GOVERNANCE, TRANSPARENCY AND SECURITY; WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS FOR PEACE IN SOMALIA
BY Dr.Ali M Abdullahi
19/08/2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somalia lacked a central government for almost 14 years, yet there are differing degrees of what might be termed as a government to utter chaos in other parts. In analyzing governance in Somalia I will divide it into six parts:
1. Pre-European governance
2. European governance
3. Democratic governance 1960-1969
4. Dictatorial governance 1969-1991
5. The Civil war era 1991-1993
6. The States Era 1993-2004
Pre-European governance
Before the arrival of European on Somali Soil there was the existence of the XEER as a form of governance and there was also the presence of sultanates, kingdoms and theocracy that governed Somalis in one way or another. During these periods there was order in the Somalia and political power was based in either the Sultanates or under the Abdulla Hassan's theocracy. The nature of that theocracy changed to an absolute rule when S. Abdullah Hassan turned into a real despot where governance and transparency was compromised that ultimately undid his theocratic empire.
When European colonizers were contemplating coming to Somalia, using the partition of Africa 1884 as a template. At these times there was the heavy hand of both the Italians, and British administrations in trying to colonize the country.
It did not succeed as planned and there was heavy opposition from the likes of Sayid Mohamed Abdulle Hassan termed as the mad Mullah in other publications. There was also the existence of the *****tain Kingdom in the North East that actually had treaties with the Ottoman Empire that facilitated them to have treaties with the British and Italians. There were also the Biyomaal sultanates that had their own governance structures. In short there were pockets of governance structures that did exist though through times looking at one eye on strategic interests and the other on the size and capabilities of the opposition most of the treaties that were signed between the *****tain kingdoms were annulled by both the British and the Italians. Colonization began in earnest.
European Governance
When Somalia came temporarily under colonial rule with the defeat of Mohamed Abdulla Hassan at Taleh in 1929 with heavy losses on British forces in the horn of Africa the full onset of colonization was slowed by the war that was already brewing in Europe and both the Italians and the British had other problems at home to contend with. Again still temporarily under colonization in the 1950's there was the Ernest Bevin Commission that found out that the five parts of Somalia should be put together under one government but this was vetoed at the UN by the Russians and Hailles Sellasie the then emperor of Ethiopia who thought that Somalia might join the commonwealth.
Governance at these times was fractured by Somali resistance to the structured and centralized rules of the Europeans that did not fit into the decentralized nomadic Somali life. Both British and Italians set up government offices in many parts of the country though they did not train any of the locals in administration before 1950.
Democratic governance 1960-1969
During this period Somalia was described as the only country in Africa to have had a multiparty election even surpassing that in the west where the choice is always between an evil and a lesser evil or rather between powerful party's e. in the U.S between the Republicans and Democrats or in the case of Australia the Liberals and Labor.
The structure of governance was that of a centrally controlled government where the government was democratically elected. At the beginning there was the heavy solidarity and good wishes of all Somalis but towards the end of the Abdirashid administration corruption became endemic and government became less transparent. Then there were the 1969 elections that was poorly managed and at best rigged. It led to his assassination and ultimate downfall of that administration.
Dictatorial governance 1969-1991
Mohamed Siad Barre came to power in 1969 after he was given the mantle to govern by the parliament since he was the head of the military but hours later formed his own fiefdom by fully staging a coup and imprisoned all opposition. The group who took over in the coup imposed curfew on movements, accountability was removed, transparency compromised and corruption became endemic where military officers practically ran even the central bank.
Barre resorted to divide and rule principal when he received training and technical support from the USSR that created the nasty NSS and the economy moved to a centrally controlled one. Soon food rationing and poverty struck the populace.
There was also the persecution of clans especially the *****tain and Isaak who later even challenged Siad Barre's rule with the creation of the SSDF and SNM.
In 1990 the centrally controlled government of Siad Barre collapsed when opposition groupings from many clans overthrew the government. Then the USC which was dominant in Mogadishu started committing genocide against remnants of other tribes. Then later on the USC turned guns on each other and there was utter chaos and human suffering that followed.
Civil War era 1991-1993
In this period as the USC was tearing itself out in Mogadishu and its environs while on the other side in the north the Isaaks (Somaliland) were fighting within each other during this period governance in Somalia came to a halt even the customary governance rules of the XEER was compromised due to internal conflict amongst the clans.
In the North East in what is now called Puntland there was the emergence of Al-itihad who controlled for a while and brought in division along sect lines since most of them were from the Wahabi sect they started eliminating all other sects e.g. the Timawayne, Qaadiriyas but they did come to an end when the SSDF challenged their power and ultimately defeated them in a military confrontation.
The States Era 1993-2004
In 1993 after the war in the North came to an end the elders got involved in setting up a government that called itself Somaliland. In the North-east with the control of SSDF there was relative stability but lacked any form of government and in 1998 when a number of intellectuals came back from overseas and urged the elders and the SSDF that a government should be formed. In August 1 1998 the State of Puntland was born with a constitution and a parliament. During all this times there was no single assistance from either the UN, western governments and even brethren Muslim countries or even Arab states.
The situation in the horn was made worse when some Arab states imposed what I term as "smart sanctions" on livestock from Somalia to ultimately weaken the existing states of Puntland and Somaliland that gained most of their government revenues from the livestock export trade and bring them under the control of the Arab supported Arta group in Mogadishu. The Arabs claimed that most of the livestock as being infected by the rift-valley fever something that has not been proven scientifically.
The two said states even had elections that were well participated by the population though there was minimal support from external donors the processes were both transparent and legitimate. Though there was lack of technical support that should have minimized disputations.
When we come to transparency and governance in both states government at most times work in this oasis of hope though at times they lack proper checks and balances for example the president of Somaliland gets almost $1million dollars in salaries and allowances allocated to him in the budget while in comparison the U.S presidency receives $400,000.One of the poorest state on earth cannot logically afford to have that kind of excesses.
Also there is lack of technical assistance in the areas of public administration for example in both states the largest number of offences are committed on land disputes and there is no decent allocation of land with title deeds or a register of land (There is a Somali saying that arose after the civil that says KU QABSO KU QADI MAYSIDE- MEANING DISPUTE HIM ON LAND AT LEAST YOU WILL GET SOMETHING).
As for both governments, government transparency through tabling of reports and communication to the media is minimized due to the tendency of still not believing as being governments with budgets and accountability. Nepotism, and an uneducated bureaucracy and lack of transparency being the other major impediment in having an efficient bureaucracy.
A future Somali government shall adopt a federal structure of government as was enshrined in the Federal Charter (Adopted in Eldoret on 27/10/2002) which I believe was the best thing Somalis and IGAD did and that makes this conference different from the other 13 conferences that failed spectacularly.
What are the short comings of the Federal Charter and it's implications for security and peace in Somalia? I will explain them as:
1. Mogadishu as the capital of Somalia(security question)
2. The 4.5 Rule system (major clans get sidelined)
In a report that was prepared by the Institute of security studies South-Africa following on what the DDR committee tabled to IGAD it pointed out that at least in Mogadishu and its environs there are at least 100,000 armed militias who need to be disarmed and demobilized and reintegrated. It will require at least 50,000 troops to maintain the peace, where will the money come from that is required to furnish this huge military build-up? The economic committee of the conference did put forth a budget of $1 Billion dollars without taking into account the money required for security and disarming the 100,000 armed militias in Mogadishu.
There are three questions on hand here first, who is going to do the military intervention? Secondly, where will the money come from? And thirdly, what are it's implication on the fabric and cohesion of the Somali society? Real answers are needed though a military force consisting of Kenya, Ethiopia, or even Egypt will be seen as hostile by Somalis the other options is that of an African force that might be suitable though their numbers could turn around peace building to "liberation wars" as is happening in Iraq at the moment.
I tried to explain this in a paper that I wrote in 2002(Somalia: Salvaging the failed state) that talked of setting the capital in another place that is neutral to all clans and that cannot be claimed by anyone within 100km2. A good point is that even in the Arta charter the capital was to be made temporarily at Baidabo but it was later moved by the Arta administration that resulted in them breaching the Arta charter. After sometime the administration built up 30,000 troops from funds given by some Arab states that later came a cropper when their financing became unbearable and as usual the troops melted into their clan militias.
Conclusion
What we have learnt from previous Somali conferences and their outcomes are that briefly after a setup of a government then fighting erupts as was seen in Djibouti I, Djibouti II, and Arta. I hope history does not repeat itself and that there is huge challenge that lies ahead in implementing the Federal Charter. The challenges being:
taking a census,
setting up a federal committee,
And ultimately bring in human capital to fill in setting up a functioning bureaurocracy.
Finally lack of a proper governing government or governments (autonomous states) in Somalia might lead to once again chaos in the south and further destabilize Puntland and Somaliland and ultimately the whole of the horn.
What are the implications of lack of security in Somalia?
1. For the Diaspora they will have to foot the bill of sending money to injured relatives and family members,
2. As for the international community and NGO's will be unable to work in war torn areas,
3. It might lead to more "AANO" the killing of influential and resourceful persons in the community(this phenomenon hinders the skilled Diaspora in going back to their communities in helping them out)
4. It might also be a breeding ground for the Narcotic trade and real terrorists,
5. It might also lead to the proliferation of small arms that escalates crime in other neighboring states
6. It might also lead to more kidnappings for ransom as is common in Mogadishu today.
The truth is that a Mogadishu administration will always be weak since most of its economic, military, and political resources will be directed at securing security. It might destruct development plans and money that is direly needed for hospitals, education and the infrastructure.
A military, political, or economic strategy that sidelines the existing states should be avoided.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paper was presented by Dr.Ali Abdullahi, CEO of Amsas Consulting at the Somali Symposium in Melbourne on 23 August 2004.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related articles:
- In Search Of Good Governance
- Salvaging the Failed state
- A possible solution for Puntland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mudugonline.com
Contact: webmaster@mudugonline.com
Copyright © Mudug Online 2001
Last Updated 08/23/2004
