Somali Unity: Earned or Enforced?

[Paragon]

Insha-Allah, I intend to show that current problems with unity of Somalia actually are simply the products of unavoidable post-independence 'practical problems' associated with the dream of Somali unity.

 

------

 

 

SOMALI UNITY: Enforced or Earned?

 

The foundation of enforced unity is force, while the foundation of earned unity is mutual consent. Thus, from these two irreconcilable foundations, springs all flavours of unity- may that be between adult consenting individuals, or in our case, community of peoples. Between the types of unity, the former is unnatural and subject to eventual break-down, the latter, however, is naturally harmonic and subject to durability. Such being the nature of these types of unity, the wisest recommendation to all those who seek or are in dire need of it, is to rightly endeavour for the procurement of consent. They should always be advised against mistaking dissent for consent. If enough care is given to the feelings and aspirations of those from whom unity is sought, then the exercise should prove to be an advantageous project.

 

In instances where attention is not paid to the feelings and aspirations of others (even if the others concerned are simply in a vulnerable position), the imposition of unity upon them would eventually give them a lifetime dedication and determination to descent and be independent from it. In many cases, in world history, communities and societies have been subject to enforced unity. Although this unity has been maintained for many years afterwards through brutal force, this has not stopped oppressed communities and societies in their struggle to regain the right to be in control of their own affairs. Thus, the irrepressible natural urge in humans to regain their freedom should deter far-sighted leaders of nation-states from the promotion of enforced unity. The promotion of such a project will become, predictably, a failure. At times, an initially ‘earned’ unity may, due to unexpected ill-treatment, become a trap and a legally enforced unity. In the Somali nation’s case, this has been the outcome of unity that has been earned after the independence of two regions of country. This is the subject of this writing, which hopes to shed some light on the complexities and controversies related to the union of former British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland.

 

In the complex and controversial subject of Somali unity and the concept of Greater Somalia, legal, territorial and moral questions arise. Chief among these questions is, on grounds is unity or disunity morally justified, legally abiding and territorially an absolute necessity? To provide a satisfactory answer to this question, it is absolutely crucial to (1) evaluate the morality; (2) the legality; and (3) the territorial implications of unity. Only when all these three criteria are fully considered, can the right and informed answer to the question be made available. In many discussions or political debates, some social and political commentators have chosen to use in their analysis one or two of the three criteria, thus reaching conclusions that suffer from narrow-mindedness. To treat this question with its deserved seriousness and importance, I will approach it with an open mind and critical evaluations of all three criteria.

 

1. What is the morality of Somali Unity or disunity?

 

An insistence on the stipulation that Somali unity is sacrosanct and morally justified is obviously very attractive. Likewise, anyone who advocates for the unnecessary disunity of the Somali nation would find him/herself in a social predicament. That stated, however, sometimes what is circumstantially probable, would dictate us to consider both the favourable and the unfavourable in rigidly rational manner. The unity that our nation has achieved, unparalleled in the whole of Africa, was the favourable social condition which our peoples aspired to in their most sincere desire. Enforced colonial disunity has conditioned our peoples to harbour such strong desires of yearning for unity with their brethrens. Like forcefully separated lovers, our peoples ran as fast as they could to the embrace of each other.

 

During the ten years that led up to the nation’s independence, marked by the Trusteeship decade, a process of preparation and institutions building has been initiated in the South of the country. The Italian colonial power responsible for this project has, to some extent helped put in place structures and a system of governance modelled on their own. In general, there was a ten year time to achieve the pre-requisites necessary for a state to gain independence and thereon govern its country. However, in the North of the country, under British rule, such project of preparedness and institution building were realized only when the northerners learnt of the date the southerners were to gain independence. The British, unlike the Italians in the South, have neglected their duty to prepare the North for independence. It was only in the last years prior to Southern independence that the British hurried to prepare the North for independence. So, by the time of independence and unity was sought by the Northerners, they were in much technical disadvantage to the South. This was to become the first weakness of the Northern region, making unity an institutional disadvantage.

 

Initially, the unconditional unity of both parts of country has been the dream of the nation. That dream, when it materialized into reality, came with its fair share of practical problems. What happens when two lovers longing for each meet but speak two difference languages? In addition, what if their long absence from each other, reveals upon proximity, differences that were unknown previously? The answer is that they become estranged and suspicious. This is what has happened. Here was Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland, both recognizing each other as Somalis, but equipped with two different colonial approaches or attitudes to administrative and governing practices. Each side was suspicious of the suitability and effectiveness of other’s approach to rule the country. The country, therefore, found itself in a condition where there existed one constitution and one parliament adhered to subjects practising two incompatible approaches.

 

For sometime, the government was forced to legalize these two approaches in regions they were applied to. Such application was done through a handful, hard to find interpreters, who spoke both English and Italian. Still, considering the level of preparedness of the South and its higher population, the Italian approach started gaining prominence. Not to mention, it was in the South, Mogadishu, that was the home of the government. Hargeysa, which was the base of British Somaliland, proved, to some extent, to have become politically reduced in significance, and remote due to poor communication and infrastructure. This was to become the second political weakness befalling the northerners.

 

Also related, while the majority inhabitants of British Somaliland were the majority rule there, shortly after the union with the South, they came play a role much less significant in national politics. Even when they formed a coalition with minority clans from the North to pose a single effective block, the desired result could not be achieved. Their share in politics, economics and employment opportunities were not also satisfactory. For example, the level of pay civil servants received in the North was lower than those of the South. Such disparity has precipitated protests and strikes in the North, which later attracted the government’s attention and has led to some changes. Although the government made some changes, this disparity became the third factor that disadvantaged the northerners.

 

 

By mentioning these three factors, amongst many, it is reasonable to suggest that the practical problems associated with the beautiful Somali dream , sowed the seeds of future discontent among Somalis. There is no point blaming our founding fathers for their failure to overcome these practical problems, because at the time, limitations to their administrative and governing knowledge had made them handicapped. Although they have tried their best, limitations in knowledge and expertise was the legacy left behind by the colonial powers. This does not mean that was no corruption and mismanagement in the Somali government.

 

All in all, these were the factors that disadvantaged the northerners after their union with the southerners. They had no conditions on the unity but completely motivated by patriotic sentiments. Although highly praise worthy, their patriotism had had neglected their rightful pursuit of their interests. Their basis for unity should have been the advancements of their interests. In unity, they found their interests worse off than in disunity. From here arises the question of: is the pursuit of advancing one’s interests, the moral justification of unity or disunity? More specifically, if unity is not interest-dependent, what other moral justification does it depend on?

 

It is fair to argue that all types of agreements are subject to the pursuit of one’s interests. To advance one’s own interests without infringing on the interests of others, one is endowed with the moral justification to seek his own happiness. Applying this logic to the interests represented by the leaders of the North, weren’t they morally justified to engage in activities towards that end? In the leaders of the North’s pursuit of their subjects’ happiness, do Southern leaders equally representing the interests of their subjects but were better served in a prevailing political arrangement, have the moral right to stop them? These are the underlying moral questions that must be answered before unity or disunity of the nation is insisted upon. But as rationality prescribes, everyone has the moral right to seek that which he/she considered good in contributing to overall happiness. Such being the case, the decision of the northerners was morally justified.

 

Instead of denying them this moral right, the right cause would have been to admit that their grievances as valid, and that the regrettable wrongs done to them, later on, would be addressed. The next action would have therefore been to overturn all previous practical disadvantages and bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes committed against them. To further remedy the situation, a scheme of sincere negotiations and reconciliation should have been commenced, with the desirable of effect of forgiveness from the peoples of the North and the South. Of course, reconciliatory efforts such as these could have been hoped to avert the disunity of the country. Unfortunately, however, this has not been attempted and many are still in denial of what did happen before. As many pro-Greater Somalia proponents hold, whatever grievances northerners might have, this does not qualify them for secession from Somalia. Legally, they claim, the 1960 Pact of Union between the North and South of Somalia is still binding. Thus, grievances alone cannot justify northerners to declare independence. This legal aspect of the union is dealt with below.

 

B. The legality of Somali unity or disunity?

 

To be continued...

[Xargaga]

Great insight Paragon. I am anxiously waiting for the next episode.

[Allamagan]

Thanks Paragon for nice read. War ingiriisku xaasidsanaa xattaa waxaan maqlay hal iskuula uma dhisin markuu ka tagayey ok that is why they were lagging behind. make sense tho. Waligey wax talyaani ka xun inaysan jirin ayaah u haystay.

 

Part 2 please...

[RedSea]

Paragon, great ideas from the man himself. I agree with it fully. waiting patiently for partII.

 

Alamagan,

 

It seems to me, we need little history lesson 101 for some1 here..

[Som@li]

It is a good article there, but I want to know where you get all these info,any sources? any interviews? The history of greater Somalia is bigger than Italian Somaliland and British Somaliland,and I believe there was never clear cut line to divide the Somali people, it was just colonial line ,Most Somalis were one, even for those who live now in Ethiopia and NFD. What happened after the independence, is just mismanagement,and has nothing to do with the colonials, and misfortune was NOT alone in British SOMALILAND, Most of the country was ignored.

[RedSea]

^Paragon's writings are based on logic, observation from personal level and mostly if not all, he nailed it or shall I say drove that one home.

 

However, almost every nation on this earth has been colonised, yet whether or not that is the factor, Somalilanders of today want to go their way. In the year 1960, they joined the ex Italian Somaliland, not because they felt like it, but they understood the idea of establishing united, strong nation that consisted of the somali race, however one way or the other, it failed, due to the lack of people willing to plant that seed which would enventually grow and transformed into such wish we all had.

 

Somaliwayne is noble ideea, however you are missing the tools (the people) who would attain it, and as such today Somaliland is better off then they were in the union under Siyad Barre.

 

Unity can be traced or discovered in other ways such as having two states living side by side peacefully (coexisting), two states that would have common interest, a common enemy to fight or to counter, bussiness trade back and forth, or both populace to travel from one point to the other without a passport, simply because of having the somali identity to be the reason of the waver.

 

^^^ That is the option on the table Today from Somalilanders.

 

However, if and that is big bold 'if', we start to blame one another, and the rest of Somalis climb both tall and short tree in order to deny Somalilanders of their right to self determination, then such option would be off the table and instead of coexistance, both states would be foes, rivals, and sworn enemy to one another. There each country would be weak, vunralbe to external enemies like Ethiopia. That is something we have to very cautious of and it really needs to be addressed and thought through if you are unionist of how to approach Somaliland, because you could be making an enemy for yourself.

 

Now, how is this for a sound bite:

 

No Somaliwayne, no problem. The current theme is Somaliwayne with borders if you are up for it.

 

Aakhiro sidaas kuma seegayno, aduuna waxba kuwaayi mayno Insha Allah.

[NASSIR]

Originally posted by Allamagan:

Thanks Paragon for nice read. War ingiriisku xaasidsanaa xattaa waxaan maqlay hal iskuula uma dhisin markuu ka tagayey ok that is why they were lagging behind. make sense tho. Waligey wax talyaani ka xun inaysan jirin ayaah u haystay.

 

Part 2 please...

Xataa hal koronto ma taagin.

 

Alamaganow, waxaan hayaa document ah in xornimada British Somaliland ay aheed 10-20 sano ka dib tan koonfurta, laakiinse ay ku doodeen masuuliyiinta Somaliyeed in AY DOONAYAAAN INAY WALAALAHOOD RAACAAN sababtoo ah, lama hubo in xornimo la siin doono iyo in Ethiopia lagu dari doono. INGRIISKA DAN MABA KA LEHEEN MEESHAASI. thanks for the SYL's effort. Waxaa aad macquul noqon leheed in British Somaliland la siiyo Ethiopia si loo ilaaliyo the interest of the strategic Red Sea.

[RedSea]

^looooooooooooool....that is the funniest thing I have ever heard. Please put up those documents you have, let us see them.

 

Who built Shiekh Boarding school?

 

...and what did Italy done in Southern Somalia, other than offcourse build churches and influence the populace deeply?

 

Talk about bias filled creatues, dadkaas aan waxkasugaynaa.

 

by the way, Somali national league (SNL) and USP were the ones responsible for the indepence which we took from Britain almost a week before Southern Somalia did. That is what history teaches, dunno know what Caamir's own version of history teaches though.

[NASSIR]

^Xaga Iskuulada wuu ku qaldan yahay Alamagan, dhowr High School iyo Intermediate schools oo ingriis wax lagu bari jirey ayaa jirey. That is why dadka Lafoole wax ka dhigi jirey waxay u badnaayeen reer Waqooyi.

 

Laakin Stealth, I am gonna post that, watch.

[RedSea]

The fathers of educaters came from 'British' Somaliland, including the father of tacliinta Maxamud Axmed Cali from Berbera.

 

P.S, I don't expect for a coloniser to do any buildings for me, they were colonisers after all.

 

....and yes please do post that, so we can have fun time reading it, so we can see what convinced you to rethink about the whole history of pre 60s. lol

 

Thanks in advance C.

[Jacaylbaro]

waxan oo dhan yaa khriyi kara ,,,,,,, lemme finish bal

[Som@li]

Problems of National Integration

 

Although unified as a single nation at independence, the south and the north were, from an institutional perspective, two separate countries. Italy and Britain had left the two with separate administrative, legal, and education systems in which affairs were conducted according to different procedures and in different languages. Police, taxes, and the exchange rates of their respective currencies also differed. Their educated elites had divergent interests, and economic contacts between the two regions were virtually nonexistent. In 1960 the UN created the Consultative Commission for Integration, an international board headed by UN official Paolo Contini, to guide the gradual merger of the new country's legal systems and institutions and to reconcile the differences between them. (In 1964 the Consultative Commission for Legislation succeeded this body. Composed of Somalis, it took up its predecessor's work under the chairmanship of Mariano.) But many southerners believed that, because of experience gained under the Italian trusteeship, theirs was the better prepared of the two regions for self-government. Northern political, administrative, and commercial elites were reluctant to recognize that they now had to deal with Mogadishu.

 

At independence, the northern region had two functioning political parties: the SNL, representing the ***** clan-family that constituted a numerical majority there; and the USP, supported largely by the *** and the *******. In a unified Somalia, however, the ***** were a small minority, whereas the northern ******* joined members of their clan-family from the south in the SYL. The ***, having few kinsmen in the south, were pulled on the one hand by traditional ties to the ****** and on the other hand by common regional sympathies to the *****. The southern opposition party, the GSL, pro-Arab and militantly panSomali , attracted the support of the SNL and the USP against the SYL, which had adopted a moderate stand before independence.

 

Northern misgivings about being too tightly harnessed to the south were demonstrated by the voting pattern in the June 1961 referendum on the constitution, which was in effect Somalia's first national election. Although the draft was overwhelmingly approved in the south, it was supported by less than 50 percent of the northern electorate.

 

Dissatisfaction at the distribution of power among the clanfamilies and between the two regions boiled over in December 1961, when a group of British-trained junior army officers in the north rebelled in reaction to the posting of higher ranking southern officers (who had been trained by the Italians for police duties) to command their units. The ringleaders urged a separation of north and south. Northern noncommissioned officers arrested the rebels, but discontent in the north persisted.

 

In early 1962, GSL leader Husseen, seeking in part to exploit northern dissatisfaction, attempted to form an amalgamated party, known as the Somali Democratic Union (SDU). It enrolled northern elements, some of which were displeased with the northern SNL representatives in the coalition government. Husseen's attempt failed. In May 1962, however, Igaal and another northern SNL minister resigned from the cabinet and took many SNL followers with them into a new party, the Somali National Congress (SNC), which won widespread northern support. The new party also gained support in the south when it was joined by an SYL faction composed predominantly of ******. This move gave the country three truly national political parties and further served to blur north-south differences.

 

 

Somalia - History

[Som@li]

To fill the blanks, visit the link ,clan naming should be tolerable when discussing important subjects like history!

[NASSIR]

I found similar statement from the link provided by Dabshid, but you have to form an educated opinion of the hostile policies of the British in seceding Haud to Ethiopia. Then, popular demands and political protests obligated Britain to prepare unification of the North and the South in 1956.

 

 

 

----------------------------

"Political protests forced Britain in 1956 to introduce representative government in its protectorate and to accept the eventual unification of British Somaliland with southern Somalia. Accordingly, in 1957 a Legislative Council was established, composed of six members appointed by the governor to represent the principal clan-families. The council was expanded the following year to consist of twelve elected members, two appointees, and fifteen senior elders and notables chosen as ex officio members. The electoral procedure in the north followed that in the south, with elections in urban areas conducted by secret ballot and in the countryside by acclamation in clan assemblies. In 1960 the first elections contested along party lines resulted in a victory for the SNL and its affiliate the USP, the two winning between them all but one of the thirty-three seats in the new Legislative Assembly. The remaining seat was won by Mariano, the NUF's defeat clearly attributable to his Christian affiliation, which his political opponents had made a prominent campaign issue. Following the election, Mahammad Ibrahim Igaal was chosen as prime minister to lead a four-man government."

-------------------------

[Allamagan]

^^^^ Caamirow, illeen nimanku kiilka 6aad ee itobiya ayeeyba ku sigteenba. Alla maxaanu ogayn ee guumaystihii ingiriisku ogyahay. Talloow documentiyadaas ma lehi karaa hadda? I guess they no longer secrets waxyaalo badan daaha wuu ka qaadmi lahaa maanta haddii access loo haysan lahaa.