Kismayo Update

[xiinfaniin]

^^NORTH has greatly refined his argument ---he now appreciates the fact that it may be the government that could be in the wrong here

[Illyria]

Aaah, that would explain.

So he learnt one or two things in the process. Still a commendable trait to have the sensibility to evolve and be on the right side of history instead of stubbornly sticking to your guns, even when found in the wrong.

[N.O.R.F]

xiinfaniin;934015 wrote:

^^NORTH has greatly refined his argument ---he now appreciates the fact that it

may be

the government that could be in the wrong here

Probably due to the government doing the same as the Jubbaland initiators in being unconstitutional in their decrees and naming of temporary admins. That happened AFTER my thread on what the constitutional says about federal state building. With all this jumping around and endless threads I can understand why you're not keeping up

 

I suggest you simply update this thread from now on.

[N.O.R.F]

Illyria;934001 wrote:

Actually I was extending a compliment to your ability to capture in those 3 lines the crux of the issue. Something others sidestepped or ignored.

I see. Apologies.

 

It is being ignored because its not in their interest to discuss it.

[Illyria]

More to the point, the debate about the Juba initiave is about the type of federalism Somalia will have: central favoured by the current gov't and its allies vs decentralised embraced by federal member states. The dialogue should have been of a political nature - shape, process and procedure - instead of a constitutional, 'cos the thorny issues are around the political configuraiton of the federal member states, their relationship with the federal gov't, and the influence the federal gov't has over and with the FM states. Unfortunatley it has taken a detour 'cos the federal leaders are amatuers new to the game whereas those heading the Juba initiative (not the visible actors but those pulling the strings from behind the curtain) are heavy weights with much better comprehension of the Somali politics.

[xiinfaniin]

Unfortunatley it has taken a detour 'cos the federal leaders are amatuers new to the game whereas those heading the Juba initiative (not the visible actors but those pulling the strings from behind the curtain) are heavy weights with much better comprehension of the Somali politics.

 

And it is the caliber of the men orchestrating the initiative and the depth of the organizational framework they put together that have been vastly underestimated by the current federal leaders. At the end, it was quite peculiar that the opponents of Jubbaland initiative were found inadequately equipped with any valid constitutional arguments, or even able to table an alternative (plausible) political route to the one under way. Empty slogans, and subtle impeachment of the integrity of the leaders of the initiative was all they could come up with.

[Illyria]

This was the unfortunate part.

opponents of Jubbaland initiative were found inadequately equipped with any valid constitutional arguments, or even able to table an alternative (plausible) political route to the one under way. Empty slogans, and subtle impeachment of the integrity of the leaders of the initiative was all they could come up with.

[N.O.R.F]

Illyria;934444 wrote:

More to the point, the debate about the Juba initiave is about the type of federalism Somalia will have: central favoured by the current gov't and its allies vs decentralised embraced by federal member states. The dialogue should have been of a political nature - shape, process and procedure - instead of a constitutional, 'cos the thorny issues are around the political configuraiton of the federal member states, their relationship with the federal gov't, and the influence the federal gov't has over and with the FM states. Unfortunatley it has taken a detour 'cos the federal leaders are amatuers new to the game whereas those heading the Juba initiative (not the visible actors but those pulling the strings from behind the curtain) are heavy weights with much better comprehension of the Somali politics.

Agreed for the most part but the constitution is the legal basis for the creation of the federal states and should but the first point of reference to avoid discepancies between it and the federal state building proceess. This being the first attempt at the creation of a federal state problems and grey areas were innevitable (but solvable). What has transpired from both sides is a level of suspicion and mistrust that is now derailing the whole thing.

[Illyria]

NORF,

You are quite right, and here is where I'd like you to further develop that point.

Think of the constitution as a legal framework (or an architectural blueprint for a house) of agreed principles by all parties providing the foundation upon which to build nation state institutions, which further provides guidelines in its interpretation in the 'how' the government should operate (RR), and 'what' the government can or cannot do, but not an all encompassing or addressing all possible issues or concerns.

 

That being the case, and its being a legal document, it is open to interpretations where each side, or generation, would attempt to fit its political arguments within its statutes and along its articles and sub sections, whether expressed or implied. And here is where politics comes into play - how its provisions are being construed.

 

Now, legal scholars can and must debate those provisions making the necessary amendments as and when discrepancies arise, but the average person should not waste time trying to argue in favour or against legal matters beyond one's grasp. Discuss the political implications of the law, yes of course, but limit discussion points to what is known, and can be understood. Otherwise, it becomes pointless exercise.

 

Digression:

The Magna Carta, arguably the source of modern constitutions, was derived from the Bible, or to be more accurate from the Old Testament, and is architectured around principles found in organised religions including Islam where the skeleton is provided with the rest left for humans to fill in, as seen fit and necessary. The principal difference being constitutions, which are found to contain errs, are subject to amendments whereas religion, Islam in our case, is not.

 

To be continued ...

[N.O.R.F]

One doesn't need a law degree to scrutinise the constitution and see where there may be areas of contention saxib. A discussion on the articles and their implications should be encouraged. I haven't seen anyone arguing for or against based on the constitution. What has become apparent is that the rushed constitution that many didn't want to be reviewed has brought difficulties to initiative they support today. I'm not really interested in the political side of it as its the same old tribal stuff.

[Carafaat]

What I find most disturbing is that this issue is only debated by a very small group of elites rather then having the public debate that is needed on such an important issue. Running ahead of the pack could lead to a backlash.

[Illyria]

Where are the Jubaland enthusiasts? any updates on the presidential election?

[xiinfaniin]

The constitution has been adopted. The president will be elected by the delegates , and not by parliaments.

 

Candidates for Jubbaland state leadership are being accepted. It is a slow process in practice as it should be, but it is expected to end mid next week.

[Illyria]

Thanks for the update. Good stuff.

[Illyria]

NORF,

If so, you would have known that if provisions of an article are not implemented, the rest of the article becomes untenable, and therefore in a pending status. And yes to discussions, but by people who understand its inner workings, and can engage in intelligable dialogue.

 

N.O.R.F;934890 wrote:

One doesn't need a law degree to scrutinise the constitution and see where there may be areas of contention saxib. A discussion on the articles and their implications should be encouraged.