Addis Abeba — The Sidama people, an ethnic group residing in the southern part of Ethiopia, are recognized for their unique culture, language, and enduring historical resilience. Following years of advocacy and struggle, the Sidama achieved regional statehood in November 2019, becoming Ethiopia’s 10th regional state. Traditionally, Sidama society operated under the concept of Wolapho, which denoted ritual purity and was instrumental in classifying the community within the Anga ideology. This system, implemented through the Wolapho process, evolved into a comprehensive political philosophy. Under this framework, an individual’s lineage and clan affiliation became the primary determinants of access to power, resources, and social status.
In his study titled Humane Development: Participation and Change Among the Sadama of Ethiopia, John H. Hamer traces the origins of this ideology to the Yemericho group, who rose to dominance following their victory over the Hoffa in the 17th century. To consolidate their power, control land distribution, formalize religious structures, and establish a new governing system known as Mote for the Yemericho, they introduced the Anga system. Under this political and social framework, the Sidama people were divided into three distinct groups.
Three distinct social groupings that would shape political dynamics for centuries emerged in traditional Sidama society: the Yemericho, impure, and other groups descended from the Bushe and Maldea lineages. According to the book titled “Sidama, People and Culture,” the Yemericho, who are direct descendants of Bushe–particularly the Hame line–established their identity around the concept of ritual purity. They regarded themselves as those who had undergone the Wolapho, or purification process. In contrast, the Hadicho, Aleta, and Hoffa were categorized as unpurified, while other Bushe and Maldea descendants were not formally classified within this purity-based hierarchy.
Based on John Hamer’s classification, the pre-purification concept marginalized the Hofa and Malidia groups, particularly the Aleta and Bushe group Hachicho. Later, the Malidia Aleta fought for inclusion in the Yemerich group and successfully integrated the new Wolawich group. However, another study indicates that the Hadicho and Hofa remained excluded from both the Yemerich and Wolawich classifications. During the initial stage of reorganization, the Yemerich group later incorporated the Awach into the Hadicho groups.
The political landscape shifted significantly when the dominant Yemericho group faced a challenge from the previously excluded Aleta clan. According to John H. Hamer, after Aleta successfully defeated the Yemericho in battle, a more pragmatic political approach replaced the rigid hierarchy. Recognizing the need for broader unity to protect and expand Sidama territory, Yemericho leaders strategically allied with the Aleta. This alliance marked a turning point, leading to the formation of a new coalition and the renaming of the Yemericho group as Wolawicho. The term “Wolapho” originated from this period and was later associated with those enforcing this exclusionary system. Despite its historical use as a symbol of control, Wolawicho represented “freedom and liberation” in Sidama cultural identity.
Ancient ideologies, modern political packaging
The purification ideology (Wolapho) described above has historically divided the Sidama people into three distinct factions across political, economic, and social spheres. In modern Sidama politics, Wolapho continues to manifest through favoritism, exclusion, and discrimination, despite the democratic rhetoric adopted by many political parties operating in the region.
Understanding contemporary Sidama politics requires closely examining the deep historical roots that still influence political behavior today. The language of segregation rooted in this ideology appears not only in historical contexts but also in recent legal documents, such as the regional constitution, and is echoed in mainstream media, government discourse, religious sermons, social media platforms, and educational materials. Prominent individuals, including elders and preachers, have also reinforced this ideology, further embedding it into the public consciousness.
This historical foundation helps explain why contemporary Sidama politics often displays a troubling contradiction: political parties publicly promote unity and development while privately operating under the centuries-old philosophy of Wolapho. The transformation of the Yemericho into the Wolawicho in the past has become a model for modern political behavior, where parties rebrand themselves with inclusive language but continue to practice exclusion based on ancient clan hierarchies.
Even in today’s Sidama administrative structures, government leadership remains influenced by this legacy. High-level positions are often expected to be held by members of the Yemericho clan, shaping political appointments and administrative power along historical lines rather than through merit or inclusive representation.
This fundamental contradiction explains why, despite decades of political activity and multiple party formations, Sidama struggles with internal divisions that undermine democratic governance and comprehensive development. The persistence of these historical groupings, with their embedded concepts of purity, subordination, and territorial claims, creates a political environment where modern democratic institutions become vehicles for ancient power struggles rather than platforms for collective advancement.
In modern Sidama politics, Wolapho continues to manifest through favoritism, exclusion, and discrimination……”
This commentary explores the enduring influence of centuries-old ideologies, specifically the purification-based Wolapho system, on the internal dynamics of Sidama political parties. Through an analysis of ideological inconsistencies and shortcomings within the leadership structures of major parties, it examines how the Wolapho concept continues to manifest across various spheres, including party manifestos. Furthermore, it scrutinizes the ways in which different political parties have engaged with, reinforced, or responded to this persistent ideological framework.
Sidama Liberation Movement: Revolutionary language, exclusionary practice
The Sidama Liberation Movement, Sidaamu Wolaphote Millimmo, has long struggled to establish unified governance in Sidama, despite decades of political activism, including underground resistance during the Derg era and continued efforts since 1991. This shortcoming is not rooted in a lack of commitment or public support, but rather in the movement’s ideological foundation. While the term “liberation” suggests inclusive freedom for all Sidama people, the inclusion of “Wolaphote” (purification) in its name reflects a lingering attachment to exclusionary tribal ideology. This focus has consistently limited the movement’s capacity to lead inclusively and respond effectively to the region’s modern political, social, and economic challenges.
Rather than representing unity or liberation, “Wolapho” symbolized internal fragmentation and elite dominance. Although the rise of the EPRDF at the national level allowed this ideology to resurface within Sidama, it failed to gain widespread support or establish effective leadership. Even today, despite internal splits, factions within the movement remain ideologically aligned in their efforts to revive the historical “purification (Wolapho)” philosophy that once contributed to the division of the Sidama people.
This ideological fixation has prevented the movement from evolving into an inclusive political force that addresses contemporary development challenges. The party continues to operate under a framework that reflects 17th-century clan dominance, which limits its ability to address modern governance challenges. For the movement to remain relevant, it must adopt inclusive, policy-driven strategies that transcend lineage politics. Instead of formulating forward-looking policies for economic growth, infrastructure, education, and cultural preservation, the movement promotes outdated tribal hierarchies rooted in 17th-century governance models. These models are ill-suited to today’s realities and do not reflect the aspirations of a modern, united Sidama nation. As a result, the movement has failed to lead and obstructed efforts to build a more equitable and inclusive future for all Sidama communities.
EPRDF’s Legacy: Institutionalized division
The Sidama People’s Democratic Organization (SPDO) represented Sidama within the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) coalition. The Sidama People’s Democratic Organization (SPDO), formed in the early 1990s during Ethiopia’s transition to ethnic federalism, was established to counter the Sidama Liberation Movement (SLM) and promote unity by addressing deep-rooted divisions within the Sidama community. According to historical timelines and documentary accounts, SPDO was created under the guidance of the EPRDF to represent Sidama interests within the federal structure while opposing the separatist narrative advanced by the SLM (Wolapho).
For many years, the SPDO served as the primary political leadership in Sidama. From its inception, the party opposed separatist ideas and supported efforts to create a unified Sidama identity. However, the SPDO vision did not fully materialize. According to some analysts, the EPRDF, despite constitutional provisions granting the right to self-governance, ultimately abandoned the mandate for Sidama autonomous leadership. Consequently, Sidama leadership adopted the divisive ideology promoted initially by the Yemericho faction. This shift contributed to the fragmentation of Sidama into three distinct parts during the EPRDF era.
In her 2010 study, “The Politics of Ethnicity in Ethiopia: Actor Power and Mobilization under Ethnic Federalism,” Lovise Aalen meticulously examines the intricate dynamics of ethnicity within Ethiopia. She highlights a notable rivalry between the Yemericho and Aleta groups, who have consistently vied for the advantages historically afforded to them under traditional governance structures. According to Aalen’s findings, during his decade-long tenure as regional president, Abate Kisho favored individuals from the Yemericho group by providing them with educational opportunities and appointing many to influential positions–an approach that provoked resistance from members of the Aleta clan.
While SPDO rhetoric emphasized Sidama unity and democratic representation, actual policies recreated 17th-century power dynamics within modern governmental structures. The party failed to develop inclusive development strategies that addressed the needs of all Sidama communities equally.
Prosperity Party: Integration rhetoric, limited implementation
The Prosperity Party’s Medemer (integration) philosophy opposes traditional purification (Wolapho) ideology and represents one of the most promising approaches to national unity. Rooted in the principle of togetherness, Medemer promotes collective progress and cohesion across Ethiopia’s diverse communities. The Prosperity Party was founded as a new party, replacing the former EPRDF.
In Sidama, however, some analysts argue that the transition from the EPRDF to the Prosperity Party amounted to little more than a name change, as many of the same individuals remained in power without embracing the new party’s guiding philosophy. The Medemer approach, in theory, should benefit all Sidama communities by promoting unity over tribal hierarchies, particularly within the regional Sidama Prosperity Party. The party’s integrationist rhetoric appeals to many Sidama people who are weary of centuries of internal division.
Despite promising rhetoric, the lack of actionable mechanisms to dismantle clan-based favoritism erodes public trust and limits effective implementation. While party leaders speak of integration, local implementation often defaults to familiar patterns of tribal preference in appointments and resource allocation. The party’s challenge lies not in its stated ideology, which genuinely opposes purification (Wolapho), but in overcoming entrenched local power structures that resist real integration.
Until Sidama political parties genuinely embrace inclusive policies that serve all communities equally, the region will remain trapped in cycles of division that undermine its collective potential.”
When the Sidama Liberation Movement (SLM) formed a coalition with the Prosperity Party (PP) in March 2021, it signaled not only a shift in political alignment but also the quiet reinforcement of the long-standing ideology of purification (Wolapho). Despite the language of unity and reform, the newly formed Sidama regional government allocated just one minor position to the Hadicho community, revealing how ancestral clan hierarchies and purity-based exclusion continue to shape political appointments, silencing those historically deemed “unpurified.”
While philosophically sound, the Prosperity Party’s integration model lacks specific mechanisms for dismantling existing tribal hierarchies within Sidama administrative structures. Without concrete policies addressing historical grievances and systematic exclusion, integration remains more aspiration than achievement.
Sidama Peoples’ Unity Democratic Organization: Unity in name only
The transformation from Sidama Hadicho Peoples Democratic Organization to Sidama Peoples’ Unity Democratic Organization represents a cosmetic rather than substantive change. The Sidama Hadicho Peoples Democratic Organization, which won the Dara Woreda election in 2000 amid rising political, social, cultural, and administrative abuses against the Hadicho tribe, did not embrace the ideology of purification (Wolapho) like other parties but instead opposed the harm it caused, though it also faced criticism for contributing to divisions rather than promoting broader Sidama unity. The new name of the Sidama Peoples’ Unity Democratic Organization suggests broader inclusivity, and the party’s origins in tribal-specific advocacy continue to shape its approach.
This party emerged specifically to combat discrimination against the Hadicho tribe, making it inherently tribal rather than pan-Sidama in orientation. While this reactive formation was understandable given systematic exclusion, its origin in tribal advocacy limits its appeal and restricts its capacity to build cross-community coalitions.
While necessary, the party’s focus on addressing historical grievances prevents it from developing forward-looking policies for comprehensive Sidama development. Its agenda remains primarily reactive rather than proactive in addressing economic, cultural, and social development needs.
Sidama Federalist Party: Heroic branding, questionable motives
The transformation of the successful Eejjeetto (heroic) movement into a political party raises significant questions about authentic representation versus opportunistic politics. While Eejjeetto achieved remarkable success securing regional status for Sidama, its evolution into a federalist party suggests possible capture by traditional purification (Wolapho) ideologies.
Many Sidama people question why a successful single-issue movement needed to become a political party. This skepticism reflects concerns that the federalist party represents a specific tribal group’s attempt to leverage Eejjeetto’s popular legitimacy for traditional power objectives. The party’s federalist platform lacks specific policies addressing internal Sidama divisions or comprehensive development strategies. Instead, it focuses on external relations while avoiding the difficult work of internal unity and equitable development.
All Sidama People’s Democratic Unity Party and Sidama Unity Party
The proliferation of parties claiming to represent “all Sidama” or promoting “unity” paradoxically demonstrates the persistence of division. Despite their inclusive names, these parties often reflect factional interests rather than genuine pan-Sidama movements.
The existence of multiple “unity” parties reveals the fundamental failure to achieve actual unity. Each party claims to represent true Sidama interests while implicitly or explicitly maintaining tribal preferences in leadership and policy priorities. These parties offer remarkably similar rhetoric about unity and development while lacking specific, implementable policies that address the root causes of Sidama division or comprehensive development strategies.
Conclusion
The persistence of purification (Wolapho) ideology across Sidama’s political spectrum represents more than historical curiosity; it constitutes a fundamental barrier to democratic governance and comprehensive development. Until Sidama political parties genuinely embrace inclusive policies that serve all communities equally, the region will remain trapped in cycles of division that undermine its collective potential.
The tragedy of contemporary Sidama politics is not the absence of capable leaders or willing followers, but the persistence of a 17th-century worldview that prevents 21st-century solutions to development challenges. Breaking this cycle requires more than new party names or revised rhetoric–it demands fundamental transformation in how political leaders understand their responsibilities to all Sidama people.
Achieving genuine change requires political parties to take concrete and transparent actions. First, they must explicitly reject purification (Wolapho) ideology by publicly renouncing tribal hierarchies and establishing internal safeguards against tribal favoritism in candidate selection and policy development. Leadership selection should be firmly rooted in merit, prioritizing competence and vision over tribal affiliation, with transparent processes to ensure accountability. Parties must also craft comprehensive, actionable policies that address education, infrastructure, economic growth, and cultural preservation, ensuring these initiatives benefit all Sidama communities equitably. Party leadership structures should deliberately include representatives from all major Sidama communities to foster unity, granting them meaningful roles in decision-making.
The Sidama region can only realize its full potential for democratic governance and inclusive development when political parties commit to policies that genuinely serve all communities equitably, rather than reinforcing long-standing hierarchies under the guise of modern political rhetoric. AS
Editor’s Note: The author of this commentary, who requested to remain anonymous, has written two books focusing on the political, cultural, and identity struggles of the Sidama people, with a particular emphasis on the Hadicho community.
