As we all try to make sense of the insensible, i share this article with you. I know it is too long for SOL, but this historic speech-given in the 60s- sheds light on many issues affecting contemporary Somalia ..
Somalia: Nomadic Individualism and the Rule of Law
Mohamed Haji Ibrahim Egal
African Affairs, Vol. 67, No. 268. July 1968. pp. 219-226.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org
Consulted: Fri May 18 14:32:26 2007
SOMALIA: NOMADIC INDIVIDUALISM AND THE
RULE OF LAW
A talk by THE HON. MOHAMED HAJI IBRAHIM EGAL
Prime Minister of the Somali Republic
IT IS NOT easy to speak about Somalia. The very nature of the country, the
way of life of its people, and their cultural background, appear to evade
objective thought and rational explanation. Most of those who have chosen
Somalia as a subject for their scholarship have found themselves the inevitable
victims of one of two emotions : they have either become enamoured with the
Biblical character of the Somali way of life, the rich and the poetical language
of the people, the absolute independence of the Somali in character, thought,
behaviour and intellect-which at times may appear to outside observers as
even bordering close to anarchism ; or else they are overwhelmed with pity,
by the harsh nature of the country's environment, the persistent fight of the
Somali nomad against merciless odds, and his unawareness and even disdain
for any association with modem technological advancements and amenities.
I shall attempt today to find a happy medium between these two extremes.
However, being a Somali myself, I must forewarn and plead guilty to an
element of pride in some of the characteristics of my countrymen. Even though
many modern thinkers reject the validity of such a thing as a national character,
I personally believe that a people living in a country, conditioned to the same
elements, exposed to the same hazards, sharing the heritage of democratic
traditions, bound by language, religion and culture, and linked together by
the pursuance of a unique way of life, must inevitably develop similar
inhibitions and attitudes as well as a common and unifying philosophical code
of ethics and conventions. It is such ties that develop the characteristics common
to a nation and which can be described as its national character. This
national Somali character, therefore, with its strength, its weakness, but its
truly sublime love of freedom, strong sense of unity, and independence of spirit
forged over the centuries is what binds my people together and gives them a
pride in their institutions.
Somalia is geographically an arid country in which life is difficult and in
which the individual is engaged in a constant battle for survival. The vast
majority of the Somali people follow their nomadic way of life not from choice
but from the necessity of having continually to seek pastures for their livestock.
Grazing and water for their livestock are almost never found in close
proximity, and therefore the main part of the year is taken up by the great preoccupation
of moving the livestock to suitable pastures on the vast inland
plateaux and then driving them back to water. This process is repeated at
intervals of two to three weeks during the great dry season. The Somali
nomadic mode of life being almost unique in the world, the Somali has never
benefited from examples set elsewhere for the improvement and the amelioration
of his life. Also the previous colonial regimes that ruled the two parts of
the present Republic of Somalia made no serious attempts to interfere, for
better or for worse, with this traditional way of life. The Somali nomad was
thus left to his own initiative to develop those amenities which he considered
to be suitable to his own environment, to improve the existence of both himself
and his herds, and to build up an economy to sustain his essential needs.
Thus, practically unaided by any government, colonial or indigenous, he
has had by his own initiative and ability to improvise means of bringing water
nearer to the more permanent pastures for his livestock ; and for this purpose,
he has constructed cemented water reservoirs to retain water available during
the rainy season on the plateaux which ten years ago were only accessible to
his livestock for a few months of the year. These reservoirs-which are roughly
similar to your swimming pools in Europe-are now not only revolutionising
the economy of the nomad by almost trebling the numbers of his livestock but,
more important still, are creating permanent settlements which are slowly developing
into pastoral/agricultural villages with the resultant need for social
services. This development in the interior is happily matched by the determination
of the Somali to seek outside markets for his livestock by trading with
other countries. Again practically unaided by any government either colonial
or indigenous, he has had the good sense and the acumen to recognise the
potential and accessible markets for his livestock in the oil-rich Arab state
across the Red Sea. Today there exists a flourishing export of livestock on the
hoof to Saudi Arabia, to the Persian Gulf, to Egypt, to Kuwait and even as far
as Iraq. This in turn has enhanced the breeding of livestock in the interior.
These successful efforts are purely due to Somali diligence, initiative and
enterprise in which I and any Somali can with justification take some pride.
I would now like to go back to the history and the origin of this resourceful
individual, the Somali nomad. The origin of the Somali people, like that of
most other nations, is lost in the mists of history and has likewise become the
subject of mythical fables and folklore. Association with the Pharoahs as the
Land of Punt is one of these mythological fables that has received credit because
of certain evidences found in the ancient pyramids of Egypt. The history of
myrrh and frankincense shrouds Somalia with unrelated allusions in ancient
history. However my own belief is that the Somali people derive their origin
from the ancient empire of Adde whose capital was Adari, now known as
Harar, and whose main port was Audal now called Zeilah. This empire
flourished in the tenth and eleventh centuries A.D., and was part of the Arab
expansion during the Khalifate Empire. It is my opinion that after the decline
of that empire in the twelfth century those who stayed behind made their
home in the Horn of Africa, in scattered settlements among the indigenous
population. There was naturally a period of chaos when Islamic traditions disappeared and the whole country reverted to its former paganism, tribal strife, and the ' law of the jungle '. This chaos lasted for a period of several decades. Across
the Gulf of Aden, the rulers in Yemen were disturbed by the news of atrocities
and the reversion to paganism which reached them from the country over which
they had previously held suzerainty. At first they affected to ignore the situation,
but eventually after a period of reorganization in their own country and
the re-establishment of the Kingdom of the Imam, they decided to make
another attempt at resuscitating Islamic traditions in the Horn of Africa. They
decided to send over a group of eminent Sheikhs to settle at strategic points to preach and bring the people back into the fold of Islam. So, in the
earlier part of the thirteenth century, Islamic missionaries came back from
Arabian Peninsula and re-established Islam and the rule of law. The task of
these eminent Sheikhs was a tremendous one. Their main objective was to
re-establish Islam and Islamic culture and to create a society that would last
and develop within the traditions of the Islamic doctrine. So they took the
easiest and most natural course. They chose and concentrated on that portion
of the people with Arabic blood, the descendants of the people of the Adde
Empire, who were living in scattered settlements, organized them politically,
instructed them in the teaching of the Holy Koran and the Islamic tradition.
The rest of the population were relegated to serfdom and assigned menial tasks.
As the power of these people grew, they gradually expanded their suzerainty and
pushed the other ethnic groups further west and south.
These Sheikhs who came over from Arabia attained positions of great
stature and influence in the country. Their spheres of influence were so
strategically placed that the location of their tombs today gives a clear
impression of plan and purpose. They settled at strategic points along the coast
of the Horn of Africa. Each one concentrated on a particular settlement for
which he became a patron saint and over which he exerted a great spiritual
and secular influence. They adopted an indigenous form of teaching the Arabic
alphabet in the Somali language, so that the Holy Koran could be read in
Arabic despite the fact that the Somali could not understand its meaning.
Even today, almost every Somali can recite the Holy Koran in parrot fashion
without understanding its import and meaning. These Sheikhs, however,
achieved great success in the organization of the society and in the propagation
of Islamic doctrine. Unfortunately, over the years, the myths surrounding
these eminent Sheikhs have so developed and have become so engraved in the
minds of the people that they are regarded today as being the actual ancestors
of the different tribal groupings of the Somali people ; and whereas, in fact,
these present-day tribes are only the continuation of the settlements which these
Sheikhs organized and developed as political units. It is these myths and this
firm belief in one common ancestor for each tribal group that has set the
pattern of Somali politics in the modern age.
It is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of the development of the Somali
nation that, despite the original intention of these Sheikhs to bring about unity
between the different settlements, these over the years developed into hard
cores of legendary ethnic groups warring against each other in competition for
domination over pastures and over water. It was in such a state of affairs
that the first European travellers and colonisers of the Horn of Africa found the
Somali nation. This rife atmosphere lent itself easily to the designs of those
European and African powers who took pan in the infamous scramble for
Africa during the latter part of the nineteenth century. The British signed
Treaties of Protection with the coastal tribes along the Gulf of Aden and those
living in what later became the Northern Frontier District of Kenya in the
south ; during the same period the Italians established their sovereignty over
Mogadiscio and the neighbouring regions of Hiran and Alta-Juba ;and a few
years later over-threw the Bogor of Mijertainia and the Sultan of Mudug.
Emperor Menelik of Ethiopia followed suit by taking the ****** and part of
what is now the Harar Province into his Empire ;whilst the French established
themselves in Djibouti. This partition of the Somali territory and its peoples
was incorporated in a number of treaties defining spheres of influence between
these Powers. Throughout this balkanisation of the territory, Somali nationalism
was dormant. Except for the isolated and unsuccessful efforts of Sayyid
Mohamed Abdille Hassan, no unified resistance was offered by the Somali
nation to the designs of those who arbitrarily divided their country and
established suzerainty over their lives and lands. Even as late as 1946, intertribal
competition, jealousy and suspicion was so dominant that the attempt
made by Britain in the person of the Foreign Minister, the late Mr. Ernest
Bevin, to unite the whole Somali territory under British sovereignty was not
only opposed and thwarted by the major powers but was even resisted by the
Somali people. That chance of reunification, lost in the middle 1940s, is now
the utopia of a11 our endeavours and our diplomacy.
Soon after the last War, the first manifestations of Somali nationalism were
kindled in Mogadiscio and the first political party was established on a national
scale ; this was with the birth of the Somali Youth League, and the call of
nationalism took possession of the soul and minds of the Somali people
everywhere. From those early post-war days tribalism took second place and
nationalism became the order of the day. The once arrogant, overpowering
influence of tribal loyalties was replaced by national political consciousness.
The colonial powers recognised immediately the danger of this phenomenon
even before the Somali realized the impact and the import of this political
and social revolution. As early as 1948, the Somali Youth League was banned
and suppressed in the Ethiopian-held Somali territories as well as becoming a
proscribed association in the Northern Frontier District of Kenya. In the
former British Somaliland Protectorate, the colonial government's propaganda
was still effective and the Somali Youth League never made headway : but
the Somali National League was established and espoused the same objectives
and political aspirations.
It is perhaps strange that the people who permitted without concerted
resistance the partition of their territories and perhaps even indirectly encouraged
and condoned its balkanisation should react so violently in 1954 to
the cession of an area formerly held by the British to the Imperial Government
of Ethiopia. This was, however, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's
back. In the middle of the nineteenth century, only a few years after Britain
had cynically signed flamboyant Treaties of Protection with the people, it had
secretly signed treaties with Ethiopia ceding to that country a portion of those
very lands it had undertaken to protect. So, in 1954, at the zenith of the
nationalist movement of Somalia, the cession of what was known as the
Reserved Area and the Haud, the richest grazing areas of the land, their
importance enhanced by the building of the cement permanent water reservoirs
I have mentioned earlier, was like salt applied to a sore wound.
The dispute between Kenya and Somalia over the area formerly known as
the Northern Frontier District, and predominantly inhabited by Somali people,
is also a legacy of British colonialism. The British East Africa Company
signed Treaties of Protection with the tribes and subsequently handed over
responsibility for the territory to Her Majesty's Government. In 1915, the
Jubaland was given to Italy as a bribe for entering the War on the side of the
Allies, while the rest of the territory was administered as a self-contained and
completely separate area from the rest of Kenya until 1963. It was known
as a ' closed district ' and its inhabitants could only visit other parts of Kenya
by special permits and vice versa.
In 1962, at the London constitutional conference on Kenya, a delegation
from the former NFD was invited to advise the Colonial Secretary of the
political aspirations of the people. The delegation, led by their only member of
Parliament in Kenya Legislative Council, demanded secession from Kenya and
union with Somalia. The Colonial Secretary of the day gave the wise ruling
that Her Majesty's Government would appoint a Commission to go to the
NFD and ascertain the wishes of the people and would subsequently make a
decision on the findings of this Commission. 87.76 per cent of the people of
the NFD voted for union with the Somali Republic ; indeed, certain areas or
districts were unanimous and without exception in their vote for union with
Somalia. Despite this clear and undeniable manifestation, Her Majesty's
Government decided to ignore the Report of the Commission and refused to
fulfil the hope and the aspirations it had raised by its own action and by its
clear undertaking.
This unfortunate episode, nay, this classical example of the proverbial
perfidy of Albion caused the rupture of diplomatic relations and the severing
of the traditional ties between Somalia and Britain. Yet, throughout this long
period of unfulfilled promises, of broken treaties and of deliberate lack of
good faith, the Somali people have always maintained an inexplicable warmth
and high regard for Britain. It is perhaps a great irony that the Somalis, of
all the people in this world, should so genuinely and touchingly attribute to the
British an unimpeachable sense of justice and fair play. With all due
respect, in his own dealings with the British, the Somali was never shown
an example of this quality which he so sincerely attributed to the British.
As regards the Ethiopian sector, the military occupation by Ethiopia of
Harar in 1887 brought that country, for the first time, into direct contact with
the Somali people. A parade of Secret Treaties in the last two decades of the
nineteenth century gave Ethiopia a generous cut of the cake that was the
Somali Territory. However, the first attempt of Ethiopia to demarcate a
de facto boundary as a preliminary to setting up an administration was not
made until 1934, when an Anglo-Ethiopian Boundary Commission arrived to
implement the 1897 Agreement. This resulted in a storm of protest by the
Somali peoples, but the Italian occupation of Ethiopia, following the outbreak
of hostilities in 1935, caused the issue to fall in abeyance until the defeat of
Italy, and the restoration of Ethiopian independence, in 1942. Here, as in the
NFD, the Somali inhabitants had refused, and still categorically refuse, to
accept foreign claims to their territory, and the whole area is under military
rule as well as under emergency regulations. The continued unrest, together
with the difficulties which the nomadic tribes encounter in their seasonal
migrations, are a constant irritation and threat to stability ; which at times
has even resulted not only in armed conflict between the Somali tribes and
the Ethiopian occupation forces, but also in clashes between the Somali
Republic and Ethiopia.
This lamentable partitioning of the Somali people and their territories has
left the Somali Republic in a dilemma. As the only independent sovereign
Somali state, it has assumed the inevitable role of championing the cause of
those other Somali territories still under alien authority. These now find themselves,
with the exception of French Somaliland, the unnatural and the
unwilling appendages of other sister African states. Consequently, Somalia has
found itself in confrontation with these African states.
Somalia on its part cannot understand how the natural political aspirations
of the Somali peoples in these territories, and its own equally natural role and
responsibility to their cause could possibly be misunderstood and taken amiss
by any one with any clear knowledge and insight of the Somali problem. On
the other hand, the leaders of our neighbouring states share the view that it
is intolerable to have a sister African state interfering with what they consider
to be the internal affairs of their countries. These two diametrically opposed
concepts of the problem have led to bitterness, to open conflict and to unbecoming
postures and attitudes of confrontation.
Such was the situation which my Government inherited when it took office
in July 1967.
We immediately decided to make this problem our first concern in formulating
the new policies of the country. Naturally, the aims and the political
objectives of the Somali people are unalterable and are enshrined in our
constitution, viz, that we are obliged to seek the unification of the Somali
territories through peaceful and legal means. It was however open to us to
alter the policy of confrontation and to seek accommodation for a detente with
our neighbours as a preliminary to creating a suitable atmosphere without
abandoning the context of our political aspirations and objectives. From the
outset, we made it clear on every possible occasion that, as the Somali
Republic, we have no policy of aggrandizement against our neighbours, neither
do we want to claim territory that is not our own. We are, however,
irretrievably bound by unbreakable ties to our Somali brethren who still have
not had the opportunity freely to choose their own political destiny. Of the
five segments into which the Somali nation was artificially partitioned, only
two, namely the Somali Republic, have attained their right of self-determination.
It is only natural that the remaining three segments should also
seek to exercise this freedom of political expression, and whether they obtain
support from outside sources including Somalia is irrelevant to their own
struggle for independence. The desire for freedom stems from within and is
not being imposed from external sources as some would make the world believe.
This innate national and political consciousness is the real root of the problem
and the source of the continuous friction between the Somali peoples and the
governments which now control them. Therefore, at the OAU Summit Conference
in Kinshasa, I made tentative approaches to the leaders of both of
our neighbours, and I am glad to say that my initiatives have been richly
rewarded by a reciprocal show of goodwill and a desire for peaceful negotiations
from my colleagues across the border. The Arusha Memorandum of Understanding
which I signed with President Mzee Jomo Kenyatta last September
has not touched upon the substance of our dispute with Kenya, but it has
set up a firm foundation for an understanding and machinery for a mutual
quest for a solution to the dispute. Its salient point is that Kenya recognises the
existence of a major dispute and lends itself to seeking a solution for its
settlement, whilst Somalia on its part undertakes to respect the sovereignty of
Kenya. It is my sincere hope that in the process of discussing possible
solutions to the dispute, and in the mental engagement of thinking out possible
proposals acceptable to those directly involved, we shall eventually turn up
with an equitable solution acceptable to all concerned. In that alone, there is
hope ; and there is no valid reason why there should not be a good chance for
settlement so long as there is goodwill and so long as both parties are realistic
in their approach. In the meantime, we have decided to leave the people in the
area in peace in the pursuit of their daily life, unimpeded by emergency
regulations and by political strife. I have great confidence in the personal
relationship which I have established with the Mzee, and I am convinced that
he is just as anxious as I am to solve this problem once and for all.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I would like to say that even though Somalia
has never before taken a prominent role in African affairs, yet our people have
shared the anxieties, the misgivings and the tribulations of other African states
over certain events taking place on our continent. Prominent among those
events is the question of Rhodesia and the illegal regime of Ian Smith. I do
not think it is wise for African leaders to ignore facts and to blind themselves
to the realities of any situation. I am for giving credit where credit is due,
because it is only then that the condemnation of the wicked can be forceful
and effective. I should like to pay a special tribute to the present
Government of Her Majesty for the decision to continue their arms
embargo against South Africa. This measure is all the more significant as
it was taken at a time when Britain was in the grip of its greatest financial
crisis. I know that this decision was made out of deference to African public
opinion, and therefore, it would be more than unfortunate if African leaders
failed to appreciate this most magnanimous gesture of goodwill to Black
Africa. Nevertheless this appreciation is no compensation for our disappointment
and abhorrence of the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards
Rhodesia and towards the illegal regime of Ian Smith. An eminent spokesman
of the Labour Party said in a recent BBC interview ' that sanctions against
Rhodesia had not failed but only they had not succeeded.'! I can only say
that this is a subterfuge of the flimsiest guise, and the closing chapter of the
splendour and the glory of the British Empire should have had a worthier and
a more becoming finale than the tolerance of the absolute negation of its lofty
fundamental principles by a band of terrified traitors.
