The current state and the way ahead

[NGONGE]

^^ Sweet words that mean nothing at all. I'm surprised that you and ME there do not get on.

[Kashafa]

One thing is clear, all evils of the civil war and even during the 30-year existance of the Somali Republic will be corrected systematically and

gradually

.

Meeji,This is why your secular-nationalist platform will forever be lodged in your forehead and never see the light of actualisation.

 

Whereas all you have to offer the Somali people is 'gradual reform' under the heavy cog of government bureaucracy, the Islamists are and have been providing immediate and exacting justice.

 

Gradually kulahaa. Homey, if somebody has stolen my farm, I want it back NOW, not gradually, not systematically: I want it back NOW.

 

And you know the only force in Somalia capable of providing that immediate justice ? that exacting rule of law ?

 

Doesn't need to be said. Every single reader of this forum knows exactly who and what that force is. It is only kibir and juxood on their part inay iska indho-tiraan. And the one definite cure for kibir and juxood is the karbaash.

 

In a nutshell, this is why your secular-nationalist philosophy(admirable as it is in some parts) will remain only words and thoughts, while the Islamists will be welcomed by the masses everywhere they go.

[Meiji]

NGONGE,

 

Sweet words that have their deep meaning and can mobilize many Somalis from all over Somalia.

 

Those ''sweet words'' can become more powerfull than the ''sweet words'' that have led to the existence of such an organization as Alshabab. A political organization that rises above clan-structured Somali society and led to a Somali from Zeylac (Northern Somalia) been the governor of Kismanyo and leader of the Alshabab group at a time no one could envision such a development.

 

Now, do you still believe that such ''sweet words'' mean nothing?

[wacdaraha_aduunka]

Kashafa I mean c'mon i never seen a person spew some much bullshit in my life. Are you going to tell all the people including me who's family's own farms in Lower Shabelle that Shabaab will return property to its rightful owner. They never did that under the Maxaakim as Shabaab was part of them and IndhaCadde was back in control in that part. Neither will they do it now as Mansoor said in a interview with Aljazeera in Marka that will give all foreign fighters somali girls and give them farms. Does Mansuur own that farms let alone any in Lower Shabele. What people like me and Meiji agree on is that the swift justice your talking about which the xuduud part of sharia law cant be applied in chaos but society has to be pure. Under Omar binu Khataab radiyallahu anhu there was a part when there wasnt any food and sea food was given to the people. He didnt apply xuduud to the people as he said he had failed to provide for the people and therefor he ouldnt apply the law. Are you telling me the somalia is ready for cutting hands and feet when you dont even have the basic legal sharia components missing and there's war. Kepp your hip hop JIhaad to yourself.

[Meiji]

Whereas all you have to offer the Somali people is 'gradual reform' under the heavy cog of government bureaucracy, the Islamists are and have been providing immediate and exacting justice.

 

Gradually kulahaa. Homey, if somebody has stolen my farm, I want it back NOW, not gradually, not systematically: I want it back NOW.

 

 

And you know the only force in Somalia capable of providing that immediate justice ? that exacting rule of law ?

Kashafa,

 

Your reasoning is emotional and thus you cannot look at the subject objectively and come up with an effective solution to complex problems.

 

What we need to do is to de-politicize and personalize complex problems and more importantly keep our emotions under control because they will only impede us in solving those problems.

 

Your ''swift Justice'' is one that is not intended to bring genuine justice but is rather intended to score political points. The problem is not studied, analyzed and put in its proper context, yet you want to solve it swiftly?

 

Your approach and logic is practically not different than that which political pretenders used in 1991:

 

''Siad Barre and his ruling clique stole property by using the state apparatus and gave their clansmen the looted property, we need to get it back''.

 

A simple logic, which was clothed in emotional terms by political pretenders who needed to rally deprived Somalis by promising ''swift justice and an end to state plunder and terror’’.

 

What was the result of it?

 

The complete lumping together of those Somalis who through hard and honest work accumulated capital (private property been one aspect of it) with those who through connections to the dictatorial regime of Barre accumulated capital based on their belonging to particular groups which were linked to the regime of Barre.

 

The clannist Jabhado brought ''swift Justice’’ which was basically the complete looting of private property from Somalis which were targeted based on the group they belonged to. This ''swift Justice’’ left alone those Somalis which belonged to the groups of the Jabhado despite having collaborated with the regime of Barre and thus having acquired capital through corruption. Another thing is that the clannist Jabhado only addressed the ''Injustices'' committed against people hailing from their clans, while not mentioning or propagating for the injustices committed to other Somalis.

 

 

Eventually, the clannist Jabhado and their ringleaders distributed the looted capital amongst themselves and their supporters. The majority of Somalis was left with no justice and experienced more injustices.

 

Now, tell us Kashafa:

 

Will the Islamist Jabhado bring ''swift Justice’’ and just return all property to those from whom it was stolen regardless of whether they had rightfully accumulated it or not

 

 

.... or will the Islamists put the criminals who pre-1991 looted capital (private property) by the pen and those who did the same post-1991 but ''swiftly and through the gun’’ in the same category, namely: thieves?

 

Will the Islamist Jabhado pursue ''Swift Justice'' for their supporters alone and ignore other injustices committed against the other Somalis or will they systematically tackle every case of injustice regardless of against whom it is committed and by whom it was committed.

 

Will the Islamist Jabhado eventually re-distribute the capital amongst themselves and their supporters or give it back to their rightful owners?

 

Alshabab leaders are on record saying that foreign Jihadi fighters have every right to stay in Somalia, and will be given land and women for their service. The first sign of the many injustices to come as a result of a politically motivated ''Swift-Justice’’ campaign ala 1991.

 

 

PS: The bolded piece in the Quote already shows that your ''Swift Justice'' is politically motivated and can hardly be called genuine justice.

[Hassan6734]

The fact is no one knows who really controls al-shabaab.

 

Aweys is just jealous of shariff, once shariff goes Al-shabaab would turn on Aweys himself and disarm hizbul Islam.

 

These people do not want peace, they do not want sharia Government. They do not care abt the peoople but themselves.

 

This war is going to now continue for many years. People will die for nothing,only the enemies of somalia will benefit from this.

Only the somali people would lose out.

[Abdinasir Kadawo]

Originally posted by General Duke:

^^^Meiji, this is the correcting Sharif's image topic. Nothing more, Yusuf has enough topics going. Even in retirement they love the lion from Puntland.

I would rather say the WOLF from Puntland.

[Abdinasir Kadawo]

Originally posted by wacdaraha_aduunka:

Kashafa I mean c'mon i never seen a person spew some much bullshit in my life. Are you going to tell all the people including me who's family's own farms in Lower Shabelle that Shabaab will return property to its rightful owner. They never did that under the Maxaakim as Shabaab was part of them and IndhaCadde was back in control in that part. Neither will they do it now as Mansoor said in a interview with Aljazeera in Marka that will give all foreign fighters somali girls and give them farms. Does Mansuur own that farms let alone any in Lower Shabele. What people like me and Meiji agree on is that the swift justice your talking about which the xuduud part of sharia law cant be applied in chaos but society has to be pure. Under Omar binu Khataab radiyallahu anhu there was a part when there wasnt any food and sea food was given to the people. He didnt apply xuduud to the people as he said he had failed to provide for the people and therefor he ouldnt apply the law. Are you telling me the somalia is ready for cutting hands and feet when you dont even have the basic legal sharia components missing and there's war. Kepp your hip hop JIhaad to yourself.

I couldn't agree more. What does swift justice help, if it is not for all. Al-Shabaab have tendency to apply their swift justice the weaker groups of the community to make an example.

 

Then we also need to ask ourselfs what price are we willing to pay for Al-Shabaab's swift justice. In the long term it'll be a huge price we gonna pay if Al-Shabaab wins. I can only look back at Afghanistan under the Taliban-era and imagine that Somalia will be even worse under Al-Shabaab.

[Meiji]

Originally posted by wacdaraha_aduunka:

Besides I think your more secular then the average Somali in the West.

Just to be clear:

 

- What exactly is secularism?

 

I believe in the necessity and importance to keep the judicial system independent and separate from the executive and legislative systems.

 

We can have Islamic Law as the moral foundation for our judicial system, while the other two systems are only influenced by Islamic teachings in as far as the men in those systems are Muslims who have their religious obligations.

 

The term secularism has a bad taste since pictures of Turkey's society come to mind. I would never support or propagate for a muslim society in which women can not even dress Islamically and were religion is feared by the state and as such supressed as much possible. The state should draw its inspiration from our religion, the citizens must all freely and independenlty pursue to purify themselves and the state should assist as much as possible by: stimulating and assisting the advancement of Islamic knowledge in society, the stimulation and assistance in expressing our deep faith through our architecture, education, moral values etc. In short: give the citizens no excuse to not fullfill their religious obligations by providing every service in assistance of fullfilling those religious obligations.

 

 

What I oppose is simple:

 

- Political pretenders who use the religion for political ends.

 

In this, they use the religion or the implementation of the Islamic Law as the panacea for the problems we face as Somalis.

 

The administration of the law while necessary and novel is only one dimension of managing society sucussfully. To complete other dimensions of sucessful administration intelligent leaders must treat other subjects as independent sciences that can be studied in its own right. This means that we rely on the science of medicine when dealing with public health, a military science when waging a war, a diplomacy when we want to achieve certain things without a war, goverment administration when dealing with Federal and local administration, modern accounting and economic planning when dealing with economic management.

 

 

PS: It would not be far-fetched for every Somali president to end up his speech with ''Allah Akbar'' like the US presidents end their speeches with ''God Bless America'' LOL

[NASSIR]

Originally posted by Hassan6734:

The fact is no one knows who really controls al-shabaab.

 

Aweys is just jealous of shariff, once shariff goes Al-shabaab would turn on Aweys himself and disarm hizbul Islam.

 

These people do not want peace, they do not want sharia Government. They do not care abt the peoople but themselves.

 

This war is going to now continue for many years. People will die for nothing,only the enemies of somalia will benefit from this.

Only the somali people would lose out. [/QB]

Excellent point Hassan.

 

Meiji, I like your points of "swift justice"

[me]

As Nomad Meiji pointed out, the main argument in the original post was:

 

Either the Somali people will loose the Independence to exercise their sovereignty as a nation or they loose their individual political freedoms depending on who wins the war between the TFG and Al Shabab - Xiz Islam. Both these scenarios are undesirable outcomes for the average Somali. The saying between the devil (TFG) and the deep blue sea (Al Shabab - Xiz islam) comes to mind when looking at this situation. Now let us ask ourselves since both outcomes are undesirable is there a third option? is there a way out. Can we go from our current state of anarchy to a fully functioning democratic state?

 

 

In a world full of strive we should have plenty of historical precedents.

 

Many countries have had liberation and anti occupation struggles. Each case is unique in its own way but there are general lessons we can learn from them. The lesson today is the liberation struggle determines the post war government type.

 

In Vietnam (Viet Mihn) and Algeria (FLN) we had Armed Anti colonial Front Movements who were successful in defeating the colonial powers in their countries militarily. In post war Vietnam and Algeria we saw one party rule. The FLN held power from 1962 to 1989, the Viet Minh in its different manifestations still holds the power in Vietnam.

 

In India (INC) and South Africa (ANC) we had a different type of front movements. These movements had concentrated their energies on fighting the political front rather then military front. This was due to the overwhelming strength of the opponent they faced, the costs and the sacrifices that had to be made to dislodge the adversary. In post liberation India and South Africa we saw a democratic system established but we also saw de facto one party rule. Indian National Congress was in power from 1948 until 1977. The African National Congress rules from 1994 until now.

 

The majority of countries in Africa won their self governance due to low level anti colonial struggle. Somalia, Ghana and many other countries can be placed into this category. If we look carefully the colonial power was not given a deal it couldn't refuse by either Somalia or Ghana. The colonial just left, he left so fast that there was no time to think about the type of government, state ideology etc etc of the post 'liberation' nation. One day there was a colonial governor, the next day after a simple ceremony there was an African president. But what really changed? One day its the governors house, the next day its the presidents palace, but what really changed? The answer is nothing. I shall not go any deeper into these cases, as they are not relevant for my main argument at the moment.

 

Conclusion

 

The liberation struggle shapes the party and determines the nature of the post war government.

 

 

Armed Anti colonial Front Movements

 

If the liberation struggle is exceedingly bloody and dear only a ruthless party will come out on top and win. As you can imagine the colonial and occupying force have dealt with all the soft parties and eliminated them. Only a ruthless and exceptionally well lead party can survive the punishment from the colonial / occupying force. This party due to its nature and experiences will impose a one party system on the country.

 

The real power of the party lies with the armed group within the party. This group usually takes control of the political process and imposes its will on the country. The armed faction like in any army is organized in a hierarchical manner and as such organizes the society it took control over. Ask yourself why should they organize elections and bother with democracy if they already won and control all they wanted? And the fact that they liberated the country provides the legitimacy they need.

 

"Peaceful" Anti colonial Front Movements

 

If the liberation struggle is concentrated on the political front like in India and South Africa the aim of the party is to gain critical mass in order to make the country unrulable by the colonial / occupying force. Leaving the occupying force with only one way out, to relinquish power.

 

For the party to reach this critical mass it has to engage with the population, create alliances and work with different actors within the society. The party has to reach out to student groups, labour movements, religious communities and as such gain grass root support for its ideals. After the liberation the party usually creates a democratic system for the country. Democracy is not alien to the party because it represented different groups within the society. During the struggle the party developed a mechanism to negotiate the different interests within the party. The party also has broad support in the country and does not fear democracy, it is confident that it will win the elections.

 

How does this all apply to today's Somalia? Well that question is for tomorrow......to be continued.

[Jacaylbaro]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

Duke, yet you support him

.

 

Sharif is your leader unless you are seccessinst or a mindless alshabaab

[Sherban Shabeel]

Originally posted by Abdinasir Kadawo:

quote:Originally posted by General Duke:

^^^Meiji, this is the correcting Sharif's image topic. Nothing more, Yusuf has enough topics going. Even in retirement they love the lion from Puntland.

I would rather say the WOLF from Puntland.

You're getting closer, but still no cigar.

 

Clue: this animal barks.

[Meiji]

Me,

 

 

Before you continue with you analysis we first have to point to one major discrepancy in your reasoning, namely flawed comparison.

 

The short 2-year Ethiopian occupation can hardly be compared to the centuries-old, institutionalized, deep-rooted European colonization regimes in Algeria, Vietnam, India, and South Africa.

 

The religious pretenders want to portray an image of them been liberation force evicting a colonizing power, but I have to say that they have missed the boat 50-60 years ago when Somalia was actually colonized by foreign powers.

 

What is the correct understanding of the situation in Somalia?

 

It started with the ever growing influence and power of the Islamic courts in Mogadishu city and their eventual collusion with the power and influence of the warlords in Mogadishu.

 

The warlords who are inherently after self-enrichment and protection of their power and influence found a way to collaborate with foreign agents against the influence and power of Islamist leaders in Mogadishu.

 

In 2006, the two camps collided and the old familiar warlords of Mogadishu lost the war against the Union of Islamic Courts who had better organized and disciplined soldiers and the goodwill of the people.

 

Their emergence and eventual overthrow of the old order (warlord order) was welcomed by the Somali people and feared by those foreign powers that had a stake in the old order: West and Ethiopia.

 

The religious pretenders were clever, and knew that they could defeat the warlords not because the people warmly embraced their ideology but supported them because they despised the old order. So in this situation where your ideology is not supported you have to force the people in accepting you, and what is a better way than to agitate for war against arch-enemy Ethiopia?

 

The religious pretenders and their aggressive, expansionist campaign is one of the many causes for the eventual Ethiopian invasion and occupation.

 

Now, the 2 year brutal Ethiopian occupation led to the radicalization of the Somali masses and their embracement of all factions fighting against the occupation, preferably a radical entity. Thousands of young men filled the ranks of the Islamists after seeing their families been massacred, maimed, mothers/sisters/wive s been raped, their houses destroyed etc. I bet the religious pretenders were rejoicing the events since they saw their ranks filled with young men.

 

After the Ethiopian occupation has been defeated and the Somali Republic is back to its pre-2006 reality, the religious pretenders want to prolong conflict and through military means conquer all Somali regions because they have nothing positive to sell to the Somali masses.

 

Their ideology is defunct, and has little support from the Somali masses. Their power comes from their army organization and effectiveness, and as we all know such basis for power is temporarily as other factions will be forced to adopt same tactics and organization methods. Eventually, the faction that has the support of the masses wins. Even if we go back to your previous analogy of anti-colonial struggle we can see that the liberation forces prevailed because of the will of the people, and not through their military strength since the colonial regime had larger and more powerful armies then the liberation forces.

 

Currently, the religious pretenders are going the same path as the political pretenders after 1991. Their ideology was defunct, and the only means through which they could gain support of the masses was their struggle against the previous order which was despised. But the problem for such political campaigns is: ''Whats next''? The old order has been shattered, on what grounds will you now seek support from the Somali masses? Through your ideology or through sheer force, i.e the barrel of the gun?

[me]

Before I start with how the struggle shapes the party I will address whether we can compare the current state in Somalia, with the situations faced by the different liberation fronts described in my second post of this thread.

 

If we look at liberation struggles past and present we will see that no matter the setting, the age or the strategy there are always constants.

 

These constants are:

 

-There is a party,

-There is a goal,

-And there is an adversary.

 

The aim of the party is to reach its goal by applying various strategies that defeat the adversary, the adversary in turn will try to deploy other strategies to make sure that the party does not reach its objective and is defeated.

 

Von Clausewitz defined war (the struggle) as:

 

War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance. War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.

 

The liberation fronts described in my earlier post wanted to compel their opponent to fulfill their will. Their aim was liberation, their adversary was capable, the nature of the struggle and the outcomes of the duels shaped their countries.

 

How does the struggle shape the party?

 

If we look at the situation in Somalia.

 

We have clan groups vying for power, we have warlords for hire, we have mafiosi/pirates out for a quick buck, we have a puppet paper government, we have clan fiefdoms posing as States and we have different religious movements competing for power.

 

We also have regional powers intent on seeing the Somali people forever suffering and in war. These regional states fuel the conflict in Somalia and fight any party that looks like a threat to the status quo.

 

Furthermore Somalia is the setting of proxy wars between various states and ideologies. In short Somalia is in anarchy.

 

So the party that wants to bring peace, order, stability and defend Somalia's sovereignty will have to deploy the whole tool box, and use political as well as military means. There is no way you can reason with a warlord other then to defeat him in battle, there is no way you can convince the mafiosi/pirates to give up their lucrative trades other then to punish them, there is no way that the rulers of clan fiefdoms will give up their golden goose peacefully.

 

Any party that attempts to clean up the mess in Somalia today will have to wage war sooner or later. There is no other way out. Negotiations have not solved anything in the past 20 years and they will not solve anything even if we try for another 200 years.

 

And when the party that attempts the clean up looks promising, regional states and other actors who have vested interests in the Somali anarchy will intervene as we saw in 2006. At first warlords were armed, then when the warlords proved incapable an invasion was mounted and an occupation followed.

 

From the Somali experience and other past experiences we can see that the resistance the party faces from its adversary shapes the nature of the struggle.

 

Imagine if we could go to a voting boot and change our constitution from anarchy to lets say liberal democracy. Would there be a need to fight against Qanyare, Qaybdiid, Suudi Yalaxow? and what if we could take Ethiopia to the world court so that it would stop violating Somalia's sovereignty? would there be a need for an armed resistance?

 

So it is the nature of the struggle that determines the shape that the party will take. The party has only goals, the means towards that goal are chosen to fit the circumstances.

 

Imagine that there is a maths teacher in Baladweyne and everyday he sees Ethiopians crossing the border. He sees the Ethiopian soldiers murder, kidnap, rape and loot. What options does he have to stop injustice like that?

 

a) Write a complaint letter to Meles Zenawi

b) Protest in the towns square

c) Organize a sit in, maybe a hunger strike

 

What if he does all of the above and still the injustices continue, everyday worse and worse. He writes more and more letters, he organizes bigger and bigger demonstrations, Meles Zenawi gets annoyed by his letters. Zenawi doesn't like the tone of this teacher. He order that he should be held for questioning. He gets tortured, after the torture session he gets shot. That was the story of the maths teacher.

 

In the same school as the maths teacher there worked a history teacher. This history teacher read up on the tyrant Meles Zenawi and knew that he was a rebel that fought the Red terror of Mingistu. The history teacher did not organize sit ins nor did he write complaint letters. He fought the soldiers who were killing his pupils. He knew that each problem had its solution and that since the TPLF had contempt for human life its injustices could only be stopped by an armed struggle.

 

Now my question to you is, is there a non violent way out?