By Lammi Begna
Little was talked about the 7th Ethiopian National Election until the Oromo Liberation Front unexpectedly decided to run by fielding potential candidates across Oromia and beyond. The unprecedented move by the OLF drew attention from different sections of the society and became the center of tremendous argument within the Ethiopian political landscape. Some proponents praised the move as a heroic and historic decision at a critical time when hopes for peaceful political activities were not only dashed but also eroded and replaced by destructive war consuming the human lives and resources. Meanwhile, some detractors discredited it as a betrayal of the cause of Oromo people’s struggle, accusing the OLF of wining and dining with the killers and criminals. They also accused the OLF of being a bridesmaid, lending legitimacy for undemocratic and warmongering dictatorial regime that cannot stay in power without engaging in war.
This piece argues that the OLF’s decision to participate in the 7th National Elections should not be so heavily discredited. This is especially true given the party’s courage during debates, its campaign determination, and the compelling circumstances that forced its participation.
Historical Background
If we accept Ernest Gellner’s characterization of Ethiopia as “a prison-house of nations if ever there was one,” it becomes clear that the country has not changed much over the past half-century. The absolute monarchy that subordinated the Ethiopian population in general and the Oromo people in particular into imperial property was eventually overthrown by the 1974 revolution. However, that revolution was quickly hijacked when the Derg, led by Mengistu Hailemariam, emerged from the remnants of the old system to follow in the footsteps of Haile Selassie. Self-proclaimed as the vanguard of Ethiopian unity, the regime promoted an “Ethiopia First” slogan while sacrificing the rights of nations and nationalities on its altar. The Derg vowed to protect the state from disintegration, pledging to fight to the last man. Yet, in less than a year, before the euphoria of the 1974 revolution had even faded, the regime turned the country into a bloodbath by indiscriminately slaughtering the finest generation the nation had ever produced. The hope for democracy was dashed, replaced by a brutal seventeen-year civil war that ultimately resulted in Eritrea’s independence and left Ethiopia landlocked.
The hope for a democratic Ethiopia emerged once again when the Transitional Government was established in June 1991 by influential rebel forces, including the Oromo Liberation Front. Despite the promise of a democratic Ethiopia, the TPLF, supported by the USA, Sudan, and the EPLF, pushed the Oromo Liberation Front out of the Transitional Government. The vicious cycle of war continued until the TPLF was overthrown by a popular movement spearheaded by the Qeerroo Bilisummaa Oromo. In spite of their internal differences, the Oromo forces seemingly united against the TPLF kleptocratic rule, but they did not entrench themselves to bring about the expected democratic change. Instead, the newly formed Prosperity Party misused this opportunity only to plunge the country back into civil war.
Such historical facts remind us that every opportunity promising the prospect of a better future has been misused, making Ethiopia the epitome of political failure. The Oromo Liberation Front is a resilient political force that has endured betrayal from both within and without over the course of its half-century political struggle, including the betrayal of the 2018 deal it made with the Ethiopian government. In my view, it is precisely this history of betrayal that forms the backdrop of the Oromo Liberation Front’s decision regarding the 2026 national election. This decision arrives at a time when any hope for a democratic future is being obliterated by ongoing warfare across the country between the Ethiopian government and various rebel forces.
The Weight of Public Skepticism
People often ask us: “Do you truly believe you can bring about change through an election? Why waste your time and resources investing in an election whose outcome is already predetermined? How can you lend legitimacy to a dictatorial regime that is simply striving to win over Western support in the name of democracy? How many seats have been promised to you in exchange for your participation?”
Before providing definitive answers to these questions, let me explain the unfolding reality under which the Oromo Liberation Front decided to participate in the 2026 general election.
First and foremost, the relationship between the Oromo Liberation Front and the Ethiopian government remains as sour as it has historically been. The Oromo nationalism advanced by the OLF has been rejected by successive regimes, including the Prosperity Party, because it directly contradicts the established ideology of Ethiopian nationalism, despite the OLF’s decision to negotiate its long-standing armed struggle in favor of peaceful political participation. The government has even demanded that the OLF abandon its quest for self-determination to prove its allegiance to Ethiopian unity, a claim the front has outright rejected. In sharp contrast, the OLF advances the universal Oromo right to self-determination, which envisions a politically autonomous, economically sovereign, and culturally advanced state. Given the complexity of the current Ethiopian political landscape, this deep-rooted ideological conflict cannot be expected to be resolved anytime soon.
Secondly, Ethiopia has been largely affected by an Orwellian misfortune, where every revolution or popular upheaval is met with resistance from within that oftentimes ends in the installation of another aggressive dictator. Over the last thirty-five years, Ethiopia has held six flawed elections that ended in dispute, notably the 2005 national election which cost the lives of more than 193 innocent people and had destructive consequences. The seventh national election, expected to be held on June 1, 2026, could not be different, given the weak preparation among political parties, the narrow political space, and the weak democratic institutions that could play a crucial role in the electoral process. Elections in Ethiopia are not used to entrench a democratic political system; instead, they serve to legitimize the power of the incumbent, whose extension of terms in office is already predetermined. Many lessons can be drawn from our experience with the last six elections, in which the opposition failed to win substantial seats to challenge the government. Therefore, an election is viewed not as an instrument of change, but as a ticket the incumbent wants to hold just to extend its term in office. Despite its attempts to participate in the Ethiopian electoral process for the first time in its history, the OLF is well aware that meaningful democratic engagement remains out of reach.
Thirdly, Ethiopia is plunged into a destructive and devastating war, mainly in the Oromia and Amhara regions, where about 70% of the country’s population resides. War has intensified anarchy and lawlessness, the two greatest enemies of a democratic election. Let alone logistically incapable opposition parties, even the government itself cannot move freely. Candidates cannot campaign on their parties’ policy alternatives, their supporters cannot assemble, and the majority of the people could not care about an election when mere survival is at stake. Without free movement and open engagement, a free and fair election cannot be expected. The Oromo Liberation Front didn’t blatantly overlook such realities on the ground when it decided to participate in the 2026 general election.
Fourthly, people lost trust from democratic institutions including the Election Board that could play a crucial role in democratic election. Strong private medias are almost non-existent, even You-Tubers don’t go deep to challenge the election process in fear of being targeted by the regime’s security agents.
Fifthly, the Oromo Liberation Front is well aware that a significant number of the political parties participating in the upcoming 2026 national election are not truly independent entities organized to bring about genuine change. These parties can be divided into true oppositions and pseudo-oppositions, depending on their level of independence from the state. Very few possess a clear vision, definitive goals, and distinct policy alternatives. Instead, most depend on the government for financial and legal survival, voluntarily serving the will of the regime. Meanwhile, the few independent opposition forces are systematically weakened and denied the very opportunities guaranteed to them by the constitution. Consequently, there are no strong, independent opposition parties capable of emerging as a viable alternative to contend for state power.
Why did the OLF decide to participate in such a controversial election?
Only To Avoid Deregistration?
With the very survival of the people at stake due to devastating war and the country’s political future hanging in the balance, it is naïve to expect the OLF to sit idly on the sidelines. The primary mission of a true political party is to show up, to shape, guide, and bring forth the ideas necessary to pull the nation out of crisis. The OLF firmly believes that peaceful political struggle requires courage and determination, and that no victory comes without sacrifice. In deciding to participate in this election, the party’s intent was never just to avoid deregistration. It is a fundamental principle of the OLF that as long as the door to peaceful engagement remains open, even by a crack, it must be utilized for the rights to be exercised and democracy to flourish. Ethiopia’s failure as a state is fundamentally a political failure. The current armed conflicts will only end when a trustworthy democratic alternative is put into practice. For opposition parties like the OLF, the 2026 election is, therefore, the ultimate litmus test to that end.
Accusations of Regime Co-optation
The most absurd accusation leveled against the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) is that its decision to participate in the elections indicates a willingness to co-opt with the regime. The party does not need to look far to disprove this claim; one simply needs to observe its actual operating conditions. The OLF is currently restricted to a single functioning office in Gullele, while roughly 300 of its branches remain closed. Most of its leadership has endured years of detention without trial, and two central committee members were assassinated. Batte Urgessa, one of the party’s most vocal and promising emerging leaders, was also tragically assassinated in an attempt to silence his advocacy for the people. Furthermore, OLF Chairman Daud Ibsa was held under house arrest for nearly a year. Several of its vehicles, computers, and important documents were confiscated and remain held in various police stations. How can a party that has suffered this much oppression be accused of co-optation simply for participating in an election it believed would be beneficial? Such unfounded allegations are not only completely false but also deeply immoral. The OLF’s election entry was not a sign of alignment with the regime. Rather, the party ran to reshape the political landscape and rescue the nation from its ongoing nightmare of crises by offering policy alternatives that could deliver genuine peace.
The Two Distinct Forces
Regime supporters frequently claim that the OLF has not abandoned armed struggle, falsely linking the peaceful party to the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA). Because of this forced narrative, OLF members face relentless harassment, detention, and forced disappearances. In reality, the OLF and OLA are entirely separate. The government tacitly admitted this when it held two rounds of peace talks directly with OLA mediated by the US and Norway. Smearing the OLF with OLA connections whenever it ramps up political campaigns is a deliberate strategy. It is a bad-faith effort to delegitimize the party and intimidate its members into political silence. When the OLF decided to run in the election, it wanted to send a clear message that it is fully committed to a peaceful political struggle. By doing so, the party sought to pressure the government to commit to peace and cease hostilities against its own citizens. The OLF is aligned with neither the government nor any other entity to advance its political objectives. It stands as a truly independent party with clear political objectives, a distinct vision, definitive goals, and unique policy alternatives.
An Opposition, Not a Competitor
The OLF stood out by fiercely defending its platform across every major issue. Whether discussing land rights, language policy, urban development, trade, or foreign affairs, the party outshone its rivals. They brought unmatched depth to debates on self-determination, constitutional reform, federalism, and the future of Finfinnee. The OLF’s presence completely revitalized the political debate, catching critics by surprise. Ultimately, the party defied forced normalization, proving its courage and acting as a genuine opposition that champions the true aspirations of its people. This performance established a clear distinction between the true opposition and the pseudo-opposition or the so-called competitors. The OLF also introduced a highly organized policy campaign, contrasting sharply with the hodgepodge and noisy rhetoric of the ruling Prosperity Party, which failed to address the major issues touching the hearts of the people. By doing so, the OLF set an exemplary and remarkable standard.
What to Expect?
The question, “Do you truly believe you can bring about change through an election?” has been asked continuously. Given Ethiopia’s electoral history—which has repeatedly failed to deliver genuine transformation—such skepticism is entirely legitimate. Every past attempt at democratic change through the ballot box has ended in disputes with devastating consequences for both lives and property. Consequently, major political parties previously abandoned peaceful participation in favor of armed struggle, including the formation of Ginbot 7 from the remnants of the CUD. These perpetual failures deeply entrenched the perception that electoral change is impossible in Ethiopia.
The younger generation of Oromos, feeling betrayed by the very government they helped bring to power, increasingly favored armed struggle. This shift occurred partly to escape relentless state harassment, partly out of despair over peaceful struggle, and partly to challenge the status quo through force. Conversely, the Prosperity Party-led government prefers to confront its political rivals with force and intimidation rather than responsibly integrating them into a peaceful political arena.
The OLF chose to participate to break this cycle of hostility and to challenge the popular belief that sham elections cannot yield results. Change rarely occurs without structured organization. There is no reason why the Oromo people, whose overwhelming demographics represent a formidable political force, cannot drive change through elections. Ultimate power belongs to the people, not the state. As Egyptian internet activist Wael Ghonim famously noted, “The power of the people is stronger than the people in power.” A unified population, disciplined and organized, holds ultimate authority over any regime. That collective action includes utilizing elections as a strategic tool to achieve political ends. While change will not happen instantly, clearing the path toward it is entirely possible. This is precisely what the OLF is attempting to achieve.
