Why? Oromo Activists Are Speaking Out Now Amidst Ethiopian Tensions

July 13, 2025
The Habesha

The emergence of figures like Jawar Mohammed, Dr. Milkessa Gemechu, and Taye Dendea in Ethiopian politics is quite intriguing these days. They’re vocal critics of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, yet questions abound about why they didn’t speak up about earlier violence against the Amhara. This trio, while claiming to uphold national unity, often emphasizes their Oromo identity, which creates tension around their true intentions. Their earlier ties with Abiy Ahmed and other key players like Lema Megersa add layers to the political scene, suggesting shifting alliances and a complicated landscape. The past connections and roles of Abiy’s associates, including Lema Megersa and Takel Uma, highlight the necessity for accountability, especially given the severe allegations of hate crimes. As we dive deeper into these relationships and narratives, understanding the nuanced background of Ethiopian politics becomes essential.

Emergence of Jawar Mohammed, Dr. Milkessa Gemechu, and Taye Dendea

The emergence of Jawar Mohammed, Dr. Milkessa Gemechu, and Taye Dendea as vocal critics in Ethiopian politics has sparked considerable attention. Each of these figures, with their own distinct backgrounds and histories, has recently taken a prominent role in opposing Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and his policies. Let’s delve into their individual narratives and evaluate their positions.

Criticism of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed

The criticism of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed by these three figures has centered primarily around accusations of authoritarian behavior, lack of democratic progress, and the marginalization of certain groups within Ethiopia. They argue that Abiy’s administration has severely restricted freedoms and detains opposition members without due process. Despite coming from the same Oromo ethnic background as Abiy, their criticism underscores a growing dissatisfaction with his leadership among various political factions.

It’s important to note that Jawar Mohammed, Dr. Milkessa Gemechu, and Taye Dendea have raised concerns about Abiy’s centralization of power and the undemocratic measures allegedly being taken to suppress dissent. Their voices resonate with the frustrations of many Ethiopians who are seeking more inclusive and transparent governance.

Silence on Violence Against Amhara People

Their previous silence on violence against the Amhara people has raised eyebrows. While they have been vocal about many issues, their lack of attention to the atrocities faced by the Amhara community suggests a selective approach or possibly prioritizing Oromo-centric narratives. This silence raises questions about their commitment to national unity and inclusiveness.

It’s essential to scrutinize why these leaders did not speak out during significant escalations of violence against the Amhara. Was it due to political strategy, oversight, or other factors? This silence has led to skepticism about their intentions and whether they can represent all of Ethiopia’s diverse populations without bias.

Oromo Identity Versus National Unity

The Oromo identity versus national unity debate lies at the core of these figures’ rhetoric. While advocating for Ethiopian unity, their speeches and actions have often emphasized the defense and promotion of Oromo interests, which some argue comes at the cost of broader national unity.

Jawar Mohammed, in particular, has been a strong proponent of promoting Oromo rights and identity. However, this focus can sometimes clash with calls for harmony across ethnic lines. It sparks the question of whether their political platform genuinely includes all Ethiopians or primarily serves the interests of the Oromo ethnic group.

The challenge lies in balancing these ethnic priorities with the need for a cohesive Ethiopian identity that can bridge divides and foster national reconciliation. The emergence of these leaders in this context presents new dynamics in Ethiopia’s complex political landscape, where ethnic and national identities often intersect and conflict.

Past Collaborations and Political Dynamics

Collaboration with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed

In the recent past, the collaboration between Jawar Mohammed, Dr. Milkessa Gemechu, Taye Dendea, and Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has been a topic of considerable interest in Ethiopian political circles. These figures, known for their influence within the Oromo community, initially supported Abiy’s rise to power, aligning with his vision for reform. The trio’s early endorsement was pivotal, considering Abiy’s promise to transform Ethiopia from a strongly centralized state towards a more federal system, echoing the aspirations of various ethnic groups, including the Oromo.

However, this collaboration soon revealed underlying tensions. While Abiy’s reforms, like opening the political space and releasing political prisoners, gained popularity, critics argue that such changes were superficial, merely pacifying early dissent without achieving meaningful, lasting reform. Jawar and his associates, although initially supportive, began to express dissatisfaction with Abiy’s trajectory, revealing cracks in their alliance.

Role of Lema Megersa and Others

The role of figures like Lema Megersa, Takel Uma, and Adanech Abebe within the political dynamics also deserves scrutiny. Lema Megersa, once a close ally of Abiy within the Oromo Democratic Party, played a crucial role during the transition period, advocating for ODP’s reformist agenda. His influence was substantial in fostering support among the Oromo populace.

However, Lema’s relationship with Abiy frayed over time due to differing views on governance and regional autonomy. This split mirrored the growing discontent among former allies who believed their visions for genuine change were being sidelined by centralization efforts. Takel Uma and Adanech Abebe have similarly found themselves in complex positions, balancing the party line with increasing grassroots discontent.

Positioning Against an Authoritarian Leader

The political shifts and dynamics have reached a critical point where former allies of Abiy Ahmed find themselves positioning against him, seeing his rule as increasingly authoritarian. Personalities like Jawar Mohammed now openly criticize Abiy, whom they accuse of betraying his initial reform promises. This adjustment indicates a profound shift in Ethiopian politics, where former partners now perceive the prime minister’s actions as centrally oppressive, stifling regional voices.

Moreover, these leaders accuse Abiy of consolidating power at the detriment of the collaborative federal model. While the criticisms highlight important issues, they also raise questions about the sincerity of Jawar and his associates, given their past support and influence in the same government framework they now contest.

This dynamic showcases a complex landscape where political affiliations and loyalties are in constant flux, shaped by evolving ambitions and power struggles within Ethiopia’s multifaceted political tapestry.

Trustworthiness of Jawar Mohammed and Associates

Historical Adversary Role

Jawar Mohammed and his Associates have long played a divisive role in the Ethiopian political landscape. Their historical adversary role, especially concerning the Amhara people, is well-documented. Jawar, a prominent figure in the Oromo movement, has often been at odds with the Amhara, leaving many to question his true intentions. His past actions have consistently supported narratives that pit ethnic groups against each other rather than fostering national unity. This history of adversarial behavior casts doubt on Jawar’s sudden concern for Ethiopia’s welfare, making it difficult for many to fully trust his current rhetoric.

By reflecting on their past, where Jawar Mohammed and his allies were seen as “adversaries of the Amhara,” one can understand why skepticism surrounds their intentions. Their past affiliations and actions have contributed to ethnic tensions, counteracting collaborative efforts towards a united Ethiopian identity. This historical baggage is something they must overcome if they are to gain trust as advocates for peace and unity within Ethiopia.

Potential Harmful Intentions

The potential harmful intentions of Jawar Mohammed and his associates are a major concern for those who have followed Ethiopian politics. These figures, while currently vocal in their criticism of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, carry a history that suggests their motives may not be purely benevolent. There is an underlying fear that their actions are not aimed at genuine reform, but are instead driven by personal ambitions and the pursuit of power within the country’s volatile political scene.

Given the past conduct of Jawar Mohammed and his associates, it is prudent to critically evaluate their statements and actions. Their previous engagements have often exacerbated ethnic divides and violence, raising the alarm that their current stance might harbor intentions that are more harmful than helpful to national unity. The Ethiopian public, therefore, remains cautious, questioning if their recent narratives are merely a façade for self-serving goals, potentially leading to further unrest and instability.

By examining these elements, it becomes evident why trust in Jawar Mohammed and his cohort is tentative at best, as their separatist leanings and historical conduct do not align with the cohesive future Ethiopia strives to build.

Accountability for Violence Against Amhara People

The ongoing crisis in Ethiopia has sparked urgent calls for accountability for violence against the Amhara people. Various political actors and organizations have been implicated in these heinous acts, yet many perpetrators have not been brought to justice. This lack of accountability has fueled ethnic tensions and hindered efforts to achieve national reconciliation and peace.

Responsibility of Close Associates

The responsibility of close associates to Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, such as Lema Megersa, Takel Uma, Adanech Abebe, and Shimeles Abdisa, cannot be overlooked. These influential figures have been part of the government apparatus during times of reported hate crimes and atrocities against the Amhara. Their roles within the administration have placed them in positions where they could have potentially influenced policies, controlled narratives, or taken measures to prevent such violence. Consequently, their silence, or even complicity, points to a shared burden of responsibility.

It is crucial to scrutinize the actions and inactions of these close associates, as their involvement has led to devastating impacts on the Amhara community. The repercussions of unchecked violence have affected not only victims but have perpetuated a cycle of fear and retribution, affecting the entire region’s stability. More than just bystanders, these associates may have had the power to change the course of events or, at the very least, mitigate the damage done.

Need for Justice and Accountability

There is an urgent need for justice and accountability to address the grievances of the Amhara people effectively. Establishing mechanisms to investigate and prosecute those responsible for violent acts is essential for healing and reconciliation. This involves setting up independent commissions, bringing in international observers if necessary, and leveraging judicial systems to ensure transparency and fairness.

Justice and accountability not only serve the victims’ families but also fortify the credibility of the Ethiopian government. Demonstrating a genuine commitment to these principles can aid in restoring trust among diverse ethnic groups, paving the way for peaceful coexistence. Furthermore, it sends a strong message that violence will not be tolerated, regardless of ethnic affiliations and political alignments.

Policies must be implemented that prioritize the protection of all ethnic communities, particularly those who have been historically marginalized or targeted. A comprehensive approach to justice for the Amhara can significantly contribute to ending cycles of violence, promoting stability, and building a cohesive national identity free from ethnic tensions.

Significance of Abiy Ahmed and Jawar Mohammed in Ethiopian Politics

The significance of Abiy Ahmed and Jawar Mohammed in Ethiopian politics cannot be overstated. Both emerging from the influential Oromo ethnic group, they have been pivotal in shaping the country’s political discourse and must be understood within the broader context of Ethiopia’s complex ethnic landscape.

Oromo Ethnic Group’s Influence

The Oromo ethnic group’s influence is profound in Ethiopian politics. Being one of the largest ethnic groups in Ethiopia, the Oromos have historically played a central role. Abiy Ahmed and Jawar Mohammed, both prominent figures from this community, have capitalized on their ethnic ties to gain substantial political leverage.

• Abiy Ahmed, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister, hails from this community and has been instrumental in enacting political reforms aimed at ensuring stability and growth. His emergence marked a hopeful era with a promise to promote inclusivity and peace.
• Jawar Mohammed, a media mogul and political activist, has also been influential, using his platform to advocate for Oromo interests and broader national issues. His activism has rallied support among the youth and those feeling marginalized.

The Oromo influence is evident through their representation in significant political positions, reflecting an ethnic renaissance that sought to rectify previous marginalization. Abiy’s reforms and Jawar’s activism symbolize this shift, demonstrating how the ethnic identity can drive political strategy and empowerment.

Balanced Criticism and Support

Proceeding with balanced criticism and support, both Jawar Mohammed and Abiy Ahmed have received diverse public reactions. Their actions and policies have polarized opinions:

• Abiy Ahmed has been praised for his early efforts in peacemaking and reforms, including winning the Nobel Peace Prize. However, criticisms have mounted over accusations of authoritarian rule, press restrictions, and ethnic tensions.
• Jawar Mohammed, while championed by many Oromos for asserting ethnic rights, faces accusations of inciting divisions and violence.

The balancing act between criticism and support highlights the complexity of their roles. Abiy’s leadership takes center stage on the international platform, while Jawar’s grassroots activism resonates at home. The interplay of support and critique underscores the challenges of governing a multi-ethnic nation like Ethiopia.

The dynamics between the two reflect a microcosm of Ethiopian politics—where ethnic identity, political ambition, and national unity often intertwine or clash. Understanding their influence requires an appreciation of their competition, collaboration, and the broader socio-political canvas on which they operate.

Difference Between OLF and OPDO

Distinct Origins and Ideologies

Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and Oromo Peoples’ Democratic Organization (OPDO) are two prominent entities in the Ethiopian political landscape, known for their unique origins and ideologies. The OLF emerged as a significant force in the struggle for Oromo self-determination, advocating against perceived marginalization by the Ethiopian state. It was established in the 1970s and soon became known for its armed resistance against the Ethiopian government. The organization’s ideology revolves around fighting for the rights and freedoms of the Oromo people, often clashing with central government policies.

On the other hand, the OPDO was formed under the aegis of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) during the late 1980s, as part of a strategy to create a coalition that would govern Ethiopia. Unlike the OLF, the OPDO’s ideology was seen as more moderate and accommodating of the then-ruling EPRDF’s (Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front) policies. It focused on promoting regional autonomy while maintaining Ethiopia’s unity—a stark contrast to OLF’s separatist aspirations.

Role in Oromia Region

In the Oromia region, the roles of OLF and OPDO have been markedly different over the years. The OPDO, as part of Ethiopia’s ruling coalition for decades, had the mandate to govern Oromia. This allowed it to control the administrative machinery, implement policies, and navigate the complex landscape of ethnic divisions to maintain regional stability under the EPRDF’s influence. Its ability to directly impact governance bred a certain degree of authority and influence within the region.

The OLF, however, found its role more contentious. Since its departure from the transitional political process in 1992, following disagreements with the EPRDF and OPDO, the OLF operated largely outside of the formal political arena. Known for its armed struggle, the organization sought to amass support through nationalist rhetoric and military actions. Despite its lack of formal governance responsibilities, the OLF’s persistent efforts to sway public opinion have made it a powerful symbol of Oromo nationalism and resistance.

Impact of Historical Trajectories

The differing historical trajectories of the OLF and OPDO highlight the complexity of Oromo politics in Ethiopia. As the primary regional party within the ruling coalition, the OPDO’s historical affiliation with the EPRDF allowed it to exert substantial influence within the government infrastructure, gradually growing into the Oromo Democratic Party (ODP) during political reforms in 2018. Its trajectory signifies a path of adaptation and political strategy, leveraging alliances to ensure continuity of power within the changing political milieu.

On the contrary, the OLF’s history is marked by periods of intense conflict and internal divisions, resulting in various factions with sometimes divergent goals. The OLF’s identity as a symbol of resistance against Ethiopian centralization remains, but the fragmented nature of its structure and shifting allegiances have perhaps limited its effectiveness. The historical narrative of the OLF underscores challenges faced by movement-based organizations within a rapidly evolving political landscape, illustrating the struggles of maintaining unity and relevance over decades.

Understanding these differences is crucial for comprehending the broader Oromo political scene and its influence on Ethiopia’s national dynamics.

Political Evolution of OPDO

Transition to Oromo Democratic Party

The transition from the Oromo Peoples’ Democratic Organization (OPDO) to the Oromo Democratic Party (ODP) marks a significant milestone in Ethiopia’s political landscape. Initially established by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) as a regional affiliate within the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) coalition, the OPDO’s existence was tightly interwoven with the TPLF’s dominance.

As part of an effort to assert more autonomy and better align itself with contemporary Oromo nationalist aspirations, the organization rebranded from OPDO to ODP. This move signified a shift from merely functioning as a TPLF appendage to trying to establish its identity and authority within the Oromo region.

The transformation was not just a change in name but reflected a broader ambition to emerge as a key player in Ethiopian politics. The transition involved a conscious push toward modernizing political practices and addressing the Oromo community’s aspirations more directly than before.

2018 Political Reform and Power Dynamics

The year 2018 brought nationwide political reform to Ethiopia, and the ODP seized the emerging opportunity to redefine its role within the country’s governance framework. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, himself a member of the ODP, Ethiopia embarked on sweeping reforms aimed at addressing political entrenchment and increasing public participation.

During this period of reform, the ODP’s influence and stature grew considerably. The party, by aligning with Abiy Ahmed, took advantage of the shift in power dynamics from the old guard of the EPRDF coalition to a more moderate and reform-centric administration. This transformation underscored a departure from the past, focusing instead on development and unity over ethnic division.

The shift also witnessed greater Oromo representation in the national discourse, demonstrating how the ODP evolved from a satellite entity to a critical player with autonomous influence. This empowerment of the ODP was crucial in reshaping alliances, and expanding the Oromo voice, through political maneuvers that aimed to balance ethnic affiliations with national objectives.

Importantly, the political reforms of 2018 allowed the ODP to tap into broader resistance to authoritarian practices. The change offered revitalization, enabling the party to climb in political ranks, strengthening its presence and reshaping the political narrative of Ethiopia with an intent to uphold democratic values and inclusivity.