Saturday, May 10, 2025

O-Dispatch #4 - The Transitional Government Debate: A Symptom of Strategic Drift

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version

In recent months, both the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and the Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC) have publicly called for the formation of a transitional government in Oromia. Similarly, according to some reports, the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA) made a transitional arrangement in Oromia the centerpiece of its proposal during the 2023 peace talks with the Ethiopian government in Zanzibar source: Curate Oromia.

On the surface, this convergence may appear to reflect growing unity across armed and nonviolent factions. Yet beneath this shared demand lies a troubling lack of consensus, on both the purpose of the transition and the roadmap that should follow.


What we are witnessing is not strategic unity, but strategic congestion. Each group is crowding the “transitional government” discourse, championing its own vision while subtly undermining others. They argue not only over who should lead or facilitate a transition, but also whose version of a transitional government is legitimate. This infighting expose deep fissures within Oromo political leadership. Rather than leveraging a unified front to challenge the failing Prosperity Party (PP) regime, actors are locked in a zero-sum contest for symbolic dominance.

The core question, transition to what, and to where?, remains unanswered. Some vaguely suggest federal reform, others whisper independence, and still others offer no endgame at all. Without a clearly articulated destination, the transitional government proposal risks becoming another hollow container, susceptible to co-optation, devoid of direction, and echoing the failures of 2018.

This moment is a painful déjà vu for the Oromo people. Less than seven years ago, many placed their trust in the ascendant Abiy Ahmed government. That trust was based not on a negotiated agenda or mutual commitments, but on verbal assurances and personal endorsements, such as those offered by Jawar Mohammed. The result? Disillusionment, repression, and betrayal. Today’s transitional government advocates risk repeating that same error: promising change without clarity, process without purpose.

The practical viability of a regional transitional government also deserves scrutiny. Oromia is a regional state within the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. How, then, can one form a transitional government at the subnational level while the federal government, retaining control over the military, judiciary, and treasury, remains intact? Such an arrangement is either politically unserious or legally incoherent. If a genuine transition is needed, why are Oromo political forces reluctant to demand it at the federal level? Why this selective courage, loud in opposition to local structures, but silent in the face of central authority?

Even more concerning is the absence of foundational principles in negotiations and political platforms. In both the April and November 2023 peace talks in Tanzania, sources confirm that neither independence nor Article 39, the constitutional provision affirming nations’ right to self-determination, was invoked by the OLA. For an armed movement rooted in anti-colonial resistance and the dream of an independent Oromia, such omissions are not merely strategic oversights, they signal a loss of ideological compass.

This ambiguity is not unique to armed actors. Civil political groups like the OLF and OFC have also distanced themselves from invoking Article 39. While some may argue that secession is politically impractical, avoiding even symbolic gestures of self-determination weakens the moral force of the Oromo cause and confuses allies, supporters, and observers alike.

Furthermore, Oromo organizations speak of self-determination with fire when addressing their base, at rallies, commemorations, and in cultural forums, but that rhetoric fades in national and international arenas. This dual messaging creates a credibility gap, reflecting not strategic discretion but a crisis of conviction.

In contrast, successful liberation movements, from Eritrea to South Sudan to Kosovo, began by articulating a clear end-state and aligning their strategies accordingly. They did not let transitional arrangements distract them from core goals or devolve into squabbles over interim authority. Today, Oromo leaders must ask: Are we fighting for the people’s future or simply for temporary political positioning?

Unless Oromo organizations collectively define their political destination, and agree on a credible roadmap to reach it, the transitional government debate will remain a symptom, not a solution. A symptom of drift, fragmentation, and unhealed wounds from past betrayals. Only clarity of vision and unity of purpose can turn this moment into a true transition, rather than another tragic repetition.

No comments:

Post a Comment

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 ...