National Oromummaa reflects Oromo culture, history, knowledge, institutions, identity, and ideology, and opposes the mainstream Ethiopianism. Ethiopianism as the main ideology of the Amhara-Tigrayan ethno-nations explains and justifies an ethno-national hierarchy and Ethiopian colonialism over the Oromo and other colonized nations in the Ethiopian Empire. Furthermore, there is an Oromo collaborator class that has been domesticated by Ethiopian institutions to promote and practice Ethiopianism at the cost of the larger Oromo nation. Therefore, the external and internal oppressors of the Oromo have never recognized and appreciated Oromo nationalism and the Oromo national movement. This book is written to challenge the oppressor nationalism of Ethiopianism and to advance the Oromo national struggle for national self-determination, statehood, and an egalitarian multinational confederal or federal democracy in which all peoples will be able to fully participate. The successive Amhara, Tigrayan, and Somali state elites and others have attacked the Oromo national movement from all directions to keep the Oromo in a subordinate position and to expropriate their lands and other resources. It is a miracle that Oromo nationalism has survived and recently has blossomed and changed into a mass movement, decomposing the Tigrayan-led Ethiopian government and engaging in reconstructing of Oromo national institutions in order to rebuild a democratic Oromia state that will either be independent or an integral part of egalitarian multinational confederal or federal democracy. This book unravels these complex processes in an unprecedented way. However, the issues addressed in this book on Oromo nationalism and the Oromo national movement are limited, and a comprehensive study of national Oromummaa and the Oromo national struggle can be done when the Oromo people will have total control on their destiny and political economy. Unfortunately, the Oromo are still under the control of the Ethiopian state and its collaborators, who have little or no commitment for the interest of the Oromo nation. Still Oromo economic resources are primarily used to build and maintain the colonial institutions, which are determined to keep the Oromo people in a subordinate position because of the fear of their size and potential. I thank many people who directly or indirectly contributed to this book by reading and commenting on a chapter or a few chapters of this book so that I would clarify my points and arguments. Harwood Schaffer was one of these people. I also thank my wife, Zeituna Kalil, and my children, Beka and Kulani, for emotionally, psychologically, and intellectually standing with me and supporting me in my commitment of studying and promoting the Oromo national movement. Asafa Jalata Knoxville, Tennessee August 2019 Acknowledgments I am grateful to the publishers of Sociology Mind for allowing me to reprint my article entitled “Politico-cultural Prerequisites for Protecting the Oromo National Interest,” 2019, Vol. 9, pp. 95–113. I also thank The European Scientific Journal for granting me permission to reprint “The Oromo National Movement and Gross Human Rights Violations, Vol. 12, Number 5: 177–204; and Social Justice: A Journal of Crime, Conflict & World Order for allowing me to reprint, “The Oromo Movement: The Effects of Globalization and Terrorism on Oromia and Ethiopia” Vol. 44, No. 4, Issue 150, pp. 83–105. Chapter 1 Introduction The book deals with the issues of Oromo nationalism and the Oromo national movement, which have been exposing and struggling against Ethiopian colonialism and global imperialism for almost five decades. It critically examines how the Ethiopian colonial state has denied structural assimilation (equal accesses to valued resources) and citizenship rights to the Oromo based on the ideology of Ethiopianism (chauvinism and racism) and other factors and contributed to the development of the collective political consciousness of national Oromummaa (Oromo national culture, identity, and nationalism). It also explains how oppressor Ethiopian nationalism rationalizes and justifies the hierarchical organization of various peoples or nations and how oppressed Oromo nationalism provides an ideology or a vision and a program for seeking self-determination, sovereignty, and multinational confederal or federal democracy by radically transforming the Ethiopian colonial state and its racist political structures. Overall, this chapter explains the essence and characteristics of the Oromo national struggle by providing theoretical insights of social movements in general, and that of the Oromo, in particular. The “modern” Ethiopian state that emerged through the expansion of the European-dominated capitalist world system to the Horn of Africa during the last decades of the nineteenth century (Jalata 1997) had created a system that has perpetuated exploitation and oppression by establishing racist policies and practices and by denying civil equality to the Oromo and others. The Oromo national movement developed to challenge the Ethiopian colonial state and change the subordinate position of the Oromo nation. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the intensifications of globalization and the proliferation of nationalisms are the two main global social processes shaping world history. The nature and the role of the colonial state are being challenged and changed by the globalizing structures, technological transformation, the revolution in international communication and transformation of information, and by forces of national diversity and multiculturalism. The Origin and Essence of the Oromo National Movement The Oromo national movement began to develop in the 1960s by challenging the policies and practices of the Ethiopian colonial state (Jalata 1993a, 1993b). Despite the fact that the Oromo people are the largest national group in the Ethiopian Empire and estimated at 50 million, they are a political minority and the colonial subjects of Ethiopia. The Oromo movement was produced by social structural and momentous factors, such as the dynamic interplay of social structures, ideologies, political consciousness, human agencies, and actions. The inability of the colonizers to control totally or crush human spirit, individual and collective resistance to colonial or racial/national domination, the immortality of certain cultural memories, transformations in social structures because of economic and political changes, urbanization and community formation, the development of institutions, the emergence of an educated class, politicized collective grievances, and the dissemination of social scientific and political knowledge through global and local networks have interplayed and facilitated the development of the Oromo movement. The Oromo national movement has gained political legitimacy because it politicized the grievances of collective memory and appealed to a common oppression and ancestry to regain for the Oromo people cultural, political, and economic rights by rejecting subordination and cultural supremacy of their oppressors. However, collective identities are not automatically given, but “essential outcomes of the mobilization process and crucial prerequisites to movement success” (Buechler 1993, 228). Although the struggle of the Oromo people embodies the continuation and culmination of the previous resistance, it emerged from certain historical and socioeconomic factors and momentous events. Colonial capitalism produced new class forces and social groups, such as workers, the military, intellectuals, and students in the Oromo society during and after the mid-twentieth century. Some revolutionary and nationalist elements from these social forces had transformed a peaceful opposition movement to a peasant-based guerrilla-armed struggle. The Ethiopian colonial government and society have effectively excluded these emerging social forces and the masses from equal access to political power and cultural and economic gains. Political disfranchisement and exclusion, repression, and massive human rights violations had stimulated the development the Oromo national movement. This movement only developed into a mass movement recently (Jalata 1997). This development occurred after a long period of resistance and struggle. Initially the Oromo resisted slavery and colonization without systematically organizing themselves. The Oromo cultural and political resistance continued after their colonization because they were assigned to the status of slaves and colonial subjects and second-class citizens by the Ethiopian colonial state. Various Oromo groups continued to challenge Ethiopian settler colonialism to regain their freedom and independence. There were numerous local uprisings in different parts of Oromia (the Oromo country). Sometimes these local groups expelled the Ethiopian colonial settlers from their country (Jalata 1993a, 152–153). The search for freedom and decolonization was clearly manifested when thirty-three Oromo chiefs held meetings in 1936 and decided to establish a Western Oromo Confederacy. The document they signed to establish this confederacy expressed the desire of the people of Western Oromia to become a League of Nations protectorate with the help of the British government until the Oromo could achieve self-government. Despite the fact that Oromo individuals and groups resisted and fought against the combined forces of Ethiopian settler colonialism and global imperialism, a few Oromo elites and urbanites started to develop and manifest Oromo collective consciousness and to create and develop the Oromo national movement only in the early 1960s. Before this decade, the destruction “of Oromo national leadership, the tight control of the government, the meagerness of a modern educational establishment, lack of transport and communication systems and mass media, [and] the absence of written literature in the Oromo language . . . may have contributed to retarding the growth of an Oromo national consciousness” (Hassen 1998, 193). For long periods, Oromo lacked formally trained and culturally minded intellectuals. While the Ethiopian elites “feared Oromo nationalism as a major threat to the disintegration of the Ethiopian Empire, Somali ruling elites regarded it as a dangerous movement that would abort the realization of the dream of greater Somalia” (Hassen 1998, 189). Overall, the development of colonial capitalism in Oromia, the emergence of a few conscious Oromo intellectuals and bureaucrats, the cumulative experiences of struggle, and politicized collective and individual grievances had facilitated the development of the Oromo national movement (Jalata 1993b, 1998). It was not only the Oromo masses, which were mistreated by the Ethiopian colonizers. Those Oromo elites who joined the Ethiopian colonial institutions were not treated as equal citizens. Since the colonial government ignored them, those few Oromo individuals who joined the colonial institutions (such as schools, parliament, the army, and the administration) and Oromo merchants began to think about ways to improve the Oromo living standard. Despite their relative achievements, these individuals had inferior status to the Ethiopian ruling elites due to their Oromo national identity. Paradoxically, the idea of developing the collective consciousness of Oromo peoplehood and Oromo nationalism was initiated by a few Oromo who were educated to be members of an Ethiopianized Oromo collaborator class, but who were not treated as equals with members of the Ethiopian ruling elites. Since there has been a fundamental contradiction between the Ethiopian colonizing structures and the colonized Oromo, the Ethiopian society could not culturally and structurally assimilate the Oromo elites. The formation of the Macha-Tulama Self-Help Association in the year 1963–1964 marked the public rise of Oromo nationalism (Jalata 1993a, 1998). Since the Ethiopian Constitution did not allow establishing a political organization, emerging Oromo leaders formed this association as a civilian self-help association in accordance with Article 45 of his Imperial Majesty’s 1955 Revised Constitution and Article 14, Number 505 of the Civil Code. The Oromo nationalist elites through forming this association in Fifinnee (Addis Ababa), the capital city of the Ethiopian Empire, started to articulate the collective grievances of the Oromo people, by formulating programs to solve some economic, cultural, social, and educational problems of the Oromo society. According to Mohammed Hassen (1998, 183), within a short time, the association “transformed itself from a self-help development association in the Shawa administrative region, into pan-Oromo movement that coordinated peaceful resistance, and in turn gave birth to Oromo political awareness. This means that since their conquest in the 1880s, the Oromo developed a single leadership.” When the Ethiopian government and the Ethiopian elites continued to mistreat these Oromo elites and conspired to deny Oromo educational and professional opportunities, and even attempted to destroy the leadership of the association, the association under its charismatic leader, General Taddasa Biru, unsuccessfully attempted in 1966 to take over the control of the Ethiopian state (Zoga 1993, 118–133). The Oromo nationalist elements of the 1960s recognized what C. Geertz (1994, 30) describes: “The one aim is to be noticed; it is a search for identity, and a demand that identity be publicly acknowledged. . . . The other aim is practical: it is a demand for progress for a rising standard of living, more effective political order, great social justice, and beyond that of ‘playing a part in the larger arena of world politics,’ of exercising influence among the nations.” The Ethiopian colonial state and the Ethiopian settlers in Oromia did not tolerate any manifestation of Oromo consciousness. The Haile Selassie government banned the association in 1967, and its leaders were imprisoned or killed. Since the association started “to articulate the dissatisfaction of the Oromo with the government and particularly with their position in society,” it was not tolerated (Wood 1983, 516). The Ethiopian government did not even tolerate the existence of the Arffan Qallo and the Biftu Ganamo musical groups in Hararghe because they manifested themselves in the Oromo language and culture. They were banned like the association. Similarly, the Bale Oromo armed struggle that started in the early 1960s was suppressed with the assistance of Great Britain, the United States, and Israel between 1968 and 1970 (Gilkes 1975, 217–218). The banning of the Macha-Tulama Self-Help Association, the destruction of the Arffan Qallo and Biftu Ganamo musical groups, and the suppression of the Bale Oromo armed struggle forced Oromo nationalism to go underground. The Macha-Tulama “movement marked the beginning of a new political experience that was crucial to the growth of Oromo nationalism in the 1970s, an experience that taught the Oromo elites that they needed a liberation movement that would marshal the resources of their people, harmonize their actions and channel their creative activities and innovation against the oppressive Ethiopian system” (Hassen 1998, 196). The suppression of Oromo reform nationalism forced some Oromo nationalists to go underground and others went to Somalia, the Middle East, and other countries to continue the Oromo national movement. When the Oromo were denied the right to express themselves in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, a few Oromo militant elements produced political pamphlets, such as Kana Bekta (Do you know this?), and historical documents, such as The Oromos: Voice against Tyranny. The authors of this document were Magarsa Bari, Dima (Yohanis) Noggo, Addisu Tolosa, Nagasso Gidada, Tsegaye Namarra, and Boru Xadacha. Also, Baro Tumasa, Gudina Tumsa, and Abiyu Galata were indirectly involved, and probably edited its final version. For the first time the original name of the people, Oromo, was used in the publication by rejecting the derogatory name, Galla. The Oromos: Voice against Tyranny (1980, 23) raised the Oromo question as a colonial one and defined the future direction of the Oromo national struggle. In the late 1970s, publications such as Bakalcha and its youth wing, Warraqa, and Oromia and its youth wing, Gucaa Dargaagoo, appeared in Finfinnee to explain and promote the Oromo national cause. Lydia Namarra, Abraham Mosisa, Kifile Ummata, Lagasse Barki, and I were the founders and members of Gucaa Dargaagoo. The denial of individual, civil, and collective rights and the suppression of all forms of Oromo organizations and movements forced Oromo nationalists to engage in the Oromo national struggle in clandestine forms. These nationalists formed the Ethiopian National Liberation Front (ENLF) in 1971 and the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) in 1974, As Bonnie Holcomb and Sisai Ibssa (1990, 299) note, “intellectuals who had survived the banning of Macha-Tulama had gone underground to find a new approach. Those who had been able to leave the country were also searching together for alternative tactics and strategies to achieve the objective they had espoused and to find a new model for effective organization.” The ENLF’s main objectives were to reform Ethiopia, introduce democracy, and to bring civil and political equality for all peoples by removing the imperial nature of Ethiopia (Jalata 1994, 5–7). However, most Oromo nationalists did not endorse these objectives recognizing the nature of the Ethiopian state and elites, but rather determined to develop revolutionary nationalism that attempts to dismantle Ethiopian settler colonialism and to establish a people’s democratic republic of Oromia as an independent or as an autonomous state within a federated multinational democratic society (The Oromo Liberation Front Program 1976). The more Oromo have intensified their national struggle, the more the crisis of the Ethiopian state and its terrorism have increased. A few Oromo revolutionary elements established an underground political movement and transformed reform nationalism into a revolutionary one because the Ethiopian colonial government totally denied Oromo any channel through which to express their individual and collective interests. These revolutionary elements understood from the beginning the significance of the reconstruction of Oromo culture and history for the survival of the Oromo national identity and the development of Oromo nationalism. The revolutionary Oromo leaders produced political pamphlets and expanded their sphere of influence by organizing different political circles in different sectors of the Oromo society, such as students, professionals, workers, farmers, and the army. As soon as the OLF began to challenge Ethiopian colonial domination ideologically, intellectually, politically, and militarily, the Ethiopian state initiated terrorism against Oromo nationalists and the Oromo people. Due to the lack of international support and sanctuary, Ethiopian terrorism, Somali opposition to Oromo nationalism, and internal disagreement and competition within the Oromo elites, the growth of Oromo nationalism was slow in the 1970s and 1980s. In the late 1970s, almost all members of the OLF executive committee were wiped out on their way to Somalia to attend an important organizational meeting. Also, the Ethiopian regime targeted prominent Oromo nationalists and assassinated veteran leaders like Tadassa Biru and Hailu Ragassa. In 1980, it imprisoned or murdered top OLF leaders and activists. Because of all these factors, the Oromo movement played a secondary role in overthrowing the Ethiopian military regime headed by Mengistu Haile Mariam in May 1991. With the demise of this regime the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), created and dominated by the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), came to power with the support and endorsement of the US government and the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, and then later established a minority Tigrayan-based authoritarian-terrorist government. To obtain political legitimacy, at the beginning the new regime invited different liberation fronts, most prominent of which was the OLF, and other political organizations and established a transitional government. The new regime persuaded these fronts and organizations that it would prepare a ground for the formation of a multinational federal democratic government of Ethiopia. However, in less than a year, the regime expelled all coalition partners by using intimidation, terrorism, and war, and established an ethnic-based party dictatorship without any opposition from the United States and other Western countries (Trueman 1997; Pollock 1997). The United States, other Western countries, and the Organization of African Unity called the sham elections this regime used to legitimize its power satisfactory, fair, and free (see Reuters Business Briefing, July 5, 1994; Reuters, May 15, 1995). The feat was accomplished through systematic intimidation and outright terrorism. The development of the Oromo national movement representing the largest national group had become an obstacle for the establishment of Tigrayan hegemony. Therefore, the Oromo were the main target of Ethiopian state terrorism. The Tigrayan-led Ethiopian government accepted state violence against the Oromo and others as a legitimate means of establishing political stability and order. The regime practiced state terrorism with the support of global capitalist elites against the Oromo because they have ideologically, culturally, and intellectually challenged Ethiopian cultural and ideological domination and also redefined the relationship between the Oromo and the Habashas. In April 2018, the Oromo peaceful movement led by Qerroo/Qarree (Oromo youth) forced the Tigrayan-dominated colonial government called the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) to reorganize itself under the leadership of Prime Minster Abyi Ahmed who has promised to transit Ethiopia to democracy. The popular uprising did not yet accomplish its revolutionary transformation because of the lack of national organizational/institutional capacity. Despite the fact that the Oromo national movement has been transformed into a mass movement, the result of this change is not yet known. But, the EPRDF’s army has already started to terrorize the Oromo in Gujii and Wallaga claiming that it fights against the Oromo Liberation Army. Generally speaking, the development of the Oromo national movement is considered as an aspect of the worldwide struggle for cultural/national identity, multiculturalism, economic freedom, social justice, and inalienable political and cultural rights. This book considers the Oromo national struggle in relation to broader theoretical perspectives, which are explored below. Theoretical Insights While colonial states, nation-states, dominant classes, powerful racial/ethnonational groups, corporations, and patriarchal institutions have engaged in producing false or biased knowledge, theories, and narratives in order to naturalize and justify all forms of inequalities and injustices, various progressive social movements—national/indigenous movements, women’s movements and labor unions—have struggled to expose and discredit such knowledge by producing alternative narratives, theories, knowledge, and worldviews. Critical studies, such as subaltern studies, assist to confront and expose the false claims of universalism, dominant ideology, and worldviews that attempt to hide colonial history and imperialist practices in Africa and other places (Mbembe 2008). Consequently, there are two forms of contradictory processes of theory and knowledge production, narratives, and modes of thought in the capitalist world system: one form is associated with a dominant narrative and knowledge for domination, exploitation, and maintaining the status quo while the other is associated with subaltern narratives and knowledge for liberation, social justice, and egalitarian democracy (Jalata 1996). Despite the fact that various social movements, including the Oromo national movement, have introduced some social reforms, they have yet to develop a necessary critical theory of human liberation that invigorates the struggle to overthrow the dominant worldview in order to produce a new politico-economic paradigm—one which will facilitate the emergence of a participatory and egalitarian democracy for all peoples. Most often, subaltern movements and social revolutions have been about the capturing of state power and have subsequently become an integral part of the capitalist world system. As a result, social movements and social revolutions have only been successful in introducing limited changes and reforms that are confined by the parameters of global capitalism (Arrighi, Hopkins, and Wallerstein 1989). Nevertheless, the increasing crises of the capitalist world-system—the possible depletion of the world’s valuable resources, global financial and ecological crises, growing social inequality, the intensification of terrorism from above and below, and the declining of material resources for ordinary people—indicate possible paradigmatic shifts that could shape the prospects for advancing new and system-transformative modes of thought, knowledge, and action. Learning from the past limitations of various social movements and social revolutions, critical scholars who engage in Oromo studies, progressive Oromo forces, and the Oromo national movement, need to develop an alternative knowledge and a critical ideology that are encapsulated in Oromo nationalism or national Oromummaa. This development can help in reimagining a new Oromo worldview beyond domination and exploitation. Similarly, the movements of other colonized and oppressed nations should also develop a critical knowledge and ideology based on their democratic and egalitarian traditions that promote horizontal relations within their societies and in relationship to other societies that struggle for freedom, self-determination, and egalitarian multinational democracy. Mainstream classical scholars of collective behavior, such as Neil J. Smelser (1962) and modernization theorists, such as W. W. Rostow (1960, 4–16), wrongly considered social or national movements as abnormal and irrational or deviant. These theorists believed that the collective behavior of social revolutions and movements are caused by factors such as social breakdown, strain, deprivation, discontent, cognitive dissonance, ambiguity, and psychological frustration (Buechler 2011, 91–106.) Such theorists blamed the victims for struggling for their own emancipation. The mainstream theoretical approaches of social movements have failed to explain how the politicized collective grievances lead to collective action. In the 1960s, resource mobilization theory emerged, challenging the classical model of collective behavior and social movements (McCarthy and Zaid 2001, 553–566). Progressive movement scholars and activists started to use neo-Marxism and conflict theory as alternative theories to explain the relationship among political power, conflict, and domination. Resources mobilization theory as a theoretical paradigm shift challenged the collective behavior approach. This theory primarily depended on political, sociological, and economic theories and pay less attention to political interests, social psychology, and other issues (Tilly 1978; McAdam 1982, 42–43). Criticizing resource mobilization theory, political process theory emerged in the 1970s by explaining social movements in relation to capitalism, industrialization, urbanization, and state formation. The political process model criticized resources mobilization for: (1) downplaying politics and political interests; (2) deemphasizing the role of grievances, ignoring ideology, and exaggerating rationalistic roles of movement actors; and (3) ignoring group solidarity as well as social psychology (Buechler 2011, 123–140). Combining the traditions of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and John Stuart Mill, Charles Tilly emphasized the importance of ideology, grievances, aspects of rationality, the importance of social solidarity and common interests, and the availability of political opportunities for social movements to emerge and develop (Tilly 1978). Tilly integrated the Marxian tradition that recognizes conflicting interests, the existence of conflict, and the importance of organization with the Weberian tradition that stresses commitment to belief systems (Tilly 1978). Political process theory recognizes factors such as the availability of material, intellectual, and cultural resources, the capacity of mobilizing these resources for collective action, the importance of the existence of preexisting social networks, organizations, and institutions, and the rationality of participants in weighing costs and benefits for engaging in collective action of social movements (Tilly 1978). Similarly, criticizing resource mobilization theory, Doug McAdam further developed political process theory (McAdam 1982, 42–43). He identified that mobilization theory blurs the difference between the oppressed classes and groups and the established polity members, over exaggerates elite’s financial support for social movements, minimizes the role of the masses in movements, lacks clarity on the concept of resources, and glosses over the issue of grievances. McAdam identified two necessary conditions for social movements to challenge the established political system. These two conditions are the structure of political opportunities such as political and economic crises and the strength of indigenous political organizations that are equipped by cognitive liberation. Cognitive liberation has three dimensions, namely the recognition of the illegitimacy of the established system, the capacity to overcome fatalism among the populace in order to believe in changing a social system, and the ability to believe that introducing social change is possible. Furthermore, another theory called framing and social construction emerged to criticize political process theory for giving a secondary role for collective grievances in the emergence and development of social movements (Buechler 2011, 141–143). This theory focuses on micro-level social dynamics and emphasizes framing, signification, media, and social psychology. It also pays attention to both symbolic interaction and cultural theories that help in the construction of meaning and understanding of grievances, motivations, recruitment process, and identity formation. Framing and construction theory identifies three categories and focuses on them. These three categories are: (1) the process through which social movements frame grievances as injustice and illegitimate and require a collective challenge; (2) the recognition of movements such as status and identity politics, religious movements, lifestyle interests, and environmental concerns; and (3) the necessity to understand the role of meaning and signification (Buechler 2011, 145–159). By focusing on micro-level analysis, framing and social construction theory emphasizes the importance of cognitive liberation for politicizing grievances. Cognitive liberation allows people to integrate individual interests, values, and beliefs with the activities, goals, and ideology of social movements. When there is cognitive liberation or the transformation of consciousness and behavior, movements emerge. The process of the transformation of political consciousness indicates that when movement actors do not recognize the legitimacy of a given establishment, they may organize and engage in collective action. Most political process theorists focus on structural factors of political opportunity and organization and pay less attention to subjective factors such as cognitive liberation (Tilly 1978; McAdam 1982). William Gamson (1982, 6–9) recognized the importance of micro-mobilization and cognitive liberation, and identified the role of ideas and political consciousness in shaping collective action. In micro-mobilization, know-how is very important, and it includes “a repertoire of knowledge about how to engage in collective action along with the skills to apply that knowledge” (Buechler 2011, 144). Micro-level analyzing and convincing people to mobilize and organize require building loyalty, managing the logistics of collective action, mediating internal conflict, and framing and politicizing grievances in relation to structural factors (Gamson 1982, 6–9). Referring to this theoretical framework of Ervin Goffman, Steven M. Buechler (2011, 146) defines framing as an “interpretive schemata that people use to identify, label, and render meaningful events in their lives. Frames allow people to organize experiences and guide actions, both in everyday life and in social movements.” The dominant classes and groups in the capitalist world system can control and exploit oppressed classes and subaltern groups because they have the know-hows, skills, and knowledge as well as economic resources for developing central organizing ideologies that can be translated into organizational capacity (Jalata 1996). Overall, the critical integration of the theories of resource mobilization, political process, and framing and social construction is necessary to understand how the Oromo national movement and other movements emerged in the Ethiopian Empire. These movements have also continued to develop political consciousness through developing the knowledge for liberation to expose the fallacy and irrationality of Ethiopianist knowledge for domination, control, and exploitation. Therefore, as this book demonstrates, the Oromo national movement has emerged and developed through such processes. Conclusion Studies of social and national movements are complicated by competing ideologies and interpretations. Edward Said (1993, 327) admires those scholars who submit to the method of critical approach, and comments that “What one finds in their work is always, first of all, a direct sensitivity to the material before them, and then a continual self-examination of their methodology and practice, a constant attempt to keep their work responsive to the material and not to a doctrinal preconception.” In studying movements, we need to go beyond the artificial boundaries of the social sciences and intellectual paradigms by employing interdisciplinary, multidimensional, and historical and comparative methods, and critical approaches that include political economy, multiculturalism, and critical theoretical and historical methodology. Furthermore, introducing participatory research methods to studies of nationalism and national movements is also highly essential so that the indigenous peoples tell their stories without distortion and misinterpretation. Participatory research emerged as part of the resistance to colonial or neocolonial research practices in peripheral parts of the world and adopted by activist scholars in core countries “as part of a larger discourse on emancipatory . . . or transformative practice” (Hall 1993, xiv). Scholars need to allow the subjugated peoples or nations to actively participate in their research since their experiences are more valuable than a number of learned speculations. Participatory research approaches can help scholars better understand the question of movements by supplementing other methods of enquiry through assisting them to identify the weaknesses of their own concepts, theories, and assumptions by learning from the actual experiences of the indigenous peoples. As an activist Oromo scholar, I have been participating in and studying the Oromo national movement starting from the late 1970s to the present, and this book immensely reflects my accumulated theoretical and practical knowledge. Chapter 2 The Oromo Epistemology, Agency, and Movement This chapter critically explores how Ethiopian colonialism and global imperialism through the suppression of an Oromo epistemology, the denial of formal education, the practice of physical and mental genocide, the destruction of institutions and leadership, and the denial of the rights for self-expression and organization have slowed the development of Oromo agency in the form of institutional and organizational capacity. By denying the Oromo the freedom of knowledge production and dissemination and by preventing them from building their own independent institutions, organizations, and leadership, Ethiopian colonialism and global capitalism have kept the Oromo people in the darkness of ignorance and abject poverty for more than a century. Under these conditions, Oromo activists, nationalists, and democrats have faced monumental challenges in learning about the Oromo epistemology for developing liberation knowledge. Hence, the Oromo national struggle has not yet achieved its full institutional and organizational capacity in order to fulfill its political objectives of national self-determination, statehood, and egalitarian democracy despite the fact that it emerged in the 1960s with other African national liberation struggles, which at least gained “flag independence.” Nevertheless, the Oromo national movement is slowly and surely progressing and mobilizing the wider Oromo society in general and Oromo students in particular. The Oromo protest movement led by Oromo students popularly know as Qeerroo/Qaree (Oromo youth) between 2015 and 2018 clearly demonstrated how the Oromo people were mobilized all over Oromia and beyond to oppose the policy and practice of land grabbing in the name of the so-called Addis Ababa Master Plan and other colonial policies. In critically analyzing and understanding the complexity of the Oromo national struggle in relation to the issues of knowledge and agency, I ask the following four interrelated questions and answer them: First, what are the cultural, epistemological, and institutional factors that facilitate the progress or stagnation of a society? Second, why did Ethiopian colonialism and global capitalism destroy or repress the epistemology and cultural knowledge of the Oromo? Third, what are the major factors that delayed the achievement of Oromo political objectives? Finally, what should be done to hasten the development of the organizational capacity of the Oromo national movement in order to totally mobilize the Oromo nation and to achieve its political objectives? Theoretical and Methodological Considerations Every society has its unique epistemology and civilization. This shows that the world is epistemologically diverse and culturally plural. As Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2007, xlvii) notes, “There is no ignorance or knowledge in general. All ignorance is ignorant of . . . certain knowledge, and all knowledge is the overcoming of a particular ignorance. There is no complete knowledge” (emphasis in the original). Colonized peoples such as the Oromo had their epistemologies that helped them in producing and disseminating their cultural-centric knowledge and wisdom before their domination and subjugation. So, the Oromo had their unique epistemology and cultural knowledge manifested mainly through their democratic governance called the gadaa/siqqee system, their indigenous religion known as Waaqeffannaa, their practices of farming, cattle herding, environmental protection, and their techniques of military organization and warfare for national self-defense before they were colonized by the alliance of European imperialism and Ethiopian colonialism. Since colonization, the Oromo have been prevented from freely developing the cultural, political, military, religious, and educational institutions that they used to produce and disseminate their authentic knowledge. Generally speaking, all colonialists sought to destroy “every last remnant of alternative ways of knowing and living to obliterate collective identities and memories and to impose a new order” (Smith 1999, 69). Colonialism and imperialism oppose the plurality of cultures and diversity of knowledge, and modern sciences, more or less, are the tool of colonial and imperial institutions. “The epistemological privilege granted to modern science from the seventeenth century onwards, which made possible the technological revolutions that consolidated Western supremacy, was . . . instrumental in suppressing other [forms] of knowledges and, at the same time, the subaltern social groups whose social practices were informed by such knowledges” (Santos 2007, xix). The suppression of indigenous knowledge is a form of “epistemicide . . . the other side of genocide” (de Santos 2007, xix). Mainstream scholars call the modern sciences, both natural and social sciences, universalistic; I call these kinds of sciences knowledge for domination and exploitation. There are scholars who call such sciences colonial knowledge that must be decolonized (Smith 1999). Mainstream academic, religious, and other institutions have promoted the knowledge for domination and corrupted the minds of the colonized in general and that of the educated elites in particular. According to Linda T. Smith (1999, 23), “The reach of imperialism into ‘our heads’ challenges those who belong to colonized communities to understand how this occurred partly because we perceive a need to decolonize our minds, to recover ourselves, to claim a space in which to develop a sense of authentic humanity.” Until the intellectuals of the colonized communities develop critical knowledge for human liberation by decolonizing their minds and the modern sciences, which help perpetuate domination and exploitation, there cannot be a true human liberation because mainstream knowledge cannot facilitate human freedom and justice. Realizing this reality, Audre Lorde (1979, 98–101) states, “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (emphasis in the original). Counter-hegemonic interpretive and political frames, indigenous theories and forms of knowledge (rather, modes of knowing) highlight the fallacies of hegemonic theories and knowledge that naturalize, rationalize, justify, and promote social hierarchies in the name of scientific rigor. Mainstream theories and forms of knowledge do have little room or incentive to address the fundamental problems of indigenous peoples such as the Oromo and other subaltern groups due to their self-contained nature and the self-referential thrust of modern concerns despite their claim to universality. Scientific knowledge—including social-scientific knowledge—is not value-neutral, but based on standards that are (or reflect) social constructions, and it frequently enforces and perpetuates related perspectives that result from and inform the socio-historical context that generates and sustains those standards. According to Third World Network (1993, 485), “Scientists are strongly committed to beliefs and certain cultural ethos, which compel them to convert diversity and complexity into uniformity. In addition to this belief system and cultural ethos—which manifest themselves in the propositions that scientists embrace—science has its own power structure, reward systems and peer groups. All of these [factors] combine to ensure that [mainstream] science is closely correlated with the existing, dominant and unjust, political, economic and social order of the world.” Mainstream as well as oppositional critical social theories and knowledge embody Europe- and North America–centric and other dominant perspectives and notions, which at the same time constitute their horizon of concern and inquiry. As Sandra Harding (1993, 2) characterizes, Euro-centrism adheres to “the assumption that Europe functions autonomously from other parts of the world; that Europe is its own origin, final end, and agent; and that Europe and people of European descent in the Americas and elsewhere owe nothing to the rest of the world.” Consequently, in the name of modernity, progress, civilization, and cultural universalism, dominant theories and scholarship have suppressed, or at least implicitly and/or explicitly distorted the cultures, traditions, and knowledge of indigenous peoples (McGregor 2004). These dominant theories and knowledge have presented the destructive capacities of more than 500 years of global capitalism and colonialism as beneficial to indigenous peoples. As S. McGovern (1999, 27) observes, indigenous “knowledge systems have been represented by adjectives such as ‘primitive’, ‘unscientific’, and ‘backwards’, while the ‘[dominant] system’ is assumed to be uniquely ‘scientific and universal’ and superior to local forms of knowledge. . . . The modern knowledge system ‘is merely the globalized version of a very local and parochial tradition’ arising with ‘commercial capitalism’ and ‘a set of values based on power.’” Hegemonic theories, scholarship, and the ruling ideas have ignored that the colonized peoples have been “a data mine for social theory” (Connell, 2007, 369) and the source of objective knowledge production. The hegemonic and state-centric knowledge limits our understanding of humanity as a whole by ignoring the geo-cultures of indigenous and other subaltern groups. Of course, there have been critical and leftist scholars who have labored to expose the exploitative and oppressive aspects of global capitalism by focusing on hierarchies based on gender, class, and race/ethnonation. However, due to the confining horizon of dominant thinking, their limited knowledge of indigenous societies, and proclivity toward versions of evolutionary and modernist thinking, most critical scholars have glossed over the problem of indigenous peoples like that of the Oromo. Furthermore, with the exception of a few instances, their works on indigenous peoples have been contradictory, incomplete, or distorted. Because of the rejection or neglect of multicultural knowledge and wisdom, and the tradition of abyssal thinking (Santos, 2007), the dominant theoretical and intellectual knowledge from right and left has been prone to disregarding the humanity of indigenous peoples. To a greater or lesser extent, these intellectual traditions have tended to see indigenous peoples as organized socially in forms that are unable to withstand the onslaught of the process of modernization. Mainstream political and social theories and approaches to social research have supported or promoted colonial and neo-colonial agendas, explicitly or implicitly, or have neglected to engage in the requisite critical reflexivity, thus promulgating suppositions about indigenous peoples that originated in ideological definitions of societal reality. “If the success of these sciences required the military and political defeat of non-Western peoples,” Sandra Harding (1993, 8) writes, “we are entitled to skepticism about claims that the history of these sciences is unmitigated the history of human progress; progress for some has been at the expense of disempowerment, impoverishment, and sometimes genocide for many others.” I employ a social-constructionist model of making societies (Roy 2001), and critical comparative political economic and sociocultural approaches to demonstrate the deficiencies of dominant social theories and systems of knowledge production. Social theories, as all forms of knowledge, are socially constructed. Hence, I reject the essentialist theoretical perspective that assumes that “things are the way they are by nature” (Roy 2001, 8). Since the beginning of the modern age, the capitalist class and its intellectual supporters have utilized liberal Enlightenment’s claim to universality as the ideology of promoting human equality in order to overthrow the feudal order. Yet, later on, liberal Enlightenment philosophers and other scholars “naturalized” the capitalist order, thus impeding, if not undercutting entirely, the project of emancipating ordinary people in order to defend positions of power and influence through the creation and perpetuation of private property via dispossession and exploitation. Mainstream scholars constructed theories, concepts, and ideologies of race and racism, and further consolidated gender and class hierarchies, to facilitate and intensify the ongoing accumulation of capital and wealth (Jalata 2012 [2001]). In reality, there is historical evidence of an extensive period in human history when racial and class categories and gender hierarchies did not exist, and when all human groups were non-hierarchical and non-exploitative (Trigger 2006, 21–28). Elites began to construct and maintain social hierarchies of gender, class, and race/ethnonation through the invention and establishment of institutions: “What becomes socially constructed is disproportionally the result of dominant institutions in society. Institutions are groups of organizations, categories, and ways of doing things that do something important in society” (Roy 2001, 22). Hence, it ought to be the purpose of my analytical tools, concepts, and categories to enable us to demystify ideological constructions of social, political, cultural, and economic forms that naturalize inequalities in a society, as well as all those theoretical paradigms and methodologies that, either by default or intent, legitimate and perpetuate forms of injustice and exploitation that benefit the rich, powerful racial/ethnonational groups, patriarchy, and dominant classes, and to focus on the development of an emancipatory project for humanity as a whole. My research and methodological stance confirms the need for scientific methods to be enlarged toward such demystification in order to overcome the pitfalls of traditional research methods and theoretical approaches that justify the destruction of the Oromo epistemology and original culture. Culture, Epistemology, Institutions, Technology, and Social Change Societal formations and transformations have been taking place through social innovations, technological advances in forms of the techniques of production and exchange, and through organizational capacity building in the forms of educational, political, and religious institutions and ideologies since early periods in human history. When people were hunters and gatherers, all human groups started their slow development with stone tools until they engaged in copper, bronze, and iron production successively to improve their weapons initially for hunting animals and for fighting their competitors for control of resources and later for increasing economic productivity. With the use of metal tools, technological improvements, and development of agriculture in the forms of cattle herding and production of grains, the emerging elites of certain societies developed religious and political institutions that organized societies within and beyond an ethnonational boundary. Starting from the Middle East, both Christianity and Islam and the need for commercial expansion and empire-building played decisive roles in expanding spheres of influence through the spread of religions, wars, slavery, conquest, and reorganization of societies on local, regional, and global levels. The development of Christianity and Islam cannot be seen beyond this reality although most followers of these religions do not know these historical facts. For instance, the history of north, east, and west Africa from ancient times to the arrival of European slavers and colonizers demonstrate the effective roles of commerce, empire-building, and Christianity and Islam in hierarchically organizing and legitimizing colonialism, slavery, cultural destruction, and dehumanization of various indigenous Africans (Shillington 2005). So a society developed or stagnated or destroyed through the introduction of new ideas such as religions and technology, which are forms of knowledge that help in building or undermining an institutional or organizational capacity of a given society. Furthermore, the innovative ideas of Christianity and Islam that focus on life after death while empowering elites on the earth and the liberal ideology of capitalism and the oppositional ideology of the so-called socialism have played great roles in large-scale and long-term social transformations or destruction beyond a single society. Indigenous Africans in general and the Oromo in particular have been negatively affected by these ideological, religious, and political orientations. Furthermore, technological advancements and scientific and organizational knowledge and skills that emerged with global capitalism have also undermined the interests of indigenous peoples in general and that of the Oromo in particular. As Smith (1999, 63) states, “The globalization of Knowledge and Western culture constantly reaffirms the West’s view of itself as the center of legitimate knowledge, the arbiter of what counts as knowledge and the source of ‘civilized’ knowledge. This form of knowledge is generally referred to as ‘universal’ knowledge, available to all and not really ‘owned’ by anyone . . .” The Ethiopian state and knowledge and religious elites have benefited from Western and Eastern knowledge and civilization by becoming agents of global imperialism in the Horn of Africa. Under these conditions how can the Oromo benefit from these ideological, religious, and technological phenomena that work as forms of knowledge and human agency in the current era of globalization? When capitalism was developing in Western Europe in the late fifteenth century, the Oromo and Abyssinians started to confront each other on the issues of land, religion, and power in the Horn of Africa without dominating each other (Jalata 2005; Holcomb and Ibssa 1990). Until the late nineteenth century the Abyssinians/Ethiopians were on the defensive side because of the institutional capacity of the gadaa system and its military structure (Jalata 2005). In almost three and a half centuries (i.e., from the sixteenth to the mid-nineteenth centuries), the Oromo people established their homeland that they called Biyyaa Oromoo, later Oromia, even sometimes penetrated into the heartland of Abyssinia by joining the Oromo who were already there (Hassen 2015). The balance of power started to change in the last decades of the nineteenth century, when Europeans, particularly England, France, and Italy initiated the partition of the Horn of Africa. As history demonstrates, using Christianity the Abyssinians established linkage with Christian Europe, specifically with Portugal, that saved them from total destruction by an Islamic Jihad war led by Gran (Ahmad ibn Ibrahim) in 1529 (Shillington 2005). Again, during the second half of the nineteenth century, Christianity and the willingness to collaborate with European colonial powers empowered the Abyssinians under the leadership of Menelik to receive military skills, firepower, and diplomatic assistance to defeat and colonize the Oromo that Abyssinians had considered the dangerous enemy that must be destroyed forever. Despite the fact that elements of Oromo society under the leadership of Gobana Dache and others collaborated with the Abyssinian colonial project, most Oromo resisted and later engaged in cultural revitalization, resistance, and civic movements. Starting in the early 1960s, a few elements of the Oromo society initiated a self-help association because forming a political organization was prevented in the Ethiopian Empire; in the same decade cultural movements and armed resistance struggles emerged. Because of the repression of these efforts, a few Oromo nationalists created the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) in the 1970s to engage in the protracted political and armed struggle to achieve national self-determination for the colonized Oromo nation. However, after almost a half century, the Oromo national struggle has yet to achieve its organizational capacity to defeat Ethiopian colonialism by empowering the Oromo people. The replacement of the Amhara colonial state by that of Tigray has intensified the processes of state terrorism, genocidal massacres, and gross human rights violations in the Oromo society as the Oromo national movement has gained momentum by galvanizing the society since the early 1990s. In order to clearly understand the challenges of the Oromo national struggle and how to overcome them, we need to critically explore the effects of Ethiopian colonialism on the Oromo society and how the Ethiopian colonial state has continued to control the minds of its colonial subjects. By killing Oromo political, cultural, and religious leaders during the colonization of the Oromo people and their country and by creating submissive and less informed or ignorant leaders for the Oromo society, the Ethiopian colonial state committed physical and mental genocide. Also, by expanding its religious and colonial institutions in the Oromo country, the colonial state, more or less, deleted or suppressed the Oromo cultural knowledge and epistemology from the minds of the Oromo people. Only a few Oromo nationalists understood what was going on and initiated the Oromo cultural renaissance and the development of national Oromummaa or Oromo nationalism. Such farsighted organic intellectuals have been targeted for elimination by successive Ethiopian colonial regimes, and some of them have been killed or imprisoned or forced into exile. The transformation of the Oromo national movement and the building of its national organizational capacity requires knowledge and retrieval of the Oromo epistemology that had empowered the Oromo nation before its colonization. The Destruction or Suppression of the Oromo Epistemology When the Oromo society was free and independent, it had its own authentic ways of producing and disseminating knowledge that were based on Oromo-centric culture and worldview. Consequently, Oromo family, cultural, political, and religious institutions were informed and framed by the Oromo epistemology that is explored in this section. The Oromo have a theoretical concept of social and cultural development known as finna, which has explained phases and features of development in the Oromo society by embodying the cumulative historical and recent changes that have taken place to produce a new social order. Finna “represents the legacy of the past which each generation inherits from its forefathers [and foremothers] and which it transforms; it is the fertile patrimony held in trust by the present generation which it will enrich and bequeath to future generations . . . it describes a movement emanating from the inside, a developing of the inner potential of society based on the cultural roots it has already laid down” (Kassam 1994, 19–40). It has seven interconnected cumulative development phases, namely guddina (growth), gabbina (enrichment), baliina (broadening), badhadha (abundance), hoormaataa (reproduction and rejuvenation), dagaaga (development with sustainability), and dagaa-hoora (reciprocity, sharing and cultural borrowing with neighboring communities). Guddina is a concept that explains how the Oromo society improves itself by creating new experiences and adding them to its existing cultural life. Gabbina is the next concept that explains the enrichment of cultural experiences by integrating the cumulative past experiences with the contemporary ones through broadening and deepening the systems of the production and dissemination of knowledge and worldview. According to Aneesa Kassam (1994, 19–40), [Gabbina] can only be achieved through the full knowledge, consent and active participation of all members of the community. This implies the existence of a political organization, the forum for debate and the democratic means of reaching consensus on all decisions affecting the common good. This should be obtained without force and coercion, without excluding the interests of any group, within the Oromo society and outside it, in the broader context of the national or international arena. To this end, the Oromo evolved a political process of power sharing reputed for its highly egalitarian nature: Gadaa. The Oromo people believed in democracy, consensus, nagaa (peace), fairness, and social justice. They also believed that without Oromo democracy, there is no sustainable and egalitarian sociocultural development. These characteristics are not marks of backwardness as mainstream theories and knowledge have tried to label them. Baliina refers to the expansion of enriched cultural experiences from one society to another through the reciprocity of cultural borrowing, based on the principles of social equality, fairness, and social justice. The cumulative experiences of guddina, gabbina, and baliina lead to the stage of badhadha. This phase is the stage of wholeness and peace. According to the Oromo tradition, this stage indicates the maintenance of peace among Waaqa (God), nature, and society; theoretically speaking, there is no conflict, poverty, disease, or natural calamity because of the balance among Waaqa, nature, and society is maintained. The development of badhadha leads to the stage of hoormata. In this stage, people, animal, and other living things reproduce and multiply because of the availability of conditions such as rain, resources, and peace. The next stage is dagaaga, which is the phase of development cycle that is integrated to maintain an even and sustainable development of society. The final phase is daga-hoora in which full development takes place in the Oromo society and expands to neighboring societies through reciprocity, sharing, and cultural borrowing. As the destruction and/or suppression of the Oromo epistemology, culture, and knowledge were aspects of colonial mental genocide, the destruction of Oromo lives and institutions were aspects of colonial terrorism and genocide. The surviving Oromo who used to enjoy egalitarian democracy known as the gadaa/siqqee system were forced to face state terrorism, political repression, and impoverished life. Alexander Bulatovich (2000, 68) explains about gadaa/siqqee and notes: “The peaceful free way of life, which could have become the ideal for philosophers and writers of the eighteenth century, if they had known it, was completely changed. Their peaceful way of life is broken; freedom is lost; and the independent, freedom loving [Oromo] find themselves under the severe authority of the Abyssinian conquerors.” Once the Abyssinians effectively colonized the Oromo with the help of European colonial powers, they started to propagate their ruling ideas and mythology in the discourse of Orthodox Christianity. The document known as the Kebra Nagast (The Glory of the Kings) rationalized and legitimized the monarchy using the Solomonic narrative (Budge 1932) and, by extension, related the Abyssinians to the chosen people of Israel. According to the Kebra Nagast: “God has appointed all these rulers and given them authority; one that opposes the ruler and is against him, rebels against the ordinances of God, his creator. Those who rebel against the rulers secure their condemnation” (Strauss 1968, 29). Menelik sought to stamp out the democratic tradition of the Oromo. He and his followers destroyed the political function of the gadaa/siqqee institution and officially abolished all pilgrimages to the Abbaa Muuda, the spiritual leader of the Oromo who among other roles was the person responsible for maintaining the democratic nature of Oromo society (Legesse 2000/2006). Menelik took all these and other actions to prevent the possibility of these pilgrimages developing into an Oromo insurrection and to eliminate any memory of a democratic tradition among the Oromo (Hassen 2005). The gadaa system had the principles of checks and balances (such as periodic transfer of power every eight years and division of power among executive, legislative, and judiciary branches), balanced opposition (among five gadaa grades), and power sharing between higher and lower administrative organs to prevent power from falling into the hands of despots. Other principles of the system have included balanced representation of all clans, lineages, regions and confederacies, the protection of women from abuse, the protection of women’s economic resources, accountability of leaders, the settlement of disputes through reconciliation and the respect for basic rights and liberties. In the gadaa system, there are age-sets and generation-sets (gadaa class). Male children join age-sets as newly born infants. Males born in the same eight-year period belong to an age-set, but they enter into the luba class 40 years after their fathers, and since one grade is eight years, fathers and sons are five grades apart. Male children also join generation-sets at birth, joining men or old men who are considered to be members of their genealogical generations. In these cross-cutting generation-sets, older men mentor young males in teaching rules and rituals, but the former treat the latter as equals since there is no status difference between the two groups in a gadaa class (or grades). Between the third and fourth gadaa grades, boys become adolescent and initiated into taking serious social responsibilities. The ruling group has responsibility to assign senior leaders and experts to instruct and council these young men in the importance of leadership, organization, and warfare. Young men are also trained to become junior warriors by taking part in war campaigns and hunting large animals; they learn the practical skills of warfare, military organization, and fighting so that they can engage in battle to defend their country and economic resources. As Paul T. Baxter (1978, 177) notes, the Oromo have used age-sets for war because generation-sets “cannot be an efficient means to mobilize troops, and a quite distinct organisation based on closeness of age . . . exists for that purpose.” The rule of law is the key element of the gadaa system; those leaders who violated the law of the land or whose families could not maintain the required standard of the system were recalled before the end of their tenure in the office. Leaders selected or elected under gadaa implemented the laws that were made by male representatives of the people (though women undoubtedly had informal/indirect influence). Oromo democracy had allowed the Oromo people through their representatives to formulate change or amend laws and rules every eight years. The siqqee/gadaa system accepted the Oromo people as the ultimate source of authority, and believed nobody was above the rule of law. Gadaa officials were elected by established criteria by the people and received rigorous training in Oromo democratic philosophy and governance for eight years before they entered the luba grade (administrative grade); the main criteria for election or selection to office included bravery, knowledge, honesty, demonstrated ability to govern, etc. Today, aspects of siqqee/gadaa still exist in some Oromo regions. In the Boorana Oromo community, for example, the Gumii Gaayyo (assembly of multitudes) brings together almost all important leaders, such as living Abbaa Gadaas (presidents of the assembly), the qaallus (spiritual leaders), age-set councilors, clan leaders and gadaa councilors, and other concerned individuals to make or amend or change laws and rules every eight years. In August 1996, the 37th Gumii Gaayyo Assembly, reflecting a tradition that began in 1708, was held to make, amend, or change three kinds of laws that the Boorana Oromo classify as cardinal, customary, and supplementary laws (Huqqa 1998). The Gumii Gaayyo assembly has a higher degree of ritual and political authority than the gadaa class and other assemblies because it “assembles representatives of the entire society in conjunction with any individual who has the initiative to the ceremonial grounds,” and “what Gumii decides cannot be reversed by any other assembly” (Legesse 1973, 93). However, under the Ethiopian colonial system, the surviving gadaa/siqqee and the Gumii Gaayyo do not have the sovereignty it used to have. The Oromo claim that the understanding of the laws of Waaqa, nature, and society both morally and ethically and living accordingly are necessary. They believe in God’s law and the law of society that they establish through the gadaa/siqqee system of democracy to maintain nagaa (peace) and safuu (moral and ethical order) among Waaqa (God), society and nature to achieve the full human destiny known as kao or kayyo (Hinnant 1978, 210). Respect for the laws of Waaqa and the institution of siqqee/gadaa have been essential to maintain nagaa Oromo (Oromo peace) and safuu in society (Hinnant 1978, 207–208). Most Oromo believe that they had full kao before their colonization because they had freedom to develop their independent political, economic, cultural, and religious institutions. Emphasizing the centrality of an Oromo religious institution to democracy H. A. Kelly (1992, 166) notes the following: Qaallus have had a moral authority and the social obligation to oppose tyrants and support popular Oromo democracy and gadaa leaders, and to encourage harmonious and democratic relations based on the principles of safuu, kao, Waaqa and uumaa. The qaallu is thought to possess sacred characteristics that enable him to act as intermediary between the people and . . . [God] . . . he had no administrative power, but could bless or withhold blessings from gadaa leadership, and had an extraordinary power to curse anyone who threatened the wellbeing of the entire community by deviating from . . . [God’s] order. The qaallu institution had been committed to social justice, the laws of God, the rule of law, and fair deliberation; the qaallu “residence was considered politically neutral ground, suitable for debating controversial issues and for adjudicating highly charged disputes, although he himself might not take a prominent role in proceedings” (Kelly 1992, 166). The qaallu institution had played an important role in protecting original Oromo culture, religion, worldview, and identity. When those Oromo who were influenced by this institution kept their indigenous Oromo names, most Oromo who were converted to Islam or Christianity willingly or by force abandoned their Oromo names and adopted Arab or Habasha or Jews or European names depending on their borrowed religions. The qaallu can be credited with having played an indirect role in the preservation of the Oromo identity and the remnants of the Oromo political system. The leader of all qaallus was known as the Abbaa Muuda (father of the anointment and original Oromo religious leader) who was considered to be the prophet and spiritual leader of Oromo society. The Abbaa Muuda served as the spiritual center and symbol of Oromo unity and enabled all Oromo branches to keep in touch with one another over the centuries: “As the Jews believe in Moses and the Muslims in Muhammad, the Oromo believe in their Abbaa Muuda” (Hassen 1991, 90–106). The Abbaa Muuda, like other qaallu leaders, encouraged harmonious and democratic relations in the Oromo society. According to the qaallu mythology, the Abbaa Muuda was descended from heaven (Golocha 1988; Knutsson 1967). Oromo representatives travelled to the highlands of the mid-south Oromia to honor the Abbaa Muuda and to receive his blessing and anointment that qualified them as pilgrims, known as jilas, to be ritual experts in their respective areas (Knutsson 1967, 148). When Oromo representatives went to him from far and near places to receive his blessings, the Abbaa Muuda commanded them “not to cut their hair and to be righteous, not to recognize any leader who tries to get absolute power, and not to fight among themselves” (Knutsson 1967, 148). In its modified form, the qaallu institution still exists in some parts of Oromia such as in the Guji and Boorana areas. It still protects an Oromo way of life, such as dispensing of local justice based on Oromo customs and providing solutions to problems created by a changing social condition (Knutsson 1967, 133–135). The qaallus of Guji and Boorana are ritual leaders, advisors, and ritual experts in the gadaa/siqqee system. The qaallus “possess the exclusive prerogative of legitimizing the different gadaaa officials, when a new gadaa group is initiated into the politically active class” (Knutsson 1967, 142). The Oromo still practice some elements of Oromo democratic values in the areas where the siqqee/gadaa system was suppressed a century ago. This system is still practiced in the Boorana and Guji regions under the control of the Ethiopian colonial system. In its modified form, it helps maintain peace, exchange knowledge, and practice rituals among some clans and regional groups (Van de Loo 1991, 25). The current siqqee/gadaa of Boorana and Guji cannot fully reflect its original political culture under Ethiopian colonialism. Theoretically, most Oromo, including those intermediaries who are collaborating with the enemies of the Oromo, recognize the importance of gadaa/siqqee, and some Oromo nationalists struggle to restore genuine Oromo democracy. The Oromo culture, identity, and epistemology have been distorted or suppressed by Christianity and Islam, too. The suppression of gadaa/siqqee by Ethiopian colonialism allowed other societies to impose their Christianity and Islam by force and/or persuasion on the Oromo society. These religions are wrapped by the cultures of Jews, Arabs, and Habashas; consequently, these religious negatively affected Oromo culture, identity, as well as names. The main challenge that faces Christian and Muslim Oromo today is to reconcile the epistemologies of these religions with that of the Oromo, to restore their original culture, identity, and humanity while maintaining their Christian or Islam religion, and to develop their national Oromummaa (national culture, identity, and ideology) on diverse religious experiences. Furthermore, the serious question Oromo Christians and Muslims need to ask themselves is the following: Can we be Christians or Muslims without culturally and ideologically imitating Habashas, Jews and Euro-Americans, or Arabs? This is a serious question that Oromo religious scholars of these religions must answer through religious and interfaith dialogues in order to build national Oromummaa that will reflect the multi-religious Oromo society. Today, there are a few Oromo extremists in these religions who are attacking and undermining an indigenous Oromo religion and authentic Oromo culture by directly imitating fundamentalist Christians or Muslims. Oromo religious scholars, priests, Sheiks, and Imams can learn a lot from notable religious scholars like Abba Gamachis, Bakiri Saphalo, Gudina Tumsa, Muhammad Rashid, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Desmond Tutu, and others. Discussion and Conclusion
At the turn of the twenty-first century, the Oromo national movement is at a crossroads just at the moment when capitalist globalization and the Ethiopian empire state are facing their deepest crises. Despite the fact that national Oromummaa has been developing and that the Oromo national struggle has achieved an ideological and moral victory over Ethiopian colonialism and the Tigrayan-led Ethiopian government, the Oromo national movement still lacks organizational capacity to defeat its enemy. Although the Oromo nation has been mobilized to protest against the Addis Ababa Master Plan starting November 2015 under the leadership of school children, because of lack of organizational capacity and military power, thousands of people have been gunned down, beaten, tortured, and imprisoned by the Tigrayan-led government and its security apparatus, the army and the police. The regime has also organized mercenary groups such as Special Police (Liyu Police) from Somali-speaking people to terrorize, kill, or expel different Oromo groups from the borders of Hararghe, Bale, Boorana, Guji, and Wallo. These tragic events have happened mainly because of the lack of organizational capacity to defend the Oromo people from their external and internal enemies. So what should be done? The priority is to restore the Oromo epistemology and original culture that empowered the Oromo people during the age of the Oromo gadaa civilization. The knowledge and ideology that the Oromo elites have borrowed from Ethiopian institutions, foreign religious institutions, and Western and Eastern civilizations are deficient to develop liberation knowledge and to build independent institutions and organizations for liberating Oromo society and building a free and egalitarian democratic society. The second priority is to liberate the minds of the Oromo elites who worship colonial and imperial knowledge and who are serving the interests the enemies of Oromo society at the cost of their people. These elites include both the servants of the enemy and those who are not committed to participate in the Oromo national struggle because of their opportunism and/or lack of Oromo knowledge, culture, and history. The defeating of the collaborator class by any means is absolutely necessary. This is not possible without overcoming the regional and religious affiliation these collaborators have used to divide our people and empower the enemies over them. Furthermore, the lack of ideological clarity, political confusion, and organizational and leadership shortcomings in the Oromo national movement are some of the internal problems that hinder the movement from building strong national political leadership and organizational capacity. These weaknesses of leadership and organizations have allowed the Tigrayan-led government to terrorize and repress Oromo society and loot their resources despite the fact that there are several millions of Oromo who are determined to fight and die for the liberation of their people and country. Specifically, with the mobilization the entire Oromo society to oppose the so-called Addis Ababa Master Plan in particular and the land grab policy in general, the Tigrayan-led regime was intensifying genocidal massacres, beatings, imprisonments, and torture of Oromo school children and others starting in November 2015. The saving of the Oromo people from extermination requires being serious about solving the problems of leadership and organizational crises through the total mobilization of the human, intellectual, and cultural resources at the grassroots and national level. So, Oromo activists and nationalists must be able to mobilize every self-respecting Oromo to engage in self- and national emancipation. All Oromo must realize that it is necessary to have state power to make sure that the Oromo nation and Oromia survive forever. Critically comprehending these complex problems and solving them require developing and applying liberation knowledge and avoiding commonsense politics. Oromo nationalists in general and the Oromo political leadership in particular have yet to fulfill their national obligations of enabling the Oromo nation to liberate itself from all forms oppression, state terrorism, degradation, and abject poverty. The Oromo national movement cannot solve its ideological, leadership, and organizational problems without coordinating and consolidating the movement and without mobilizing all Oromo intellectual, cultural, financial, and human resources. The persistent failure of Oromo leaders and movement to overcome their ideological, organizational, and behavioral problems have allowed the strengthening of the internal enemies of the Oromo people, which in turn has strengthened the power of the Ethiopian state. If the Oromo cannot stop the genocidal policy of the colonial elites by their struggle, the survival of the Oromo nation and Oromia is going to be questionable. The colonial regime has completed the forced removal of the Oromo from the areas surrounding Finfinnee. It has settled millions of armed settlers in Oromia by removing the Oromo from their ancestral homelands. Furthermore, it has already leased several million hectares of Oromo lands to so-called investors such as the Chinese government as well as Arab, Indian, Malaysian, Jews, and European business people and local capitalists by evicting Oromo farmers from their lands. To achieve its political and economic objectives, the Ethiopian regime engages in political repression, state terrorism, genocidal massacres, and gross human rights violations in Oromia and beyond. The regime has engaged in these crimes with little or no opposition from Western powers, particularly the United States as well as China, an emerging imperialist power. All these crimes against humanity are committed in the names of democracy, human rights, and development. Without developing the Oromo liberation knowledge based on the Oromo indigenous epistemology and clearly articulating the ideology of national Oromummaa based on diverse Oromo experiences and solving the incoherence of the Oromo national leadership through concrete policies and actions, Oromo activists and nationalists cannot solve the internal and external structural problems of the Oromo national struggle. The survival of the Oromo nation and national movement without strong organizational and military power is impossible. Accepting these realities will help Oromo nationalists and their political organizations as they seek a paradigm shift in the Oromo national movement. Since the Oromo national movement is facing danger from all directions, its formal and informal leaders and all nationalists must take pragmatic collective actions to save their nation from total humiliation and destruction. The activists and nationalists should take practical steps for building ideological and organizational coherence and leadership effectiveness and for coordinating and consolidating the Oromo national movement. If Oromo nationalists are truly concerned about their people and if they want to achieve a true liberation, they should show respect for the Oromo epistemology and democratic traditions and practice civility and engage in democratic political and ideological deliberations. Such responsible and courageous actions require taking accountability seriously and using a single standard for evaluating behavior and measuring performance in relation to the Oromo national struggle. As the recent Oromo earth-shaking peaceful protests demonstrate, national Oromummaa and the Oromo agency have developed in the entire Oromo society. Oromo Diaspora communities are gradually overcoming their backward-looking worldviews that divided and made them powerless, and most of them have started to be united to support Oromo protest movements and the Oromo national struggle. These are great victories that must be built upon to defeat the enemy by facilitating the development of Oromo organizational capacity in order to create Oromo national power that will contribute toward achieving the objectives of the Oromo national movement. The Oromo society should avoid the pitfalls of other national movements that only achieved flag independence that replaces external tyranny with an internal one. While focusing on dismantling Ethiopian colonialism and ethnocracy, Oromo movements at a grassroots level should also start to discuss how to construct their state on the foundation of the Oromo democratic tradition that would empower the Oromo people to achieve true liberation by restoring kayyo and saafu that reactionary forces try to destroy. Similarly, Oromo religious institutions, while participating in mobilizing their nation for liberation from Ethiopian colonialism, have other obligations. It is their historical obligations to struggle to restore authentic Oromo culture, identity, history, names and the Oromo personality that have been attacked and undermined by imperial and colonial cultures and worldviews in the name of borrowed religions. As Jews, Habasha, and Euro-American cultures should be separated from Christianity, Arab culture must be separated from Islam. Both Oromo Muslims and Christians can build their respective religions based on authentic Oromo culture that help in overcoming inferiority complex and developing Oromo dignity and personality that cannot be adulterated by colonial and imperial cultures. While maintaining their respective religions, Christian and Muslim Oromo can learn many lessons from the indigenous Oromo religion that protected the Oromo democratic tradition from tyranny by teaching the people to disobey leaders who would like to undermine gadaa. All Oromo who follow different religions have national obligations to participate in the Oromo national struggle to liberate their country and society in order to freely build their institutions such as mosques, churches, and other religious centers in their country, and to work for improving the living conditions of their society while teaching about life after death. Oromo followers of Waqqefanna, Islam, and Christianity need to engage in an interfaith dialogue without being religious chauvinists and extremists, and also need to start developing national Oromummaa that would reflect the diversity of Oromo society. All the efforts of Oromo political organizations and civic and religious institutions cannot be fully realized without restoring the Oromo epistemology, agency, and building liberation knowledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment