O-Dispatch #19-F: The Problem with “Independence as a Last Resort” — A Response to the Gradualist Case

(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 (8 minutes)

One of our readers recently wrote: “Some strongly advocate for reframing the Oromo liberation movement toward the progressive realization of independence, only as a last resort, through democratization of the existing multinational federation. This approach emphasizes defending the current federation, preserving past gains, and pursuing unresolved demands peacefully. This position deserves critical examination.” I couldn’t agree more. This argument—positioning independence as a “last resort,” only achievable through gradual democratization within Ethiopia’s multinational federation—has re-emerged in recent conferences and political discourse. Proponents of this approach argue for preserving the current federation, defending its gains, and pursuing Oromo demands peacefully and constitutionally.

Though presented as pragmatic and peaceful, this perspective warrants rigorous scrutiny—especially in the context of the Oromo people's lived experience.

The Theoretical Appeal—And the Assumptions It Conceals

At face value, the gradualist argument seems responsible and rational. After all, who wouldn’t prefer reform to revolution, or peace to conflict?

However, this logic rests on a series of questionable assumptions:

• That the Ethiopian federation is real, functional, and reformable
• That democratization from within this structure is possible and sustainable
• That Oromo aspirations can be genuinely addressed within the current constitutional framework
• That the federation is something worth preserving, rather than interrogating

These assumptions are not neutral. They reflect a normative bias toward Ethiopian unity—often ignoring the systematic betrayal and suppression of Oromo rights under this very federation.

 The Empirical Record: A Federation in Name Only

What does Oromo history tell us?

• The Ethiopian constitution guarantees self-determination and secession in theory—but criminalizes their pursuit in practice.
• Oromia’s supposed autonomy exists on paper, while the central state maintains control over its resources, security, and governance.
• Peaceful engagement—from electoral participation to protest—has been met with violence, co-optation, and legal manipulation.

Oromos have already walked the gradualist path—through the OPDO, legal political parties like the OFC, and civic participation. The result? Persistent grievances: land alienation, political marginalization, cultural repression, and militarization. The “gains” of federalism are largely symbolic.

Why “Last Resort” Thinking Is Strategically Dangerous

Treating independence as a last resort presents several strategic and psychological challenges:

• Shifts the burden of proof to liberation advocates, granting the system endless opportunities to “reform” despite repeated failures
• Delays critical preparation, including institution-building, economic planning, and consensus development for independence
• Sows confusion, diluting public understanding of the movement’s ultimate goal
• Instills fear, portraying independence as dangerous or unrealistic unless all other avenues are exhausted

But those avenues have been exhausted. The choice is no longer between peace and conflict, or federation and chaos—it is between continued subjugation and the pursuit of genuine sovereignty.

Historical Lessons: The Myth of Successful Gradualism

History provides sobering examples of what happens when oppressed groups pursue autonomy through failing federations:

• 1.      Oromo Experience (Ethiopia): Efforts to work within the federation—through OPDO, OFC, OLF, or civic activism—have consistently ended in repression and betrayal. The federalism-first approach has failed to deliver autonomy or justice.
• 2.      Biafra (Nigeria): The Igbo pursued greater autonomy within Nigeria, but faced pogroms that led to secession and civil war. Decades later, their demands remain unresolved.
• 3.      Catalonia (Spain): Catalan leaders sought autonomy for decades. When they attempted a democratic vote for independence in 2017, Spain responded with legal persecution. Catalonia remains politically paralyzed.
• 4.      Tibet (China): Tibetan leaders once sought autonomy under Chinese rule. The result: delays, internal division, and deeper repression. Tibet remains under tight control.

1.      These examples show that gradualist approaches often embolden central states, stall liberation movements, and deepen oppression.

Peace Is Not the Opposite of Independence

A false dichotomy haunts this debate: that independence threatens peace. In reality, for the Oromo, it may be the precondition for peace.

Peace is not simply the absence of violence—it is the presence of justice, dignity, and self-rule. Independence is not a call to war. It is a call to build a political order where peace becomes possible.

Those who advocate for sovereignty are not flag-waving radicals; they are principled realists who understand that a people cannot be free within a system designed to suppress them.

Clarity Over Conditionality

This is not a rejection of reform or peaceful resolution. It is a recognition that, in the Oromo context, those avenues have been weaponized to delay—not deliver—justice.

Thus, the movement must assert:

• Independence is not a fallback. It is a rightful goal.
• It is not the end of the struggle, but the framework for its success.
• It is not a threat to peace, but its path.

The Oromo deserve more than survival under a decaying federation. They deserve a future rooted in sovereignty, dignity, and agency.

The Bottom Line

The “last resort” approach to independence fails on both historical and strategic grounds. 

It:

• Lacks real-world precedents of success in postcolonial or multinational states
• Demobilizes the movement by confusing its goals and delaying momentum
• Empowers a failing system by giving it veto power over its own dismantling

By contrast, successful liberation movements declare independence early—as a moral and strategic anchor, while adapting their methods to context.

The Path Forward

The movement must act with urgency and clarity. That means:

• Framing independence as a legitimate, necessary, and immediate objective
• Building political, institutional, and economic structures for a sovereign Oromia—now, not later
• Engaging with both allies and critics from a position of vision and conviction

The choice is not between independence and peace. It’s between meaningful progress and stagnation disguised as patience.

Let us choose sovereignty. Let us write the next chapter of our history—in our own words, on our own terms.