True, current revenue is more than then, for example Fed. Budget in 2023 was almost 1 billion USD, 284m+ of which was revenue generated in Xamar, wth the rest being cash injections from donor nations; further, States had sizeable revenue (SL 420m+), PL(370m+), JL (45m+), SW (46m+), HS(25m+), and GM (33m+) ). In the greater scheme of things, in aggregate that is pittance, for a single NGO, or a Ministry in a functioning state has greater budget that the whole nation. That is just for reference.
On the rendered services front, today through the private sector, States incl. SL and PL provide better services in clean drinking water, electricity, telecommunication, clinics, schools to name a few, in their respective regions, albeit subsidised, with good examples being Borama, Hargeysa, Garowe, and Las Anod (well, prior to its being raised to the ground), and such regions have never known of, or heard of a government in any form. JL and SW are following suit, and are expected to do the same in the coming years. More children attend schools than ever before outside of the capital; more children have been vaccinated than ever before. This was advanced by way of a devolved system adopted by default post State collapse.
At a high level, there are two primary types:
a) Dual, where clearly defined terms and powers are drawn, and agreed upon with most powers resting with the States.
b) Cooperative, where Fed. and State governments collaborate on policy.
We are neither, for we are not quite there yet, and shall explain appealing features of either, and to whom at a given time using the US as a test model. There are other forms to consider including Devolution, Creative Federalism etc., yet we are not quite there yet to consider in our current state.
On the matter of likening Federalism to clan fiefdoms, and sectarianism, let me explain: In practice, Federalism, as a system of governance, works at three levels: Federal, State, and District each with clearly defined roles where there are shared responsibilities, and division of responsibilities. What has been proposed for Somalia, but yet to be implemented was: a system of governance where power flows from the States, the periphery, to the Centre instead of its being dictated from the Centre to the periphery, the States.
The wisdom being to:
a) Prevent return to the discredited, if dangerously tyrannical Centralist system, and
b) Create harmony amongst the peoples.
This yet remains to be implemented.
Core reasons for advocating for the said system had been:
a) Power-sharing:
As stipulated in Article 3 of Founding Principles, sections (3 & 4), with respect to power-sharing, participatory consultative, and inclusivity in governance, and separation of powers, seeks to provide check and balance whilst preventing usurpation of power. This was intended to prevent a power hungry neophyte, or a bent warlord to dupe the public, amass power, pillage, and impair the nation, despite its recent history. This is wasted on the progeny of the erstwhile regime reminiscing of the good old days which never were, and the youngins advocating for a heavily Central authority, drunken on ‘monopoly on violence*’ theory sans wholly comprehending its ramifications. As a system, devolved system or configuration, hence federalism was intended to avoid revisitation of previous nightmares, check 1969 – 2000s. Anti-federalist voices, in favour of the failed centralism system, now wish to do away with said principles, and thereby invaliding realised gains.
b) Separation of duties in the Executive branch:
Under Article 97, sections (1 & 2), powers entrusted unto and with the Executive Branch are defined, and rest with the Prime Minister. President has no role in the Executive Branch, with his powers, and authority constrained, as defined in Article 90. The intent herein was to ensure the President would not accumulate undue powers, and enforce checks and balance, where an authoritarian leader could not impose his wish upon the nation. This was a major article of contention at the time, and was negotiated as such in the days of drafting the Charter, and was agreed it was the most viable solution forward. Anti-federalist forces now wish to dismantle agreed upon principles, through the backdoor, and thereby negating realised gains.
But at first, let me share an observation.
On the home front, there are three groups of interest:
a) People from regions where there has been less stability, political coherence, security, and less government are in favour of heavily centralised model of governance.
i) This group happens to be in regions, where the civil unrest, and armed rebellion reached at a much later years, closer to the centre, sees private gains in a centralised system, and could be argued have some catching up to do; one must not try to frogmarch them to the present, and allow them walk at own stride. This group, whilst speaking in code, fails to openly articulate as to the perceived gains for the public good.
b) People from more politically stable regions, with longer experience of governance at the local level, favour more decentralised, federalist system.
i) These regions are where the civil struggle started much earlier paying the heaviest both in human and material loss; their earlier gains, experiences, and exposure influence their desire for federalism, and see greater public good in staying away from the centre. This group, whilst succeeded in advancing the federalist model to have been adopted in principle, it failed thus far, in practice, to convince groups (a), and (c) to tag along.
c) The third groups, whilst originally aligned with group (b), and one could argue is the largest, lost interest, convinced itself there are no private gains in either, whilst absolving itself of the public good, and has adopted a position of neutrality potentially aligning itself with either said groups.
With respect to governance, group (b) is naturally light years ahead of group (a), which explains as to the diverging rationale. Group (c) sees itself as the sacrificial lamb caught in the midst of boisterous bulls on charging course, and could only envisage its private gains in the demise of said other groups.
Boggles the mind.
On the diaspora front however, what is difficult to compute is the rationality of those born and bred in English speaking nations, say in the US or UK, where heavily decentralised systems of governance are in motion, who still advocate for heavily centralised system, some even advocating for a tyrannical rule so long as perceived private gains are to be had.
Badgers the mind.
--------------------------------
* Monopoly on violence: What gets lost in discussing this theory is the the term “legitimate use of physical force”, and not at a whim of a leader, which negates its core premise; again, power largely rests with the public, and not with elected leaders alone, and in the event, a leader usurps power, sans consultation with the public, through representatives, then in almost all cases, it leads to failure of both said leader, and nation: if not in the immediate, then definitely in the long run.
By legitimate, it does not imply State is the ONLY one to use force, but [the] one entrusted to legitimately authorise in its use. Where there is an illegitimate intent of use of force, State is in violation, and must be stopped.
The theory, as attributed to M Weber made sense in feudalism, and not in representative modern nation states with mechanisms to rein in excessive usurpation of power by rogue leaders, case in point D Trump in ordering Sec. of Defence to annihilate Mexico, for its leader refused to go along with Trump’s “Mexico will pay for it [the wall]” bogus campaign promise to beguile the weary-eyed public. Other historically notable examples include Caesar in his multiple adventures, which resulted in his eventual downfall, or the US from H Truman in Vietnam to Bush Jr in his misadventures in the Middle East to B Obama's in seeking to obliterate the Muslim world in his spurious smile.
To be continued.