O-Dispatch 19-C - Oromia Rising – Answering the Doubters: Rebutting the Top Arguments Against Demanding Independence Now

(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 (11 minutes)

Liberation movements do not collapse because their goals are too bold, but because their leaders fail to articulate them clearly. Throughout our history, every time the Oromo people have stepped forward to demand their freedom, someone—often from within—has urged caution. “Now is not the time.” “We will scare off allies.” “Unity will be lost.” These objections may sound prudent, even patriotic. But history—our own and others’—shows they often lead to paralysis, betrayal, or worse. Liberation movements do not collapse because their goals are too bold, but because their leaders fail to articulate them clearly.

This piece addresses the most common objections to demanding Oromia’s independence now, offering decisive, historically grounded rebuttals and key lessons for the Oromo struggle. While I have previously examined some of these objections individually, a reader suggested I tackle as many as possible in a single document—and I have taken that advice to heart.

I will start with Objection #1 which goes “Why Raise the Independence Issue If It’s Already in Our Party Program?”

To this objection, I would argue that a written program holds no weight unless it is accompanied by a clear and public commitment.

Leaders who say “independence is in our platform, but we don’t talk about it openly” are either misleading the people or negotiating behind their backs. Who are they hiding the goal from? The Oromo people—or the global powers?

The public deserves honesty and a clear objective to rally around. When movements conceal their true goals, they erode trust and create openings for opportunists and internal fragmentation. This very failure has contributed to the defection of several former leaders to the Prosperity Party—figures such as Lencho Lata and Kajela Merdasa, to name just a few.

What is the lesson here? Political programs are meaningless without political courage. It takes more than writing down ideals, it requires the bravery to speak them aloud, the integrity to stand by them, and the conviction to act on them. Say what you truly believe. Rally the nation around that vision. Then work tirelessly to turn it into reality.

Objection #2 goes like this: “Now Is Not the Time”

However, history teaches that postponing clarity is how revolutions get hijacked. Let us look at our own experiences.

• In 1974, Ethiopia’s monarchy fell without a clear plan for the future. The Derg filled the vacuum with brutality.
• In 1991, the Derg fell, and Oromo groups like the OLF joined the transition in good faith. But lacking clarity and unity, they were sidelined as the TPLF imposed its will.
• In 2018, Oromo leaders again entered the political arena calling for reform. The result? Mass arrests, massacres, and the destruction of the hopes of “change from within.”

What lesson should we draw from these past experiences? Waiting for the “right time” often means waiting until it’s too late. Clarity brings strength. Delay invites defeat.

Objection #3 claims “Oromo Unity Will Be Harmed If We Raise Independence Now”

I say, To the contrary. True unity comes from clear principles—not vague slogans.

Movements that fear the truth divide themselves from within. Hiding our ultimate goal may preserve a surface-level alliance, but it invites co-optation, betrayal, and elite manipulation. Vague calls for “freedom” or “change” have been weaponized to suppress real demands. Let us look at a couple of examples.

• In Post-1991 Ethiopia, the TPLF co-opted Oromo elites with empty promises of “federalism,” then excluded them from real power.
• Another example would be, Mugabe of Zimbabwe who used slogans of “national unity” to marginalize ZAPU leaders.
• Bashir’s peace deals in Sudan were all designed to divide and conquer rebel movements.

It is clear from these examples the Lesson here is Real unity is built on truth and shared vision—not silence. Clarity guards against betrayal.

The fourth Objection raised goes like this:  “The International Community Won’t Support Us If We Say Independence” as if silence has ever won anyone international support.

Only strategy and coherence can win you international support.

Western powers are not morality police. They support movements that are organized, disciplined, and clear about their goals. They calculate risks, not feelings. Let us look at a few cases to drive this point home.

• Eritrea, for example, never wavered on independence, even when Western powers backed Ethiopia. After victory, it held a referendum and was recognized. It won international support through strategy and coherence among other things.
• In the same neighborhood, South Sudan Kept independence central to their strategy and all negotiations. As a result, when the people voted, 98% chose to succeed with Western support.
• Kosovo declared its independence goal clearly and early and worked hard at building diplomatic networks. Eventually, its independence was recognized by over 100 countries that did not support it previously.

What is the lesson for us here? It is that The West respects resolve, not hesitation. We should Make our case for independence and make it consistently. The international community will be compelled to listen and support.

There is a fifth objection that goes “Let’s First Remove Abiy’s Regime, Then Talk About Independence”.

But this very strategy has failed us—miserably and repeatedly In Oromo history. Remember 1974 and the fall of Haile Selassie, 1991 and the defeat of the Derg, and 2018 when the TPLF was ousted. Did any of these moments lead to outcomes favorable for the Oromo? No—they did not! Why?

Because, in Ethiopia, regime change without structural change leads to recycled tyranny. The empire persists under new names because no clear vision replaces it. Plenty of other examples abound. To mention but a few, in Egypt  in 2011, and in Sudan in 2019, dictators fell, but vague roadmaps led to military resurgence and crushed revolutions.

One lesson from these examples is that If we don’t define our goal now, once the current regime failed, others will define our future for us. Silence today weakens our position tomorrow.

Then there is Objection #6 which goes “We Can’t Focus on Independence and Fight the Regime at the Same Time” as if movements can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.

In fact, they must. Successful struggles combine vision, mobilization, and resistance all at the same time.

Vietnam Fought French and American forces at the same time that it was building grassroots governance. ANC in South Africa demanded majority rule, fought apartheid, and prepared for governance simultaneously. Closer to home, Eritrea, built schools and clinics in liberated zones while fighting a war and defeating the DERG but never dropped the independence demand.

The clear lesson here is that we don’t have to choose between vision and action, lasting victory requires both.

There are those whose objection (which I number as objection #7) goes like “Reform Is Still Possible Within Ethiopia” as if we have not tried to reform that empire. Repeatedly. And each time, we were betrayed. We carry the scars to prove it.

The Oromo groups that joined the transitional government in 1991, were quickly excluded from power and violently pushed out. In 2018, Oromo leaders embraced “Medemer” and postponed the independence question. Today, we count their graves. Other nations tried reform too:

• Eritrea was federated with Ethiopia in 1952. In 1962, the emperor unilaterally annexed it.
• South Sudan was granted autonomy in 1972. A decade later, it was revoked.
• Kosovo had self-rule in 1989 until Milosević crushed it.
• Bangladesh sought equal rights within Pakistan. The result was war and genocide.

What is the lesson here? The Oromo have tried reform. We were answered with bullets. Independence is not secession—it is self-rescue.

In Conclusion, I say, demand Defines Destiny.

The future will not be shaped by those who wait, whisper, or hedge. It will be shaped by those who declare their direction and walk it with resolve.

We are not reckless for demanding independence. We are responsible—for remembering the past, reading the present, and preparing for the future.

Oromia’s freedom is not a distraction. It is our moral anchor and strategic necessity.

Let us no longer silence ourselves to please those who have never stood with us. Let us no longer delay for a unity that never comes. Let us no longer hide what our people already know:

Independence is not a dream—it is a direction.

The only thing left is to walk it.

 

O-Dispatch 19-B - Oromia Rising – Lessons from Eritrea, Kosovo, and Bangladesh: What We Can Learn and What We Must Avoid

(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 (6.3 minutes)

Introduction Some say, “This is not the right time.” Others argue, “No one will support us” if we demand independence now. But history tells a different story. Nations that eventually gained independence often began with far less than we have today, less population, less recognition, and less internal unity. So what made them succeed? What mistakes did they avoid? What sacrifices did they embrace? This installment explores three powerful examples, Eritrea, Kosovo, and Bangladesh, each of which faced overwhelming odds, yet altered the course of history. Here’s what Oromia can learn from them.

Eritrea: Clarity + Persistence + Parallel Institutions

• Declared Goal: Independence, clearly and early.
• Timeframe: 30 years of armed and diplomatic struggle. Oromia’s struggle has already endured for over 50 years.
• Tools of Success:
• Built alternative governance structures in liberated zones.
• Mobilized the diaspora for funding, lobbying, and narrative building.
• Maintained unity around a single, unwavering goal.

Lesson for Oromia:

• Don’t wait for permission, build while you demand.
• Develop Oromo self-governance in parallel with the crumbling empire (as OLF-OLA is currently doing).
• Focus less on replacing rulers in Addis Ababa and more on establishing real autonomy in Finfinne.

Kosovo: Strategic Messaging + International Leverage

• Declared Goal: Independence from Serbia, framed as a human rights issue and a response to state violence.
• Timeframe: 10 years of resistance, followed by 3 years under U.N. administration before declaring independence.
• Tools of Success:
• Employed nonviolence and strategic media to build moral legitimacy.
• Framed their cause in terms of universal values, democracy, human rights, and self-determination.
• Coordinated actively with U.S. and European allies, even during occupation.

Lesson for Oromia:

• Frame our demand not only in historical or ethnic terms, but as a moral and democratic imperative.
• Make human rights violations in Oromia central to international advocacy.
• Cultivate strategic relationships with democratic governments and rights organizations.

Bangladesh: Mass Uprising + Cultural Identity + Timing

• Declared Goal: Independence from Pakistan after decades of linguistic, cultural, and economic suppression.
• Timeframe: 9 months of armed struggle following mass protests and a genocidal crackdown.
• Tools of Success:
• Asserted language and cultural identity (Bengali vs. Urdu) as a rallying point.
• Seized the moment following a crisis of legitimacy in West Pakistan.
• Aligned with India’s geopolitical interests to secure military and diplomatic backing.

Lesson for Oromia:

• Leverage the Oromo language and culture as unifying and liberating forces. They’ve brought us this far, and will carry us toward a free Oromia governed by its people.
• Be ready to seize political ruptures, such as Ethiopia’s imminent collapse or major regional shifts.
• Understand and respond to regional geopolitics, including the interests of Egypt, the Gulf, and the Horn, and align strategically.

Common Elements of Their Success

These movements shared critical traits that fueled their breakthroughs:

First, they all had a Clear Goal and Unambiguous declaration of independence, internally and externally.

Secondly, they all imagined post-independence gov’t right from the start and built Parallel Structures but to various degrees in each case.

Thirdly, in their international messaging, they Framed their demands in terms of democracy, justice, and human rights and appealed to these and other universal values.

Fourth, they ensured their diaspora was involved and played a vital role in funding, lobbying, and storytelling.

Finally, they all seized regime crises or geopolitical shifts opportunities  and took Timed and decisive action during regime/federal collapse.

Element	Common Approach
Clarity of Goal	Unambiguous declaration of independence, internally and externally.
Parallel Structures	Built or imagined post-independence governance early on.
Universal Messaging	Framed demands in terms of democracy, justice, and human rights.
Diaspora Engagement	Diaspora played a vital role in funding, lobbying, and storytelling.
Strategic Timing	Took decisive action during regime crises or geopolitical shifts.

Conclusion

The road to independence is never easy. But it becomes clearer when we learn from those who walked it before us.

• Like Eritrea, let us be bold, organized, and self-reliant.
• Like Kosovo, let us speak in the language of justice and morality the world understands.
• Like Bangladesh, let us be rooted in our identity and ready to seize the moment when it arrives.

Oromia’s path will be unique, but we do not walk it alone.

 

O-Dispatch #19-A – Oromia Rising: Why Independence, Why Now

(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 Anonymous

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (4.5 minutes)

A nation without clarity of purpose cannot chart a course toward freedom. For over a century, the Oromo people have endured conquest, dispossession, and systematic efforts to erase their identity. Even in the era of “federalism,” Oromia remains occupied in all but name—governed by proxy, stripped of its resources, and denied the right to determine its own future. This essay series, Oromia Rising, is a call for clarity, courage, and collective commitment. Each installment explores a fundamental question: Why independence? What would it mean? How do we address the concerns raised? And how do we build toward this goal?

We begin where every liberation movement must begin: with clarity of purpose.

Federalism Has Failed

Ethiopia’s so-called multinational federation was never intended to empower the Oromo. It was crafted to contain and control them. Every time the Oromo have voted or mobilized for real change, the state has responded with violence, fraud, and repression.

• OPDO/PP rulers are selected in Addis Ababa, not Finfinne.
• Oromia’s security forces are subordinated to federal command.
• Education, development, and language policy remain hostage to the empire’s priorities.

What we have is autonomy without sovereignty—form without substance. That is not enough.

Oromia Is Already a Nation

We are not asking to become something new. We are demanding recognition for what we already are:

• A people with a shared language, history, and identity
• A territory officially recognized in Ethiopia’s constitution
• A population larger than that of most African countries
• A legacy of resistance, survival, and self-determination

Even the Ethiopian constitution (Article 39) affirms Oromia’s right to self-determination, up to and including secession. Why, then, are Oromo political leaders afraid to assert a right enshrined even in the empire’s own laws?

Delaying the Goal Weakens the Struggle

Some argue that we must wait to declare our aim—until we are stronger, more united, or until the geopolitical climate changes. But history tells a different story: clarity breeds strength.

• Eritrea didn’t wait for global approval—it declared its goal and built support.
• Kosovo articulated its aim early and developed diplomatic relationships.
• East Timor kept its vision alive, even while in exile.

Movements that avoid stating their goal invite confusion, fragmentation, and co-optation. Those that articulate it clearly build coherence, unity, and momentum.

The Ethiopian State Is Unraveling

The center cannot hold—at least not through consent, only through coercion.

• Civil war continues to engulf the empire.
• The economy has collapsed.
• Massacres go unpunished: the Karrayyu Gadaa fathers, the assassinations of Hachalu Hundessa and Batte Urgessa—none have seen justice.
• Elections are rigged or suspended.
• Civilian governance is increasingly replaced by military rule.

The empire is not reforming—it is decaying. Clinging to it will not protect Oromia. It will destroy it.

Freedom Is the Foundation of Peace and Prosperity

Only independence can guarantee:

• Peace: through demilitarization and security built on popular consent
• Prosperity: by reclaiming control over our land, economy, and resources
• Dignity: by speaking our language and choosing our own leaders
• Development: by prioritizing our people rather than serving an imperial core

We seek peace through sovereignty, not domination. We seek dignity through self-rule, not dependency.

Conclusion

Now is the time to move from ambiguity to vision, from hesitation to resolve.

The world will not believe in Oromo freedom until the Oromo people declare it.

Independence is not a dream—it is a direction.

Let us walk it boldly—together.

O-Dispatch #18: You don’t get what you don’t demand: Why Tactical Silence on Independence Is a Risky Gamble for the Oromo Liberation Movement

(Don’t wait to demand independence until you are strong. Become strong because you demand independence.)

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (13 minutes)

Several Oromo leaders have argued for a tactical delay in demanding Oromia's independence. Their reasoning: open calls for independence might alienate potential international allies and damage the movement's diplomatic credibility. Instead, they advocate for strategic ambiguity—focusing first on toppling the current regime, then pursuing independence once stronger. While this may seem tactically sound at first, historical and strategic analysis reveal that such an approach is deeply flawed. More often than not, movements that postpone core demands in the name of diplomacy end up marginalized, co-opted, or erased from the very future they fought to shape.

This essay respectfully challenges that logic and offers examples from other liberation movements to argue why clarity, not silence, is the path to genuine liberation.

---

The Logic Behind “Tactical Silence”

The rationale can be summarized as follows:

“Calling for independence now risks alienating allies. Let’s first build international legitimacy and political strength, then raise the independence demand later.”

This phased approach might appear cautious and smart—but in reality, it often confuses short-term diplomacy with long-term capitulation. Suppressing core objectives to avoid friction often leads to strategic disunity and ultimately weakens a movement’s bargaining power.

But even more importantly, this exact strategy—toppling the current regime first, and then pursuing what we want later—has already failed the Oromo people multiple times:

• After the fall of Haile Selassie, the Oromo supported the revolution but were sidelined in the creation of the new order.
• After the fall of the Derg regime, the OLF entered the transitional government, only to be betrayed and forced into exile.
• After the fall of TPLF dominance in 2018, Oromo leaders again supported a transitional opening without asserting independence, and were systematically suppressed once the regime consolidated power.

Why should we believe, this same strategy will work now when it has failed us at every historical turn?

Why Delaying the Independence Demand Is Dangerous

Firstly, It Breeds Internal Confusion and Fragmentation

A movement that doesn’t clearly articulate its end goal invites internal splintering:

• Some members push for full independence.
• Others advocate for federal reform.
• Still others settle for inclusion in state structures.

Without a shared destination, unity dissolves, moral clarity fades, and factions emerge. A good example for this situation from our struggle would be the OLF's Return to Ethiopia in 2018 and the Strategic Ambiguity and Fragmentation that followed its return. Upon its return, the organization avoided making its end goal publicly and consistently clear. Instead of restating a clear position (e.g., “we are entering this political space to negotiate the peaceful realization of an independent Oromia”), the OLF leadership emphasized peaceful struggle and democratization. There is no telling if the shift was strategic or genuine. As a result, Supporters, cadres, and rival factions interpreted the ambiguity differently. As a result, one wing, led by Dawud Ibsa, continued to position the OLF as a liberation movement but was criticized for lacking operational clarity and decisiveness. A rival faction emerged under Ararso Biqila and others, who were co-opted by Abiy Ahmed. The Oromo Liberation Army (OLA), formerly the armed wing of the OL, refused to disarm, citing betrayal of the liberation cause. This group eventually separated formally, accusing the political wing of abandoning the goal of independence. The resultant outcome was a splintered organization into a registered (further splintered) party seeking reform within Ethiopia (Led by Ob. Dawud Ibsa and another by Ararso Bikila), a militarized group insisting on armed struggle for full independence (or so we thought), and a disillusioned grassroots activists and youth (Qeerroo) caught between conflicting signals.

The "shared destination" was no longer clear. Without an agreed-upon end goal, different actors pursued different visions of the future. The once somewhat united national movement became a patchwork of rival groups, undermining collective strength. The absence of a bold, principled destination weakened the moral and rhetorical power of the Oromo cause on the world stage. The Oromo case illustrates how deferring or avoiding a clear demand for full statehood led to internal fragmentation, confusion over purpose, and loss of external credibility, where, after half-century-old struggle, the world continues to ask, “What do Oromos want?”. This is precisely what happens when movements lack a shared destination.

Secondly, by Delaying the Independence Demand, You Forfeit Negotiation Leverage

If a movement doesn’t declare independence upfront, future negotiations lack credibility. When independence is finally raised, adversaries can dismiss it as a post-hoc demand.

A compelling example of this case is South Sudan — a liberation struggle that initially avoided demanding full independence, resulting in weak negotiating leverage and delayed freedom, until it ultimately shifted to a clear demand for secession, endured prolonged war, and finally achieved nationhood. Following the First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972), Southern Sudanese leaders—primarily the Anyanya movement—entered into negotiations with the Khartoum government. Rather than demanding independence, they agreed to the Addis Ababa Agreement, which offered regional autonomy within a united Sudan. By avoiding the independence question, Southern Sudanese leaders gave the central government room to regroup, betray the deal, and reconsolidate control.

The betrayal of the Addis Ababa Agreement and imposition of Sharia law triggered the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005). This time, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) initially pursued a vision of a “New Sudan”—a democratic, secular, and reformed united Sudan.

• This vision was vague and idealistic, lacking clear popular support in the South.
• Southern Sudanese civilians, having experienced Khartoum’s duplicity, increasingly pushed for outright secession.

By the early 2000s, especially under international mediation, the SPLM began shifting decisively to a clear demand for independence. This culminated in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which granted the South a six-year interim period followed by a referendum on independence. In 2011, South Sudan voted overwhelmingly (98.8%) for independence in a peaceful referendum. It became the world’s newest country after nearly five decades of intermittent war and over two million deaths.

Initial avoidance of the independence demand (1972, 1983) weakened negotiations and delayed liberation.  Internal divisions and unclear strategy made the SPLM vulnerable to co-optation and pressure from Khartoum and international actors.  Only after embracing the explicit demand for secession, backed by grassroots will and military struggle, did South Sudan gain the leverage to negotiate a path to freedom.

South Sudan’s journey shows that deferring the demand for independence in hopes of reform or autonomy can prolong suffering and invite betrayal. It wasn’t until the movement unified around a clear, non-negotiable goal, full independence, that nationhood became attainable.

Thirdly, International Powers Value Clarity Over Silence.

Western governments respect disciplined, transparent movements, even if their goals are bold. Movements that obscure their aims to appear “moderate” risk being perceived as opportunistic or incoherent. International powers, though often cautious, respect and eventually support liberation movements that show consistency, clarity, and moral conviction. Movements that hedge, hide, or postpone their end goal to appear more “moderate” or “strategic” often lose credibility, get outmaneuvered, or are left in limbo.

Even small nations can gain international backing when they articulate a principled and consistent goal over decades. The Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor (FRETILIN) consistently demanded independence from the outset, even during brutal Indonesian occupation. Despite international powers initially supporting Indonesia for strategic reasons, FRETILIN’s moral clarity and the people’s unwavering demand eventually won global sympathy. After the 1999 referendum (organized by the UN), Timor-Leste became independent in 2002.

In the case of Kosovo, Clarity allowed key global powers to justify support even without UN consensus. Delaying the declaration would have made Kosovo a pawn in endless negotiations. Kosovo made independence its central demand, linking it to human rights and international law. After years of repression, the Kosovo Liberation Army and later the provisional institutions of Kosovo clearly declared the intent to establish a sovereign state. Despite diplomatic caution early on, the final strategy was open, decisive, and coordinated. Though not recognized by all states, over 100 countries—including the U.S. and most EU states—recognized Kosovo’s independence declared in 2008.

In each of these cases, clarity, not moderation, earned them global legitimacy.

In both 1991 and 2018, Oromo leaders participated in transitional governments without placing independence on the agenda. Their cooperation was exploited, and they were ultimately sidelined or betrayed once the regime consolidated power. To this day, most western powers ask, “what do Oromos want?”

Lessons from the Oromo Struggle

This isn’t theoretical for the Oromo nation; Oromo leaders have already tried the “wait-and-see” approach on independence and have paid for that decision.

In 1991, the OLF joined the transitional government of Ethiopia, accepting federalism. The Result was betrayal and exile. In 2005, Reformist Oromos joined the elections. The Result was crackdowns and marginalization. In 2018, Oromo leaders embraced Abiy Ahmed’s reformist image. The result, as we are witnessing today, is suppression and reversal.

Every time the independence demand was softened or postponed, it backfired. Silence did not bring peace or freedom or international support, which our leaders value higher than rallying their nation under the same objective. Without fail, this method has brought betrayal. Then why continue to try the same failed method over and over again?

What should Oromo Leaders Do to gain diplomatic support?

The solution is not to postpone core demands of the struggle which the organization has on its political program: “Hundeen akeeka qabsoo kanaa, mirga hiree murteeffannaa ummata Oromoo argamsiisuuf, sirna kolonii Oromiyaa irraa kaasudhan, Oromiyaa kolonii, hacuuccaa fi saamicha bifa hundaa jalaa bilisa baasuun mootummaa Walaba Oromiyaa dhaabuu dha.” (2017)

This is not a call for reckless declarations, but for disciplined clarity aligned with the organization’s self-declared political program. It is no good for leaders of an organization to ask their supporters to not question whether their actions align with their political program on paper. Instead, they should:

• Frame the struggle as anti-colonial, not anti-Ethiopian.
• Emphasize themes of justice, decolonization, and regional stability.
• Build alliances by showing that independence is a path to lasting peace, not chaos.

Diplomatic silence isn’t strategic—it’s surrender. The movement must be internally aligned around independence, with leaders preparing for it and the international community aware that it's a serious and legitimate objective.

The Future Demands Clarity

“You don’t get what you don’t demand.”

Postponing the call for independence in the name of strategy is a recipe for repeated betrayal. The Oromo people have already paid the price for silence.

Independence shouldn’t be delayed.

It should be planned for, built toward, and openly affirmed.

• It’s what the people believe in.
• It’s what unites the base.
• It’s what gives the movement legitimacy.

Don’t wait to demand independence until you are strong.

Become strong because you demand independence.

 

O-Dispatch #17 - An Urgent Call to Oromo Loyalists: Oromia’s Future Is Not Inside Ethiopia’s Geographic Prison

 By Bantii Qixxeessaa

🎧 Listen to the Audio Version (8 minutes)

To my Oromo brothers and sisters who still place hope in the Ethiopian state, I write with urgency and sincerity. I understand your desire for peace, your hope for reform, and your fear of renewed conflict. But let me speak plainly: what is now being proposed in the name of “geographic federalism” and “economic integration” is not unity, it is Oromia’s political burial.  Our nation did not struggle for generations to be renamed, redistricted, and reduced to an economic zone on someone else’s blueprint. Oromia is not a province. Oromia is not an economic corridor. Oromia is a nation. And nations have the right to self-rule, to define their destiny, and to stand free. Geographic Federalism: A Blueprint for Dispossession Those pushing “geographic federalism” speak of rivers, roads, and economic clusters—but say nothing of our rights, our history, or our justice. They seek to carve Oromia into meaningless zones that serve investors and central planners, while stripping the Oromo people of political power.

Today they redraw maps in the name of efficiency. Tomorrow they will sell our land to the highest bidder. Without sovereignty, economic promises are hollow. They will develop Oromia, but not for us—for others.

The Ethiopian State: Repackaging Domination

For over a century, the Ethiopian state has changed its clothing—from empire to republic to federation—but its core remains unchanged: domination by a privileged few over the oppressed majority. Today’s proposal of “geographic federalism” is merely the latest disguise.

This new scheme seeks to erase Oromia’s national identity and fragment our homeland into so-called “development corridors,” “river basins,” and “economic clusters.” It is an effort to place Oromia’s fertile lands, rivers, coffee fields, and mineral wealth under the control of a federal state that has never respected the Oromo people’s right to govern themselves. It is an attempt to dissolve the legal recognition of Oromia’s nationhood in the Constitution and replace it with powerless geographic zones that report to Addis Ababa, not to Oromia.

Make no mistake: geographic federalism is nothing but the old imperial map, redrawn for the 21st century.

Even Government Surveys Confirm the Oromo People’s Will

Despite being conducted by a government-affiliated body whose very purpose was to justify constitutional reform, a 2022 study by the Federalism and Diversity Management Policy Studies Center found the Oromo people’s will unmistakably clear.

The study revealed that 91% of Oromo respondents supported keeping the current ethno-territorial federal structure intact rather than dismantling it (FDRE Constitution After Three Decades, 2022, p. 61). Oromo and Somali respondents strongly opposed removing Article 39, the constitutional provision guaranteeing the right to self-determination and secession. In fact, they expressed strong support for retaining this right (FDRE Constitution After Three Decades, 2022, pp. 59–61).

If even a biased government study could not conceal the Oromo people’s demands, how much clearer must the truth be?

Oromo loyalists in the Prosperity Party, in the federal bureaucracy, and beyond, you cannot claim to represent the Oromo people while rejecting what nine out of ten Oromos have clearly and consistently demanded.

Staying Loyal to a Sinking Ship

Some of you argue that remaining in Ethiopia offers stability and economic opportunity. But I ask you to reflect honestly. Has the Ethiopian state protected Oromo children from poverty, violence, and displacement? Has Addis Ababa respected Oromia’s right to govern Finfinnee, our historical capital? Has the federal government defended our language, safeguarded our farmers, empowered our workers, or invested in our youth?

The answer is a resounding no.

What we have today is a federation in name but a prison in practice. And now, with efforts underway to remove Article 39 and redraw Oromia’s administrative boundaries, they are preparing to strip us of even the illusion of autonomy.

If we accept this new geographic arrangement, we will be reduced to second-class citizens in our own homeland. Our wealth will be extracted for others’ gain while we are left with token representation and no real control over our destiny.

Independence: The Only Guarantee of Freedom

Federalism has failed us. Reform has failed us. Dialogue has failed us. How much longer will we deceive ourselves into believing that we can fix an empire that was built on our oppression?

The only path to Oromo freedom, dignity, and prosperity is an independent state of Oromia. In an independent Oromia, Afaan Oromoo will no longer be treated as a mere regional dialect but will serve as the language of government, commerce, and education. In an independent Oromia, Oromo farmers will own and control their land, free from the interference of federal ministries or foreign investors. In an independent Oromia, Finfinnee will finally be recognized as the capital of Oromia, not as a federal enclave surrounded by Oromo suffering. In an independent Oromia, the Oromo people will set their own foreign policy, establish their own economic priorities, and determine their own national destiny.

This is not extremism. This is not isolationism. This is the right to self-determination, enshrined in international law through the United Nations Charter (1945, Article 1(2)) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966, Article 1). It is a right once promised in Ethiopia’s own Constitution (FDRE Constitution, 1995, Article 39).

A Final Appeal to Oromo Loyalists: Choose Your Legacy

To Oromo loyalists in the Prosperity Party, in the federal bureaucracy, in the armed forces, and elsewhere, I ask you: where does your loyalty truly lie? Is it with a state that has declared war on Oromummaa—your very identity? Is it with a regime that imprisons and kills your people for speaking the truth and fighting for their rights? Is it with a system that denies your people the ability to govern their ancestral homeland?

Or is your loyalty to the Oromo nation, whose survival and future hang in the balance?

No one will remember the salaries you earned or the titles you held within Ethiopia. But your children will remember whether you stood with your people when it mattered most.

The Future Is Sovereign

Let us be clear: we are not opposed to unity among nations. But unity cannot be built on the erasure of our identity or the theft of our homeland.

The choice before us is clear. If we remain in Ethiopia, Oromia will be carved into economic zones controlled from Addis Ababa, and our people will be reduced to mere laborers in an economy designed for others’ benefit. But if we stand for independence, we will have the opportunity to build a free, just, and prosperous Oromia for all who call it home.

The time for illusions is over. The Ethiopian state has shown us its true face. Oromia’s future lies not in endless promises of reform, but in the pursuit of freedom.

Oromia shall be free. Oromia must stand as a nation among nations.

 

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

(Published as part of the “Oromo Unity & Struggle: 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 (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.

 

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!