What kind of Government System for the Somali Democratic Republic

[Baashi]

[Baashi]

“ … the first ring being autonomous regions and the second being viable central authority. In this form of government, regional governments recognize the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government ” This unless my memory fails me is the true textbook definition of what federalism entails, thus my bringing the topic back for discussion. And is not this what the adopted federal systems of government in accordance with the transitional charter advocate for? A federal government (the principal authority) with its executive, judicial and legislature branches with autonomous regions/states (the secondary authority). Do we seem to be opposing something which we actually truly embrace, which is common amongst many of us? Or I am reading your thoughts incorrectly?

Samurai, no your memory is not failing you pal and yes the quote is exactly synonymous with the textbook definition of federalism. And yes this is what the transitional charter advocates for. Nonetheless, you are reading my take on the subject incorrectly, I’m afraid. The actualities on the ground and the existence of regional autonomy (Puntland) and the self-declared republic (Somaliland) in Somalia necessitate the adoption of federalism for Somalia. That is what compels me to realign my thinking. What is right and just, and what political sensibilities of the day permits are not necessarily same. Is this a change of heart? Possibly! As a realist, a pro-unity, and as well as a Greater Somalia dreamer, federalism is not in line with my vision. Deep down, I oppose federalism, as it will be an impediment to the unification of Somalis and reconstitution of strong Somali state in the region. But if we are going to adopt federalism, out of political necessity to reclaim our statehood, we can do better than what is contrived in Nairobi. I’m holding on every bit of hope it will succeed.

 

Assuming you are aware of the different types of federalism, the point I was trying to propose was: to adopt cooperative federalism (Germany) as opposed to competitive federalism (USA). In cooperative type, central government prescribes policy for federal states to apply resulting in uniform policy. Still there are two tier system but ultimate authority rests with the center. Whereas the competitive model has clear separation of powers and allows for exclusive policy domains for each level and there is no uniformity of policy across regions. Above all, lets insist the district to be the office guarantor instead of clans. There you have it. Hope this clarifies where I’m at a bit.

 

Keep them coming sage.

[miles-militis]

Baashi - I thank you for the clarification old chap. It would appear that you and I are of contiguous school of thought with respect to federalism, if not perhaps of the same. One could not agree with you more on the primary verity albeit overlooked by many who tend to misread the cause and consequences of the troubles of Somalia that it is the [actualities] on the ground and embryonic regional administrations as you rightly put it, that precipitate the espousal of federalism. This does not consider federalism in its various formats to be the panacea rather means to attain the elusive unity that obscured our sense of nationalism. As much as I too hold my breath for a euphoric outcome at Nairobi and wish one day perhaps you & I could hammer out the details of an aboriginal road to convalesce, I shall keep the hope alive for eternity.

 

It has been a pleasure to have exchanged ideas with you old chap. Until later, may we all see the sun shine again in our horizon!

 

n/b: And perhaps when the time is right in another day I shall present to you a rather provocative question in relation to clan politics, which I suspect you abhor, in Somalia.

 

Best of luck,

Cheers.

[N.O.R.F]

Conquest got he right idea, our to be strong and not be misguided by others and there beliefs!

 

Islamic Republic

[miles-militis]

Northerner – Bruv - How practical and viably functional is the proposed mode of governance at the present moment considering our state of mind, fragmented social structure, lack of political cohesion and resources. Perhaps we could approach the honourable Conquest to shed a light as to how.

 

Cheers.

[N.O.R.F]

brother when i have more time to illustrate what i think can be done, i will, for the moment,politics is on the back burner so to speak!

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Salaan...

 

Originally posted by Samurai Warrior:

MMA- Bruv, could you be kind enough as to elaborate on this

(That fikrad was rejected by no other than those who advocate it now)

please?

Kaabe, I thought you knew it, mise waala isku dhibooyaa inaa busta soo jafo.

 

In March 1958, a party called HDMS {Xisbiya Dastuur Mustaqiil al Soomaal, representing primarily the inhabitants of Baay and Bakool regions} proposed a federal government to the less powerful and limited adminstration led by C/llaahi Ciise, believing when Soomaaliya gains its full independence to have a federal government. That proposal was disregarded and shunned before it was even given a proper consideration. It was never studied. It was rejected purely by the powerful SYL party, who adamantly were against the very hint of federalization of Soomaali state. However, we know who predominated the SYL party at the time of independence.

 

Why I am reminding to you about this, is that I am for SYL's rightful rejection of that idea, and I still am against it. But I don't know why those who dominated SYL had changed their minds and want a federal state now. There are some fishy, unexplained reasons than because "we've tried every other system but federal." Give me a break. Did we try to install an Islamic government? Did we try to have a monarchy state?

 

That excuse of we didn't try 'federal state yet' has no basis either than we didn't try a monarch kingdom.

_________________

 

Macsalaama.

[Illyria]

I can not believe this still remains relevant, and wanted to bring it back for reflections.

[Che -Guevara]

On 10/27/2003 at 11:45 PM, Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar said:

Salaan...

 

 

 

Originally posted by Samurai Warrior:

 

 

MMA- Bruv, could you be kind enough as to elaborate on this

(That fikrad was rejected by no other than those who advocate it now)

please?

Kaabe, I thought you knew it, mise waala isku dhibooyaa inaa busta soo jafo.

 

In March 1958, a party called HDMS {Xisbiya Dastuur Mustaqiil al Soomaal, representing primarily the inhabitants of Baay and Bakool regions} proposed a federal government to the less powerful and limited adminstration led by C/llaahi Ciise, believing when Soomaaliya gains its full independence to have a federal government. That proposal was disregarded and shunned before it was even given a proper consideration. It was never studied. It was rejected purely by the powerful SYL party, who adamantly were against the very hint of federalization of Soomaali state. However, we know who predominated the SYL party at the time of independence.

 

Why I am reminding to you about this, is that I am for SYL's rightful rejection of that idea, and I still am against it. But I don't know why those who dominated SYL had changed their minds and want a federal state now. There are some fishy, unexplained reasons than because "we've tried every other system but federal." Give me a break. Did we try to install an Islamic government? Did we try to have a monarchy state?

 

That excuse of we didn't try 'federal state yet' has no basis either than we didn't try a monarch kingdom.

_________________

 

Macsalaama.

I feel old!

 

[Illyria]

I could not believe it when I peeked at the timestamp.

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

26 minutes ago, Illyria said:

I could not believe it when I peeked at the timestamp.

Che iyo aniga inaa nahnay the dinosaurs of Reer SOL ma'ogid miyaa. I joined SOL in Aug., 2001, though registered a few months later. Waaba 22 sano, tii/kii waagaas dhalatay/dhashay doobnimo waa dhaaftay/dhaafay.

[Illyria]

Against the backdrop of the regressive military rule of the 1969 - 1991, ensuing civil war of 1991 - 2000s, and yet to heal lacerations of the failed attempt at centralised system of governance, not to mention angst against authoritarian rule, dual federalism offers a solution at the present, where cooperative federalism could be explored at a later time, where said misgivings had been laid to rest. In tandem, consideration ought be given to constructing functioning Federal and State institutions built upon principles of civil accord, and shared common public interest, which in turn give way to a nation state for the many at the periphery, and not for the few in the corridors of power. This borrows steam from the bottom-up approach to nation building, where influence flows from the periphery (States) to the centre (Federal), and argues against the top-down, opposite approach.

On reflection, in the days of the Articles of Confederation, thorny contentious points included:

 

• Distrust amongst the colonies,
• Fear of tyranny flowing from a central authority, which does not serve the public interest, but that of the ruling class,
• Federal institutions such as Legislature and Representatives out of touch with their constituency, where a culture of the centre dictating to the periphery instead of the periphery influencing the centre takes command.

It must noted, if a proposal had been made, and one of the colonies disagreed, or reject it, it was deemed rejected, for it was deemed to violate the principles of shared common interest and unity, as agreed upon under the Articles of Confederation. This bears importance, as it sets precedence, and relevance to the discussion.

With the said in mind, and against the backdrop of the political culture, which has been brewing in Xamar, fast forward to the present state in .So, and let us reflect upon contentious points, as raised by PL:

 

• Develop clear and strict safeguards of the national sovereignty with SL, particularly SSC question at its heart,
• Completion of the Constitution, where guiding principles of power-sharing and consensus, politically or otherwise, are adhered to,
• Devise an agreed upon inclusive national security programme,
• Agree upon a natural resources management and sharing plan,
• Delineation of, and separation of Federal-State powers, and collaboration of institutions, as outlined in the Constitution,
• Create an agreed upon National judiciary system, defining Federal-State functions and roles,
• Formulate a transparent National economic and treasury programme with defined, and agreed upon guidelines,
• What form, or type of Election at the Federal level to be adopted,
• Determine as to the status of the Capital city, along with its rules and regulations,
• Work out a political solution prior to any amendments are presented to Federal institutions.

I shall reflect upon proposed unilateral amendments en route State institutions, a violation of basic Principle, and Articles of the Constitution.

[Illyria]

Just for reflection, let us remind ourselves of Powers the current Constitution grants the Fed. government vis-à-vis Powers [its] leadership wishes its Powers to be:

As stipulated under Article 54, Allocation of powers, Powers entrusted unto the Fed. Government are defined as:

(a) Foreign Affairs,
(b) National Defense,
(c) Citizenship and Immigration, and
(d) Monetary Policy.

Here are the proposed unilateral amendments:

A. Federal powers:

• Constitution,
• Sovereignty,
• Elections, and referendum,
• Foreign affairs,
• International agreements,
• Immigration,
• Religious affairs,
• Human rights,
• Census, and identity,
• Overall control of political parties and elections,
• A single Electoral Commission at Federal, State, and District levels,
• A national policy for land, marine, and aviation,
• National boundaries,
• Copyright, and intellectual property,
• Federal civil servants,
• A policy for personnel and human resources,
• Scale, measurements, and benchmarks.

B. Economy:

• National economic development plan,
• Monetary policy,
• Determine national revenue sources, Federal taxation, and regulation,
• National statistics,
• Intra and inter rivers between and amongst Fed. Member States,
• Foreign trade,
• International investment, and financing,
• Policy for energy, and water.

C. Infrastructure and Transportation:

• Ports and airports,
• Interconnecting roads,
• Transportation policy for land, sea, and air,
• Aviation,
• Postal, telephony,Internet, radio and television frequencies services along with Cyber Security, and data protection; telecommunication, and broadcasting.

D. Security and Judiciary:

• Defence, and nation army,
• Federal police, and national secret service,
• Restoration of order, where there is instability in Fed. Member States,
• Ownership of personal small arms,
• Federal Courts, and Judiciary systems,
• Federal Military Courts.

E. Public health, and services:

• National public health policy,
• National policy for remediation, medicine, and food,
• Immigration, refugees, and displaced persons policy,
• National policy for:
• Archives,
• Libraries,
• Theatres, and stadiums.

 

F. Education:

• National education, and curriculum mandating examination of High school certification,
• Higher education, technology, and research.

 

Conclusion: Proposed unilateral amendments is an act of blatant usurpation, and clear power grab, and in violation of the principle political accord, as outlined in Articles 3, 54, 121, and 132 of the Constitution.

Now, to bring this into context, and for the proponents of the amendments to take heed, let us review the intents, purposes, and implications, political or otherwise, of said powers in the proposed unilateral amendments. To be continued [ … ]

[maakhiri1]

failed STATE

[Illyria]

5 minutes ago, maakhiri1 said:

failed STATE

Come now, try a bit harder, I know you are smarter than that.