Falling into the Myth Buster’s Trap

In his absorbing book, “The Young Mandela”, David James Smith set out to “rescue Mandela from the dry pages of history” and to present him as a mere human being - with foibles, ugly warts, flaws and blemishes like all mortals, and not as a saint. In the end, he discovered Mandela the wife-beater, the womanizer, the absentee and authoritative father with no capacity for affection to his progeny. The story of the alienated Thembi, the older son of Mandela, who did not care to visit his father in prison out of resentment, and the sad demise of the alcoholic Makgatho, the younger son, who was ‘deformed’ by his father’s ‘unrelenting scrutiny’ embody the audacious  narratives of David Smith’s Book. Mandela’s quixotic carnal escapades with women comrades and the heartbreaks of jilted wives sit at the nucleus of the early life of the attractive and athletic South African revolutionary, who enjoys a near-papal moral infallibility at old age. 

Despite all the valiant intent and solid investigation, Smith could not evade the myth buster’s trap, and hence saying “some people cannot hear a word against Mandela”, he itemized “all the words against Mandela” that he could possibly collect and sketched the picture of the Mandela he sought to see. In so doing, he left out vital details about the early life of Mandela, details that would not have subdued the potency of his inferences, but that would have helped the reader get a much broader understanding of the young Mandela.

This write-up is not about Mandela. It is not about David Smith. It is about a political wayfarer of lesser distinction, with migratory political principles. It is about our own Ilyaas Barre Shiil, former Kenyan Member of Parliament (MP), a sort of clownish political chancer, said to be swept by the information of the last generous hosts who accord him a red-carpet and confetti welcome.

The relevance of the prelude about Smith’s book is to shed light on the limits of ‘myth-busting’ missions, such as the one this man has engaged in, in his latest joyride to Jigjiga and Godey. Ultimately, missions launched with predetermined outcomes in mind defile a cardinal rule of fact-finding assignments, which is the obligation of lessening bias. But that doesn’t mean, all that biased missions come up with, is a load of nonsense that should be wholly dismissed.  Nor does it mean factual statements by flawed characters should not be acknowledged and discussed.

In this leaky age of internet, satellite dishes and mobile phones, rival ideas and statements cannot be defeated by harassing or banning them. Contending narratives should be countered with compelling counter-narratives. That way, the theories of rambling political freebooters who push hard balls with tender palms can be neutralized.

The Verdict of an Evolving Man

In the first week of February 2012, Mr. Ilyaas spoke to the Somali Service of the BBC about what he saw in his visit to the Somali Region. And as if to cement the stubborn typecast that this Somali politician from Kenya does not own any viewpoints but merely amplifies what his hosts tell him, he approached the weighty matters in Somali region of Ethiopia, again, with an open mouth and a closed mind. In the past, he praised whoever he shared dinner with. He praised Somaliland’s secession bid in November 2010 when he was hosted in Hargeisa. He waxed lyrics about Puntland in Garowe in December 2011 when he effusively cherished the ‘welcome he received’ there. He shrieked ‘Galmudug ha noolaato’ when he was invited to a meeting of Galmudug supporters in November 2011.

Not that anything is wrong about a politician playing to the gallery; even the ones who have no say in his political destiny.  Not that there is any hurt I feel because Ilyas embraces very different and at times contradicting principles all at once. But in all the occasions where he danced to the tunes of his hosts, there was a sight profoundly revealing. The man cut a piteous character, one easily titillated by the fawning clap and ululation of the crowd, and mindlessly dishing out tailor-made, fit-for-the occasion homilies and slogans, to ingratiate himself with the hosts. That it didn’t bother him if the slogans contradict each other, or that the principles of SYL which he lauded in one meeting cannot share a room with the aspirations of SNM, which he also decorated in another, is not my problem. Yes, I hate pretenders and appeasers. But this is not about my ethical fastidiousness.

The bottom-line is that anyone who saw Ilyas’s podium simulations in other regions he visited would understand that his latest artifice about the Somali Region of Ethiopia, which is where he is hosted last, is utterly banal. The measure of prosperity and peace in the areas he visits is the welcome and banquets he receives in these areas. If he eats copiously, all must be eating bountifully. If he sleeps in peace, all must be relishing a tranquilizing sleep.

The portrait of the man that these indicting precedents paint is a man whose assessments of any situation must be taken not with a pinch of salt, but with a shovel of manure. And, indeed, it is very understandable why in the corridors of Somali politics, both his foes and friends, know Ilyas for his fast-paced evolution, in tours and ideationally.

Separating Truths from Falsehoods

To speak about Ilyas’s intrinsic proclivity of saying what his hosts like, is not to discredit all that he said about the region. The man spoke some truths, some half-truths and some outright falsehoods and we should be fair enough to acknowledge where he is right, because we condemn where he is wrong. He is right that the region is better developed than NFD, a confession that is an indictment of his and others’ tenure as MPs in Kenya. If NFD is less developed than the derelict Somali Region, there is a lot of work he needs to do at home than to kiss the smelly political armpits of despots and puppets elsewhere. Such insight should instill in him a sense of regretful irritation about the backwardness of his own backyard, and he should be asking for more rights there, instead of denouncing those who are asking for their rights in the Somali Region of Ethiopia.

He is also right about roads built; there is a nice airport in Jigjiga, and the Somali language is the working language in government offices and schools. To say there is no development in the region is to engage in offensive denialism. But, to say there is a political freedom in the Somali region and there is no oppression is to dabble with treasonous refutation.

Ilyas lied about many things. He says people are happy with the political system; he says all the talk of oppression in the region is false. He did not say how and from whom he got his facts, although he implied it was from the Regional President. Such sweeping generalizations about how people are happy in the region, how the administration enjoys political autonomy, how the charges of torture and killing in the region are all false, can only come from someone with cerebral paucity of disturbing proportions or someone who has never come across the basics of research, the language of hypothesis testing, and of statistical testing.

Even if the gossips that the MP has a history of seeing only what the bare eyes can see and does not have the intellectual thoroughness to analyze scenes that are out-of-sight is true, that cannot shield him from criticism that he should at least have travelled to the jails in Jigjiga town to get the unofficial stories. Or at the minimum, he could have asked some people in the region, outside the circles of power, if they elect their representatives!

In his defense, the MP may have gone to the region to bust the myth that all is doom and gloom, and with the duty of finding out all that is good and dandy. By doing that, he fall into the enticing trap all myth-buster’s fall into. As said in the opening lines, it is a trap in which much more knowledgeable and accomplished writers and analysts have fallen into before, including David Smith; and the MP’s shortcoming can be excused in this regard.  He went to the region to get all the bright and upright, not to see everything. And of course, the hosts drafted his talking points. Let us leave this small matter here and go to the bigger picture.

Vivifying the Language of Liberation

There is a growing tendency, more recently, to grant a license of objectivity to those who bring unqualified good news from the Somali region, and to paint those who bemoan the prevailing political oppression in the region as malcontents and misinformed fans of mayhem and tragedy.  It is also true that there has been a long tradition of labeling those who bring good news, which is a rarity but still there, from the region as agents of colonizers. The sharp rebuke those who talk about the bad things in the region receive and the servile tributes those who paint a rosy picture of things in the region get is not cinematic of the polarization of thought of the people from the region. It is much more than that. It is a manifestation of a crippling inability to frame the dilemmas the Somali people in the region face and to fully acknowledge the singularity of the narratives the competing political forces in the region want to market.

The Ethiopian Government and its puppet regional administration magnify the development the region is making, and the criticality of peace to expedite this ongoing development. ONLF highlights the absence of justice and freedom in the region and the indispensability of armed struggle to attain self-determination. In truth, whether peace comes before justice or development comes before freedom is a long-lasting dilemma that faced and continues to face liberation struggles. The battle over which ideal comes first and which follows determines who wins this grueling confrontation between the oppressed and the oppressor. In Palestine, the terminology of the occupier is peace and development; that of the occupied people is justice and resistance. The occupier prefers the status quo; the occupied wants a radical reorganization of the status-quo.

In Somali Region, the growing ascendency of the language of ‘peace’ and ‘development’ over that of ‘justice’ and ‘freedom’ is not a countenance of the oppressed people’s ordering of preference. It is a clear illustration of the waning of the liberation language and the need to vivify it.  It is a sign that the ONLF is losing the battle of language and ideas in this conflict. It is the result of people succumbing to the debilitating conclusion that they cannot win freedom and justice, and therefore they must take what the oppressor gives. The euphoria surrounding the anticipated Ethiopia-ONLF peace talks lends credence to the foregoing assertion. This is a lively reminder to the ONLF that their struggle needs a fundamental strategic overhaul. The language of the oppressor must not be allowed to assume hegemonic eminence. The language of ‘development’ must not be harassed, nor should development initiatives in the region be seen as an impediment to the liberation struggle.

An educated and economically better-off population is likely to demand its civil and political rights more vigorously than an ignorant and impoverished populace.  The economic development of Oromia region did not dampen the liberation aspirations of the Oromo people. More roads, bridges, and colleges in the Somali region will not undermine the desire for political freedom and justice. If at all, the evidence is those who are serving the oppressor are the less educated and more economically disadvantaged sections of our people. The ONLF must not engage in pointless exercise of denying some truths about development in the hope of registering the absence of rights in the region.

The Need for Clear Messaging

There is no obligatory trade-off between development and freedom. Both are necessary and the absence of one negates the existence of the other. The presence of one does not mean anything, nor can it automatically lead to the emergence of the other. The ONLF should therefore not waste time denying the small infrastructural developments and economic growth that are taking place in the region. It should concede where this is the truth but must stress that economic development is not all that the people of the region need. A clear messaging on this is required, lest some see news of new schools in the region as a political goal scored against ONLF.

This kind of clear messages will expose out and out charlatans like Ilyaas Barre, who hide behind development language to turn a blind-eye to the oppression, imprisonment and killing of the people of the region.  More importantly, it will steadfastly locate the language of freedom and justice at the center of the political discourse in the region.

In a nutshell, the struggle is not about the absence of development alone, it is about the absence of freedom and justice. While it is guaranteed freedom and justice leads to development, it is not the case that development leads to freedom and justice everywhere. Empirical evidence in Africa shows that absence of justice and freedom fuels wars, which inhibit social and economic progress. There are cases where development led to freedom and justice, but this happened only where the agents of such development had an interest in cultivating these values.

The development rationale of current Ethiopian regime is based on a philosophy of maintaining political hegemony, not on a desire of building a democratic and free society. Freedom and justice cannot, therefore, be achieved through miasmic development schemes and self-serving political concessions as far as the Somali Region is concerned.

Fully aware of the existential threat to their dream of getting back their land, Palestinians put justice and freedom before development and peace. Mindful of the dangers Palestinian freedom can bring on the Jewish State, Israelis continue to set peace as the main agenda in the Middle East. Both Israeli’s and Palestinians want peace. They just have different interpretations of it. For Israel, peace is about retaining ill-gotten land and fortune. For the occupied Palestinians, peace, as things stand, means forfeiting their property and their aspirations of a free homeland. They cannot put peace before justice, nor can they afford to prioritize development over freedom. If they do so, they will lose both. We, in Somaligalbeed, are in the same boat and situation!

Muktar M. Omer
WardheerNews Contributor
E-Mail:muktaromer@ymail.com

____

__________________________________________________________

We welcome the submission of all articles for possible publication on WardheerNews.com
WardheerNews will only consider articles sent exclusively. Please email your article today Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WardheerNews.

WardheerNew’s tolerance platform is engaging with diversity of opinion, political ideology and self-expression. Tolerance is a necessary ingredient for creativity and civility.Tolerance fuels tenacity and audacity.

WardheerNews waxay tixgelin gaara siinaysaa maqaaladaha sida gaarka ah loogu soo diro ee aan lagu daabicin goobo kale. Maqaalkani wuxuu ka turjumayaa aragtida Qoraaga loomana fasiran karo tan WardheerNews.

Copyright © 2012 WardheerNews.com