The Oromo Call for Unity (Worku Aberra)

Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com  

By Worku Aberra

Introduction

On July 31, a group of Oromo intellectuals and representatives from certain Oromo political organizations issued a joint statement calling for unity against the Abiy Ahmed regime. The appeal extends beyond Oromo factions and invites other Ethiopians. While the declaration contains internal contradictions and strategic silences that warrant closer examination, it has the potential to mark a constructive political turning point. This article examines the statement’s strengths and limitations, along with its political implications, ideological tensions, and deliberate ambiguities.

Theoretical Framework

From a theoretical perspective, the call for coalition-building reflects the logic of collective action under authoritarian conditions. In contexts characterized by high levels of repression and the absence of institutional avenues for dissent, opposition groups rarely unite based on shared ideology. Rather, they converge toward unity in response to oppression. 

Game-theoretic models also suggest that effective coordination among opposition groups reduces the costs of mobilization, strengthens the credibility of dissent, and transfers political risk from isolated actors to the regime. This shift redefines resistance, from an uncertain individual gamble into a plausible collective strategy. The July 31 statement illustrates this logic: as regime legitimacy deteriorates, coordinated resistance, organizational coalition, and political compromise become essential preconditions for effective opposition.

The call for unity may also signal elite recognition of mutual vulnerability. In political economy, elite pacts tend to emerge when no single faction can dominate the outcome, and all face the risk of political failure. This reflects the logic of cooperative equilibria in repeated games, where convergence arises not only from shared conviction but also from shared exposure to risk. The growing strength of the Amhara resistance, alongside persistent Oromo unrest, but without any realistic prospect of unilateral victory, has constricted the possibility of ethnic or factional dominance. The shift toward unity indicates that the balance of power is unstable, elite fragmentation is unsustainable, and common political goals are unattainable under prevailing conditions. Victory requires unity. 

Positive Political Shifts in the Statement

Despite its considerable limitations—addressed later—the July 31 statement represents a positive development in the struggle against the authoritarian regime because it signals a rare willingness among ideologically divided Oromo actors to engage in collective action. Among the signatories are figures who continue to advocate for dismantling the Ethiopian state and assign collective blame to the Amharas for the Oromo people’s grievances, alongside others who argue that those problems can be addressed within a unified country. This ideological range, from secessionists to unionists, marks an important shift in Oromo politics. 

It suggests that, despite ideological divisions, a shared recognition of authoritarian threat is beginning to outweigh long-standing ideological fragmentation. That convergence, however fragile, opens the possibility of a coordinated struggle. Whether this convergence reflects a durable shift or a temporary tactical alignment remains uncertain.

Compared to the London 2016 declaration, which explicitly demanded Ethiopia’s dismemberment, the current document constitutes a substantial departure. The fact that individuals with divergent views issued a joint political statement calling for unity suggests a new willingness to operate within a shared framework rather than from opposing trenches. For Ethiopians committed to national unity, the inclusion of secessionist figures within the group may be unsettling. Yet to dismiss the statement as a veiled call for state destruction would be analytically shallow, politically naïve, and strategically shortsighted. At the same time, it remains uncertain whether the shift reflects a genuine reconsideration of secessionist aims or merely a tactical pause driven by shared opposition to the regime.

Even if the statement reflects tactical calculation rather than ideological consensus, the move toward coalition politics is politically commendable. In a political environment marked by fragmentation, hostility, and zero-sum thinking, coordination—even if imperfect—creates space for negotiation, narrows the spectrum of confrontation, and reintroduces the possibility of agreeing on a shared political future. It is potentially constructive. 

One of the statement’s most important contributions lies in its unambiguous recognition that the Abiy Ahmed government is an oppressive regime that must be replaced. It rejects the regime’s claim to legitimacy based on the Prime Minister’s Oromo identity. This shift marks a sharp break from earlier efforts to shield the government through appeals to ethnic solidarity. Some individuals within this group had previously dismissed opposition to the regime as mere ethnic hostility. By explicitly denying the regime’s claim to represent the Oromo people, the statement rejects a core pillar of Abiy Ahmed’s authoritarianism: ethnic legitimation. It affirms that the source of dictatorship lies in the abuse of power, not in the leader’s ethnic origin.

The call for unity across ethnic lines marks a significant departure from the ethnonationalist exclusivity that has long characterized Oromo political discourse. For the first time in recent memory, a public declaration from Oromo nationalists extends an invitation to all Ethiopians to oppose the regime. The statement acknowledges that the regime has incited ethnic violence, exploited identity politics, and enabled mass displacement as tools of political survival. In response, it urges Ethiopians to reject this strategy of division. Instead, it affirms the possibility of solidarity, coexistence, and mutual respect.

The statement’s omissions are as revealing as its contents. It avoids inflammatory rhetoric, refrains from attributing historical injustice to the Amhara population, and makes no explicit call for Ethiopia’s dissolution. In a context where incendiary language has promoted ethnic conflict, such restraint signals political maturity, or at the very least, tactical discipline. Its appeal to the military to abandon the regime and align with the public is not framed as a call for a coup, but as an invitation to political realignment. By implicitly rejecting military overthrow, the statement preserves the prospect of a negotiated transition.

Core Weaknesses of the Statement

Although constructive in tone, the statement offers no clearly defined vision for Ethiopia’s political order beyond Abiy. While the call for unity is commendable, it remains unclear whether the coalition endorses reform within the existing system, the continuation of ethno-federalism, or a more fundamental political transformation. In the absence of such clarity, unity risks remaining a tactical maneuver rather than a transformative project. As collective action theory suggests, movements lacking clearly articulated goals tend to fragment internally, struggle to coordinate, lose public confidence, and ultimately fail to achieve their stated objective.

The presence of individuals who have historically advocated for Ethiopia’s disintegration, and in some cases continue to do so, undermines the coalition’s credibility among those committed to national unity. In the absence of an explicit repudiation of state dissolution, pro-unity constituencies have little reason to extend their trust. This ambiguity raises fundamental questions about whether the coalition’s objective is democratization or fragmentation. Strategic alliances require clearly articulated commitments to the future of the state; without them, unity falters. Unless these figures revise their position, the coalition is unlikely to function coherently, much less forge durable partnerships with other Ethiopians.

A striking omission in the statement is the absence of the term Ethiopia. The statement refers to Ethiopia simply as “the country” but never names it directly. Citizens are described not as Ethiopians but as “peoples” or “citizens,” as if drawn from separate polities. This rhetorical avoidance echoes the language of Meles Zenawi, who similarly declined to invoke Ethiopia as a national entity. Such omissions are not stylistic choices but deliberate political signals that reflect a strong ideological estrangement from the Ethiopian state. To advance unity, this posture must be reconsidered.

Although the statement denies that the regime is an “Oromo government,” it fails to acknowledge the dominance of Oromo elites in Ethiopia’s current power structure, particularly within the regime’s most coercive institutions. The military high command, intelligence services, and federal police are disproportionately led by Oromo officials. Figures such as Field Marshal Birhanu Jula have openly declared, “it is our turn to rule.” 

In Ethiopia, while ethnicity does not determine policy, it has chartered access to employment, public resources, and state power. The regime is not representative of the Oromo population, but its institutional composition reflects elite capture by Oromo actors, just as earlier regimes reflected elite dominance without broad Amhara or Tigray representation. To disregard this reality is to erode the credibility of the appeals to justice.

The signatories of the statement characterize both the monarchy and the Derg as “Amhara regimes,” a historically reductive framing. If political representation is understood as the outcome of democratic selection, neither government was elected by the Amhara population, just as Abiy Ahmed’s regime was not chosen by the Oromo electorate. Defining authoritarian rule in ethnic terms obscures underlying structural dynamics and perpetuates a distorted narrative. That same analytical error now reappears in reverse: a reluctance to acknowledge Oromo elite dominance for fear of reinforcing ethnic essentialism. A viable political alliance requires recognition of the actual distribution of power, including the dominant position of Oromo elites within the ruling coalition.

Conclusion: A Cautious Step Toward Unity

The call for unity, despite its shortcomings, marks a potentially strategic shift in Ethiopia’s fractured politics. It suggests that rival elites, confronted by mutual vulnerability and rising public unrest, have begun to recognize the necessity of coordinated resistance. Ethiopia’s economic decline, fiscal crisis, deepening political unrest, and the inability of any single political group to effect change by itself have rendered unilateral solution untenable. The growing strength of the Amhara armed movement and the sustained Oromo unrest have reshaped the political calculus. No political transformation or lasting stability is possible without the full and democratic participation of the Amhara and Oromo communities, not to diminish the role of other groups, but to recognize the demographic and political weight of these two populations 

Against this backdrop, the July 31 statement matters for three reasons. First, it acknowledges that the current authoritarian regime must be replaced. Second, it shifts political aims from group-based grievances to shared national interests. Third, it opens a narrow but essential path toward institutional reform, reforms that remain unattainable under conditions of fragmentation.If pursued with integrity and broad-based participation, unity could forestall collapse, restore national viability, and allow Ethiopia to confront its most urgent problems. The choice now is between cooperation or fragmentation.

Worku Aberra (PhD) is professor of economics at Dawson College, Montreal, Canada.

Editor’s Note : Views in the article do not necessarily reflect the views of borkena.com      

  __

Support Borkena : https://borkena.com/subscribe-borkena/ 

Join our Telegram Channel : t.me/borkena

Like borkena on Facebook

Add your business to Ethiopian Business Listing / Ethiopian Business Directory  Business Listing Toronto

Join the conversation. Follow us on X (Formerly Twitter)  @zborkena to get the latest Ethiopian News updates regularly.  Subscribe to YouTube channel To share information or for submission, send e-mail to info@borkena.com