Administrative Decentralization or Federalism for Self-Destruction

[Liqaye]

Democratic Devolution of Powers In Somalia:

 

Administrative Decentralization or Federalism for Self-Destruction

 

Introduction:

 

 

 

The Somali Republic, also known as Somalia, was born in 1960 with the unification of the former British and Italian Somalilands. It was a unitary state, with a unicameral legislature and a centralized administration. Blessed with a population homogeneous in language, religion, culture and ethnicity, Somalia appeared to be destinied for a tranquil political future, untramelled by the kind of ethnic conflict bedeviling most other African states of the 1960s. Nomadic wandering, unfettered by the restrictions of governmental authority, bred in the Somalis the qualities of self-reliance and love of freedom coming close to contempt for authority of any kind. Everybody, therefore, assumed that democracy was the natural choice of governance for the Somalis. And for a number of years, Somalia was indeed a shining example of a well-governed nation state.

 

 

 

Failure of Democratic Governance:

 

 

 

Democracy’s term of life in Somalia was very short indeed. The concentration of powers in the hands of officials at the national capital was the culprit causing this childhood mortality of democracy. Elected officials showed no accountability to the electorate and civil servants, answerable only to superiors in Mogadishu, acted with insular detachment, arrogantly bossing, and lording their authority over, the local citizens instead of serving them with humility. The politicians and the bureaucrats were concerned about how to personally enrich themselves, and nothing else. These shortcomings of a centralized rule made for an uncaring and inefficient administration corrupt to the core that did nothing to help improve the life of the people. Under these circumstances, the national economy stagnated and decayed, causing a generalized disaffection in the country, specially within neglected locaties far removed from the national capital. This unhappy situation paved the way for military officers led by the commander of the defence force to effortlessly stage a coup, illegally bringing an end to the life of democratic governance and the rule of democratically elected authorities in Somalia.

 

Military Reign and and its Tragic Legacy:

 

 

 

But military rule, depending on regimented and mechanical obedience to authority, did not correct the fatal weaknesses of centralization but only amplified them. Though realizing creditable achievements during the early years of its reign domestically and scoring a few equally laudable diplomatic successes in the international arena as well, the military regime enjoyed only a very short-lived popularity. The reasons for the brevity of the soldiers’ popularity are not hard to find. Consumed by a strong sense of guilt and paranoia, the coup makers created with Soviet technical assistance a very powerful secret security service to vigilantly guard against, and quickly root out, all domestic oopposition to the regime. On account of the professional efficiency of this instrument of suppression, the soldiers could now afford to be totally negligent and unconcerned about any adverse consequences of their political behavior. The upshot of this effective silencing of all voices critical of the governement was an increasing estrangement between the people and the regime, the government growing ever more more totalitarian until it finally became a bona fide one-man absolute dictatorship. Most Somalis, a people most particularly noted for their exceptional love of freedom and uniquely anti-authoritarian disposition, could not imagine anything worse than the tyrannical suppression of their basic human and civil rights that they endured under the soldiers’ despotic rule. But all hopes of a better future that the Somalis might have entertained quickly evaporated into thin air with the unfolding of awfully calamitous events shortly after the soldiers were defeated and ousted from office. To the Somalis’ utmost surprise, a most shocking tragedy, greater than anything they thought possible, soon engulfed their country. The inevitable consequence of military misrule was a dramatic political implosion, which brought about the collapse of the state and the outbreak of a disastrous civil war that has ceaselessly raged for more than a decade.

 

Centralization Blamed:

 

 

 

From 1960 to 1990, the Somalis experimented with two radically different systems of governance, namely, the rule of civilian, democratically elected governments and then with the dominion of a military autocracy. Sadly, however, both experiments failed and disappointed the Somalis, with the failure of the civilian authorities making easy the illegal seizure of power by the military while the despotic military reign, from the stressful coercions of which the citizens stoically agonized so painfully while it lasted, brought about the ultimate tragedy--destruction of the Somali state and the subsequent outbreak of an incredibly barbarous civil conflict in which Somalis perished by the hundreds of thousands, and millions more either suffered internal displacement or fled abroad to seek protection as forlorn, wretched and reviled refugees. Most deplorably also, the civil war caused the destruction of the country’s modest inrastructure that was patiently built up over the past 100 years or so. One demon on which the manifest malfunctioning of the two systems can legitimately be blamed, in part at least, was the country’s constitutional centralization of authority and of both system’s oblivion to the need for prearranged corrective measures to fall back on when things go wrong. The civilian governments failed to even recognize this congenital flaw of the system and failed, while the military rulers purposely exploited this weakness to prolong the duration of their term in office, unaware of, or possibly unconcerned about, the evil consequences of their malgovernance.

 

 

 

Groping in the Dark: Arta and Embakathi Conferences opt for Federalism:

 

 

Mindful of the systemic shortcomings of centralized authority and of the oppressive nature of military regimes’ up-down command systems, the Somalis gathered at the 2000 A.D. Arta reconciliation conference made a decision to restore their state on the principles of democratic devolution of powers that would legally require all elected officials and the bureaucrats to be accountable to the electorate. Their intention was to return sovereignty to the citizens and to bring the government close enough for the electorate to exercise supervisory control over its activities. To that end, Article 39 of Arta’s Transitional Charter instructed the Transitional National Government (TNG) to prepare a Federal Constitution for the future 3rd Republic of Somalia. Therefore, the TNG created a Ministry responsible for Constitutional and Federal Affairs to prepare this constitution that the Charter mandated. This Ministry’s work on the constitution was, however, cut short with the calling for yet another Somali national reconciliation conference, to be held this time in Kenya. This conference, organized for the purpose of facilitating dialogue between the TNG and its political opponents so as to complete the reconciliation process begun at Arta, was first convened in Eldoret, Kenya, on 15 October, 2002 A.D., but was subsequently moved to Embakathi in early 2003 A.D.

 

 

 

Like the participants of the Arta conference, the delegates attending the Embakathi gathering quickly declared, with no hesitation whatsoever, that a federal system of rule was their favorite. In fact the Interim Charter that the Kenya conference produced is a lot more emphatic than the Arta document on making the administrative structure of the Somali state federal. Incidentally, the desire to stress their steadfast devotion to federalism has made the delegates of the Kenya conference to commit a number of elemental mistakes. For instance, the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of Article One of this Interim Charter, adamantly insist that, even during the transitional period and prior to the drafting of a federal constitution to be presented to the people for approval, the Somali state will be federal in structure and the official name of the government in office during this interim period will be the “Transitional Federal Government”. This is absurd and bit enigmatic too because the Charter does not designate the constitutent political or administrative units of which this Somali federation is to consist. Be that as it may, the 9 paragraphs of Article 11 provide a detailed description of the process through which federalism is to be made operational in Somalia, the governmental bodies to be be responsible for the implementation of the tasks that the process entails and of the exact time frame set for the completion of the process, as well. Though all 9 paragraphs of this Article deal with the tasks of making Somalia’s administration federal, three that are of particular interest to us here are: (1) The 6th, which expressly requires the government to set up a Ministry for Federal and Constitutional Affairs; Paragraph 4, which calls for the making of an autonomous Constitutional Commission within 90 days of the government’s installation in office; and finally, (3) Paragraph 7, which instructs the government to ensure that the institutionalization of federalism is effected within the first 21/2 years of the transitional government’s tenure.

 

 

 

Federalism Rationally Considered:

 

 

To be sure, the Somalis have time and again been altogether consistent in their call for a federal system, as evidenced by the Charters that came out of the 2000 A.D. Arta conference and of the 2002- A.D. Eldoret-Embakathi conference, still in session at the latter city. It appears, however, that many Somalis, who appanently do not have an adequate grasp of what a federal system entails, are using this political concept rather loosely, to simply mean a form of administrative decentralization only. In fact, though both of the Arta and Embakathi Charters speak of the need for a federal constitution for the country, it is more likely than not that the real intent of their authors was the decentralization of powers in the 3rd Republic of Somalia and not the adoption of a bona fide federal system. It is public knowledge that neither at Arta nor at Embakathi has a rational evaluation of federalism preceeded its adoption by the delegates, with acclamation. On both occasions, the delegates sadly approved the proposal to adopt fedralism unthinkingly and rather precipitately, without first properly considering, as they should have, this system’s practicability in Somalia. By these decisions the Somalis, perhaps with memories of the civil war’s attrocities clouding their sense of judgement and blunting the sharpness of their rational faculties, merely expressed, like an unthinking herd, their intuitive aversion to centralized systems of rule, without thoughtfully examining the suitability of federalism to their situation.

 

 

 

Needless-to-say, the Somali’s rejection of administrative centralization does not justify their adoption of a federal system and the Somalis’ deslike for a centralized rule does not necessarily make federalism the only, or a better, alternative to the systems that had failed them in the past. Surprisingly, many vital issues, such as whether there are present in Somalia any of the economic, cultural, ethnic and geographical imperatives that would make a federal system an efficacious prescription for Somalia’s political ills, clearly eluded the attention of the delegates at the Arta and Embakathi peace conferences. The decision to select for the future 3rd Somali Republic of a particular brand from among the array of extant constitutional options relating to democratic devolution of powers, namely, a federal system, a decentralized union or even a hybrid type, should have been based strictly on the basis of its appropriateness for Somalia’s economic and environmental realities and as well for the Somali people’s religious and cultural sensibilities. Regrettably, the Somalis at these two conferences failed to perform the necessary knowledgeable scrutiny of all existing constitutional options that would have enabled them to select the most appropriate constitutional option.

 

 

 

Among the many factors that necessitate the adoption of federalism by any country are the presence in it of unbridgeable ethnic, cultural and or religious cleavages, that resolutely defy attempts at integration . Federalsim would also suit a country that has an enormous territory with geographical variations, ie physical barriers, that inhibit inter-regional communication and contacts, thus consistuting one very important factor underpining the development of cultural divergences. The resultant cultural differences, usually expressed most readily in mutual exclusiveness of the different cultural units, inevitably translate into centrifugal tendencies that militate against political cohesion. For a federal system to work, it is also preferable, but not entirely necessary, that the said country’s different geographical and political units are economically self-sufficent.

 

 

 

Alas!, non of these factors are present in Somalia. As we have briefly stated earlier, the Somalis are a single ethnic group, culturally and religiously homogeneous, notwithstanding the scattering among them of partially somalized minorities who have been domiciled in Somalia for centuries and who, for all practical purposes, currently do not claim any identity other than being Somali. Territorially, Somalia, with only about 640,000 Sq Kms, is not big. Better yet, there are no geopgraphical obstacles that effectively hinder communication between different groups or impede their cultural interaction. Cultural and economic variations are minimal. A majority of Somalis, possibly reduced to the status of a minority in recent decades, have always depended for their livelihood on the rearing of livestock and by practising seasonal transhumance to secure sufficient supplies of water and fresh fodder for their herds. There were two other groups of Somalis, that together formed a minority in the past but that have lately grown enormously in numerical strength at the expense of the nomads to the point of possibly becoming the majority, have opted for a settled life style, practicing either agricultural production or trade to earn a living and dwelling in permanent rural settlements or in coastal trade centers. However, the cultural cleavage between the nomadic animal hearder and the settled agricultralist or trader is really not as great as it might appear to the outsider. Like the pastoralist the tiller of the soil and the trader also keep smaller numbers of animals. Significantly also, the herder engages in trade with the other two by bartering animals and animal by-products for their agricultural crops and/or manufactured merchandise. This constant rubbing of shoulders among the three makes for a cultural homogeneity rarely found elsewhere in Africa. The Maay-Maxaa dialectical divide is an insignificant issue that can be settled with relative ease by mandating compulsory teaching of both dialects in school throughout the country.

 

 

 

Concluding Remarks

 

 

 

The Somalis insist on the adoption of a federal system of rule for their country, but by all apparent evidences, there is nothing that logically lends support to this proposition. On the contrary, the odds are enormously stacked up against the practical applicability of federalism in Somalia. The proposal is really indefensible because Somalia is not a multicultural country with critical cultural and religious antagonisms and is not home to mutually exclusive ethnic or racial groups that earnestly desire to be separate from each other and would, therefore, require constitutional guarantees for their continued existence in separation in a secure multicultural political environment. Even before the latest destructive civil war, Somalia was one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world. It has never been really viable, having depended quite heavily throughout its existence as an independent state on loans and charitable donations from abroad. Furthermore, as we have mentioned earlier, the modest infrastructive slowly built up over the past century or so has been literally wiped out in the civil war. There is hardly any part of this country that can stand by itself as a viable federal unit. Most likely, the only thing that will result from the plan to make Somalia federal is the break up the country into several clan-based, exclsive and economically non-viable units, and the creation of these clan enclaves will in all likelihood only exacerbate the clan hostilities that the civil was has generated. With the creation of these clan cantonements the trend towards national integration will be reversed and clan identities will begin to cast a menacing shadow over Somali ethnic identity, which under the circumstances is bound soon be gone with the wind. Federalism, therefore, is not the right choice for Somalia. It is not a cure-all for the country’s political difficulties. On the contrary, federalism will, if instituted, most likely only prove to be Somalia’s undoing. By their repeated call of a federal system of rule, the Somalis at the peace conferences have been, perhaps unwittingly, digging a grave for the Somali state that they purportedly have been trying to revive. Without doubt a federal system of rule is the ultimate, ie the most effective, prescription for Somalia’s NATIONAL SELF-DESTRUCTION.

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Ali A. Hersi

 

Nairobi, Kenya

[FAISAL_YARE]

!!"BISMILAAHI~RAHMANI~RAHIIM"!!

 

I REALLY LIKE UR TOPIC DR.ALI THIS WHAT MOST OF ALL WANT TYPE OF GOVERNMENT ULTIMATE BECOUSE THIS IS MOST VALUES GOVERNMENT AND DEMOQRACY'S IN THE WORLD'TODAY....

 

 

"I VOTE FOR IT"

!!"GOD~BLESS~UNITED SOMALI REPUBLIC"!!

!!!"MAY ALLAH~BRING~PEACE"!!!

[FAISAL_YARE]

!!"BISMILAAHI~RAHMANI~RAHIIM"!!

 

I REALLY LIKE UR TOPIC DR.ALI THIS WHAT MOST OF ALL WANT TYPE OF GOVERNMENT ULTIMATE BECOUSE THIS IS MOST VALUES GOVERNMENT AND DEMOQRACY'S IN THE WORLD'TODAY....

 

 

"I VOTE FOR IT"

!!"GOD~BLESS~UNITED SOMALI REPUBLIC"!!

!!!"MAY ALLAH~BRING~PEACE"!!!

ENG: FAISAL_BINU_SOMAL

LOS_ANGELES,

U.S.A

[Baashi]

I find this piece very interesting if not important. Even though he is right on the futility of federalism and its long-term side effects, he has somewhat sidelined the dilemma posed by Somaliland and Puntland.

 

How you go from separation to unitary state with center-periphery power scheme? Despite the ills of federalism, the existence of the separatist regions such as the Republic of Somaliland and disguised and unpredictable regional autonomy of Puntland is what necessitates federalism.

 

I am very much opposed to the federalism scheme but the reality on the ground forces me to swallow my ideal principles and embrace reluctantly this new cure concocted by the likes Abdullahi Yusuf. It would have been great if the folks on the table have the wisdom to see what is ahead beyond the self-perpetuating, power-grabbing business they are engaged in.