression, the backlash was swift: dismissal, arrest, and re-arrest in June 2025.

Lemma Megersa, a former key architect of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s rise, took a principled stand when he opposed Abiy’s centralization agenda. He is widely known for his remark, 'Being Ethiopian is an addiction,' a phrase that captured both admiration and controversy. Though he remained loyal to Ethiopia as a state, his dissent led to political isolation, removal from office, and effective silencing. The moment soldiers surrounded his home, it became clear that even the most senior insiders are not safe once they challenge the state’s direction.

Jawar Mohammed, a charismatic activist-turned-politician, was initially embraced by the regime and hailed as a bridge to the Oromo youth. He even helped disarm some OLA fighters in support of the state’s agenda. But the assassination of artist Hachalu Hundessa in 2020 marked a turning point. Jawar’s arrest and two-year imprisonment made clear: loyalty is rewarded only when it serves the regime’s interests,and revoked the moment one asserts independent power.

Bekele Gerba, a lifelong advocate of nonviolence and peaceful resistance, also worked to facilitate disarmament on behalf of the regime. Yet he, too, was repeatedly arrested and vilified. His unwavering commitment to dialogue was not met with respect, but with suspicion and repression, proving that even the mildest dissent becomes intolerable when it confronts the state’s foundational interests.

A Pattern, Not a Coincidence

These four stories reflect a larger truth. The Ethiopian state does not merely resist change, it punishes it. Regardless of strategy, armed or peaceful, radical or reformist, Oromo figures who assert agency within the system are systematically discarded.

What unites Taye, Lemma, Jawar, and Bekele is not just their Oromo identity, but their belief that reform from within was possible. What condemned them was not betrayal of the state, but their refusal to betray their people when the moment of truth arrived.

Their experiences are not anomalies. They are evidence.

The Imperial Logic of the Ethiopian State

To understand why this pattern persists, one must examine the nature of the Ethiopian state itself. It is not merely a multi-national federation in theory and an authoritarian regime in practice, it is imperial in its very design. Built on conquest and sustained by centralization, it prioritizes domination and hierarchy over equality and consent.

Its institutions are not malfunctioning, they are operating precisely as intended. The Ethiopian state does not tolerate genuine power-sharing. It only tolerates subordination. In such a system, Oromo political participation is permitted only so long as it reinforces central authority.

The moment it becomes a vehicle for genuine Oromo agency, it is criminalized.

There is no safe or dignified way to be Oromo in a state built to suppress Oromo identity.

Four Lives, Four Lessons

The experiences of these four men offer clear lessons that must inform Oromo political strategy:

Liasson #1. Reform Is a Mirage: Each of these figures attempted reform, and each failed, not for lack of courage or capability, but because the system does not allow meaningful change. Participation is often a trap, not a path forward. Oromo nationalists must avoid prolonging the life of a state that was never built to serve them.

Lesson #2. Loyalty Offers No Protection: From high-ranking ministers to nonviolent dissidents, all four were eventually punished. The state’s tolerance is transactional. The moment you assert independent thought, you become a threat. Joining the system requires full surrender of conscience.

Lesson #3. Division Is a Weapon: The regime thrives by fracturing Oromo unity, federalists vs. separatists, OLA vs. OLF, diaspora vs. locals. But repression is indiscriminate. Unity is not optional, it is essential. Oromos still serving the regime must understand that their participation enables the weaponization of division. The time to defect is now.

Lesson #4. Resistance Is the Only Path Forward: The Oromo struggle cannot be advanced through appeasement. It requires principled resistance, political organizing, coordinated defections, and the construction of an alternative political project rooted in self-determination and collective dignity.

The Reform Illusion Must Die

Taye Dendea, Lemma Megersa, Jawar Mohammed, and Bekele Gerba are more than cautionary tales. Their stories form a collective indictment of a system that rewards silence and punishes integrity. They tried to reform. But they were discarded despite their loyalty, and because they  spoke up against injustice committed against the Oromo People.

The Ethiopian state cannot be reformed from within. It was not built for inclusion; it was built for control.

Oromo political movements must abandon the illusion that they can transform an imperial order by participating in it. The future lies in resistance, unity, and the courageous work of building a new political vision, one grounded in Oromo self-determination and culminating in the eventual formation of an independent state.

These stories must not be forgotten. Not just to mourn what was lost, but to guide what must come next.

Thank you!

 

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

O-Dispatch #14: EPO’s Inconsistent Framing in Conflict Reporting: The Case of OLA and Fano in EPO Reports

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (8 minutes)

Introduction

The Ethiopia Peace Observatory (EPO), an initiative of the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED), is a prominent source of data and analysis on Ethiopia’s complex conflict landscape. Its multilingual, event-driven methodology equips researchers, policymakers, and humanitarian organizations with timely and detailed updates. However, its Situation Updates ( especially December 2024 – June 2025) expose significant disparities in how the EPO frames two major non-state armed groups: the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) and the Fano militia.

While the EPO consistently refers to the OLA using the government-preferred label “OLA/OLF–Shane,” it avoids the same practice when describing Fano—despite the Ethiopian government's official and highly charged use of the term “Jawisa” for the group. This inconsistency reflects deeper analytical asymmetries that may skew public and policy understanding of the conflict.

Uneven Political Contextualization

EPO provides layered political context when reporting on Fano, characterizing it as a fragmented, regionally-rooted militia with socio-political grievances. Reports emphasize tensions between Fano and the federal government, the group’s resistance to disarmament, and community perceptions of marginalization in the Amhara region.

In contrast, the OLA is often stripped of any political or historical context. For instance, the April 30, 2025 report attributes violence to “retaliatory OLA/OLF–Shane attacks,” with no mention of the long-standing claims of political exclusion and state violence in Oromia. This flattening of OLA's identity reduces the group to a violent actor devoid of political motivations, contrasting sharply with the more nuanced treatment of Fano.

Imbalance in Attribution of Civilian Harm

EPO reports tend to assign direct responsibility to the OLA for civilian casualties, using emotive language such as “killed women and children.” Meanwhile, reports about Fano often soften or obscure its role in similar incidents, using vague or passive language. The May 14, 2025 report, for example, mentions Fano’s link to 47 abductions but fails to convey the moral and human impact in equivalent terms.

Such inconsistency risks implying a moral hierarchy between the two groups, undermining the neutrality essential to conflict analysis.

Divergent Tactical and Descriptive Terminology

The EPO employs militarized language when describing the OLA, frequently using terms like “ambushes” and “insurgency.” Fano’s actions, however, are often framed in terms suggesting defensive or strategic legitimacy—such as “counter-offensives” and “operations.”

This disparity in terminology shapes external perceptions of legitimacy and threat, influencing how humanitarian actors, governments, and the media respond to each group.

Inconsistent Naming Practices: The Case of “Jawisa”

One of the starkest illustrations of analytical bias in EPO reporting is its inconsistent use of government-preferred labeling. The organization routinely adopts the term “OLA/OLF–Shane” when referencing the Oromo Liberation Army—mirroring a federal narrative that seeks to delegitimize the group by tying it to banned political factions.

Yet the same linguistic precision is conspicuously absent when referring to the Fano militia. Although the Ethiopian government and its supporters commonly use the term “Jawisa” to refer to Fano—especially in online discourse—this designation is never used in EPO reporting.

The term “Jawisa,” meaning “bandit” in Amharic, is deeply pejorative. It was first coined by Daniel Kibret, the Prime Minister’s social affairs advisor, and has since been widely adopted by pro-government voices on social media to describe Fano fighters in the Amhara region. While the term carries strong delegitimizing intent—similar to the implications of “OLF–Shane”—EPO appears selective in its application of such state-endorsed nomenclature.

This discrepancy raises questions about editorial consistency. If EPO chooses to reflect government naming conventions for one group, neutrality demands the same treatment for others—or a rejection of such terminology altogether in favor of neutral alternatives.

Lack of Source Transparency

ACLED and EPO’s reliance on undisclosed sources creates room for bias—especially in regions like Oromia, where independent media is heavily restricted. Without clear attribution of source types (e.g., government-aligned, local, diaspora), there is a risk that dominant narratives—often aligned with state perspectives—are disproportionately reflected, particularly in reporting on the OLA.

Recommendations for Fairer Conflict Reporting

To strengthen analytical integrity and public trust, the following steps are crucial:

  • Contextual Parity: Offer balanced historical and political context for all armed actors, including the OLA.
  • Equal Moral Weight: Describe the impact of violence on civilians with consistent moral and human framing.
  • Standardized Terminology: Use neutral, uniform language for tactical descriptions across actors.
  • Naming Consistency: Apply naming conventions uniformly—either adopt or reject all government-endorsed labels equally.
  • Source Transparency: Clearly annotate source type, location, and reliability to reduce bias and enhance credibility.

Conclusion

The EPO’s role in documenting Ethiopia’s evolving conflict landscape is indispensable. But its long-term utility depends on maintaining analytical fairness, naming consistency, and editorial neutrality. The selective use of government-derived labels—such as “OLF–Shane” but not “Jawisa”—signals a potentially unintentional but meaningful bias. To ensure equitable reporting, EPO must address these disparities and apply consistent standards across all actors. Only then can it serve as a truly credible and authoritative source of conflict data in Ethiopia.

Sunday, June 15, 2025

O-Dispatch #13 - A Credible Critique, a Missing Roadmap: What Ethiopia’s Opposition Must Do Next

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (9 minutes)

On June 5, 2025, the Caucus of ten Ethiopian Opposition Parties issued a bold and timely statement denouncing the legal and political decay eroding Ethiopia’s so-called democratic foundations, structures that exist largely on paper and function more like a paper tiger than genuine institutions of accountability. Their primary targets were the National Dialogue Commission (NDC) and the National Electoral Board of Ethiopia (NEBE), which they accused of systemic exclusion, partisanship, and unconstitutional overreach. What gives the statement weight is not only its substance, but also the fact that its key assertions are echoed and reinforced by a broad spectrum of regional and international analysts, legal scholars, and human rights observers.


Yet, while the critique is forceful and well-supported, the Caucus stops short of articulating a comprehensive alternative agenda. Without advancing a clear roadmap, its stance remains largely oppositional rather than transformational. A principled critique, while essential, must now give way to a proactive political strategy, one rooted in the right to self-determination.

National Dialogue or Managed Theater?

The Caucus argues that the NDC was established through a secretive, executive-driven process that excluded genuine opposition participation. This is no longer a contested view. A 2024 East African Review analysis confirmed that “major opposition political groups and various armed groups” were deliberately left out of early consultations. Realist Review characterized the NDC as a “public relations effort masquerading as dialogue,” suggesting the regime’s aim is to neutralize dissent through appearance rather than substance.

This perspective is affirmed by global and regional experts, who have consistently portrayed the NDC as a hollow exercise. With no mandate to make binding decisions, no inclusivity in its formation, and no international guarantees of neutrality, the Commission’s legitimacy is deeply compromised. The core message of the Caucus, that dialogue without representation is not dialogue at all,is firmly upheld by this growing body of international assessments.

NEBE: An Instrument of Control, Not Democracy

The Caucus’s indictment of the NEBE as partisan and structurally incapable of delivering free and fair elections is also strongly supported by international assessments. The African Union labeled the 2021 elections as “peaceful but not competitive,” while U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken explicitly stated they were “not free or fair for all Ethiopians.” The European Union, for its part, declined to send an observer mission, citing restrictions on press freedom and civil society participation.

These are not isolated warnings. Multiple observers, domestic and foreign, have questioned NEBE’s independence and operational integrity. They point to deep flaws in the electoral framework that render any upcoming elections suspect unless major structural reforms are undertaken. The Caucus’s call for halting electoral preparations until NEBE is restructured and legally guaranteed to be independent is both rational and urgent.

Institutional Capture and the Collapse of Rule of Law

The Caucus emphasizes that Ethiopia’s key state institutions have been co-opted by the ruling party, stripping them of independence and undermining democratic norms. This concern is echoed by global institutions such as the International Crisis Group, which warned that political repression and protracted conflict have “hollowed out” Ethiopia’s already fragile state apparatus. The Heinrich Böll Foundation has similarly cautioned that the centralization of dialogue processes and executive dominance risks closing off all meaningful avenues for reform.

This diagnosis is not only credible, it is conclusive. Ethiopia’s institutions are not neutral arbiters; they remain tools of executive will. Without institutional autonomy, there can be no genuine democratic revival. The Caucus is right to frame this as a foundational crisis that requires more than procedural correction; it demands structural realignment.

Constitutional Erosion and Legal Illegitimacy

While the Caucus stops short of explicitly accusing the government of using the NDC to alter Ethiopia’s multinational federal structure, its warning is unmistakable. By rejecting the NDC’s legitimacy, partisanship, and exclusionary nature, the Caucus implies that any constitutional reforms emerging from this body would lack legal validity.

Legal scholars widely agree. Ethiopia’s 1995 Constitution outlines a strict amendment process, as outlined in Articles 104 and 105. The NDC has no legal mandate to initiate or ratify constitutional changes. Article 9(1), which enshrines constitutional supremacy, would be flagrantly violated by attempts to push reforms through informal, ad hoc mechanisms.

Both African and international legal experts concur: bypassing the constitutional order not only undermines the rule of law, but it also accelerates state fragility and delegitimizes Ethiopia in the eyes of the international community. The Caucus’s implied alarm is thus well-founded and broadly affirmed.

From Reform to Self-Determination: A Strategic Pivot

For over two decades, opposition parties, particularly Oromo groups ,have invested in defending the federal system, seeking reform and inclusive governance. That effort has failed. Federalism has been functionally dismantled through legal overreach, repression, and militarization. Defensive strategies have reached their limit.

It is time for the opposition to pivot. The next strategic step is to assert the right to self-determination and demand a peaceful, internationally supervised referendum. This is not a call for chaos; it is a call for agency, legitimacy, and democratic renewal. In the face of authoritarian consolidation, passivity becomes complicity.

Such a move would also flip the strategic dynamic: instead of constantly defending what is being eroded, the opposition would put the regime on notice that continued centralization and illegality could lead to legal and democratic secession efforts. In the language of realpolitik, this is how one reclaims bargaining power.

Conclusion: From Critique to Consequence

The Caucus has issued a credible, timely, and internationally affirmed critique of Ethiopia’s democratic breakdown. But critique is no longer enough. The opposition must evolve into a force for principled action.

This means asserting the right to self-determination, through peaceful, democratic means, as a legitimate response to the collapse of the constitutional order. It also means advancing a coherent, inclusive roadmap for institutional reform and electoral legitimacy.

Ethiopia’s federation has collapsed in all but name. Article 39, the right to self-determination, remains untested but not obsolete. Now is the moment to activate that clause, not just as an escape from tyranny, but as a path to dignity, accountability, and sovereign choice. The call for a referendum is not about division; it is about a democratic reset.

The opposition must now choose: remain reactive, or lead with purpose. The time for ambiguity has passed. The time for self-determination has come.

Thank you!

Monday, June 9, 2025

O-Dispatch #12: Ethiopia’s Manufactured Dialogue: Unity Without Consent

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (10 minutes)


Ethiopia stands at a political crossroads. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed claims to promote the National Dialogue as a path to peace, replacing war with the “supremacy of ideas” (ENA, 2025).  But behind this rhetoric lies a stark reality: the dialogue process is neither inclusive nor democratic. It is part of a broader campaign to dismantle Ethiopia’s multi-national federal system and concentrate power in a presidential model that centralizes authority and marginalizes dissent.

Rather than healing fractures that the state is suffering from, this agenda risks repeating the very patterns of domination that fractured the country in the first place.

Citizenship Without Consent Is Just Coercion

Ethiopia’s 1995 Constitution introduced multi-national federalism to acknowledge the country’s cultural plurality after decades of centralized repression. Article 39 enshrined the right of nations, nationalities, and peoples to self-determination, including secession (FDRE Constitution, 1995). It was not merely symbolic—it was a structural attempt to rebuild trust between the state and its historically marginalized groups.

Today, this constitutional arrangement is under attack. Proposals are circulating to replace identity-based federalism with regional zones based on geography or economic logic (The Reporter, 2025). Though framed as administrative reform, these proposals erase the foundational recognition of Ethiopia’s ethnic diversity and ignore the historical grievances that necessitated federalism in the first place.

The "Layered Identity" Trap

To legitimize this shift, Prime Minister Abiy has introduced the concept of “layered identities,” in which ethnic or national affiliations are to be secondary to a broader Ethiopian supra- national identity, primarily rooted in the history of the highland Abyssinian empire. This concept presents a façade of inclusivity but, in practice, imposes a hierarchy.

The message is unmistakable: you cannot be culturally distinct so long as you submit politically. While ethnic identity may be tolerated in the private realm, political expression and autonomy are systematically constrained. This echoes past regimes that criminalized local languages, erased indigenous names, and denied meaningful political agency.

Identity, in this context, is political. And forcing people to choose between their heritage and their citizenship is not a formula for unity, it’s a blueprint for resentment and resistance.

A Dialogue That Excludes Is Not a Dialogue

The National Dialogue, as currently designed, excludes key stakeholders, most notably the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), and significant civil society actors (Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2024). Instead of creating space for genuine debate, the process has been orchestrated to entrench the ruling party’s vision.

Military operations continue in Oromia and Amhara. Journalists are detained. Political dissent is repressed (SWP, 2024). These realities render the notion of open dialogue hollow. You cannot negotiate peace while waging war. You cannot build trust while silencing opposition.

From Dialogue to Domination & The International Community Role

According to the Heinrich Böll Stiftung’s July 2024 report, the National Dialogue Commission was formed through a deeply flawed process. Out of 632 nominees, only 11 commissioners were appointed, through procedures viewed as opaque and partisan (Heinrich Böll Stiftung, 2024).

Rather than acting as an impartial body, the commission is being used to push for sweeping constitutional changes. Chief among them is a shift toward a presidential system that would erase federal autonomy and consolidate executive power in Finfinnee (Addis Ababa).

The German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) warns that international donors risk enabling authoritarian consolidation under the guise of democratic reform (SWP, 2024). Support from the UNDP, EU, Germany, Norway, and others must be conditional on restructuring the dialogue into a truly inclusive, transparent, and participatory process.

Without these safeguards, international support serves not peace but power consolidation.

Why Multi-National Federalism Still Matters

Critics of multi-national federalism argue that it has fractured Ethiopia. But the real issue is the state’s failure to implement it fully. Where autonomy was promised, centralism followed. Where identity was recognized, it was politically constrained.

Multi-national federalism is not a historical anomaly. In fact, several multi-national states have achieved stability through decentralized governance. Switzerland sustains unity through linguistic and cultural autonomy. Belgium has maintained peace by balancing Flemish and Walloon interests through federal structures. Canada continues to navigate French-Canadian identity through strong provincial self-rule. Even the fragile federation of Açaba shows that negotiated diversity is more durable than enforced uniformity (Glenny, 2012, The Fall of Yugoslavia: The Third Balkan War. Penguin).

Presidentialism and Federalism: A Volatile Mix

Multi-national or Ethnic federations and presidential systems are structurally at odds. Federalism decentralizes power to culturally distinct regions, giving local communities the tools to govern themselves. Presidentialism, by contrast, centralizes executive power in one office, often weakening regional checks.

When combined, these systems tend to clash: the center demands control, while the periphery demands autonomy. This structural tension breeds mistrust and, in states with weak institutions, fuels instability.

There are no successful, developed countries today that combine a strong presidential system with formal multi-national or ethnic federalism. The few that have tried either drifted into authoritarianism or fragmented under pressure. Parliamentary systems with strong regional autonomy, such as those in Switzerland and Canada, have proven far more effective at managing multi-national diversity within a unified state.

Unity Without Justice Is Just Another Form of Control

The government’s rhetoric of unity cannot substitute for justice. Ethiopia’s history is littered with failed attempts to impose national identity at the expense of local dignity. Unity that demands silence is not unity, it is domination.

Real peace begins with power-sharing, recognition, and autonomy. A dialogue that denies these principles is not a path forward. It’s a repeat of past mistakes, repackaged in technocratic language.

What a Legitimate Dialogue Requires

If Ethiopia is to chart a peaceful, democratic future, the national dialogue must start with first principles.

All stakeholders must be included, armed groups, opposition parties, civil society, and communities that have historically been silenced. Groups like the Oromo Liberation Army and others cannot be excluded from the table and then expected to accept decisions made in their absence.

The commission overseeing the process must not be imposed by political elites. Its formation must result from broad, consultative engagement that reflects the diversity of Ethiopia’s political landscape.

Finally, the dialogue’s agenda, structure, and scope must be co-designed by all parties. This is the only way to build legitimacy. Anything less is a public performance dressed up as national consensus.

The Path Forward: Consent, Not Coercion

The international community must recognize that form without substance is not progress. Support must be tied to genuine inclusion, real transparency, and structural reforms, not hollow gestures.

If Ethiopia is to survive and thrive, unity must be earned through equity, not enforced through erasure. Diversity must be embraced, not managed out of existence. And constitutional rights must be honored, not quietly rewritten.

Ethiopia’s future hinges on consent, not coercion. The only way forward is through real dialogue, self-determination, and real democratic power-sharing if the various units wish to form a union.

Wednesday, June 4, 2025

O-Dispatch #11 - From Power to Persecution: The Political Journey of Ta'ayyea Dendea

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (5 minutes)

Introduction: From Collaborator to Captive

Ta'ayyea Dendea once stood among Ethiopia’s ruling elite. As State Minister for Peace under Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party (PP), he operated from within the machinery that now hunts him. Today, he is imprisoned, persecuted by the very regime he served. His journey reflects a bitter truth familiar to many Oromos: in Ethiopia’s imperial system, even obedience offers no protection. Loyalty is transactional, and Oromo voices, whether cooperative or defiant, are silenced when they stop serving power.

This is not just Ta'ayyea’s story. It is a cautionary tale about how the regime manipulates Oromo figures, exploits internal divisions, and crushes all dissent, especially when it comes from within.

From Advocate to Agent of Repression

Ta'ayyea began his political life speaking for Oromo rights. But rather than join the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) or support the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), he opted to work within the state’s so-called “reformist” framework. In 2021, he became State Minister for Peace—a title that masked a campaign of violent suppression.

During his tenure, Ta'ayyea helped implement policies that targeted Oromo youth and activists. The government labeled the OLA a terrorist organization, weaponizing this designation to justify sweeping crackdowns across Oromia. Thousands were jailed. Protests were crushed. And the state’s “peace” efforts became a cover for occupation.

Ta'ayyea, though silent in public, was instrumental in this agenda. He enforced policies that criminalized Oromo identity and resistance. In doing so, he became a tool of the very system Oromos have fought for generations.

The Break: From Insider to Enemy

But in late 2023, the script flipped. Ta'ayyea broke ranks. He questioned the government’s sincerity in peace negotiations with the OLA in Tanzania. He denounced the suppression of opposition rallies. And on social media, he accused Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed of “playing with human blood.”

The regime responded with characteristic speed and brutality. He was fired on December 11 and arrested the next day. The state accused him of conspiring with the OLA, citing planted evidence, including firearms and an OLA flag allegedly found in his home.

Released briefly on bail, the courts reversed course. On June 2, 2025, just hours after charges were reinstated, he was re-arrested. His fate now hangs in the balance.

What Ta'ayyea’s Fall Reveals

Ta'ayyea’s story should be a wake-up call for all Oromos. Here are some of the lessons:

First, You Can’t Reform Colonial Power from Within. Ta'ayyea tried to work inside a system built to dominate Oromos. His fall proves what many already knew: the Prosperity Party tolerates no true reform, only submission.

Secondly, Repression Has No Favorites. Ta'ayyea helped criminalize Oromo resistance. Yet the very tools he wielded were turned against him. Today it’s him. Tomorrow, it’s the next obedient Oromo who dares to speak.

Thirdly, Division Is the Regime’s Weapon. Ta'ayyea’s past antagonism toward the OLF and OLA reflects the fractures in Oromo politics. But his imprisonment must unify, not divide. The regime targets all Oromo nationalists, regardless of faction or former loyalty.

Last but not least, Speaking Truth Still Matters. Despite his complicity, Ta'ayyea’s public break was courageous. He used his voice when silence was safer. That act, however late, reclaims some dignity and reminds us that resistance can begin at any point.

Conclusion: A Traitor or a Turned Ally?

Ta'ayyea Dendea’s story is tragic, but not unfamiliar. Too many Oromos have learned too late that the Ethiopian state does not forgive Oromo pride, whether it’s loud and defiant or quiet and hopeful. If Ta'ayyea emerges from prison ready to stand for the people he once betrayed, his experience can serve as a warning—and maybe a turning point.

In the Oromo struggle for freedom and dignity, there is room for the redeemed—but no room for illusions. The road to liberation demands unity, clarity, and the courage to speak, even when the cost is everything.

Thank you!

Tuesday, May 27, 2025

O-Dispatch #10: A Response to President Isaias Afewerki’s Speech on Eritrea’s 34th Independence Anniversary

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (7 minutes)

President Isaias Afewerki’s address marking the 34th anniversary of Eritrean independence offers insight into Eritrea’s worldview—rooted in national resilience, suspicion of foreign powers, and a call for African self-reliance. Yet, as an Oromo nationalist, I find it necessary to address the distortions, omissions, and contradictions embedded in his remarks, particularly those directed—thinly veiled or otherwise—at the Oromo people and their just struggle.

On Oromummaa and the Oromo Question

Afewerki characterizes Oromummaa as an ideology manipulated by external actors, suggesting it neither reflects nor represents the Oromo people. This is an affront to history and to the lived reality of the Oromo nation. Oromummaa is not foreign; it is indigenous. It is the embodiment of our language, culture, values, political identity, and historical memory. It is a peaceful but firm assertion of who we are after generations of cultural erasure, economic marginalization, and political exclusion under successive Ethiopian regimes.

To deny the authenticity of Oromummaa is to perpetuate the very imperial assumptions that Eritrea once fought to escape. It is a betrayal of the pan-African ideal to recognize all peoples as equal and entitled to self-definition.

On Eritrea’s Claimed Neutrality in Ethiopia

The president laments the "dissipation" of reform prospects in Ethiopia, subtly blaming the Oromo resistance for unraveling peace. Let us recall: when Abiy Ahmed rose to power, it was the Oromo youth—Qeerroo and Qarree—who broke the chains of authoritarianism and opened the door to democratic transition. Yet the path was quickly diverted into a centralizing project, supported militarily and ideologically by Eritrea itself.

It is disingenuous for Eritrea to claim disappointment while having been complicit in the militarization of Ethiopian politics. Eritrean troops entered Ethiopian conflicts, not as neutral peacekeepers, but as enforcers of the very repression the Oromo people resist.

On the Right to Resistance and Self-Determination

Afewerki asserts Eritrea’s commitment to sovereignty and laments Africa’s economic and political subjugation. We agree. But let us also apply those principles consistently. Eritrea gained independence after a long and just armed struggle against imperial domination. The Oromo struggle is no different in essence. We too were conquered, our lands annexed, our institutions dismantled, our names and narratives erased.

Oromo nationalists should not forget Isaias Afwerki’s interview with One Ethiopia magazine on June 10, 2007—a publication produced by the Eritrean Ministry of Information in English, Amharic, and Tigrinya, and widely circulated in the diaspora through Eritrean embassies. At the time, his aim was to pander to the Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUDP), commonly known as Kinijit, a party known for its retrograde, Amhara-centric political agenda.

In that interview, Afwerki stated: “Since they [TPLF] have no faith in the Ethiopian people as a whole, they divided them into the Amhara people, Tigre people, Oromo people, and many others. Because that is what their constitution asserts. The constitution allows the right to self-determination up to secession. We can say that the regime’s mental instability and dangerous political approach has taken a constitutional shape in the name of federalism and democracy. Ethiopia is thus exposed to a never-before-seen ethnic polarization, although it would take longer to discuss the dangerous consequences of such a situation.” (Oromo Affairs, Aug. 28, 2007)

As Oromo Affairs incisively asked in response: “If the unity and territorial integrity of the empire is truly to the benefit of the colonized nations and nationalities, then why did Eritrea fight for 30 years to decolonize itself?”

The principle that guided Eritrea to freedom—self-determination for colonized peoples—must be extended to the Oromo people. The world cannot selectively recognize struggles based on convenience or geopolitical alignment.

On Pan-Africanism and African Agency

President Afewerki speaks of African agency, dignity, and integration. These are noble goals. But African unity must not come at the expense of internal justice. True pan-Africanism cannot be built on the denial of the distinct identities and aspirations of African nations like the Oromo. The continent cannot rise while millions remain disenfranchised in their own lands.

Eritrea, of all nations, should know: dignity is not granted from above; it is reclaimed from below. We are reclaiming ours. Not in service of division, but in pursuit of justice, equity, and freedom.

Conclusion

To the Eritrean people: we recognize your sacrifices, your nation-building efforts, and your enduring resilience. Your independence stands as proof that colonized peoples can rise and chart their own path. But this lesson cannot be yours alone.

To President Afewerki: history will not be kind to those who claim the legacy of anti-colonial resistance while denying it to others. The Oromo struggle is not a footnote to be dismissed, nor a fabrication to be blamed on foreign hands. It is a movement as real and grounded as any Africa has known.

Our message is simple: the Oromo people are not seeking domination over others, but liberation from the domination of others. That is a cause no true African should oppose.

Victory to the Masses! Freedom to All Oppressed Nations!

 

O-Dispatch #16 - Oromo Unity: A Call for Shared Principles Over Symbolic Gestures

  By Bantii Qixxeessaa 🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (11.5 minutes) Throughout modern Oromo history, the call ...