Somalia: Federal states of Somalia. But which of the two tracks?

[miles-militis]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

As many of us are attuned to the ongoing Somali National Conference in Kenya, it has been proposed that Somalia is to have a federal system of government as a result of which autonomous states which shall be determined at will, and representative of the desire of populace by way of voting in all regions including existing administrations in the Northern (NW & NE) regions. This is to be undertaken within the first three years of the prospective government taking office with a prime minister with whom executive powers shall rest, a senate, and a house of representatives.

 

Of the six committees conceived at the initial stages of the conference was to formulate symmetrical framework conducive to present conditions, a mechanism receptive to the needs of opposing parties, and ethnically acceptable structure of government nurturing cohesiveness, reconciliatory, and harmonisation in process, in procedure and in principal for a future government in Somalia. One of such committees assigned to draft a transitional constitution was challenged by two contending, though different in principal yet similar in appearance to the less technical eye, approaches. While federal is the unanimously desired and accepted structure and system of government, methods of attaining such a system of government are being examined, thus studied at the moment.

 

One promotes the initial set-up of a unitary transitional national government pursuant of the Arte formulae, which shall then address the formation of autonomous regions/states as desired at sometime in the future.

 

The other endorses establishing a federal system of government at the completion of the conference, cognizant of the failure, lessons learnt, and the shortcomings of the Arte ignominy. Each team builds its case outlining as to the reasoning that each favours one method over the other.

 

Which of the two camps do you identify with, and why providing supporting material of substance?

 

So long!

[xiis]

The Somaliland gov't and people have made it clear many times this does not concern us. If this so called "federal" gov't that we had nothing to do with from the beginning attempts to claim sovereignty over Somaliland then it shall be rejected and resisted with force if need be. But I sincerely doubt it will come to that, if the south manages to create some order I think they would be suicidal to launch a war against us. And as for Puntland lol! They can't do a thing without the help of the rest of the south and international community and I doubt the international community would want to destabilize Somaliland for something as dubious as the Dofaarey conference. So there you go my friend keep up the wishful thinking, because Somaliland was won by the barrel of the gun and if you want to destroy it then by all means bring it on.

[LANDER]

populace by way of voting in all regions including existing administrations in the Northern (

NW

& NE) regions

I sincerely hope the Kenyan conference can result in some real peace on the ground in the south. But Samurai please stay away from diminutive statements such as NW to refer to Somaliland. I feel it is rhetoric such as this that might lead to future instability. The next TNG can plan whatever they like as long as they leave Somaliland out of their equation.

[Gabbal]

Samurai Walaale I favor the camp that wants to see a federal Somalia at the end of this peace process, out of a compromise, if not for anything else.

 

The only reason Puntland hasn't tried to secede yet is because it envisions itself as a future autonomous region, Waqooyi Galbeed's unity with Somalia also depends on whether a federal gov. is established. If we don't sort everything out right while there is international pressure and help, then who will complete the framework of this peace process? Everything needs to discussed and agreed upon now!

 

The wait and see tactic will get us nowhere!

 

A federal democratic Somalia at the end of this process is what we need.!

[Coloow]

Samurai, Neither of the two camps because the so called peace conference is made up of warlords who are responsible for the dismal state of the somali nation. It is about electing "the man who murdered the most". What somalis need is not a so called peace conference with murderers but a tribunal that would try those that are responsible for the murder of the millions.

 

when that is accomplished and the rogue elements are either tried or vanish from the political landscape, I would like to see a federal somalia based on the will of the people. Of course the dream of pursuing a greater somalia would be always a primary goal for me...and that would come when we heal the wounds! and we can't heal the wounds unless those that are responsible for the demise of the somali nation are tried!

[Gediid]

Enterprenuer

Walaahi you come across as someone whose very thoughtful and well versed in the intricacies of Somalis politics.The points you have raised are the problems that Somalis face.I wish more people would realize this instead of supporting blindly.

[BN]

Originally posted by Entrepreneur:

when that is accomplished and the rogue elements are either tried or vanish from the political landscape, I would like to see a federal somalia based on the will of the people. Of course the dream of pursuing a greater somalia would be always a primary goal for me...and that would come when we heal the wounds! and we can't heal the wounds unless those that are responsible for the demise of the somali nation are tried!

Entrepreneur,

 

I think you represent the idealistic solution to the problem of leadership facing Somalia. But we must face the harsh realities on the ground and remember what is in the interests of the people in Somalia now . I think it is foolish for us living in the west to say we want the status quo until there is a perfect, honest, responsible, ethical(etc) leader for all of Somalia. Think right now what our people are going through? What do they want? The whole world has turned their backs on them and are only now taking an interest. We must take this opportunity to further the lives of our innocent brothers and sister back home.

 

While I also agree that there should be a criminal tribunal for Somalia, do you really think that is possible right now? The country in carved up into fiefdoms controlled by militia's and warlord's who don't seem to keen on paying for their crimes. I also doubt the UN/EU/US want to relive 'Black Hawk Down' when they went after Aideed. It is IMPOSSIBLE to hold tribunals during a civil war.

 

You also mentioned Greater Somalia which I also believe in but through peaceful means. As for a Unitary Highly Centralized Somali State--that is a non-starter.

 

I would like to point out that there are non-warlord leaders vying for the presidency in the peace talks as well.

 

Ma'salaam

[Mandeeq]

Enterep, Somalia must move on with a fresh start and forget about the past. That is the only way Somalia can gain nationhood again. Look at Somaliland. Riyaale was an NSS criminal and he is the president of Somaliland. People forgave and moved on. Leave the criminals for Allah because we have no power to get them now.

 

sax maaha?

[miles-militis]

I thank you all for your contributions. Now, allow me to reflect upon a couple of points raised herein.

 

HornAfrique, interestingly enough you brought up the case of Puntland and its likelihood of seeking to secede in the event of the conference falling short to produce the desired result: a decentralised federal system of government to the minutest level. Having reviewed both drafts of the proposed constitution along with the draft put forth by the harmonization team lead by Professor Samatar of University of Minnesota, I understand Puntland and Southwest share your view favouring the immediate formation of a federalist system of government as and when, and are opposed to vesting the power and authority of determining how and when in the hands of the executive office (PM), congress, or parliament. Their desire it has been suggested derives its energy from the fact that Puntland possesses a constitution, functioning institutions and embryonic institutions with the necessary state organs in place whereas Southwest though throttled at infant phase, and not as solid have commenced towards sustaining similar mechanism of some sort. And as such, it is therefore deemed that adopting a federal system at the completion of the meeting would favour these groups who are considered shall gain its full benefits.

 

On the other hand, there are the faction leaders in Bandir and its environs who neither envisage nor seem able to form any type of social or governmental structure, and not willing to entrust anyone including themselves with the supreme authority to forging one. Their infatuation with a heavily centralised system of government it has been suggested has its roots in the fact that Mogadishu has remained the centre of the universe for Somali politics since independence, and for their failure to agree upon a mode of governance. The federalist system is said to be regarded unfavourable by this group for they could not fathom how it could benefit them since it shall be up to them to start from scratch in determining what and how to organise local authorities with minimal interference, but with the help of course of a federal government.

 

Considering the aforementioned rendition of events how do you reckon an all inclusive, acceptable systems of government could be attained without alienating a group, or titling the scale to one side or another? How could one convince the Mogadishu faction leaders of the benefits of a decentralised, federal system whilst outlining the shortcomings and impracticalities of a centralised mode of governance?

 

Entrepreneur, whilst I concur with you on the issue concerning war criminals and wish to see some form of retribution against perpetrators and compensation for victims of the civil war throughout Somali territories, I trust there is a committee that has been assigned to study and advise future government in ways to address such matters, and therefore do think it is probably outside the scope of this discussion. Perhaps once we reach an understanding of the suitable track in attaining a desirable constitution viewing things from various perspectives, then we could approach that case. Whilst still on the same issue, sister Maandeeq, I do hope you are not suggesting rewarding criminals for their unGodly deeds?

 

Bari_Nomad, you mentioned attaining greater Somalia through peaceful means, could you elaborate as to how please if you do not mind my asking?

 

So long!

[Dhimbil]

Samurai

 

Brother, I have seen two constitutions, one by harmonization team which is written by learned individuals from abroad and another by the leadership team which is written by basically all the world lords (it has signatures), from abdullahi yusuf to caydiid to gani and supported and campaigned for by Ethopia. Now, since each constitution is supported by diverse pple, meaning pple from different regions, where did you see that magadisho folks support one constitution and northerns support another?

 

btw

Here are two crucial points that i disagree with the leadership team's constitution.

 

>That after federal government is formed, any region can have political, economical relation with any other countries.

Why would a region within a country need political relationship with another country? isn't that governments duty to have international relations. But if they insist, why can't just every region secede anyway, what's the point? :confused:

 

>To create 450 MP's and they will be elected/choosed by the leadership team, basically the world lords.

Why a country as small as somalia need 450PM's, when even U.S the riches country doesn't have that much. We just can't afford that many.

 

back to the topic:

I would support the immidiate implementation of federalism, waiting around is not an option. Also, once a government is formed each region will be developed by the government or it will develop it self, but most important is forming some kind of a government. And world lords can be dealt with once we have strong institutions, there is nothing we can do about them now. Like mandeeq i think leaving them to god is the best option cuz he can deal with them justly. No matter how many courts convict them, crimes they have committed can not be paid back in this life time.

[Coloow]

Salaamu calaykum,

 

Brothers and sisters. You are quite right in saying that we need to move on. In addition as many of you mentioned we in the west think differently than the people on the hellish front:

 

But could lasting peace be achieved when we have victims crying from the graves? Could peace be achieved when the same people who have caused and are still much suffering to the somali people want them to be rewarded?

 

A war tribunal has been formed in Siera Leone to indicte war criminals from Libera. Charles Taylor the president was charged last week.

 

A war tribunal has also been in progress in Arusha to try the war criminals in Rwanda.

 

So, I don't see why one could not be formed in Kenya or ethiopia to try somali war criminals!

 

Time and again the somali war criminals meet in Ethiopia, Djibouti or Kenya where they spend millions of dollars of UN money. This is becoming a routine.

 

How can we move on when mothers, sons, father and daughters are crying from the grave in search of justice? How can we move on when the somali col, majors, generals who were suppose to defend them betrayed the somalis and raped the innocence of the somali masses?

 

Let us not kid ourselves the next "president " of somalia would be either a thug who has committed the most attrocities or his croonies!

 

 

Should injustice be rewarded?

[miles-militis]

Thank you again. It would appears most of us are more in favour of the immediate implementation of the constitution and formation of a decentralised federal system of government.

 

Ilmatic, whilst I see your point, I think you will agree that there actually are three drafts, the original two drafted by the committee which has split into two camps due to difference in principal along with the copy drafted by the harmonisation team. Having said that, after a thorough review and participation of educated discussions examining all three drafts by persons acquainted with constitutional law and contemporary politics, suggestions as to the nature of the split and disagreement between the committee has been put forth in that proponents of the more centralised form of government were predominantly from the Banadir region (and not south per se) whereas existing administrations favoured a more decentralised federal form. The interpretation of this is said to stem from the notion that with a more centralised system of government law and order could be restored by the use of necessary force if need be, and considering the present situation in Mogadishu, it is logical to see why faction leaders in the former capital would take this type of system to heart. While on the other hand, existing administrations neither wish to see their embryonic systems disrupted, nor a repeat of the abuse of power by a centralised administration. After all, that has been the impetus of the struggle against the military regime. This by no means is to be regarded as the Holy Grail and should be viewed along those lines.It is noteworthy though that administrations in Shabeele and Hiraan actually are in favour of such a system much like Puntland, Southwest, and Somaliland (though its case is of a different genre at least for the time being). So you see my dear chap, it is not an issue of north-south divide rather more along the lines of regional aspiration and denomination.

 

“Why would a region within a country need political relationship with another country?” you asked? I myself believe the notion is rather noble,theoretical, rather obscure, and is not defined for it to make meaning, but it is my understanding that it was regarded to be along the line of the US constitution where a State i.e. MN could engage in economic and trade treaties with a foreign country provided it does not violate Federal constitution. I do not know how much familiar you are with the US system of government, but consider the governor (ventura of MN) who travelled to Cuba and China under the premise of securing trade and economic pacts with the said counties to benefit state economy though in clear violation of the US foreign policy which does not sanction trade with Cuba, and to some extend with China. The question is how did he manage to reconcile state and federal constitutions? It is because the federal constitution neither prohibits not does it permit states exploring economic treaties of interest to the state economy in particular, and country as a whole whereas states reserve the right to pursue own interests so long as theirs do not conflict federal which has the overriding authority in the event of a conflict. Furthermore, I understand Scottish parliament is entertaining a plan to adopt the Euro even though no such plan has been tabled for approval or otherwise in 10 Downing Street. Will it happen? None the wiser!

 

As for the issue concerning 450 MPs , though I see the enormity of the number relative to the resources, population and size of the country, I do not see much trouble with it at least to begin with. The reason being once you break the number into two chamber houses (senate and representatives – 170+/- as opposed to 280+/-) it becomes manageable, and thus less traumatic to conceive. Additionally, the wisdom here is to form an all include government, and not exclusive leaving individuals who might stagnate the fragile federal government prior to its taking shape. However, once the government retains control and shapes itself as a functioning body past the initial tenure (3 or 5 year term not determined yet), the number could be halved or reduced to half the original size, say less than 250 for both houses still remaining cognisant of the 4.5 formula which would then leave us with a lean, less costly government.

 

Entrepreneur, I share your grievances bruv, but if we do not learnt to forgive, not necessarily forget, how are we to proceed with our lives if we remain fixated upon our tragedy-ridden past? Are we not going against empirical and historical precedence of the old? For instance, where would Europe, the US or South Africa be today had they still been holding grudges and vendettas resulting form the first War, second War, apartheid, or internal conflicts for that matter. Think about the atrocities committed in Leningrad (St Petersburg) in the early forties, casualties of the civil wars in the US, the massacres by the British in India (1.5mm in a single day), and the list goes on, and on. Tribunals I believe shall be formed in good time, perhaps now is not quite the time. Nonetheless, I like your passion, and hope to see more people with such fervour so far as such issues are concerned.

 

So long,

[Dantay1]

Federalism at the end of the conference would be impossible, that’s why they have chosen to set up the federal states within two years of the new government coming to power.

 

The 450 MP is also a stupid move, which would destroy the country; the country doesn’t need 450 MP and 80 ministers such as the case of Abdiqasin’s government.

 

Its up ti the new government to decide through consultation how a federal system should be formed and how many states there should be. The Puntland formula could be followed you have 69 local Garowe MP’s and 12 ministers, in the event of a national government even the 12 ministers would be reduced to about 6, and a president/governor.

 

There would another 3 states excluding Puntland and Mogadishu should be given special status as the Capital of the country.

 

Each state would have a parliament of between 50-70 MP’s chosen from the various districts with its own cabinet and governer who are all locally elected and accountable to the people of the state.

 

Then there would be no need for 450 MP’s in Mogadishu as each state would send a number of individuals to represent them in Mogadishu say 25 each state, then you would have a 100 or less, this would also create a check and balance formula so no state dominates the whole republic, this in an ideal world.

 

Also the argument about criminals, in Somalia anyone with wealth is a criminal, Siyad BARRE loyalist, Warlords, corrupt business men, example you got this Darmaan guy in Xamar who has chosen himself to be president, this man prominence stems from importing fake currency to Somalia, imagine how many people have lost their lively hoods while he has become rich. So people lets turn a new chapter and work how to create institutions so the problems of yesterday and today are not committed tomorrow.

 

We watch and see and put our hopes on our lord Allah SWT

[Gediid]

I just hope the rules apply to people like this.Haddi kale xaalku waa aan wada qasano.

[Dhimbil]

War illahay yaa yaqaan oo dadkaan naga amusiya! grow up fellas.

 

Samurai

 

Thanks for clarifying about the constitution and luckily this is just intrim charter and can be re-evaluated in few years. However, about the international relation issue, you said "states reserve the right to pursue own interests so long as theirs do not conflict federal which has the overriding authority in the event of a conflict" that makes sense, but that is not what is in the charter, it just states "states can have political and economical relation with other countries" and that can be interpeted many ways. Now, i don't have a problem with economical, but rather the political side. Given the enmity and misgivings between somalis of different regions, what happens when a city has political relation with another country for their own benefit but the cost of national interest. for example, if Bosaso has political ties with Ethopia, but pple in hargaise and kismaayo don't like Ethopia's ill-motives, would Bosaso severe ties with Ethopia? not under this constitution, unless they clarify or add national interest overrides local interest. Also, correct me if am wrong, but i don't think U.S constitution allows states to have political relation with another country, but it may allow economical relation.