O-Dispatch #19-E: Independence Is Not Enough – Avoiding the Pitfalls of Post-Liberation Failure

(Published as part of the “Oromia Rising: Essays on Freedom and the Future” series. Everyone is invited to contribute. Send your contributions to bantii.qixxeessaa@gmail.com.)

By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (15 minutes)

A common argument raised against the Oromo liberation struggle for independence is this: “Even if Oromia becomes independent, how do we know it won’t end up like South Sudan, Eritrea, or Somalia—mired in authoritarianism, internal conflict, or state collapse?” This is a sobering question. It deserves more than a dismissal. It demands reflection, honesty, and a credible roadmap. There is truth in the concern. History confirms that independence alone does not guarantee peace, freedom, or democracy. There is truth in the concern. History confirms that independence alone does not guarantee peace, freedom, or democracy. South Sudan gained independence in 2011 after a long and bloody struggle, only to descend into civil war and political dysfunction.

Eritrea fought heroically for sovereignty, only to replace foreign domination with domestic repression. Somalia collapsed into stateless chaos after the fall of its authoritarian regime. In all three cases, the post-independence vision was either unclear, co-opted, or completely abandoned.

But this is only one side of the story.

There are also powerful examples of nations that won independence and successfully built stable, democratic, and sovereign states. Timor-Leste, after decades of brutal occupation, transitioned into a pluralistic democracy with repeated peaceful elections. Namibia emerged from South African apartheid rule to become one of Africa’s most stable democracies. Slovenia, which broke away from Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, managed a peaceful transition and integrated swiftly into the European Union. Botswana – Maintained multiparty democracy and rule of law since 1966. Cape Verde – Peacefully transitioned to multiparty democracy and maintained political stability.  India – Despite enormous diversity and challenges, India preserved electoral democracy since independence. These cases, and others not mentioned here, remind us that independence, when coupled with visionary leadership, institution-building, and inclusive governance, can yield not only sovereignty—but peace, democracy, and prosperity.

The point is clear: independence is not a guarantee of success, but neither is it a path to inevitable failure. The outcomes depend on preparation, political culture, and strategic execution.

So the question is not whether independence is worth pursuing, but whether we are willing to do the hard work to ensure it leads to a just and thriving Oromia. For Oromia, the lesson is not to be discouraged by the odds, but to be disciplined by them. The struggle must not end with independence, it must start with building the foundations of the state we want to live in.

Independence Alone Does Not Guarantee Peace, Freedom, or Democracy

The Oromo struggle is not merely about redrawing borders. It is about reclaiming power from an empire that has long denied the Oromo people the right to govern themselves. That goal will only be fulfilled when the new Oromia is built on justice, freedom, and democratic accountability.

The failure of other post-independence states was not that they chose sovereignty, but that they did not adequately plan what to do with it once they had it. For them Independence became an endpoint instead of a beginning. Oromia must learn from their experience.

---

What Went Wrong with these movement, later states? Here as some Key Lessons.

1. Lack of Political Consensus: South Sudan’s liberation forces fractured along ethnic (the Dinka and the Nuer) and personal rivalries (Salva Kiir Mayardit and Riek Machar) after independence. Their unity was wartime-deep but not nation-deep.
2. Weak Institutions: Eritrea’s government was centralized around a single figure, Isaias Afwerki. In the absence of independent institutions, authoritarianism became inevitable. The concentration of power in one leader, the failure to implement a democratic transition after independence, the systematic suppression of dissent, the militarization of governance, and the entrenchment of one-party rule without internal accountability made authoritarianism not just likely—but the logical outcome.
3. Militarization of Politics: In both South Sudan and Eritrea, there was no planned and inclusive transition to civilian-led, democratic governance. Instead, armed movements transitioned into ruling elites without civilian oversight, perpetuating a culture of command over consent.
4. Failure to Transition from Liberation to Governance: If a liberation movement is undemocratic in its internal organization and decision-making during the struggle, it is likely to reproduce those same authoritarian habits once it comes to power. In both the South Sudanese and Eritrean liberation struggles, the movements failed to democratize internally and instead carried autocratic tendencies into statehood.
5. Neglect of Reconciliation and Inclusion: Neither South Sudan nor Eritrea implemented meaningful, independent truth, reconciliation, or justice commissions after achieving independence. The absence of such mechanisms played a significant role in their post-liberation crises. Somalia’s fragmentation was deepened by the exclusion of key clans and groups, undermining the legitimacy of national institutions.
6. No Economic Vision: Liberation without economic development leads to frustration, elite capture, and failed expectations. neither South Sudan nor Eritrea had well-developed or realistic economic development plans when they gained independence. This absence of clear, inclusive, and sustainable economic strategies significantly contributed to post-independence frustration, elite capture, and ultimately state failure or stagnation.

---

How Can the Oromo Movement Avoid These pitfalls?

1. Start Nation-Building Before Statehood: Nation-building must begin during the struggle—not after victory. This means cultivating democratic norms, inclusive leadership, institutional habits, and a shared civic vision now, so Oromia rises not just as a state, but as a nation rooted in justice, dignity, and self-rule.

We can begin this process by:

a.       Democratizing the Movement Itself: Hold inclusive consultations across Oromo political organizations. Practice internal democracy—rotate leadership, hold free elections, and foster open debate without branding dissent as betrayal. A democratic state cannot emerge from undemocratic movements.

b.      Developing a Shared Vision: Draft a People’s Charter or “Oromo Covenant” through public forums that articulates the future state's core values (democracy, justice, equality), defines citizen rights and responsibilities, and establishes unifying symbols and narratives.

c.       Building and Strengthen Oromo Institutions: Create shadow institutions like diaspora parliaments, advisory councils, and grassroots dispute-resolution platforms. Launch Oromo think tanks and development organizations to shape post-independence governance. Sustainable nations rely on institutions—not just leaders.

d.      Drafting a Transitional Roadmap: Prepare a clear, inclusive plan for transferring power post-independence. Include a transitional charter, a timeline for elections, constitution-making, and institution-building. Planning now prevents chaos later.  Such planning helps prevent power grabs and chaotic improvisation during a fragile transition.

e.       Modeling Inclusive Leadership and Conflict Resolution: Initiate dialogues among Oromos across regions, religions, and political lines to build trust and reconciliation. Use traditional Oromo mechanisms (e.g., Gadaa) and modern legal norms to manage disputes. Promote leaders guided by integrity, not allegiance. Independence cannot bring stability without reconciliation and trust.

2. Ensure Civilian Supremacy: Armed resistance must not give rise to a ruling military caste. Civilian political authority must guide Oromia’s future. If the Oromo liberation movement seeks to build a just and democratic state, it must begin now to ensure that guns return to the barracks—and governance rests with the people through ballots, not bullets. Civilian supremacy—the principle that elected or accountable civilian leadership controls the military—is essential to preventing post-independence authoritarianism. To uphold this principle, the movement must take deliberate steps during the struggle to clearly define and separate military and political roles.
3. Forge a National Covenant: Develop a pre-independence social contract that binds Oromo regions, parties, and communities together in shared purpose. Forging a National Covenant is a strategic and unifying step that helps consolidate internal cohesion, articulate a collective vision, and lay the foundation for inclusive governance after independence. It transforms aspiration into agreement, agreement into accountability, and accountability into a shared destiny. The Covenant offers a moral foundation and unifying framework that can endure political transitions and guide the creation of a democratic Oromia. By ensuring all major segments of Oromo society have a stake in it, the Covenant becomes both a political backbone and a public promise. Embedded in the movement’s strategy, it serves as the compass for nation-building—before and after independence.
4. Guarantee Inclusivity for All Peoples: Oromia will be home to non-Oromo minorities, and any future vision must ensure their protection and full citizenship. Guaranteeing inclusivity—especially for non-Oromo communities—is both a moral imperative and a strategic necessity for legitimacy, stability, and democratic state-building. This is not a concession; it is a declaration of confidence in a democratic future. By ensuring that all residents feel a genuine sense of belonging, the Oromo movement lays the foundation for a stronger, more unified, and enduring nation.
5. Prepare a Transitional Charter and Leadership Framework: Governance must not be improvised. A clear roadmap for the first five years—outlining institutions, timelines, elections, and reforms—is essential. Preparing a Transitional Charter and Leadership Framework ensures that post-independence Oromia is not vulnerable to instability, power struggles, or elite capture. It signals maturity, foresight, and credibility—both to the Oromo people and the international community. Such a framework provides the structure, stability, and legitimacy Oromia will need during its most fragile moment: immediately after independence. States should not be improvised—they must be deliberately designed.
6. Establish a Truth and Justice Commission: Addressing historical wounds through transparent, accountable processes is essential for justice and healing—not revenge. A Truth and Justice Commission (TJC) is vital for legitimacy and nation-building, especially in Oromia, where the people have endured decades of systemic violence, dispossession, and betrayal. Crucially, the groundwork for such a commission must be laid before independence to ensure swift and credible implementation afterward. Truth and justice must not wait—they must be integral to the liberation itself. By planning now, the Oromo movement demonstrates that it seeks not just power, but moral legitimacy and national healing. In doing so, it breaks the cycle of revenge and paves the way for a democratic future rooted in memory, accountability, and reconciliation.
7. Develop Economic Sovereignty: Plan now for food security, youth employment, regional trade, and resource equity, so that political independence translates into real, lived freedom. Economic sovereignty is essential to ensuring that Oromia’s future is not symbolic but substantive. True sovereignty is not just a flag or a border, it is the ability to feed, employ, and empower your people. Building the foundations of a dignified life must be central to the liberation struggle. The Oromo movement must treat economic development not as a post-independence task, but as a core pillar of liberation itself.

The Cost of Caution vs. the Risk of Action

Opponents of independence argue that avoiding these risks is reason enough to remain under the Ethiopian so called federation. But Ethiopia’s own record is one of repression, fragmentation, and crisis. Remaining in the current system is not a guarantee of peace or prosperity, it is a guarantee of stagnation, dependency, and continued repression and subjugation.

The Oromo people are not doomed to repeat the mistakes of others. But they must learn from them, seriously, humbly, and strategically. The goal is not just a new flag. It is a new political culture, rooted in the principles the Oromo struggle has long proclaimed: freedom, equality, justice, and self-rule.

Independence is only the first chapter—but without it, the rest of the story cannot be written.

Opponents of Oromo independence often argue that its advocates are fixated on symbols—new flags, new borders—without a plan for what comes next. Nothing could be further from the truth. The call for independence is not about retreating into nationalism; it is about unlocking the possibility of justice, peace, democracy, and dignity—none of which have ever been guaranteed under the current imperial structure.

The reality is this: for the Oromo people, there can be no meaningful next chapter without the first one. There can be no justice without sovereignty. No peace without self-rule. No democracy without the freedom to determine our own future. Independence is not the end goal—it is the beginning of a better path. The Oromo movement must and does look beyond independence, but it also recognizes that independence is the necessary foundation on which every future reform must rest.

We are not asking for isolation. We are demanding inclusion—on our own terms, in our own voice, in our own land.