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.