Mr. Mohamed Heebaan, Ali Bahar Ph D Vs Abdul Ahmed III, Janet Britt

[Che -Guevara]

Regionalism and Alternative Forms of Governance:

A Critique on Centralized, Top Down Approach to the Problem of Somalia

By Abdul Ahmed

Sept 16 , 2009

 

 

It is often counter intuitive and very difficult for many scholars, policy makers, journalist and even politicians to explain or make sense of the collapse of the former Somalia. Many others fail to explain the prolonged socio-political conflict in the most homogenous nations in the African continent. However a close examination of Somali social groups reveals that Somalia is a complex dynamic organism of a system of self organizing assorted groupings. The Somali problem can be reduced (at least conceptually) to a problem of complexity that involves “competition and coordination” by the groups, which could result in order and/or disorder. It is a paradigm in which the the clans either compete for governing the state ( in the case of Mogadishu or Southern Somalia) or establish a convention to govern the states through agreed system (in case of peaceful northern quasi-independent states of Somaliland and Puntland).

 

Equally, the current state of affairs in Somalia can be put in plain words as a contingent outcome of a dynamic and complex socio-political system; a system that consists of self-regulating, competing entities that endogenously organize into diverse groups and regional polities. While the Somalia as whole may depict a sad picture of human failure and socio-political collapse, yet a deeper look of at a finer scale would show the existence of vibrant and stable regional governments/polities amidst the disorder that is Somalia. These stable regional polities embody a rich source of alternative routes to stabilizing the rest of what use to be Somalia; a model for resolving conflict and additional tool or at least an experience for the international community.

 

Amongst the most elemental driver of regional stability and collective coordination is the Somalia clan norms and the clan system. The Somali clan system - and its modern manifestation as regionalism - is an established convention complete with a social structure, laws, administrative rules and well defined social norms for social interaction. It is also in essence the most reliable meta-institution through which the Somali people conduct their affairs. Through the clan system Somali people organize and regulate all aspects of social life within and between clans. They employ hybrid of modern social techniques and local customary laws that function as mechanisms for clan self preservation, inter-clan cooperation and conflict resolution and generally as a guide for interaction between clans and within each clan and even formation of traditional regional polities.

 

Historically the clan system enabled Somali people to form their own independent governing structures or even their own traditional states. Historical or traditional polities are outcomes of highly complex co-evolution of clan system’s , social norms and pastoral society. This an evolutionary process however must have been unequal in the areas inhabited by Somali people. For instance, recorded evidence that some areas in Somalia had a very advanced governing structures (Sultanates / Kingdoms in Obbio, Hafun, Taleeh, Hadaftimo and Hargeisa) while other areas remained less developed or under Arab Sultanates. (Some of these are mentioned in Luigi Bricchetti Robecchi's Journeys in the Somali Country 1890-91 ). Today however, there is empirical evidence of similar patterns of emergence of traditional polities in the nation that was Somali Democratic Republic. (e.g. Puntland and Somaliland).

 

The emergence of alternative polities in Puntland and Somaliland after the collapse of Somalia is very important to understand. Both Puntland and Somaliland constitute the re-emergence of traditional independent (or quasi independent states) in contemporary Somalia. This does not mean that I particularly support or justify the legitimacy of any but a mere practical truth on the ground one that must be understood for what it is and even used to foster stability in southern Somalia.

 

Today’s regional authorities or regional polities are based on collective conventions and pacts achieved through clan systems. They also offer diverse and alternative institutional arrangements to cope with the failure of the former Somali Democratic Republic. However to make use of any diversity of institutions , one must disect, understand analyze and attempt to replicate the process that leads groups to organize and eventual formation of regional polities.

 

It is equally important to acknowledge that these two northern states came to being and continue to exist practically with no support from the international community. (This is particularly true in case of Puntland). On the other hand, the international community, (primarily the UN) spent an enormous effort and material in constituting a central government for the entire country that was Somalia. Many of these attempts failed and the last attempt to constitute a central authority for Somalia is on life support.

 

Puntland and Somaliland, for instance, employed diverse institutional arrangements, that included civic organizations, former security forces, intellectuals, extensive of clan based discussions (led by traditional clan elders) to form a collective pact to govern their affairs. This created Puntland in 1998 and Somaliland earlier in 1992.

 

Though not conclusive, there is compelling evidence that it is highly likely that today’s Puntland (and to some extent Somaliland) are historical outcomes or contingencies of the local traditions to self-governance that predate modern day Somalia. Today’s Puntland for instance is made of several traditional sultanates that existed in the area prior to the colonial era. It is this long tradition of self reliance and local administration that enabled these regions to constitute functional authorities. It certainly is not random chance that the both Puntland and Somaliland have emerged while many other peaceful remained trapped and eventually consumed by the Somali Civil War.

 

As in the pre-colonial era, the success of “clan sanctioned agreements” have become empirical reality and a solid ground that can ascertain a respected representative authority; indeed clan sanctioned agreements are empirically grounded accomplishments that endogenously bring people together - just as it were in the pre-colonial era but perhaps with a modern twist of quasi-state entity. Both Somaliland and Puntland are exemplary “empirical evidence” of how an authority is distributed to sub-clans through a bottom up functional organs nominated by the clan orders or projected by them.

 

The Somaliland and Puntland experiments are in sharp contrast to the “4.5 power sharing plan” of the TFG, in which a distant “arm chair intellectuals” designed a power sharing scheme to distribute power to Somalia’s clans without the participation of local clan members, elders, regardless of the reality on the ground or the local metaphors. Of course, the UN and many policy analyst would claim that the “4.5 power sharing plan” is a clan neutral and attempt to justify it as fair means to distribute power to the Somali clans.

 

The fact is however that the pre-conceived notion of fairness is one that is exogenously imposed or at least is perceived as imposed solutions (not endogenously derived as in case of Puntland). The perception of imposed rule (whether fair or not) affects the expectations as well as the behavior of Somali clans. Why would Somaliland or Puntland would want exchange whatever relative peace and prosperity for a future possible prosperous Somali nation state. It is these institutional and cultural factors that must be understood by the international community and Somalia enthusiasts. Somalia does not need prescriptive paternalism or policy designed at far away places by all well meaning elitist westerners or for that matter any non-Somali; A local Somali solution is more likely to succeed than any other prearranged solutions to create central authority.

 

The world renowned public policy expert Dr Elinor Ostrom after extensive empirical studies suggested that policy analysis and policy design In the 21st be broadened to include a greater attention for regional and local governments. She also has pioneered the concept of institutional diversity in policy analysis to align centralized policy making with empirical realities of human choice and evolution of choices. In fact institutional diversity enables policy makers, decision makers and policy analysts to find solutions for complex problems from more than one source.

 

Understanding this clan driven , real Somali regional dynamics is fundamental because most important decisions related to regional security, regional development, and the possibility of reconstituting a nation state for the former Somalia would demand participation and interaction of all local stakeholders.

 

Moreover, the quasi-independent regional polities such as Somaliland and Puntland provide “alternative mechanisms” as well as “socially acceptable policy prescription” to Somalia’s problem. They also represent examples of a distinctly successful normative policy approaches available to those engaged in helping Somalia end its long civil conflict.

 

Employing diverse approaches or diverse institutional arrangements is perhaps one way to manage the complexity that is Somalia, to cope with uncertainty and facilitate coordination of diverse actors. Employing expanded search for solutions that includes using the alternative institutions, direct involvement and consultation with Puntland and Somaliland can only help the idea of reconstituting a Somali nation-state. To that end, the International community must acknowledge and position it self to deal with various regional institutions including the quasi independent state of Puntland and Somaliland.

 

If metaphors are the concepts we use to understand one thing in terms of another, the world community must acknowledge the local metaphors; local preferences, respect the choice of the regional groups without affirming the dissolution of the state. The United Nations and United States must not treat any potential central authority such as TFG to be the only option for stable and prosperous Somali peninsula. Instead the international community must consider diverse contingencies each of which could possibly lead to credible resolution to the Somali problem. In doing so however, the international community in general must pay a close attention to local preferences, existing intuitions/ governments and most of all local metaphors.

 

Finally, because metaphors and narratives play an important role in public opinion and hence behavior, effectiveness of policy and implementation of policies; It is extremely important that policy designers create action and policy through language based on local metaphors that focus on viable and stable regions of the Somali peninsula rather than ambitious plans of creating strong central authority or restoring a Somali nation-state without local mandate.

 

Abdul Ahmed III

Email: abdul.ahmed@asu.edu

[Che -Guevara]

Tigrean In Sheep’s Clothes…….!

By Mohamed Heebaan

September 19 , 2009

 

Abdul Ahmed III is an odd name for a Somali, or for that matter for a Muslim. But he could be neither. In either case, the name is the least problematic about this writer. The writer posted on some Somali websites an article titled “Understanding the collapse of Somalia: challenges and opportunities for restoring a nation-state.”

 

The impression one gets from the title is that the writer would perhaps shed some light on the reasons behind the collapse of the Somali government, and possibly suggest some of the best ways to tackle the fragmentation prevalent today, and restore the unity of the country. Unfortunately the writer says something in the title, and the opposite in the body of the article. In other words, the hopeful title of the article is a deliberate deception of the sinister message delivered in the body of the article. An accurate summary of the article and appropriate title for the message it conveys would be “Somalia is dead, and it should forever remain that way!”

 

The writer obviously harbours deep antagonism towards Somalia, its country, and its people. His antagonism shows NOT in the superficial forms of trashing and name calling, but the careful choice of his words, and policy proposals he advocates.

 

For example, his name of choice, that he uses over and over, for our country is NOT Somalia, but former-Somalia—as though Somalia and its people and its country have vanished from the face of this earth! The prescription he penned for Somalia unequivocally underlines the writer’s deep animosity against Somalia and its people, because line after line, paragraph after paragraph, the writer emphasizes two reinforcing points: Somalia’s demise is irreversible, and the attempts to restore the unity of the country are doomed and hopeless: “The collapse of Somalia is irreversible, restoration of Somalia is beyond mechanistic policy design”1 He wrote. In other words, Abdul Ahmed III is saying that Somalia’s demise is permanent, and all the efforts to restore the unity of the country are an exercise in futility!

 

And if the death sentence that he given Somalia wasn’t clear enough, he writes it in block letters for everyone to see, “For the Somalia that once was, the nation state that existed from 1960-1991 may not be restorable at all to its original state.” He declares.

 

In the two examples that I have just given, the writer had given Somalia a death sentence, and was saying that no one should try to resuscitate it, because it is hopeless. But the writer moved from describing Somalia as a dead entity, into devising and proposing a sinister policy of dismemberment, which he euphemistically calls “Decentralization”, that he clearly knows would kill Somalia for good: “If empirical evidence is a guide and an authority for devising a solution to Somalia’s problems, then one would most certainly and at a minimum explore a solution based on DECENTRALIZED, traditional or regional authorities.” He writes.

 

And again, if the writer’s aims and intentions towards Somalia were not clear enough, he expresses his agenda in an explicit manner that would leave no doubt in anyone’s mind, when he says, “The de facto partitioning of Somalia is a real outcome that may be just irreversible.”

 

The writer dismisses as wrong headed the international community’s policy of treating Somalia as a one country, because he says Somalia had been a unified country only for 31 years, from 1960-1991: He writes, “The international Community uses a rather obsolete paradigm based on viewing Somalia as a single entity. In reality Somalia has been single unified entity only for 31 years (from 1960-1991).”

 

The above point clearly underlines Abdul Ahmed’s ignorance about world history, and how tribes, clans, communities, towns, and regions evolved into states and nations. Tell me any country in the world, and I will tell you when the people in that country evolved from communities and disparate towns and regions into a unified state.

 

The writer time and again criticizes the UN, the US, and the international community for supporting the effort to create a central Somali government that may unite the country. Instead he wants the Dismemberment that he euphemistically calls Regionalism must be given the focus: “The international community must realize that Somali regionalism (whether it is a virtue or a vice) must be acknowledged. It must also be a parameter to consider when devising a policy for reconciliation and post conflict institutional building. From policy design perspective, regionalism is an essential element to consider. US, UN and the international community must view the former-Somalia as a country that consists of distinct and divided regions.”

 

In the very next paragraph, the writer abandons the rhetoric about regionalism, and calls upon the world community to stop treating Somalia as a single country, when he says, “It is therefore sensible for the United States, United Nations, and the EU to abandon the premise of Somalia as a single monolithic entity.”

 

Now, there is an unavoidable question here, and it is this: why is it bothering Abdul Ahmed III if the world keeps treating Somalia as a single country? It is bothering him because, apparently, he wants to Somalia to become several little Bantustans, all of which are controlled by the Tigrean regime in Addis Ababa.

 

But he didn’t stop there. Instead the writer openly and explicitly called on the US to lead the way for partitioning of Somalia, when he says, “The United States in particular has a unique opportunity to treat Somalia as decentralized(i.e. dismembered) entities without officially affirming the country’s dissolution.”

 

In other words, the writer is calling upon the US to dismember and partition Somalia, but should refrain from stating that publicly!!

 

As an introduction for his proposal for dismemberment and partitioning of Somalia, the writer says Somalia’s problem has its root in “A complex social problem with broad political implications. It is particularly an acute social problem in managing and maintaining modern state.” The uses I. M. Lewis as a scholarly source to solidify his claims and says, “As far back as 1993, the world-renowned Somali affairs expert and anthropologist I.M. Lewis stressed the importance of recognizing the social clan structure.”

 

I find it interesting the writer cites I. M. Lewis for two reasons:

 

1—I. M. Lewis is one of the few people on earth that would agree with the dismemberment of Somalia that Abdul Ahmed III is advocating.

 

2—I. M. Lewis is perhaps the last person on the planet whose views would be given any merit when the interest of the Somali people are seriously considered, as I am going elaborate shortly.

 

SECESSION, DISMEMBERMENT AND DESTRUCTION…

 

Many Somalis and particularly those in the secessionist north have been scratching their heads, unable to understand why the chaotic southern Somalia has been receiving so much moral and material support, while the stable, reasonably democratic north had been shunned by the whole world? This is somewhat astonishing because whatever government concocted in southern Somalia is immediately and always supported by the whole world. But the stable, democratic, and peaceful secessionist north had been completely shunned, and all of its appeals for recognition have fallen on deaf ears!

 

However there is a good reason for this seemingly strange action by the international community, because the world community knows secessions for what it is: secession means dismembering and destroying a country! And that is the very reason why all the international organizations such as the UN, African Union, the Arab League, European Union, Organization of Islamic Conference, ASEAN, OAS, and all the countries in the world, east and west, north and south, big and small, have shunned the secession of Somaliland, because no country wants the destruction and the dismemberment of Somalia to be registered in its name! Even the Tigrean regime that fully supports the secession and the dismemberment of Somalia is, nevertheless, very careful not to offer any public recognition to the secession.

 

Ignorance is the source of animosity. And familiarity breeds friendship. It is an established fact that the more we learn about a people of a certain country, and learn their language and culture, the better related, better understanding, and much friendlier we become towards the people of that country. That is the reason why many of the students who study in foreign lands be it in Australia, China, US, Malaysia or Egypt develop connection and loyalty towards the country in which they studied. And what goes for foreign students also goes for Orienatlists, who also develop strong connection and loyalty towards the peoples and countries whose culture and language they studied and mastered.

 

Now like the orientalists everywhere, and as someone who studied the Somali society, its culture, language, and history, I. M. Lewis was naturally expected to have a feeling and loyalty for the Somali people. And when the tragedy struck and our nation fell apart, I. M. Lewis was expected to be one of the leading advocates for Somalia’s unity, and the safeguarding of its national interests. Unfortunately, I. M. Lewis did no such thing. Instead, the supposed friend of the Somali people has become a cheerleader for the secession, and a leading advocate for Somalia’s dismemberment and destruction!

 

Somalis are one people, and one body. You either like them, or you don’t! And I. M. Lewis’ logic of being in love with one region of Somalia and of hating the rest—hatred manifests itself in the advocacy for the dismemberment and the destruction of the country—is contradiction in terms! The fact that I. M. Lewis embraced the destruction of Somalia, a project rejected by the whole world, shows the orientalist’s true colours. And it is when viewed his actions in that context that I. M. Lewis’s treachery against the Somali people become ever so clear!

 

In conclusion, Abdul Ahmed III is his own worst enemy, because he forgot or perhaps doesn’t know the first rule of writing, which is to know your audience! Had he delivered his piece as a lecture to some Americans in the Arizona desert, or to the Tigrean regime in Addis Ababa, he would have had a better luck. The Americans, not knowing much about Somalia or African clan structure, would have found the whole speech exotic and interesting. And the Tigrean regime would have enjoyed it because it reinforces the designs and policies they have been pursuing against Somalia for close to two decades.

 

However to concoct a Tigrean agenda laced with hatred of Somalia, and of all the people on earth to come to the Somalis themselves, and lecture them on how better off they would be to have their country dismembered and partitioned is nothing short of utter *********!

 

If Abdul Ahmed III wants to be taken seriously, he first needs to be original. Rehashing Males Zenawi’s tired policies is no way to earn respectability!

 

Mohamed Heebaan

E-Mail: mohamed19456@hotmail .com

[Che -Guevara]

d/p

[Che -Guevara]

Unsubstantiated Critique ; The Dark Habeen of the Logic of Heebaan

By Janet Britt

Sept 22 , 2009

 

 

Mr. Mohamed Heebaan critique on the author and the article titled “Understanding the collapse of Somalia: challenges and opportunities for restoring a nation-state.” is technically unsubstantiated and practically misleading. It is an exceedingly flawed interpretation of the article and incorrect account of the reality in what use to be Somalia.

 

The critique unfairly assumes that Abdul Ahmed III has an ulterior motive to call for the dismemberment of the former Somalia. Apparently it also come into sight that Mr Heebaan assertion that the article contains antagonistic view against the Somali people is a sophomoric attempt to intentionally attempt to mischaracterize the content of the article or at best it could be a defective logic that served Habeen’s parochial interest whatever it may be.

 

Mr Heebaan is impulsively fervent and unstoppable in portraying the original article as an Ethiopian agenda without any proof or any sound intellectual line of reasoning. His claim that the article is related to Ethiopian attempt to divide in his view a Somali country is a clear sign that he is presumptuous and uninformed about the origin and the basis of Ahmed’s work and the subsequent article.

 

The article is one of many pieces published as an excerpt form a collaborative research work that uses a large data sets on Somali clans, ethnography, social association data and large historical data. Ahmed’s article presents in part an analysis of why the former Somalia has disintegrated; we derive a powerful clan based mechanism that leads to self segregation by the clans and shows verifiable ground truth that what use to be Somalia is no more.

 

The notion that Somalia’s new quasi-states are somehow contrary to Somali nationhood is highly flawed and contrary to empirical evidence. With the exception of the period between 1960 – 1991, Somali people lived in their chosen traditional states, some of which were far more advanced then today’s Somalia.

 

Somaliland, Puntland and the Southern Somalia are part of the greater Somali peninsula populated by ethnically Somali people. The original article and the study upon which it was based simply point out an endogenous self-organization of Somali people into their traditional polities. The collapse of the former Somalia is a reality; our study is neither or a cause nor a celebration of the breakdown of what use to be Somalia (1960-1991).

 

Contrary to the assertion of Mr M. Heebaan, Ahmed’s article is an original and independent intellectual contribution and not an advancement of any particular cause. The article, while laying possible policy contingencies does not particularly prescribe a single specific solution for the former Somalia. Indeed the article rather encourages the world community to assist the peaceful parts of the former Somalia. It is only logical conclusion to assume that any Somali would be happy for the peaceful Northern States of Somaliland and Puntland.

 

It escapes our logic however to see Mr Heebaan unfairly twist the thesis of decentralized governance; a major thesis in today’s scholastic works related to governance. Moreover the idea of solving the Somali problem through bottom up decentralized fashion is one that is far more feasible and more endogenous and far more sustainable than a policy design by well meaning but remote analysts.

 

In an article titled Regionalism and Alternative Forms of Governance Abdul Ahmed III, urges the international community to pay attention to local metaphors and allow Somali people organize themselves as they see fit rather than imposing on them some preconceived notions of fairness among clans and restoration of nation-state and a central authority without local mandate. In fact Abdul Ahmed III urges that the only sustainable solutions to the problem of the former Somalia is a Somali solution that starts locally by the diverse Somali regions.

 

While a fair and intellectually sound critique is acceptable, I believe that the citizenship or ethnicity of the author is immaterial to the argument of what has transpired in what we purposefully for semantic reasons call “the former Somalia”.

 

Finally, we encourage Mr M. Heebaan and others to share whatever technical and empirical data he may to present solid counter-arguments to our work (if any at all). In the absence of such rigorous information we would invite him to get familiar with our work on Somalia and Somali peninsula in order to abort any undue , uninformed sophomoric attacks on individuals authors and the integrity of their work.

 

Janet Britt

Email: janet.britt@asu.edu

[Che -Guevara]

“YOU LIE” She Screams: The Janet Britt’s of the world never learn

By Dr. Ali Bahar

Sept 24 , 2009

 

 

Ignorance is a dangerous weapon. Couple it with a selfish interest and you can produce a deadly synergism. Guided by this myopic view that lacks knowledge, the Janet Britt’s of the world are determined to protect their objective of using the desperate Somali situation as a cash-crop. It does not matter “what” and “how” a concerned, genuine Somali, such as Mahamed Heeban, feels about his people, or whether he can rightfully express an opinion. In fact, these foreign predators have mastered the reputation of silencing anyone who challenges their distorted view of what our people want. One glance at the Somali situation from the distance and they will qualify themselves as experts of the Somali cultures and their tribal complex, time-tested systems and relationships. An ear full of one misrepresented view fed to them from one individual or particular group with interest, and these foreigners will rush to conclusions presenting their ignorance as guaranteed cure-all solution. Challenge their ignorance and you are under attack. They will even call you a lier--- screaming “YOU LIE”. They are scared to death that someone might expose their ignorance.

 

A case in point is an article titled Unsubstantiated Critique ; The Dark Habeen of the Logic of Heebaan by Janet Britt recently posted on wardheerNews, where she lashes out Mohamed Heebaan for commenting on article written by Abdul Ahmed III, titled: Regionalism and Alternative Forms of Governance.

 

Janet Britt, defending Mr. Ahmed III’s article writes:

“The article is one of many pieces published as an excerpt form a collaborative research work that uses a large data sets on Somali clans, ethnography, social association data and large historical data. Ahmed’s article presents in part an analysis of why the former Somalia has disintegrated; we derive a powerful clan based mechanism that leads to self segregation by the clans and shows verifiable ground truth that what use to be Somalia is no more”.

 

She continued to write:

 

“The notion that Somalia’s new quasi-states are somehow contrary to Somali nationhood is highly flawed and contrary to empirical evidence. With the exception of the period between 1960 – 1991, Somali people lived in their chosen traditional states, some of which were far more advanced then today’s Somalia”.

Janet claims that Somali clans before 1960 existed as “ independent traditional states” and some of these states where even more advanced than today’s Somalia.

Really, Janet? Name one “state”.

 

She even has the audacity to ask Mr. Heebaan to present supporting evidence for argument, while vehemently playing down the value of his own experiences, knowledge and understanding he has of his own culture ---claiming that citizenship does not matter. I do not know Mr. Heebaan, but I do not think he ever mentioned citizenship as the sole weapon he used to discredit the author.

 

She continued to write:

"While a fair and intellectually sound critique is acceptable, I believe that the citizenship or ethnicity of the author is immaterial to the argument of what has transpired in what we purposefully for semantic reasons call “the former Somalia”.

 

Finally, we encourage Mr M. Heebaan and others to share whatever technical and empirical data he may to present solid counter-arguments to our work (if any at all). In the absence of such rigorous information we would invite him to get familiar with our work on Somalia and Somali peninsula in order to abort any undue , uninformed sophomoric attacks on individuals authors and the integrity of their work.

 

My question to MS. Britt is: who are you?

 

Here you are asking Mr. Heebaan to present facts and references for disagreeing with Mr. Ahmed III’s article, which now clearly turned out to be yours. Why else defend someone else’s article so vigorously with such a passion, unless, of course you are the author. It also struck me that even your article, this thing you called a research paper, did not bother mentioning or presenting citations or references, as required of all research work. Is this what you called a research? What population did you sample? What was the size of your study population? Where did you find them? Whom did you interview? Any Somali?

 

If Mr. Heebaan and other concerned Somalis have any ulterior motive, it is because they want a strong Somali nation with respected sovereignty, where all Somalis live and co-exist peacefully with each and with the rest of the world. We will take it any form we get it, federal or centralized, because we deserve to be a nation. Not the failed clan enclaves you are prescribing for us. If you care to know about the Somalis, maybe you should read little more about us before you attempt to discredit our own experiences. Until the collapse of the State in 1991, Somalia used to be the envy of African countries below the Sahara. In those days, the world rightly saw Somalia as a unique country whose people, unlike anywhere else in the continent, are homogenous, having one common language, culture, religion and shared aspirations. This is how they always existed before they were divided by colonial powers---Not as independent “states” as you wrongly assumed.

 

Maybe you should try to learn from those who disagree with your opinion, like Mr. Heebaan. Chances are they are right. Doing research helps you learn more about the subject matter. And the more you know about a subject, the more you realize how much you do not know about a lot of things. And you become humble because of it.

 

I have checked Ahmed III’s article, and like Mr. Heebaan, I failed to see what his argument-or what called is all about.

 

He writes:

“Moreover, the quasi-independent regional polities such as Somaliland and Puntland provide “alternative mechanisms” as well as “socially acceptable policy prescription” to Somalia’s problem. They also represent examples of a distinctly successful normative policy approaches available to those engaged in helping Somalia end its long civil conflict."

 

Mr. Ahmed III continues to write:

"The fact is however that the pre-conceived notion of fairness is one that is exogenously imposed or at least is perceived as imposed solutions (not endogenously derived as in case of Puntland). The perception of imposed rule (whether fair or not) affects the expectations as well as the behavior of Somali clans. Why would Somaliland or Puntland would want exchange whatever relative peace and prosperity for a future possible prosperous Somali nation state.”

 

Not withstanding the fact that the content of the article had little or nothing to do with the title, I personally found it difficult to understand what Mr. Ahmed III was offering as solution. His prescription is basically asking the International Community to leave Somalis exist as clans—something he wrongly characterizes as pre-colonial arrangements that do not constitute “fairness”. Meaning: Somalis never practiced fairness and do not deserve to prosper as a nation. In his opinion, so long there is a semblances of peace in these regions, Somaliland and Punt land do not need to be part of future prosperous Somali Nation State? He is even against the idea of governance and power sharing. He failed to recognize that Somaliland and Puntland are constantly in war with each other and have their respective militia facing each other on daily basis in Sool and Sanaag. Somaliland itself is in turmoil these days in some parts of the region, where land disputes between clans have resulted violence and unnecessary deaths, and may even escalate into more clan war.

 

Like many concerned Somalis, Mr. Heebaan has rightfully commented on the weaknesses of the Author’s views and rejected the notion that the International Community should not attempt to restore some form of law and order in these troubled areas in the south. Contrary to Mr. Ahmed’s assumption, all that the International Community is trying to accomplish in the South, at this point, is to find a lasting peaceful coexistence between these fighting groups in Mogadishu and its surroundings. There is no discussion on whether to re-unite all Somali clans is going on, let alone how. When and if the Somalis ever come together to discuss the Somali State, which is more likely to happen faster than Mr. Ahmed’s group would wish to see, then they Somalis will decide what is best for them. Most Somalis are willing to accept a federal system that mandates the distribution of legislative authority between a central government having jurisdiction over national issues and provincial governments having jurisdiction over regional issues. If that is what Mr. Ahmed is proposing, it was not clearly stated in his article.

 

My hope is that, like all other societies, the Somali people will one day combine in a joint effort to realize what they all need, a viable nation. And whatever form of government they agree on will have its own system of ends and its own means to exist.

 

Nevertheless, I have no problem with his views. What I have problem with is the way Janet Britt tried to discredit Mr. Heebaan’s view. We have had enough foreign architects who have either contributed to the Somali calamity in the last 20 years, or are engineering the dismemberment of the Somali people today. And if you see some of us extremely suspicious of foreigners promoting the status quo and actively engaged in the destruction of the Somali state, I think we have a very good reason to be on the alert.

 

Many Somalis rather see their nation dig itself from this humiliating state. There are those who have their sleeves rolled back and have their hands in the dirty, trying to resuscitate their country, whether building hospitals, roads homes, schools or digging wells. And we welcome anyone who is willing to help our people. But I wonder if the Janet Britt of the world has contributed a penny to help our people. I suspect not!!

 

Ali Bahar Ph D

Email: aib_1@yahoo.com

[Gheelle.T]

Che, what is your take on these arguments? Your 2 cents1.

 

I found Heebaal and Bahar's responses as emotionally charged and personal attack on other authors they want to rebut.

[Che -Guevara]

Well the effort by Bahar and Habeen was emotionally ridden, more of knee jerk reaction, but they do raise important questions about those who profess to be "Somali expert".

 

Without questioning their motives, I think it's important to know just how these researchers or scholars conduct their studies. How rigorious was it, what methodology did they use, how they gather the data, and the least asked question, where they did recieve their funding?

 

In fairness, to Bahar and Habeen, Mr Abdul's article sounds like an opinion, rather than educated guess deduced from a rigorious research.

 

An important fact to point out is that the Somali issues have become a niche for some scholars, researchers, International organizations, and centers from particular nations. On the global arena, non-Somalis have become the vioce of the Somali people. You really can't fault them for that since Somalis chose not participate and not take ownership of the debate.

 

 

Cynical discussions came to mind here

 

 

 

Serenity,

 

Whose fault is that? Somali(s) hardly attend these events nor partake in them and when they do as you have noted embarrass you. Unless Somali’s graduate from the arm-chair politicians that they are/move out of the SOL politics section into the mainstream media we will continue to see talks about Somali dominated by non-somalis and events attended by non-Somalis. So again I ask whose fault is that.

 

p.s

I don’t know if you managed to see the Somalia eye (editor) I think on Aljazeera news being asked about Somali boys joining Al-shabab. God help us, not only was he unable to formulate a valid/understandable response but he inserted init, nameen etc with every other words. So confusing that the news guy decided to cut him off and rightly so if you ask me.

web page

[Gheelle.T]

Even if the author's article sounds an opinion, shouldn't one find the weaknesses of his piece rather ranting about his nationality and what not. Besides, who says non-Somalis cannot be expert on our affairs or can't even comment it.

 

By the way, Abdul Ahmed III is a Somali..

[Gheelle.T]

D/P

[Che -Guevara]

^I think we agreed injecting their emotions in the mix didn't win them any points or make their arguments (if they forwarded one) any more credible.

 

Non-Somalis can study and be experts on Somali issues, but we can question or refute their research, conclusions, and even on occasion their intentions (remember there's no such thing as neutral part).

 

In fairness to foriegn researchers, we really can't complain what they write and present to the world or governmental/interna tional policy makers when I stated above don't partake in the debate and make coherent arguments.

[Gheelle.T]

Somalis in the U.S do partake in debates of our current affairs and most part do quite well..no?

[Che -Guevara]

^If they do, it's not making it to the hallways of any power center.

[xiinfaniin]

^^Yes Gheelle they do and do quite well. They have their own media outlets. Somalis in Academia publish lengthy research papers. Advocacy groups exist and actively lobby in different power centers.

 

But all that is pure nonsense when most Somalis, educated ones included, do not understand the nature of the Somali conflict. Some fight and die to liberate a poor country destroyed by the long civil war. Some see the civil war a religious war and cast the conflict in gaal vs muslim. So there is no synergy in their effort as they hold diverging views on the very conflict that is derailing their country. Any activism from Somalis abroad is therefore bound to be ineffective as it’s a reflection of the events of back home.

[Che -Guevara]

Re-examinig the critical premises of Ahmed III’s article without prejudice.

By Abdiwahab A. Musse

Sept. 29 , 2009

 

Without appealing to prejudice let’s critically examine Ahmed III’s article to understand some of the reactions it has generated and more importantly the fundamental misconceptions many self-declared “scholars” and policy-advisors often make vis-à-vis Somalia. In his opening paragraph, the author aptly states:

 

“It is often counter intuitive and very difficult for many scholars, policy makers, journalist and even politicians to explain or make sense of the collapse of the former Somalia. Many others fail to explain the prolonged socio-political conflict in the most homogenous nations in the African continent”.

 

Notwithstanding the author’s use (semantics or otherwise) of the phrase “former Somalia”, here Ahmed underscores a fundamental problem that plagues the logical synthesis and the senses of some individuals, a problem that he wishes to address. To this end, Ahmed operationally defines Somalis/Somalia as “a complex dynamic organism of a system of self organizing assorted groupings.” Furthermore, he identifies the Somali problem as “a problem of complexity that involves ‘competition and coordination’ by the groups, which could result in order and/or disorder”. Therefore, prior to digesting in Ahmed’s solutions for Somalia, pertinent primary questions are:

 

Is Ahmed’s operational definition of Somalia and Somalis correct and supported by empirical/historical evidences or is the author making the same misconceptions/misun derstanding that he is attempting to address?

Is the Somali problem indentified by the author real or perceived one.

 

With regards to question 1, Ahmed presented no empirical/historical evidences to suggest that Somalia/Somalis are “dynamic organism of a system of self organizing assorted groups”. The only evidences Ahmed sites are the existence of Somali clans and the post-conflict establishment of clan-based pseudo-states (Somaliland and Puntland). Consequently, Ahmed makes the assumption [and it’s one that is often made by Somalis and non-Somalis alike] because the building blocks of Somali society’s rudimentary architecture consist of identifiable clans/tribes; Somalis must be politically assorted groups with competing interests and ideals. This is a blatant manifestation of intellectual dishonest, if not outright logical laziness, and naïve understanding of the customs of the Somali society when it comes to tribes or clans. For instance, in this assumption, Ahmed and other confused so-called scholars ignore the undeniable facts:

 

 

Somali tribes/clans, though identifiable in name, are not monolithic political entities that can have “competing interests” – whatever that may be.

 

Somali tribes are too interwoven by shared blood, culture, religion, and continuous geographical locals to satisfy the basic parameters of politically distinct groupings.

That throughout history, Somali tribes existed inter- and intra-dependently with rudimentary governing systems (Xeer) to safeguard the inter- and intra-tribe peaceful and brotherhood co-existence.

That each tribe is divided into mesmerizing subclans and sub-subclans that can be, and have been, politically exploited to present an imaginative “competing interests”.

 

The above described facts and more, all of which are substantiated by historical evidences and present-day realities Ahmed et al. can have access to, all support that the guiding operational definition of Ahmed’s thesis is unfounded, thus making the identified problem baseless as well.

 

Ahmed’s description of Somalis as being naturally competing groups of conflicting interests, without any definition of the said interests, falls short of critical examination of the historical coexistence of Somalis. Yes, the Somali people have natural tendencies of high affinity for clan identities that can be and have been exploited for sectarian purposes from time-to-time. Such synthetic and sectarian exploitation of this clan affinity, however, is in contrast to the ubiquitous inter- and intra-tribe brotherhood and bonds that have allowed them to coexist as Somalis and “bury-the-hatches” after brief conflicts for centuries. Take for example; it is the Somali customs that after an inter- or intra-tribe conflict to mandate the exchange of daughters-for-marria ge between the rivals. The essence of this exchange is to establish lasting blood-bonds between the rivals so as to prevent future skirmishes or make it easier for its negotiations.

 

Such is the Tol-&-Tolnimo of the Somali people, which makes them, as the author admits, one of the most homogenous societies on this planet. There never were/are natural competing political interests within Somali tribes and this fact can be substantiated by history and any objective present-day research of the Somali society. Coexistence in peace and coordination for social welfares has been the penultimate guiding principles of this society for centuries. In this regard, the designation of clans as political groupings is a concept that is foreign to Somalis. It is a divide-and-conquer method used by the European colonizers and subsequently inherited by selfish pseudo-Somali leaders whose interests, as the Europeans, was and continues to be nothing more than the attainment of power. It is also a tragic consequences of the Somali people’s inability, out of indifferences, to see the greater common bonds and interests that unity them. It is a disservice to the sacrifices of those who lost their lives for the freedom and self-determination Somalis have recklessly squandered.

 

As such, Ahmed’s stated “problem of Somalia” rather than offering a real opportunity for a lasting solution merely reflects on the surface of the current manmade socio-political climates of the country. Moreover, Ahmed’s references to the stability achieved by Somaliland and Puntland through “clan-based” process and arrangements is, in this context, quite misplaced as a viable solution for future prosperous and unified Somalia. The genuine motives behind the exercises taken by the Somali people of the Northwest and Northeast are consistent with the longstanding traditions/customs of the Somali people and in itself is not an evidence for the natural existence of political groupings with “competing interests”.

 

To be fair to Ahmed’s re-capitulations of the bottom-up approach for the Somali conflict, a concept that is not original to Ahmed, clan or local community approach based on the longstanding traditions of the Somali people (Tol-&-Tolnimo) can provide tangible means of reconciliation in Somalia, but clan-based political system (clanism) will never work for Somalia. Clanism [called it what you may, federalism or de-centralization}, by its sectarian nature undermines the institutions of a nation and for Somalia it is the genesis of its collapse. So I challenge Ahmed III et al., how a society homogenous as Somalis and susceptible to the follies of sectarianisms can be, in good faith, prescribed to the very genesis of its demise? This is a madness preposition for all intense and purposes and an intellectual indolence.

 

To the Somalis, a kneejerk reactions and logic fallacies are not going to change the current affairs of Somalia. The present Somalia is a pain and a shame we either draw a strength/courage to affect a real change in our attitudes towards statehood or all must learn to live with. In reality, the choices we face are simple. We either stand up, as Somalis and as one, for the real common interests and needs of our collective or choose, out of ignorance and/or indifference, to the imaginative interests of clanism. Such are the stark two choices that will, respectively, surely determine whether rise up in dignity from our self-inflicted wounds or fall in shame. It is time for a vision and a time to put forward concrete plan(s) that can lead us out of this mayhem. The time for self-indulging and deafening analyses has long been gone. You know what the real issue(s) is/are and need not to be reminded by any foreigners. You know what we let to be lost and what we direly need. I challenge you and I for real solution(s), debate(s) and discussion(s). I challenge you and I to not sit helplessly on the sidelines waiting to reject that which we find offensive based on whatever prisms we are wearing. I challenge you and I to be Somali first and stand up to be counted. WE owe this to our children, our people, and our nation. Have we not suffered the same and remain destitute the same despite our tribe? Have not the looting and rape of Mandeeq affected us the same? Then what interest do we hold so dear that is not the interest of our fellow Somali? Would it satisfy us for our fellow clansman/woman to hold the helm of the nation? If so, have you seen Garbaharey or Cabudwaaq? It is time to be real.

 

Somalia is not dead contrary to the designation (semantic or otherwise) of some as a “former Somalia”. Somalia is alive, but not well. It has internationally recognized territorial boundaries that, due to its self-inflicted wounds, can no longer be protected. Its people though disjointed due to reckless civil conflict, are alive but weaken. So thanks-but-no-thanks the Republic is and will be until its people say or do otherwise. The question is where are thou, the people?

 

 

Abdiwahab A. Musse, PhD (amusse@mednet.ucla. edu). A Fellow of the Canadian Institute of Health Research and a Postdoctoral Researcher at David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA).

[kyz]

kan danbe waa warreeqaan anaa garanaya