 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|||||
|
||||||
Abdul Ahmed III has offered a scholarly analysis on Somalia. His arguments, based on Somali past and present conducts, seem almost impregnable but for certain one-sided conclusions he derives from them, without ever exploring other explanations which could offer different endings. How and why the Somali State was collapsed? His answer:…, 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. In other words, clan differences and their competing socio-political system led to the collapse. This is true, for many clans of Somalia, from the south to the north and in between, joined the fight against the Somali government of Siyad Barre. While this is an accurate portrayal on how the Somali state was buckled, his conclusion for why, as a natural clan and regional Endeavour to segregate themselves into clan/regional polities, is not supported by facts. To support this erroneous conclusion, he wrote the following:
Once again, it is absolutely true that Somalis segregate themselves into clan/subclan clusters within regions, towns or cities. For example, neighborhoods of Hargeisa (capital of Somaliland) are each inhabited by a subclan of the dominant Isaq clan there. This is a normal Somali disposition. This type of self segregation of Somalis, under peaceful circumstances, is usually benign, and it is not designed to wall Somalis off from each other. Yet, it speaks to old habits of societal self-organization to perhaps allay fears and ensure safety in numbers on blood-ties and familiarity. Much-like the German and China towns or little Italy in major U.S. cities, this is human nature. As for the killings of civilians in 1991 in Mogadishu, there could be other explanations for it. It could have been purely an act of revenge (over the misdeeds of the ousted government) on clans associated with the regime. All the same, if that butchering was done for the interest of the perpetrating clan, it did not benefit the cause, for the same clan would also butcher itself in Mogadishu along subclan differences. Remember M.F. Aideed vs. Ali Mahdi chapter! Such killings Abdul Ahmed spoke of were also carried out under the influence of chaotic scramble for swag. The dreadful condition dictated marauding clan gangs to kill or evict to disinherit people of their properties in Mogadishu. Nothing, including government assets, was spared from stripping or occupying for everyman-for-himself gain to the maximum. This they could do it with immunity from retaliation because the majority residents (stakeholders) of Mogadishu, their victims, were far-removed from their clans throughout all regions of Somalia and beyond. Mogadishu, as the capital of the Somali nation, was a magnet for who is who in Somali society everywhere in the Horn of Africa. The Mogadishu-based clan militias’ raids, following the killings mentioned, into the deep south of Somalia could have also been initially carried out to fend off any attempt of the ousted regime and the identified with clans to comeback to power. This might not have been as clear cut clan-cleansing from Mogadishu and throughout the south, as it was Abdul Ahmed’s only explanation. The means the northern regions used, as it was never their intended goal (to begin with) to collapse the Somali Nation-State, cannot explain their end-success in traditional polities. Their aim was to Collapse the regime, not the whole nation-state. If the latter was their intention to bring about regional polities, this would have shown in their initial organizing principles or manifesto against the regime they helped to undo. If I remember correctly, SNM (current Somaliland’s founding muscle and motto) stood for Somali National Movement. Notice the absence of anything called Somaliland in that. Nor was this “Puntland” name in the Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF) slogans. Therefore, it was the unplanned collapse of the state itself which produced the result of clan regional polities in the north. Why these northern regions successful and the whole south in disarray? Abdul Ahmed, again, has a very convenient answer consistent to his “irreversibility” theory to status quo ante, of the Somali Nation-State. He explains: 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. On this, he completely ignores other existing factors which could easy explain the difference in outcomes. At the onset, both the south and the north of Somalia equally participated in the political and paramilitary process to overthrow the regime. As the regime collapsed, both Puntland and Somaliland naturally relapsed into old Somali clan polities. This is not to discount at all great efforts made by both to make use of traditional tools, but circumstances were such that any further conflict (and the reasons for it) uncontainable by tradition would not present itself there. There was no power to fight over, as in the never ceasing to this day in the south. Hargeisa, Garowe or Bosasso were not tailor made for the likes of violent competition between and within many clans in the south over the nation’s seat of power. Diverging outcomes for the north and the south of Somalia could only be owing to unequalled evolutionary process if there was and is a one-single prevailing circumstance on both after the government collapsed. The collapse of the regime by itself was not it. Rather, it was the effect of the regime collapse which affected two different sets of conditions, which account for the difference in results! Why are Somalis still contending over the wreckage of Mogadishu? Abdul Ahmed makes precisely my point in the following: "It is therefore sensible for the United States, United Nations and the EU to abandon the premise of Somalia as a single monolithic entity." Warring Somalis in the south of Somalia were never lost on the fact Mogadishu holds the undivided attention of the world. Efforts and money (billions) have not been spared by the international community to reconstitute the Somali state at its emblem Mogadishu. The World has no choice but to abide by its own conventions and charters. This is why Somali regional/local metaphors are subject to international metaphors. If the world were to make exceptions from without for micro-managing the internal affairs of one country, and adopt Abdul Ahmed’s prescription, many nations will unravel as a consequence. Perhaps, the world should pressure the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) to temporarily or permanently relocate the seat of government from this ghost town Mogadishu to one of the northern peaceful cities. One could only wonder what affect that would have on the constant contention in the south. There will be tangible advantages for the TFG of breathing space to better organize itself. The violence, on the other hand, will not be far-behind, for this would likely make a New Jerusalem to fight over! One another significant difference between the south and the north of Somalia, which could easily explain the diametrically opposite outcomes, was lawlessness after the collapse of government could not have happened in Hargeisa or Garowe, as it has been in Mogadishu and the entire south. Why not? Hargeisa is a one-clan city and Garowe a one subclan town. Mogadishu, on the other hand, was the center for all Somalis, especially more so for Somalis other than the clan identified with it. Therefore, the paramilitary who took over the northern cities from the collapsed government could not have dared loot or mistreat their own clan/subclan peoples with impunity for the natural power-balance between subclans in these cities. One nation-state vs. many mini nation-states: What is best for Somalis? Abdul Ahmed concludes: The betterment of Somali people MAY not be UNIQUELY dependent on what state or how many states there should be! The argument for single state as opposed to multiple peaceful and prosperous states is a false choice because there is NO single state and there was none prior to 1960s. Perhaps Somali people would acknowledge the fact that conditions today are irreversible to their original state. The idea of a single unified central government cannot be starting point. (It is likely to fail just as it did for 15 times since 1991). Conceivably, however, there may be plausible scenarios where peaceful Somali regions/states could choose to work towards a union for all Somali inhabited territories. My only problem with his analysis above is he has not, as of now, explored (or rather not shown) the downside fraught with many mini Somali states. Of course, Abdul Ahmed seems, if I read him correctly, to bank on the viability of peaceful, functional governance outcomes in many Somali regions/states for being allowed to function in their old, natural clan-system polities. However, there could be real potential problems—some of them very obvious at the moment—with Somali regionalism or mini states outside one nation-sate. These are intra/inter-regional land disputes (as the case between Puntland and Somaliland and Gal-Mudug within Puntland) and potential conflicts over other resources. I cannot see these regions surviving these problems for them to come together in a union, which could then translate into a nation-state anew. Abdul Ahmed knows better than any one, as he so clearly written about, about competition between Somali clans over resources. For instance, would there not be a possible conflict over a discovery of petroleum in Puntland or, for that matter, in Somaliland? Such resource could spark wars within and across clans in these regions. Somali old clan polities never faced such massive thrust of fortune upon them. On this, one might be tempted to say the “Arabs” have managed it. Yes, but as nation-states with corrupt, dominant and repressive ruling Royal families (or other elites) with the backing of foreign powers! The Arab case may not easily apply to clan-led Somali regions. Just last summer, Hargeisa had witnessed the worst riots over a water drilling rig donated by United Arab Emirates (UAE). Why? Because some people in Hargeisa (of the dominant clan in Somaliland) thought Borama, where the current president of Somaliland (of minority clan) hails from was getting the rig. 3 people were killed, as police fired on them. The fact that a rig was not of onetime use was of no consequence for people deep into the philosophy of what clan is up or down on meager resources! Naturally, foreign aid will be the worst incentive for clan-led entities, as the case has been for much of the African continent. People usually would not put to good use of money they have not earned themselves. With every-clan eying that money, and their elite politicians lining up their pockets, there could only be a conflict over such resource. There is much to thank Abdul Ahmed III for, for his elucidation (better than anyone) of the promise and potential, if used constructively, of old Somali traditional polities. Somalis must, if they want to fully own their destiny, look up to their ancestral tools or systems—with some necessary tweaking here and there to fit them with modern times—for peace and security and good governance. Just as our forefathers had shown willingness to accommodate, wherever necessary, Islam to their systems (and Islam to their traditions) without completely discarding their customs and laws, We Somalis in this 21st century must adopt to modern times by and with our old ways. Our two northern regions could be working prototypes for the future of all Somalis. Certainly, Somalia is NOT a one single monolithic entity. What country or nation on Planet Earth is? My own immediate family is not a monolithic entity! I wish Abdul Ahmed had contained his analysis in defense of old Somali polities as the answer for Somalis—without positing dismemberment of little Somalia as could be a fruitful solution. Yet, he is without fault on this his conclusion for extrapolating it from Somali conducts on the ground! What guarantee, which Abdul Ahmed could point out to, many Somali mini-states out of Somalia are not a recipe for many mini-conflicts? A Somali regional clan polity, by its subclans, is just as subject to the competing, dynamic organism complexity of all Somalis collectively. Given a chance, by statehood and resources, would not a regional clan just as prone to come to blows over jockeying for advantage? The world should not be a party to such real potential disaster. Rather, the world should hold fast on Somalia unity, which should deny any group or region in Somalia any other avenue but seek common ground with their own. Let the Somalis work it out among themselves! In any case, one nation or many nations of Somalia should be up to the Somalis, as Abdul Ahmed also agrees! Abdul-Aziz Mohammed ________________ Related articles - Abdul Ahmed III’s Faulty Logic By Deka Ismail - Tigrean In Sheep’s Clothes By Mohamed Heebaan ______________________________________________________________________________ We welcome the submission of all articles for possible publication on WardheerNews.com |
