Call For an All-Oromo Constituent Assembly15 Oct 2008
views
Following the recent developments among the Oromo leadership, the context of the Oromo National Struggle for Independence got more confused and more disorientated. At the same time, it became far clearer.
I will start my approach with the latter; clearer? How?
This situation made clear that the Oromos simply cannot afford to continue multi-divided like that. This is the only way to guarantee that Oromia will never be free, and as consequence, the existence of the real Oromo Nation will be endangered by the false, forged concept of the - absolutely inexistent - ‘Ethiopian’ pseudo-nation.
At the same time, many critical problems that are able to definitely prevent the Oromos from achieving their objectives came to surface. The nature of these problems is such that they contribute to multi-division, communication interruption, and mutual incomprehension - all constituting the principal hindrances in the path to Free and Independent Oromia.
These critical problems can be easily noted in the arguments of the two opposite parts (in the latest scission); those panegyrizing for the ‘takeover’ accused the ‘Old Guard’ for inactivity, lethargy, apathy. Those sticking to legitimacy reproached to the aforementioned group their unconstitutional acts. The dialogue of the deaf can continue for years. And Oromia will be an even weaker, an even farther dream. A distant illusion.
The simplest answer to all these factions is this:
- If the problems of the other part are precisely as you describe them, why don’t you meet the other guys and deliberate about all these pending issues?
Of course, all these formations are not political parties properly speaking. They are liberation fronts and movements. There is a big difference in the source of legitimacy for either.
Issues of Legitimacy
What is legitimacy for a political party? Public vote expressed and registered at all levels, internal and external. The latter level involves free elections for the parliament and the municipal and regional administrations. The former level concerns internal party elections that should not be limited to the elected parliamentary deputies only but engage all
party members. 20th century parties were usually launched by a political leader risen under critical circumstances and evolved consequently around him. Then, criticism helped societies understand that an undemocratic party, used by a leader for undeclared policies (f. i. peremptorily decided entrance into alliances, like the NATO, and adhesion to international bodies, like the
UN, OECD or EU, namely decisions which critically affects the nation’s destiny), can hardly promote the
democratic organization of the society. Democracy in a country hinges on democracy within a party.
One has to admit that the undeservedly evangelized as democratic Western countries are an embodiment of fraud, corruption, embezzlement of the people’s property, and political bias; the
foreign policy - in particular - has been conducted in a most undemocratic, unapproved and disapproved manner. There cannot be proper democracy, when the
public opinion on a specific subject is misguided, biased, cheated and disregarded. Democracy does not mean mere election of an uncontrolled government. How many English would have agreed with their country’s participation in the 2003 War against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein?
Liberation Fronts and Legitimacy
On the other hand, liberation fronts and movements are not the property of some small groups that can uncontrolled pursue their own policies; this concept would rather be closer to that of a Mafia gang or a terrorist group - for which there are no legitimacy issues as their existence is absolutely illegitimate (not because a tyrannical or democratic regime decided so, but because they are morally unacceptable as threat for the Humanity).
Legitimacy issues exist for liberation fronts and movements; they are compelling indeed. Failure to understand this reality leads leaderships to extinction for lack of (or disregard for) legitimacy drives the liberation fronts and movements to national margin and insignificance.
A liberation front dissolved or marginalized is a liberation front that first lost its legitimacy; the real legitimacy of a liberation front or movement hinges precisely on the political and moral consensus of an oppressed, subjugated nation. The objectives set by a liberation front or movement, which are relevant to the struggle for national independence, freedom, national affirmation, self-determination, and nation-building process, are the measure of its own legitimacy.
When a liberation front or movement fails to carry out the promised struggle, it automatically loses its legitimacy; it represents a name, a title, a past, a stamp, a memory, having no real face value anymore.
Public support certainly attributes legitimacy to a liberation front or movement; but this cannot be demonstrated or corroborated easily as there are no elections or other confirmed ways to prove it. Public support is what I mentioned earlier as ‘political and moral consensus of an oppressed, subjugated nation’.
But for a disoriented liberation front or movement, public support matters truly little; sooner or later, the distance from the originally set objectives will be felt and the legitimacy will be removed from the disoriented liberation front or movement - and this will be shown to all.
What happens if disoriented liberation front or movement continues influencing the largest part of (or the entire) subjugated nation? This situation reaches the level of national tragedy and extinction. Extinction of nations is a common phenomenon in the History of the Mankind.
At the present stage of the Oromo Nation’s struggle for National Independence, the legitimacy issue - which is key to the final success - hinges firstly on dialogue.
Unbiased Dialogue among All Oromos
Dialogue will give to a specific liberation front or movement the much needed legitimacy because it will highlight among the oppressed Oromos its potentiality to represent their passionate desire for liberation, self-affirmation, independence, and self-determination successfully.
How can a liberation front or movement possibly suggest that it can represent an entire nation - which is subjugated and tyrannized - when it fails to be in speaking terms with any other opponent of the oppressive regime?
When a liberation struggle is carried out, the effort is by definition unanimous and all-inclusive. There cannot be exclusions, distinctions, segregations, efforts to bar and ban other voices which may reflect a different viewpoint; there cannot be any personal interests, prevarication, animosity.
Eliminating the Berlin Wall among the various OLF factions would consist in a first great step for Oromo Unity and Struggle for Independence.
There have recently been published many illuminating articles about the possible way Oromos should act while engaging themselves in a liberation movement; there can be no doubt that the traditions and the principles derived from the Gadaa system can help tremendously the Oromo liberation fronts and movements function successfully. Above all the rest, there is one clear point: all-inclusiveness is a prerequisite for an open dialogue, wide analysis, innovative approaches, discussion of plans of action, and subsequent conclusion and decision-making.
The past concerns only the past; what happened - happened. As I said in the beginning, there will always be those ready to say “this is not the correct method” and the others who will refuse the statement by saying “and you did nothing for the objectives set by all of us”.
Were the former guys essentially un-Oromo in their rush?
Were the latter guys nonchalant sleepers instead of being vigorous fighters?
There can be no other way to offer all the Oromos the chance to judge who is right and who is wrong than an All-Oromo Constituent Assembly.
A Meeting to setup the All-Oromo Constituent Assembly
A venue must be found, the correct time must be selected, and the first to extend the invitation to all the rest will have the advantage.
The organization of a meeting to setup the All-Oromo Constituent Assembly is the only urgent, imperative and substantive need of the Oromo Nation in August 2008.
No one can know what the exit will be; perhaps they will all unite, and re-launch the liberation struggle. It is also possible that they were depart divided and in dispute. But this is their right; every leadership has the right to demonstrate in public their inaptness and unsuitability. The Oromo Nation will sort it out.
But the Oromo Nation deserves to know who their leaders are, what they think about one another, and what they believe about the Oromos’ chances to ever be liberated and honored as one of the most ancient and most noble nations of the world.
Rejection to organize a meeting to setup the All-Oromo Constituent Assembly would mean total disregard for the Oromo Nation, proven inability to lead the tyrannized nation, and seclusion due to bribery by any element alien to the Oromo Nation.
Rejection to invite all, properly speaking all, all the prominent Oromo statesmen and
politicians, liberation front leaders, eminent academia and intellectuals, leading
activists and visionaries will simply reconfirm the factionist attitude of the organizers.
Little matters whether some will not come. A meeting with historical significance must be attended by all; by overtly dodging it, one would only demonstrate untrustworthiness, bias and guilt.
And those who can lead the Oromo Nation will go ahead; the Oromoness, the openness and the frankness they will exhibit will qualify them to go ahead. They will then have to address the problems that came to surface during the recent developments; the worst among them is a sort of tribalism that jeopardizes the Oromo Nation’s future. About this we will focus in a forthcoming article.
For the time being, I want to underscore the gravity of the current situation; those in a position to convene this meeting must act immediately. The time wasted since the recent developments has been very critical for the Oromo Nation.
To some, it has been just a period of 25 days. This is so because they are blind.
To others, it has been a span of 25 centuries; this is so because they are farsighted.
Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
