The Bergen Meeting/Conference was held in late 2004 on Oromo’s political future; here are the details from that meeting. The meeting documents have just been released for public debate by the Chr. Michelsen Institute in Norway, the organizer of the 2004 Bergen Meeting. Papers authored by Christiopher Clapham, David H. Shinn, Mohammed Hassen, Lovise Aalen, Siegfried Pausewang, Kjetil Tronvoll and Daawud Ibsaa as well as a summary of reactions to the Bergen Meeting are included in the Report. An excerpt is given below as an introduction.

THE OROMO BETWEEN PAST AND FUTURE
By Siegfried Pausewang

Why this report?

This report is in several ways different from most others in this series. It is primarily intended to give an input towards stimulating a thorough debate in a particular ethnic and social group – the Oromo of Ethiopia. So was the symposium from which it reports, an attempt to spark off a debate on political issues of vital importance for the Oromo. They are in a very crucial and rather unique situation. Their fate, and their plans and actions during the coming months and years may be key to determining conditions of life in Ethiopia and in the Horn of Africa. If they play their cards carefully, the Oromo might contribute substantially to peace, protection of Human Rights and freedom in a region where conflict, insecurity, lawlessness and despotic rule have too long characterised the political game.

The Oromo are the largest single ethnic group in Ethiopia, constituting roughly one third of the population. They have managed admirably well to create a common feeling of belongingness during the last 30 or 40 years. Local clan- or community-based identities were forged into a strong common identity of “Oromumma”, an Oromo national identity. But precisely that made all other groups look at them with fear and suspiciousness: In a political context where ethnicity decides over political association, all other groups must fear that the Oromo, should they be able to challenge the present rulers, would establish yet another system of domination, as all predecessors had done.

On the international scene, too, the Oromo are at present not considered a credible alternative to the ruling government that at least guarantees stability. Their political organisations are split in many groups and fractions, and they have no political alternative to offer. Their standard argument remains: Let us first get rid of the present government to achieve majority rule. Then we will know to establish a more democratic society, based on our tradition of “Gada”. Their traditional social order is indeed built on basic democratic elements. But it is that of a traditional society, not adapted to be operational in a contemporary society.

The Oromo need desperately to clarify their political positions and to develop a credible political alternative vision. If they want to convince others, both in Ethiopia and among the donors and the international community, they need to offer a prospect of a genuinely bottom-up democratic alternative for Ethiopia and for the region. But their fragmentation prevented a process of planning up to now. Instead, they gave priority to tactics, to challenge the present government. They attempted to coordinate the resistance of different groups in the country, and demanded a return to the promising start with the “Transitional Charter” of 1991. Challenged to disclose their political alternative and their visions for the future, their standard answer is: Let us first achieve victory and majority rule, and self- determination.

In September 2004, the Chr. Michelsen Institute called together a group of Oromo elders, scholars, politicians and opinion leaders in an attempt to open a debate on the future policies. Until then, each fraction had demanded unconditional support from its members. To maintain unity in the struggle, they were not to challenge the decisions of their Central Committee.

Two questions stood in the centre of the “Bergen Meeting” at CMI: First, is armed struggle a way towards achieving change in Ethiopia; or is it self defeating? Would negotiations allow better success? Second, is it politically wise to aspire an independent sovereign Oromo state, or is substantial autonomy within an Ethiopian Federation a more realistic alternative?

After confronting the meeting with views and critical analyses from several internationally known scholars on the issue, the Oromo conducted their debate in their own language and without interference. The meeting did achieve to spark off a debate. It was said to have taken the lid off a boiling kettle, opening a free and uninhibited debate among the Oromo majority. First and foremost among the refugees with asylum in the Western world, but also with a strong echo into Ethiopia, the debate took off.

Yet, events during and after the elections of 2005 overshadowed the debate. New splits threw the work for more political influence considerably back again. All in all, the problem has worsened, rather than improved. In a renewed attempt to stimulate a creative discourse among the Oromo, we make, belatedly, the report from the “Bergen meeting” available for a wider group of politicians, planners, organisations, and foremost for the members of the different political organisations of the Oromo. We hope that their debate will contribute to finding constructive political solutions in a spirit of peace, democracy and human rights.

There is today more than ever a need for a radically new approach. The Oromo need a political vision that can attract also other ethnic and political groups in Ethiopia. A truly democratic alternative must inspire an enthusiastic attitude of “YES, WE CAN!”. A credible concept of how to overcome the control over the majority by a minority can rally different peoples and marginalised political groups. Suppression happens today on local level. A credible programme for democracy on local level will promise these people a genuinely different local administration that protects local interests and people’s rights, rather than controlling them from above. Local leaders have to feel responsible to the people, and represent their interests and demands towards higher authorities, rather than feeling masters over the people, and protecting their own privileges by implementing orders from above. The administrative system has to institutionalise their commitment to local democracy.

– Read the Full Document