Ethiopia: The challenge to reform Oromo Liberation Front (1-2)

By Weennii Gammoojjii

The Oromo people have been engaged in a relentless struggle to liberate itself from the bond of colonialism since its subjugation by Abyssinian colonizers at the turn of the 19th century. At its infancy the struggle was waged by Oromo peasantry in remote locations in different parts of Oromia. Notably the gallant Bale Oromo Resistance against the Abyssinian brutal feudal rules, in the 1950s, was among such isolated but heroic resistance movements which left its mark on the history of the Oromo people’s struggle for freedom.

As time goes by, the brutality of colonizers intensified, driving Oromo peasantry further and deeper into poverty. The magnitudes of the feudal brutalities were more sever in the central part of Oromia which contains the capital Finfinnee, where middle-class educated Oromos were concentrated. This proximity provided the middle-class educated Oromos an opportunity not only to witnessing the depth of misery served on their people but also helped them to understand the well-calculated long-term colonial strategies designed to permanently break the economic and social backbone of the Oromo people and prepare it for eternal subjugation. Such colonial atrocities unleashed on the peasant population right on the door-steps of Finfinnee served as a wake up call for some Oromo elites. It forced them to do some serious soul-searching. Fortunately, few decided to side with Oromo peasants and went on to join the fight for the God-given rights of their people. This group seeded the first Pan-Oromo organization (the Macha and Tuulamaa Self-help Association). They further reached out to other Oromo resistance movements already began in the remote mountains of Oromia. The culmination of these events was the birth of the modern OLF in 1973. The birth of the OLF was a turning point in the history of Oromo people’s struggle for freedom. The OLF articulated the Oromo national question and skilfully set the target for the Oromo national struggle. As an organization the OLF deserves all the credit for almost all political gains achieved by the Oromo people since it birth 30+ years a go.

However, after 30+ years of struggle, the Oromo people is still far from achieving its original goal of liberating itself from economic, cultural and political domination by the Abyssinians from up north. Various external and internal factors have been listed to justify OLF’s failure to liberate its people in the past 30+ years. I won’t address all of these factors here but one, i.e., OLF’s inability to transform itself into a formidable force.

For a transformation (change) to occur: 1) the organization must recognize the critical role of transformation in order to keep up with the rest of the world and more importantly to keep pace with its enemies, 2) in accordance with such recognition it must implement proactive initiatives for adapting its strategic and tactical approaches to bring about effective transformation. However, contrary to this logic, OLF made very little progress in terms of recognizing the importance of transformation and therefore made negligible strategic and tactical transformation in its history of 30+ years. This stagnation is despite the remarkable changes that have occurred in the world, in Oromo society’s consciousness, not to mention the tremendous politico-military transformation the Ethiopian State underwent over the last three decades.

Therefore it is a no-brainer to see the cause to the lack of progress in the OLF, which is, decade’s old politico-military tactic it follows is essentially obsolete in today’s world realities as conditions of 1970s have virtually disappeared. So why does the OLF fail to realize this? Or to put it bluntly:

1. Do OLF’s strategists underestimate the significance of tactical transformation in politico-military operations or/and;

2. Are they ignorant of global shifting happening around them or/and;

3. Are they incapable of designing strategies that work under current enemy and global situations or/and;

4. Does the organization suffer from what can be called ‘father syndrome”, a paternalistic attitude that stunted its growth and hindered it from implementing fundamental changes.

Obviously the OLF is the power-house of Oromo intellectuals and hence does not suffer from deficiencies mentioned in number 1, 2 and 3 above. However, the party is apparently suffering from a chronic case of “father syndrome”, a disease carried by some senior elite group among its leadership. In this analysis, “father syndrome” represents an obsessive-compulsive paternal urges to taking charge or to take control of what the group appears to consider its brain-child. This elite group developed a virulent strain of this syndrome from early on. For all wrong reasons this group believe that somehow they or their heirs should decide the fate of the Oromo people. On the matters of serious policy issues, the group is always suspicious of any meaningful proposal that originates from outside of their narrow circle, despite the merit of the idea for the progress and transformation of the organization. As to the disease carriers themselves, they do not have the time to engineer any new ideas because they are fully occupied with designing tactics to safeguarding their power or else they are consumed by the paranoia of loosing it. They show a pathological fear of loosing control and therefore they mistrust everyone, especially the youngest, most dynamic and most energetic elements of the organization (the reformists). Up until recently the infected clique had effectively eliminated, pacified, expelled or excluded any group or anybody who did not conform to their views. In the process they brought the organization to a state of standstill and virtual paralysis. However, in the recent years, there has been a gridlock between a tiny minority of change seekers and the powerful clique within the organization.

At operational level, the clique banks on our religious and regional diversities. Those calling for change or an end to the long paralysis are labelled regionalists, ‘clanists’, religious and more recently ‘Ethiopianists’. Indeed, issues like regionalism and religious chasm are real challenges in all societies subjected to the infamous “divide and rule” policies for over a century. However, it’s unfortunate that the diversity of our people is abused by some of our own to crush political dissent within the organization.

Let’s briefly see how these leaders abused these problems and effectively used them as a tool to undermine efforts made to bring about change in this organization. The first sign of dissent was witnessed in this organization as early as the 1970s when the first split happened in the mountains of Eastern Oromia. For sure, most of us do not know the truth as to what exactly went on the date the first splinter group left the OLF. However, it was clear that the departing group didn’t have any religious agenda that separated it from the OLF. As per oral reports the core quarrel revolved around whether to start coordinated armed struggle and other issues related to who should become the leader of the organization. Leaving aside the cause of the split, what was far reaching and more tragic was how the spilt was framed in the aftermath. The splinter group was deliberately labelled a “Religious Movement”. That dangerous initial labelling eventually forced the group to resort to religious tactics in order to survive as a political entity. The labelling did exactly what it was meant for. i.e., to deny the group a Pan-Oromo base and eventually marginalize it. They succeeded but at high price tag in terms of human life.

Decades later, several dissenting voices for change emerged within the OLF (the case of IBSO, OPLF, OLC, and more recently AWO) each with valid arguments for change. One after another, all were labelled regionalist. Eventually they were marginalized and succumbed to the labelling in order to protect themselves. Once again the labelling tactic proved itself as a lethal tool for killing dissenting voices regardless of the merits of their core ideas for change.

Given the OLF leadership behaviours outlined above, it is not surprising that the time-tested labelling tactic is at full swing when the current “movement for change” began. This time around, a mix of regionalism and ‘Ethiopianism’ labelling tactic is being used in a random fashion. Just for your information, the ‘Ethiopianist’ dimension was brought into Oromo politics initially by the Ethiopian regime to divide the OLF in the aftermath of the so called “Transitional Period” back in the 1990s. Around that time, the OLF was engaged in discussions to consider some tactical manoeuvres. The prospect for that exercise was of course short lived and the consequence was serious. In the process certain individuals, up at the helm of the leadership, were unhappy not about the idea itself but about who were behind the idea of tactical change exercise. The Ethiopian regime took this opportunity and invented what they called “selamawii Oneg” roughly translate as “peaceful OLF” in order to fabricate an imaginary faction (“Ethiopianist faction”) within OLF meant for their divisive agenda. Hence, the ‘Ethiopianist’ concept is a brain-child of Abyssinians designed to drive wedge between the leadership of the organization. The fact being this, it is unfortunate that our enemy’s dream is being fulfilled by our own leaders and their surrogates merely because it is a convenient tool to crushing the current “movement for change”. The propaganda war is in full force and it is anybody’s guess whether the tactic will work this time again or whether the Oromo people will say enough is enough to this very old tactic which is no more significant in Oromo politics.

In the past, this tactic did work, not to strengthen the OLF but to weaken those who called for change. The reason for its past success was that Oromo nationalism was at its nascent stage and scaring a weary nation is not such a tough thing to do. Unfortunately, all efforts made to transform this organization in the past have all fallen victim to these tactics. However, times have changed. Today we are talking about a mature and confident nation that needs confident, energetic and competent leadership regardless of the region the leaders originate from. It is a nation that has set its sight on its destiny of liberating itself from tyranny. It is a nation that has overcome its limitations and ready to unleash its huge potential and give birth to a dynamic, visionary and effective leadership. Above all, the desire for change is sincere, overwhelming and long overdue. Thus, divisive tactics, to maintain the old status quo, are no longer valid or at least not as effective and therefore will not work this time around.

Finally articulation on what should exactly be changed in order to bring about fundamental transformation in our struggle will be the theme of my next article (Part II)

The writer is political commentator on Oromo issuescan; he can be reached at [email protected]