DOUBLE STANDARDS AND A FAULTY PROBLEM DIAGNOSIS

By Gurmeessaa Tokkummaa
December 2008

I want to begin my response to the factual errors, the double standard, and the faulty diagnosis of the problems of the Oromo liberation struggle contained in the article entitled “INCREASING POLITICAL ACTIVISM AND MOBILIZATION” by acknowledging the contributions of its author, Dr. Asafa Jalata, for the Oromo cause.

Dr. Asafa Jalata begins his paper by categorizing the enemies of the Oromo into two camps. To his credit Dr. Jalata depicted a clear, albeit obvious, picture of the crimes committed by the external enemy, “the Tigrayan-led regime”, against the Oromo. The atrocities visited on the Oromo people by the TPLF are indeed horrendous and staggering. While condemning the human rights violations perpetrated by the TPLF and its Trojan horse, OPDO, Dr. Jalata reserved his harshest wrath against what he characterized as “political entrepreneurs.” He accused these “internal enemies” for “attempting to strangulate the development of Oromummaa”.

He argued that these “political entrepreneurs” take advantage of the “low level of the political consciousness of our people” and “abuse and misuse Oromo diversity”. One can infer from this that Dr. Jalata believes that the Oromo are so ignorant and gullible as to be easily manipulated and thus need being baby-seated by the enlightened few, without whose benevolent leadership the nation is doomed. He could not even hide this elitist view when he exhorted his likes, whom he claims “are not part of the crowd” but rather the “movers and shakers”, rescuing Oromos from the plague of these “entrepreneurs”.

The question is: if Dr. Jalata’s nationalists are not “part of the crowd”, as he alleges, and thus not part of the population, how could they be “movers and shakers”?

Dr. Jalata’s argument, if one could call it as such, is that “Since some Oromos are not politically conscious, they manifest such local identities rather than national Oromummaa” and thus need some kind of transformation “through education”.

It is not clear how the Doctor is to accomplish this lofty goal when some of the people he accuses of “low consciousness” happen to be as if not more educated, in the real sense of education as a pursuit and grasp of knowledge, than Dr. Jalata. This is even more puzzling, not to mention pitiful, when the Doctor recommends the magic of “study groups” as a solution, a sort of a duck tape fix for a very complex problem.

From the article we can enumerate five distinct factors, which according to the Good Doctor, distinguishes “Oromo nationalists” from “Oromo political entrepreneurs”. These are sacrificing for the cause, high national consciousness, not being in the service of the Tigrean oppressive machinery (mainly OPDO), supporting OLF and being a member of the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA). By using these five criteria as a benchmark, I will try to show how Dr. Jalata used a double standard and misdiagnosed the problem.

Criterion of Sacrificing for the Cause

Dr. Jalata claims that “Oromo political entrepreneurs attack those who sacrifice themselves for the Oromo cause and spend their times and energies in attacking the OLF and its national leadership”. The reality however is that the protagonists on both sides of the debate have paid dear sacrifices. Out of the ten living members of the National Council (elected on the 3rd National Congress) who have set their feet on the ground in Oromia and taken part in actually engaged in fighting the enemy during the last decade, eight are with the group that Dr. Jalata condemns. Of the three individuals who have joined the OLF leadership fulltime from the Diaspora over the last decade, at a great cost and sacrifice to themselves, their families and their career, two are with the group that Dr. Jaalata maligns. Simply put, on both sides of the divide are many who suffered imprisonment and torture under both the Dergue and Tigrean regimes.

Can Dr. Asafa tell us that the sacrifice of Abbaa Biyya Rooba or Qubsa is not at par with that of Abba Caala Lata? Or that the sacrifice of Qanaanisaa, Magarsa Bari’s younger brother, is not at part with that of Tamam? Unless Dr. Jaalata is to arbitrarily attach more value to the sacrifices of some and flatly deny the sacrifices of others, his criteria of sifting the good guys from the bad guys in OLF based on level of sacrifice is not valid.

The people Dr. Jalata castigates today are the very people who supported and defended the OLF and its leadership for decades. Besides, what is attacked is not OLF but the poor performance of its leaders. It is the lack of progress and the paralysis that is the issue.

Criterion of High National Consciousness

As far as I am concerned the ultimate measure of a person’s national consciousness is a willingness to risk ones life, person and wellbeing for the nation. Then comes second the physical, mental, financial and moral support and contribution one renders to advance the cause of the people. From my own personal experience in the Oromo struggle over the last two decades a person’s level of education did not and does not translate into higher commitment or contribution to the struggle. The facts do actually speak to the contrary.

By the way how does Dr. Jalata measure high national consciousness? Through education? If so, could Dr. Jalata provide us with clear empirical evidence to support his thesis? How many of those attending his seminars graduated to genuine nationalists?

Political consciousness would not come only through education; one can develop political consciousness through the hard school of experience. The writer failed to analyze the political consciousness of Oromos in the pre 1991 era. How did patriots like General Wako Gutu come to boldly challenge and shaken the foundations of the imperial regime without “eductation”? Did Lenjiso Diga need education of the sort that Dr. Jalata idolizes to hand Menelik’s army its biggest defeat at the battle of Doddota taking his wife, Tayitu, captive and forcing Menelik to literally flee the battlefield for his life?

I agree that it takes consciousness and determination to sacrifice ones lifestyle or lives for a national cause. But while we appreciate the sacrifices of those toiling on our behalf, should we forfeit our right to ask their ability to lead us and their leadership style?

Dr. Asefa again failed to understand the obvious fact that the political consciousness of Oromos is high today compared to 1991. It is the current political consciousness of the Oromo that maintained this organization against all odds. When you are conscious, you question, challenge, analyze and finally take necessary action. It is this consciousness that brought a much needed change to OLF, without which it would have melted away.

The Criterion of not being in the service of the Tigrean regime (mainly OPDO)

The OLF has been recruiting into its ranks members of the OPDO ever since 1991. There are many current and former members of the OPDO who are as fervent a nationalist as could be--- if an objective measurement is used. While the OPDO as an organization is clearly an enemy outfit, we cannot deny that many of its members have paid the ultimate sacrifice after joining OLA as well as OLF’s clandestine structures inside Oromia. Many are rotting in jail for their nationalist stands and deeds.

While reading the article one cannot escape witnessing Dr. Jalata’s double standard on this issue. If being a member of OPDO is a cardinal crime, how can one reconcile the fact that Dr. Jalata invited Dr. Nagaso Gidada, a person who symbolized and personified the very humiliation of the Oromo people in the hands of the TPLF for over a decade (he has since apologized and atoned for it), as a keynote speaker to the OSA conference, an organization in which Dr. Jalata was Board Chairman? Did Dr. Jalata have any qualms?

Dr. Jalata’s double standard is also apparent when one looks at his verbal comments about the stands taken by high ranking military officers who joined OLF in 2006, after years of membership in OLF’s clandestine network. While General Kamal, General Hailu and Colonel Abebe sided with the progressives in the change camp, it is only Colonel Gammachu that remained with the reactionary group that Dr. Jalata supports.

The only scenario under which Dr. Jalata can exonerate himself from the charge of using a double standard is if he subscribes to an Orwellian logic in which “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”, which is even more problematic.

What is even more bizarre is the assertion by Dr. Jalata that “Millions of our people have joined the OPDO for their bellies to gain daily food items and basic necessities”. As a self-anointed nationalist, how does Dr. Asafa plan to deal with the “millions” of his fellow Oromos other than condemning them as enemy? Did he think about what this says about our nation and all of us when a sizable portion of our population is allegedly conspiring against itself driven by the need for “daily food items and basic necessities”?

Many of our most celebrated national figures have at one point or another served the Ethiopian system. This did not prevent them from paying the ultimate price for their nation when called upon and once dissociating from the oppressive system. It will be a great disservice for us to now use a blanket categorization of a large segment of our population as enemy simply because they joined an enemy entity for lack of “daily food items and basic necessities”. How about the magic of “study groups” to educate them?

Criterion of Supporting OLF

It seems Dr. Asefa believes that objections and challenges to “the leadership” that comes even from members and Oromos in general is an attack on OLF and Oromumma. OLF members have been challenging OLF for effective leadership ever since its inception.
Unless we want to deny the glaring facts, there is more than one group that claims the name of OLF. Judging by his attendance of the meeting in Minneapolis organized by the Shane group, on which he presented this paper and by his condemnation of the other group, Dr. Jalata’s support and sympathy clearly lies with the Shane group.

Dr. Jalata has every right to support whatever faction he deems consistent with his core views, even if one wishes he remained a neutral scholar. It would be also unfair for him not to recognize the same right for others and to deny them the benefit of the doubt.

If supporting the Shane group, which apparently does not enjoy the support of the majority of OLF members, is a litmus test for being a true nationalist, a majority of the Oromo people would not be considered nationalist at all. Out of the 3 individuals who are alive today that are duly elected by the OLF National Congress at one time or another as Chairmen of OLF, two do not support the Shane group--- Dima and Galasa. The younger brother of OLF’s martyred Chairman, Magarsa Bari, is with the change camp.

Is Dr. Jalata then to tell us that Dima and Galasa are not Oromo nationalists? How can Dr. Jalata tell us that Magarsa Bari’s family has not suffered enough and hence his younger brother who has for decades been a fighter and commander of OLA in many zones did not pass the threshold of being Oromo nationalist?

It has been over 30 years since Jara Abba Gada has left OLF. Obviously he does not support Shane. Are we then to assert that he is not an Oromo nationalist?

Dr. Jalata claims that the Wayyaane “…have also hired hidden agents and inserted them in the Oromo national movement to attack and destroy the OLF from inside.” This is nothing but an insinuation. If not, Dr. Jalata should present his empirical evidence.

The fact is that a number of the key leaders of the progressive camp did not join OLF after it was founded, some helped found it. For example, out of eight members of the former Political Bureau that are still alive, as many have been martyred, 2 are with the reactionary Shane group, two are with the progressives, 2 have taken a neutral position, and the remaining 2 are with the splinter group of 2001. A majority of the members of the National Council elected at the Emergency National Congress of May 1998 are with the progressive camp. National Council members elected on the 3rd National Congress of 2004 are evenly divided between the two groups and neither side constitutes a quorum.

Criterion of being a member of the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA)

Dr. Jalata accords his highest regard to members of OLA for their readiness to pay the ultimate price and rightly so. However, he goes astray by failing to explain why and how the vast majority (over 90%, a whopping figure) of the members of OLA in the various Zonal Commands has rejected Dr. Jalata’s favorite Shane group and pay their allegiance to the camp of national renewal, which Dr. Jalata seems to condemn.

Lastly, I would like to say a few words on what I believe to be a correct diagnosis of the problems that have bedeviled the Oromo liberation struggle in general and the OLF in particular. Let me begin by stating what the problem is not. The bone of contention is not Oromumma. If diversity is a criterion, the leadership of the change group is by far the most diverse of any Oromo liberation organization. What distinguishes the leaders and supporters of the two groups is not the level of national consciousness. Nor is it possible to pass a reasonable verdict based on who sacrificed more for the cause than the other. Contrary to what Dr. Jalata claims, the change camp did, and does, actually state in its statements that it does celebrate and honor the contributions and sacrifices of all those who worked and suffered over the years to bring the struggle to its current stage.

The underlying cause of the problem is 17 long years of paralysis, organizational ineffectiveness, and lack of a coherent strategy. The leadership simply could not lift the organization out of the doldrums. It could not inspire and lead the people to wage a robust resistance. It could not resolve conflict properly. It failed to make effective use of the human, material and intellectual resources entrusted to it. Dr. Asafa should therefore not talk about mobilization for the Shane camp when it was in fact the very group which arrogantly chose to demobilize its own members and supporters by failing to listen to the overwhelming desire for renewal and progress. Rather than adopting change it rather became reactionary. By closing all the high roads for change, it brought upon itself a revolution, from which it could not and will survive (the organization will not only survive but will thrive, prosper and lead the Oromo to victory). Shane has no body else to blame but itself for its ineptness, and refusal to heed calls for a way out. This is a colossal case of failure of leadership. Genuine nationalists could disagree. That is ok. But to arbitrarily and falsely charge your opponents with sectarianism is self-serving.

In conclusion, let me state that
1) The change in OLF is not a result of a low level of political consciousness as Dr. Jalata alleges but rather a product of years of soul searching and agonizing.
2) The Oromo people and its struggle have produced enough revolutionary intellectuals, but the Shane failed to make effective use of them.
3) Dr. Asefa failed to study the root cause of the change in OLF, which is the ineffectiveness of the leadership to mobilize, organize and lead the Oromo. By so doing Dr. Jalata tried to cover up the colossal failures and weakness of our leaders who have paid great sacrifices but proven unfit to lead the Oromo to victory.
4) The Oromo liberation struggle has stagnated and change is badly needed. The time is ripe for a new generation of leaders reared on the foundations of Oromumma. The recent change in OLF represents this promise and potential.