What kind of Government System for the Somali Democratic Republic

[Xaaji Xunjuf]

Che u pushing50 he

welk this discussion shouldn’t be held it’s decided to have federal and every one is happy with it right 

[Illyria]

Centralism is the scourge of the State.
I was hoping centralists would present the case in its favour, but thus far, besides offing desires based upon perceived personal gains, they failed to come up with any meaningful defence. Let me offer the opposite.

For fragile States, with .So being the quintessential textbook definition, amongst other things, centralism is:

With the collapse at the centre, the whole nation collapses with it whereas in devolved government, where States independently operate, damage from the centre could be contained rescuing the nation. Case in point, when Xamar fell in 1991, imagine if there had been 5 or 7 regions independently operating beyond Xamar, where displaced people could be received till the malady at the centre had been remediated.

 

Centralised government tends to be highly expensive to operate, ineffective to manage local affairs from afar, and poorly dispenses services to the public on the periphery. For instance, apportioning infrastructure projects at the centre not only delays, but creates undue bureaucracy, which potentially leads to corruption. Conversely, the cost of building, and/or maintaining infrastructure at the State level is cheaper, is swallowed by the State, which in turn allows States to prioritise projects based upon local needs.

 

Centralised government poorly manages, or provides services, be it health, education, infrastructure building or maintenance, or security. Alternatively, decentralised authority could better manage said services at the State level more effectively, and efficiently, and where one State mismanages, it impacts not other States whereas if the Central authority abuses, or mismanages, it affects the whole nation.

 

With centralised government, there is negligence at the local level, where a government, say in 2,000 miles away, with limited resources, could not effectively respond to local disasters, natural or otherwise. Alternatively, local State apparatus could plan, and respond to local emergencies quicker, better, cost-effectively, and is better-positioned.

 

Centralised governments are more likely than not to abuse power, prey on citizens, where civil unrest followed by wanton imprisonment, followed by perpetual conflict leading to a total collapse, becomes the norm. With devolved power, there are multiple checks and balances, where should the State authority seeks to overstep its boundaries, legal or otherwise, the possibility of stopping it, or minimising the resulting damage are far greater.

 

With it too, technical and professional classes are marginalised, for centralised government seeks loyalty over competence. With States, technical cadre is needed at the local level, with their expertise being put to a better use at the local level.

 

Internal migration is a matter of concern in centralised government, where academicians, professionals, aspiring young people, and potential talent would vacate States seeking employment or fortune at the centre.

 

Corruption is rampant in centralised government, where nation's resources, meagre or otherwise, are confined within small circles, where nepotism reins, alienating educated, and technical classes.

 

Case studies of nations, which struggle with stable political order are those with past heavily centralised systems of governance, where current leaders inherited, or even had been indoctrinated in extreme authority, where they could not imagine devolved power to the periphery. If one considers successive leaders of the current Fed. government, one could see a trend, where they tend to seek greater powers than afforded to them under the law, and are constantly at logger-heads with provisions of the Constitution, and in violation of laws of the land. Their contaminated brain is conditioned to the authoritarian rule, under which they had matured, clones of their sires in essence.

Postscript:
With the focus here being devolved government, or federalism, I shall revisit benefits of federalism, as time permits, but had to make the case against centralised government.

[Illyria]

Exclusive vs Concurrent powers: Fed vs State
Exclusive powers are those powers defined, and reserved to the Fed. gov't, or to the States whereas Concurrent powers are powers shared between the Fed. gov't, and the States.

Land is a good example of Concurrent powers, where eminent domain, or Fed. land is established, and designated post negotiations, and with State policy & laws harmonised with Fed. laws. Till Fed. laws, land specific or otherwise, had been established, State land policy & laws are effectively applicable, with no jurisdiction over such matters for the Fed. gov't, unless under extreme circumstance justifying proportionate mitigations.

National defence is an Exclusive power to the Fed. gov't. Where, and when specific powers are shared or discharged, are subject to negotiations.

Elections, incl. Presidential elections, are Exclusive powers to the States.

In its current form [operative], Fed. gov't can not make laws to be applied to States, and in the event such laws are deemed necessary, some time in the future, deliberations must begin at the State level.

States create the Fed. gov't, not the other way round.

State laws form the bedrock of Fed. laws. and not the other way round.

Power rests with the people in States, and not with the Fed. framework, which owes its powers to States ceding defined, limited powers to Fed. institutions.

States make laws, and in turn, such laws make up the Fed. laws, and not the other round.

The sole power base the Fed. gov't exercises its power and authority is in the nation's Capital of which governing rules & regulation must be established.

There are numerous case laws, where the Fed. gov't attempted to unjustifiably increase, or unlawfully overstep its powers, and rejected by States. We'll discuss those at a later time.

[Illyria]

@maakhiri1

I shall argue in favour of Federalism whilst arguing against Centralism, and shall bring in how Islamic State, of Umawiyin & Abasiyin, had been governed on Federal basis, with autonomous Wilaayat (States) with Amirs as their Heads, and Amir al Muminin as the Leader of the Federal authority. I shall also discuss how the Roman empire tried to implement it by force, and to its sole benefit, and not to puppet States like Germania, Britannia etc.

[Illyria]

@Arafaat

Let us begin, and have you make the case against Federalism whilst outlining your favoured, alternative system.

[maakhiri1]

I take my personal, family, my clan feelings, or interests, to what Somali as whole, or Somali State needs, I ask myself, do I want a strong state, functioning, that brings honour to every Somali, that every Somalis can be proud of,? Or very weak fragile, and completely disconnected, segregated society, and that melts away the national pride, and does not promote regional , false identity.

I look at Somali people, max between 15 to 20 million, that is population of Istanbul, Mumbai, London, Delhi, New York, Mexico City, and so on, the people in those cities are far more diverse than Somalis.

All those major town are ruled by a mayor, And I have personally been to some of those cities, at my hotel, I woke up at night, maybe jetlag, look out window, everything going in orderly fashion, functioning, no issues. I asked myself, how is this city with population more than Somalia as whole, is going so smooth, with little or no crime, no issues, no fight over resources, how are services delivered, cleaning, hospitals, schools, policing, fire fighters, etc

We must be genuine when discussing issues, academically without bias, Federalism and Centralism, No sane is advocating central type of government of Siyad Barre regime. Back then Somali resources were extremely limited, that government was autocratic, had very small resources, less resources that many of the federal states now, still provided free health care, free schooling et. How much was Somali state revenue, adjusted to inflation compare today? Mogadishu alone  now makes more and yet nothing is being done or no public services delivered. So it is not true, that government at central was extremely wealthy and all the resources disappeared in Mogadishu

I came to conclusion after long thought, If Somalis don’t change, and get rid off this federalism, that is advocating more regionalism, clan fiefdoms, division, sectarianism, then it is even better to break even into a smaller central country. Remember , Federal states are unitary states, (My argument in other thread that a bit shocking to you) Why, you said, Centralism, is more expensive, that is not true. Opposite is true, federalism way more expensive, and suitable for very wealthy countries like USA, Germany, Australia. It is also for people who are too different ethnic and or religious groups, like Nigeria, or India .

How can very poor country like Somalia afford this form of government, and if People are one ethnic group? Whose idea, was it? If there is mistrust and bad feeling about the last dictator, we can have a model like Kenya. Just because the last Somali government, that was central, was horrible, you don’t jump to something will make Somalia weaker, fragmented, and harder to bring the nation back.

I read and can share academic report, stating how costly Federalism is vs Centralism, why? More bureaucracy, duplication of services? red tape, every state duplication of services, like license, number plates, tax and so on. In Somalia, it is even more complex and on steroids? Military, monitory,laws, curriculum,  nothing is centralised, and will continue that way.

We have now parliament in every state, close to 1000 ministers, all needed their own expenses, cars, villas, security?  Different laws, different taxation system,  Overkill, and again we have it at federal level, we created this redundant upper house, that has no use, or function, other than empty the meagre resources we had.

If we look at Africa, do you want to be like poor Federal Ethiopia, with endless wars, and regional power struggles, or Unitary state, Kenya ,  which will join developed nations in 10 years!

There are many cases of young Somali kids, when told to bring their country flag, in diaspora, , take  PL or Jubba or Somaliland  etc, and bewildered teachers shaking their head? googling the names? In confusion, You have seen how segregating this notion of federalism is, it will keep us very weak, under developed, you witness and have attended parties to PL day, Jubbaland, SL Galmudug,  bracelets of flags,  different flags, some very unfamiliar, and multiplying,  , and It is very odd now, if bring Somalia flag, or if you don’t bring your clan enclave flag, this balkanization and dividing is  a death sentence to strong Somali state

Have you asked yourself, why India economy, who was ahead or equal of China,  at some point, is now way behind now? It is because of federalism and bureaucracy red tape, states fighting over resources Fight of water, rivers, multiple number plates, 25 different state tax.

A good example of crazy this will be is a truck travelling from Sl to Mogadishu, how many state taxes do they have to pay? Why do very poor Somali Truck drivers, carry multiple number plates? And pay redundancy services? Taxes, and tariffs? different school curriculum,   The madness is in-explainable, and I can not list them all here.

So the best option is to get rid of this federalism, it will bring more misery and madness and if we want strong functioning, dignified country, we dump this, unless miracles happen, this nightmare will continue

It is the educated class, give unbiased look what options better, and recommend to the Somali people, Not by the clannish, selfish, uneducated so called leaders, Can’t See the Forest For The Trees.

If after long discussion, I am certain they will advocate and recommend dumping this federalism, but before going back, protections must be in place, that will guard over centralisation and expand the central powers.

I advocate for strong Unitary State with devolution of some of the services and powers, but not federalism.

Joining EAST Africa Community may be a blessing, as some of the laws, monetary, passports, tariffs will be centralised, maybe this will make Somalis unite under one ethnic group. SOMALI.

[maakhiri1]

here, Does this apply to us?

 

[Tallaabo]

5 hours ago, maakhiri1 said:

No sane is advocating central type of government of Siyad Barre regime.

A centralised system is not bad if there are checks and balances in place to keep it functioning. What is important is having strong institutions based on the rule of law and accountability. 

[Illyria]

9 hours ago, maakhiri1 said:

I take my personal, family, my clan feelings, or interests, to what Somali as whole, or Somali State needs, I ask myself, do I want a strong state, functioning, that brings honour to every Somali, that every Somalis can be proud of,? Or very weak fragile, and completely disconnected, segregated society, and that melts away the national pride, and does not promote regional , false identity.

I look at Somali people, max between 15 to 20 million, that is population of Istanbul, Mumbai, London, Delhi, New York, Mexico City, and so on, the people in those cities are far more diverse than Somalis.

All those major town are ruled by a mayor, And I have personally been to some of those cities, at my hotel, I woke up at night, maybe jetlag, look out window, everything going in orderly fashion, functioning, no issues. I asked myself, how is this city with population more than Somalia as whole, is going so smooth, with little or no crime, no issues, no fight over resources, how are services delivered, cleaning, hospitals, schools, policing, fire fighters, etc

We must be genuine when discussing issues, academically without bias, Federalism and Centralism, No sane is advocating central type of government of Siyad Barre regime. Back then Somali resources were extremely limited, that government was autocratic, had very small resources, less resources that many of the federal states now, still provided free health care, free schooling et. How much was Somali state revenue, adjusted to inflation compare today? Mogadishu alone  now makes more and yet nothing is being done or no public services delivered. So it is not true, that government at central was extremely wealthy and all the resources disappeared in Mogadishu

I came to conclusion after long thought, If Somalis don’t change, and get rid off this federalism, that is advocating more regionalism, clan fiefdoms, division, sectarianism, then it is even better to break even into a smaller central country. Remember , Federal states are unitary states, (My argument in other thread that a bit shocking to you) Why, you said, Centralism, is more expensive, that is not true. Opposite is true, federalism way more expensive, and suitable for very wealthy countries like USA, Germany, Australia. It is also for people who are too different ethnic and or religious groups, like Nigeria, or India .

How can very poor country like Somalia afford this form of government, and if People are one ethnic group? Whose idea, was it? If there is mistrust and bad feeling about the last dictator, we can have a model like Kenya. Just because the last Somali government, that was central, was horrible, you don’t jump to something will make Somalia weaker, fragmented, and harder to bring the nation back.

I read and can share academic report, stating how costly Federalism is vs Centralism, why? More bureaucracy, duplication of services? red tape, every state duplication of services, like license, number plates, tax and so on. In Somalia, it is even more complex and on steroids? Military, monitory,laws, curriculum,  nothing is centralised, and will continue that way.

We have now parliament in every state, close to 1000 ministers, all needed their own expenses, cars, villas, security?  Different laws, different taxation system,  Overkill, and again we have it at federal level, we created this redundant upper house, that has no use, or function, other than empty the meagre resources we had.

If we look at Africa, do you want to be like poor Federal Ethiopia, with endless wars, and regional power struggles, or Unitary state, Kenya ,  which will join developed nations in 10 years!

There are many cases of young Somali kids, when told to bring their country flag, in diaspora, , take  PL or Jubba or Somaliland  etc, and bewildered teachers shaking their head? googling the names? In confusion, You have seen how segregating this notion of federalism is, it will keep us very weak, under developed, you witness and have attended parties to PL day, Jubbaland, SL Galmudug,  bracelets of flags,  different flags, some very unfamiliar, and multiplying,  , and It is very odd now, if bring Somalia flag, or if you don’t bring your clan enclave flag, this balkanization and dividing is  a death sentence to strong Somali state

Have you asked yourself, why India economy, who was ahead or equal of China,  at some point, is now way behind now? It is because of federalism and bureaucracy red tape, states fighting over resources Fight of water, rivers, multiple number plates, 25 different state tax.

A good example of crazy this will be is a truck travelling from Sl to Mogadishu, how many state taxes do they have to pay? Why do very poor Somali Truck drivers, carry multiple number plates? And pay redundancy services? Taxes, and tariffs? different school curriculum,   The madness is in-explainable, and I can not list them all here.

So the best option is to get rid of this federalism, it will bring more misery and madness and if we want strong functioning, dignified country, we dump this, unless miracles happen, this nightmare will continue

It is the educated class, give unbiased look what options better, and recommend to the Somali people, Not by the clannish, selfish, uneducated so called leaders, Can’t See the Forest For The Trees.

If after long discussion, I am certain they will advocate and recommend dumping this federalism, but before going back, protections must be in place, that will guard over centralisation and expand the central powers.

I advocate for strong Unitary State with devolution of some of the services and powers, but not federalism.

Joining EAST Africa Community may be a blessing, as some of the laws, monetary, passports, tariffs will be centralised, maybe this will make Somalis unite under one ethnic group. SOMALI.

I thank you, you raised some very good points, and I shall lance one at a time, as time permits. I must say you did exactly what I was hoping you would do:

a) Viewing what is in place in Somalia today as Federalism, and measuring it, and its ills by those standards, a major thought gap, which I suspect explains lack of exposure, and true understanding of, as the average Somali, to its true nature, and practice, and

b) Falling back on nostalgia reminiscing of the good old Somalia, which never was.

To begin, I'll come back to explain what Federalism "treaty" actually entails, is, how it trully works, and its virtues.

Postscript:
I agree, we all want a strong, stable, and functioning modern nation state, but differ as to how best get there.

[maakhiri1]

Thanks, looking forward to

And please let us focus on Somalia,  and on Somali people, not theoretically, not how it could work on very wealthy rich countries, not on how it could work educated people,  not people on massive continent like USA,  Australia, Canada and it is hard to manage from one location, or have natural borders, mountains, rivers,  or ethnically different, different religious,  languages, Canada, Nigeria India,

Why propose those to SOMALI people who are one ethnic group, one language, one religious, no big country with no natural barriers,, not a big population? why what is the push?

I extensively read about Somali history, , when  a real form of government led by Somali people that worked for people was period between 1969 to maybe 1975.  That is about 5 years, if you compare from HSM first term to now, it is over 12 years.

Let us compare pros and cons of each.

 

 

[maakhiri1]

On Ziyad Barre regime and nostalgia, it is not like that, that regime did a lot of good and bad, so you can't throw out of the window the good. You can learn from it.

This is a good benchmark , a country on the  move, of course, it was badly managed at the end, but this is a good start,  what have we achieved even at state level, PL is 25 years old, SL 32 years?  this is the first 5 years of Kacaan

 

[Illyria]

On 9/5/2023 at 10:03 PM, maakhiri1 said:

I take my personal, family, my clan feelings, or interests, to what Somali as whole, or Somali State needs, I ask myself, do I want a strong state, functioning, that brings honour to every Somali, that every Somalis can be proud of,? Or very weak fragile, and completely disconnected, segregated society, and that melts away the national pride, and does not promote regional , false identity.

I look at Somali people, max between 15 to 20 million, that is population of Istanbul, Mumbai, London, Delhi, New York, Mexico City, and so on, the people in those cities are far more diverse than Somalis.

All those major town are ruled by a mayor, And I have personally been to some of those cities, at my hotel, I woke up at night, maybe jetlag, look out window, everything going in orderly fashion, functioning, no issues. I asked myself, how is this city with population more than Somalia as whole, is going so smooth, with little or no crime, no issues, no fight over resources, how are services delivered, cleaning, hospitals, schools, policing, fire fighters, etc

We must be genuine when discussing issues, academically without bias, Federalism and Centralism, No sane is advocating central type of government of Siyad Barre regime. Back then Somali resources were extremely limited, that government was autocratic, had very small resources, less resources that many of the federal states now, still provided free health care, free schooling et. How much was Somali state revenue, adjusted to inflation compare today? Mogadishu alone  now makes more and yet nothing is being done or no public services delivered. So it is not true, that government at central was extremely wealthy and all the resources disappeared in Mogadishu

I came to conclusion after long thought, If Somalis don’t change, and get rid off this federalism, that is advocating more regionalism, clan fiefdoms, division, sectarianism, then it is even better to break even into a smaller central country. Remember , Federal states are unitary states, (My argument in other thread that a bit shocking to you) Why, you said, Centralism, is more expensive, that is not true. Opposite is true, federalism way more expensive, and suitable for very wealthy countries like USA, Germany, Australia. It is also for people who are too different ethnic and or religious groups, like Nigeria, or India .

How can very poor country like Somalia afford this form of government, and if People are one ethnic group? Whose idea, was it? If there is mistrust and bad feeling about the last dictator, we can have a model like Kenya. Just because the last Somali government, that was central, was horrible, you don’t jump to something will make Somalia weaker, fragmented, and harder to bring the nation back.

I read and can share academic report, stating how costly Federalism is vs Centralism, why? More bureaucracy, duplication of services? red tape, every state duplication of services, like license, number plates, tax and so on. In Somalia, it is even more complex and on steroids? Military, monitory,laws, curriculum,  nothing is centralised, and will continue that way.

We have now parliament in every state, close to 1000 ministers, all needed their own expenses, cars, villas, security?  Different laws, different taxation system,  Overkill, and again we have it at federal level, we created this redundant upper house, that has no use, or function, other than empty the meagre resources we had.

If we look at Africa, do you want to be like poor Federal Ethiopia, with endless wars, and regional power struggles, or Unitary state, Kenya ,  which will join developed nations in 10 years!

There are many cases of young Somali kids, when told to bring their country flag, in diaspora, , take  PL or Jubba or Somaliland  etc, and bewildered teachers shaking their head? googling the names? In confusion, You have seen how segregating this notion of federalism is, it will keep us very weak, under developed, you witness and have attended parties to PL day, Jubbaland, SL Galmudug,  bracelets of flags,  different flags, some very unfamiliar, and multiplying,  , and It is very odd now, if bring Somalia flag, or if you don’t bring your clan enclave flag, this balkanization and dividing is  a death sentence to strong Somali state

Have you asked yourself, why India economy, who was ahead or equal of China,  at some point, is now way behind now? It is because of federalism and bureaucracy red tape, states fighting over resources Fight of water, rivers, multiple number plates, 25 different state tax.

A good example of crazy this will be is a truck travelling from Sl to Mogadishu, how many state taxes do they have to pay? Why do very poor Somali Truck drivers, carry multiple number plates? And pay redundancy services? Taxes, and tariffs? different school curriculum,   The madness is in-explainable, and I can not list them all here.

So the best option is to get rid of this federalism, it will bring more misery and madness and if we want strong functioning, dignified country, we dump this, unless miracles happen, this nightmare will continue

It is the educated class, give unbiased look what options better, and recommend to the Somali people, Not by the clannish, selfish, uneducated so called leaders, Can’t See the Forest For The Trees.

If after long discussion, I am certain they will advocate and recommend dumping this federalism, but before going back, protections must be in place, that will guard over centralisation and expand the central powers.

I advocate for strong Unitary State with devolution of some of the services and powers, but not federalism.

Joining EAST Africa Community may be a blessing, as some of the laws, monetary, passports, tariffs will be centralised, maybe this will make Somalis unite under one ethnic group. SOMALI.

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.

[Illyria]

In its current standing, and state, Somalia is in nation state building phase, and whilst that is in due process, Fed. gov't has no say, nor jurisdiction over the affairs, internal or otherwise of Fed. Member States.

Up until Fed. laws had been deliberated, negotiated, agreed upon, and established, in consultation, participation, and inclusion of FMSs, Fed. gov't has no powers to discharge, or exercise in the States.

Therefore using our current state to argue against Federalism is null and void, and instead shall be glancing at host nations where federalism is being practiced as a good example of its functionalities. 

[Arafaat]

Ilyria,

It makes much sense for Somalia to adopt a devolved and decentralised system that delegates much of the authority, powers and roles to local/regional level of governance. And whether this system ought to be Federal, Confederal, Decentralised Unitary State or a combination of these, should be determined by Somali’s when in a sound and rational state. But for Somali’s to be able to rationally decide on this, I think we have to first reconcile the past and make peace with eachother over the inter-communal conflicts of the past decades who are still unresolved even though many are in a cooled down or frozen stage but whose presence is still impacting every day communal life and status of local governance in Somalia. 

Somali people and communities are still haunted by the decades of war, conflict and inflictions, which have fractured the inter-communal relationship and taint every political discussions with the underlying emotions and ghosts from the past making rational discussions impossible. 

In the absence of this peace, and lack of a genuine process of reconciliation and state building, initiatives have been taken for a bottom-up process of establishing localised/regionalised authorities. Which has been a positive step that filled the political vacuum and gaps experienced over the decades. Even though the established localised authorities have been positive, they were born out of necessity and political situationalism, rather than out of a long held political desire or struggles of different communities and regions. Not devaluating federalism or the established state authoritie,and certainly it makes much sense to utilise them as building blocks for whatever central State one is building, however we have to question ourselves what is it that politically Somalis or different Somali communities want and how can one satisfy their political wishes and aims.

Now if we decide on federalism as the most suited structure or form for Somalias State, before fully understanding what everyone wants, we might make another mistake by prescribing a cure or remedie(federalism) without knowing the underlying disease, and that way we risk again providing a solution that doesn’t solve underlying problems(because we haven’t considered it) and then might even lead to more harm then benefit, adding to the complexity of the initial problem.

An analogy from biology or medicine would be almost like a doctor prescribing a drug to a disease without understanding fully the nature  of the disease is, leading both to the disease not being cured but also the drug’s side effect adding to the initial inflictions. 

Furthermore, if we assume indeed that ‘federalism’ is indeed the overall cure at hand, then the questions that rises is what sort of federalism, as ‘federalism’ is a ‘container’ term used for so many different state forms, of which some even are less federal than many unitary states. You have countries that unitary in structure but whose devolved and delegated authority is more ‘federal’ then countries like Ethiopia, Pakistan, Canada that all profess to be federal but whose regions have a lesser say then unitary states like Netherlands, UK, Spain and South-Africa. 

Coming back to the medical analogy, federalism  becomes almost like a drug as ‘Hydrochloride’, which is based on acid salt, and is a base or ‘container’ drug for so many different sorts of medicine, from cancer drugs to simple cold treatments. The number of and diversity of different drugs based on hydrochloride is multitude and daunting. So for developing a new drug thinking in the direction hydrochloride is only one step, but nevertheless one has to figure out the other exact components to combine it with in order to cure the underlying disease, which still needs to be figures out. 

[Illyria]

1 hour ago, Arafaat said:

Ilyria,

It makes much sense for Somalia to adopt a devolved and decentralised system that delegates much of the authority, powers and roles to local/regional level of governance. And whether this system ought to be Federal, Confederal, Decentralised Unitary State or a combination of these, should be determined by Somali’s when in a sound and rational state. But for Somali’s to be able to rationally decide on this, I think we have to first reconcile the past and make peace with eachother over the inter-communal conflicts of the past decades who are still unresolved even though many are in a cooled down or frozen stage but whose presence is still impacting every day communal life and status of local governance in Somalia.

I agree, ergo the reason at its adoption, federalism was deemed, and favoured over other systems with the sole intent of reconciling, and creating harmony and cohesion amongst communities. And by the way, the name, shape, or form any agreed upon system takes matters very little, so long as it serves the intended purpose of devolving power to the periphery, and thereby flowing to the centre, and not the other way round. Federalism has been adopted, and possibly trying to keeping the nation, the people together.

1 hour ago, Arafaat said:

Somali people and communities are still haunted by the decades of war, conflict and inflictions, which have fractured the inter-communal relationship and taint every political discussions with the underlying emotions and ghosts from the past making rational discussions impossible. 

In the absence of this peace, and lack of a genuine process of reconciliation and state building, initiatives have been taken for a bottom-up process of establishing localised/regionalised authorities. Which has been a positive step that filled the political vacuum and gaps experienced over the decades. Even though the established localised authorities have been positive, they were born out of necessity and political situationalism, rather than out of a long held political desire or struggles of different communities and regions. Not devaluating federalism or the established state authoritie,and certainly it makes much sense to utilise them as building blocks for whatever central State one is building, however we have to question ourselves what is it that politically Somalis or different Somali communities want and how can one satisfy their political wishes and aims.

Are you familiar with the 8 years of the Articles of Confederation? If no, do read on it with special interest as to how its foundation laid the ground for Federalism being adopted at the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia.

https://uscode.house.gov/download/annualhistoricalarchives/pdf/OrganicLaws2012/confederation.pdf

 

How do you propose we arrive at a peaceful landing?

How do you propose to keep the nation, and its people together, and in harmony?

 

To reiterate, Federalism means a treaty, and was implemented by the Umawiyah & Abasiyah in the Islamic State.