Good or Bad omen for S/Land democracy;

 Good or Bad omen for S/Land democracy; By: Prof. Abdi Ali Jama.

A once ruling party should be number two or three when in opposition. Then, how come such a party lacks resilience and not being able to regroup and recover from a defeat blow of last presidential election to sustain its existence, let alone to be second or third party in terms of popularity.  This is beyond comprehension of anyone who is not fully aware of underlying causes.  Something must be wrong in the first place. One might ask himself if Somali-land political parties are basically “one time use” platforms for attaining power.

Dissolution of Former ruling party, Udub, which is the eldest of all the parties, is wake up call for all of us.  Somali-land democracy is seriously ill, in the sense that political parties themselves are not healthy enough to survive after losing power. The main reason, in my view, is that leaders of a political party do share nothing except the aim to grab power for personal gain, let alone rank and file members who give their loyalty to political figures of different parties just for being X tribe or Y tribe.

What is worse is that the leader or presidential candidate of each party seems to be the owner and he is alone expected to finance the party operations or campaigns which is flagrant violation of international principles of political parties. The party should get its finance from subscriptions of its members; if not, we’d better name it a different name rather than a national political party. Perhaps one’s shop or firm or farm.

As an individual who is privy to the national parties, my prophecy is telling me  that other political parties might follow suit because they suffer from same ailment and if so,  something must be done to reform the whole democratic process by introducing new rules and regulation enacted by parliament that would not allow, for example,  someone or group of people to own a party by financing it themselves alone. Members must subscribe; if not, the party must cease to exist by law.

In addition to that, having seen the inauspicious upcoming local council elections, I am becoming increasingly convinced that Somali-land democracy process should be reviewed and given corrective injection in order to forestall its demise in a very early stage. I am not saying so because political parties are many; that is not the core problem. The number of political parties can be even greater.  Lack of within party democracy is actually where the shoe pinches at the present time. The new polices for regulation of political parties should say clearly that any party that allegedly fails to manifest inner party democracy would lose being a national party if convicted by the court after a certain number of its members had filed a case against it.

 In the past, the biggest mistake we did was that we shifted to democracy era all of a sudden without prior preparation. Such radical transformation should have been done after long contemplation that would prepare the country to enter into democracy age. We should have had adequate time to debate on the transition issue and plan strategically for it.

However, you can’t unring a bell as it is often said. All what we can do now is re- introducing democracy gradually. In this reform, I would suggest to revoke local council elections temporarily not permanently so as not to violate some articles of the constitution. In other words,  election of councilors would be held in abeyance until we master the other two elections--- presidency and parliament.  However, the upcoming election should be conducted as planned but just for selecting the three national parties.

For the time being, I would suggest to the president and parliament to amend electoral laws so that it would suit the aforementioned suggestion. In this situation, councillors would be nominated by political parties together in proportion to the respective votes that each of party gets from the society.

By: Prof. Abdi Ali Jama

Abdirrahman99@hotmail.com

Profabdiali.blogspot.com

Political competitiveness in Somaliland

Political competitiveness in Somaliland; by: Prof. Abdi Ali Jama.

Most of the people think that multi-party system --if deregulated-- will definitely produce many political parties or at least two, three bigger parties.  However, the result might not be like that, in the sense that a multiparty system-- though unfettered-- may end up paradoxically into one single party by domination, while all other political parties remain so trivial that they would never challenge the party that dominated the political life, let alone to win the leadership of the country. In other words, the country might be led by one single party for a long time or forever but—ironically-- out of fair and free democratic election, not as one ruling party like China that has been ruling the country in dog’s age because there is no democracy in the first place.

 South-Africa is ruled by only one party. However, ANC has been ruling South-Africa since independence by domination while China ruling party has been ruling the country Since Mao Tse Tung by law.  In China, only one party is allowed to exist legally whereas in South-Africa, you can apply for opening a party whenever you wish so. Therefore, ANC has been in power for that long time not because the law of the country monopolized the political power for ANC, but it is the only party that inevitably wins every election by landslide due to its popularity, and hence dominated the political life-- not by law-- by popularity. SNM could have been like ANC, had they been able to internalize their political dispute.

In Somaliland, political parties are limited to three in number by law.  There are now nine political party candidates, but only three of them will eventually be promoted to national political parties as stipulated in Somaliland constitution. In this regard, Somaliland political party system lies between china where only one single national party is allowed by law and South-Africa where there could be as many parties as possible.

Kulmiye, Udub and Ucid have dominated political sphere of Somaliland for the last ten years. For the next decade, the constitution of the country gives monopoly to only three political parties in which the older ones might include or might not. However, In USA or UK, for instance, two political parties alternate in ruling the country.  But unlike Somaliland, the Democratic Party and the Republican in USA are not given monopoly by law as ours; but it happened that they have become the only two parties that dominated other political parties by preponderance like ANC so much so you might rarely hear any other political parties. They do exist, though.

To be laconic, we can tell by inference that our multi- party system is not perfect competitive. In here, Politics is like Economics. So, in analogy, an industry or market that is not characterized with freedom of entry and exit is not considered to be perfect competitive in Micro-conomics. It is either monopoly or imperfect competitive. For example, if certain legislation says: only three bottled water companies are allowed to operate in the country. This would preclude any other firm to enter the market and hence would make the industry oligopolistic (imperfect competitive) by law. In other words, such industry is said to be subject to heavy regulation or government intervention. However, it sometimes occurs that with out government intervention, the same three companies may dominate the market, but this time by domination due to popularity of their brand products, not by law.

Notion of nation: Somaliland versus Somalia;

Notion of nation: Somaliland versus Somalia; By:  Abdi Ali Jama

Arab people constitute one ethnic nation because they share one language, culture and history, but they are not actually one nation state.  Similarly Korean people share all the above mentioned features, yet there are two states for Korean people, North and South. Moreover,  in the case of Koreans, we are talking about one single race compared to Arabs who are one ethnic but not one race. in contrast, there are also many states in the world whose citizens are multi-ethnic, multi cultural and multi-lingual. Therefore, there is no relationship between ethnicity and statehood.

There is difference between sovereign state and ethnic nation. Somalis in Ehiopia, Kenya, Djibouti and Somaliland make one ethnic nation but they do not practically share one state. The great Somalia was the aspiration for which Somalilanders, in my view, sacrificed a lot to materialize it but in vain. However, in the  context ol geopolitical regional circumstances and failures inherited from the unification, there is no reason Somali people in the South grumble if Somaliland people insist on separation.

However, I am not playing down common denominators that Somali people share as one ethnic nation: Language, culture, religion; rather, I do value them much. What I am trying to elucidate here for Somalilanders and other Somali people is to stop confusing between the issues and to understand that Being Somalilander does not necessarily mean you are not Somali or you have nothing to do with Somalis. In Fact, it is the opposite; we are Somalis more than any other Somali people in Djibouti or Ethiopia or Kenya.

On the other hand, I would like to say to Somalia people In Mogadisho and Bosaso, We are not asking for impossible thing. We would have been by now a separate Somali state like Djibouti, had we not rushed wholeheartedly to Mogadisho for the sake of Great Somalia(the sacrifice, remember).  My advice to you is to accept Somaliland as a separate state.

This is not only for the best interest of Somaliland, but yours also does lie there. Didn’t you know that the rest of the world would not accept one more Somali state for different reasons?   EGAD would not accept three Somali states: Djibout,  Mogadisho and Hargeisa, let alone AU and other circles.  Somalis represented in three states!!!that is what would worry them much!! The representatives from Addisababa and Nairobi might become Somalis as well -if you see what I mean-.  is that a Somali strength or weakness?  It is indeed strength for all of us.  Imagine all EGAD representatives being Somalis except Sudan which happens to be also another brother in many respects. By the way, didn’t you know that there are many international legitimate ways, through which you can speak for and even assist the people you share ethnicity, culture and religion, even if they are citizens to other countries.

In 1960, Somalilanders took the initiative and welcomed the unification with open hands. It is you turn to do the same and welcome Somaliland as a separate state taking into account the difficult changes that Somali people have gone through and geopolitical circumstances that surround us. Wait a moment; shut your eyes--if you don’t mind-- for a while and listen to your feeling; Do you get the hunch that--- in contrast to the independence days of 60s when unification was the popular trend among the five Somalis--- time has now come to get the process reversed and change direction. If you do so, let us get together and design new Somali nation.

This is applicable not only to Somaliland and Somalia, but to all five Somalis across the board.  For instance, as far as I know, even Somali Ethiopians who used to be more enthusiastic in achieving great unified Somalia are far less interested in the idea than never before, let alone other Somalis. I wonder, if Somali Ethiopians ever remember that Hargeisa and Mogadisho sacrificed everything they had for the sake of them and still paying the bill which was so extremely expensive and backbreaking. Dear brothers, Is it fair to just opt out of the dream of Great Somalia and keep silent?. I believe you can help us sort out the problem, simply by saying to Mogadisho and Bosaso guys: no more Greater Somalia; A happy farewell party. FULLSTOP!!!!!

The other choice Mogadisho and Bosaso guys have is to insist on the other way round overlooking the circumstances and where Somali interest lie, getting stuck in short-sighted, non strategic, feud based politics; and hence, we will all end up into lose-lose situation instead of win-win. A  Somali proverb says: Fulayaw guuli kuu dhawaydaa. Another one says: Sidaan kugu lisay, iigu maad hambayn.      

I hope you will opt for the better and save Somali ethnic people from further degradation and ordeal; that is, moving forward in the right side of history and not backward, so that we will be grown up and put full stop to the rudimentary politics that led us to the disgusting ugly face of Somali People all around the world.

 I know this is not easy for you; it is a huge challenge to the traditional way of thinking; it is a change of attitude; but believe me, it is worthy and rewarding to all of us across generations.

Abdi Ali Jama

Hargeisa

Abdirrahman99@hotmail.com

The lowest of the low

The lowest of the low: by Prof. Abdi Ali Jama

I don’t really like to think retrospectively; I would rather prefer to think prospectively. However, Dear reader, forgive me today, in advance, for looking back or making reflection,  but again,  for the sake of better future and fulfillment of imperative academic honesty ; not for the purpose of reprisal or inciting trials and tribulation between people. I am not also going to denigrate any individual, group or clan just for being who they are. Notwithstanding, I am appeasing no one in my analysis lest I prevaricate far from the verity.

   Siad Barre and his junta seized power illegally in Oct, 1969. Three big historic mistakes or rather blunder, but one of them can be forgotten provided……… But again all the three together are reprehensible or unforgiveable.  Seizing power is a big crime which sometimes amounts to high treason but can be forgotten if it finishes with good end.  However, the end of Siad Barre episode is known to all of us: mayhem, protracted bloodshed, exodus, penury and failing state.  

In my judgment, the situation at the time was not intractable or serious enough  to warrant a military coup despite the brutal assassination of  then- the president H.E Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke.  Wide spread corruption was the main pretext or precursor for the revolution as they taught us in schools back those days.  History proved by now that it was naïve to think like that, especially after Somali people have undergone a never ending bloody civil war ensuing the ouster of said Barre. For these two reasons( lame excuse for seizure of power and the bad ugly end ), history will never ever forgive or forget any individual or group of people especially military officers who abetted or aided  Siad Barre arrogate all state powers to himself, except those who went against him or at least not collaborated with him.

The second mistake or blunder was retaining power and planning not to give it back to Somali people. In my judgment, Siad Barre was squarely responsible for that sinful intention and nobody shares him because there was no single person who could dare tell him to stop it including SRC members. However, though illegal, it is understandable if he wanted to keep power as far as possible, but he went far beyond that.

The third mistake-- the most devastating-- was using national military forces , state power and national resources to fight against the oppositions---armed  and  non  armed--- to maintain power at any cost especially when political crises peaked. He knew that the problem was not a military one but political in nature. Again, history will never ever forgive or forget any individual, group—clan or non- clan—that stood with Siad Barre regime fight his own people.

When Siad Barre came to power in 1969, the country was peaceful, united, democratic and awesome internationally, not to mention some relative corruption and bad governance.  In 1991, he forcibly fled the country devastated, looted, disjointed, with its citizens slaughtered and scattered all over the world. I hope you know how to read History.  Final results determine whether the leader is hero or villain, not by some of his superficial achievements during his stay in power which really weigh nothing compared to perennial devastation he did unfairly to his own nation and country.

In this regard, history is like Economics which teach us how to take decisions using marginal analysis or even Islamic teachings that preach us that what all matters at the end of the day is your final deeds before your demise.  One day as I was having a cup of tea at a bar in the downtown,  Hargeisa,  I overheard a group of youngsters who had been discussing 1977 Somali-Ethiopian war as though Somali people won the war. I approached them by saying: “Gentlemen, sorry to interrupt you, it is true that Somalis stormed Ethiopia like a lightning at first, however history says that Somalia was defeated and Ethiopia  won the war.”  They asked me why, and I told them straight that History reads the end. To be honest with you, they got shocked and flabbergasted!!!!

 Siad Barre should not hac done the coup. However if it happened, he should not had retained power for that long time. However, if it happened, he should not had dragged the country into a civil war, however if it happened, he should not had kept power until state collapses.  For  instance, when Jawhar,90 km from Mogadisho, fell in the hands of opposition forces, he could even had saved the state from collapse by simply declaring that he would step down and submit the power to interim government which would later hold elections.

Siad Barre had had all the above mentioned spectrum of choices for that long period of time. I had been wondering for so long, how his evil sprit convinced him that he had had no other alternative other than saying: over my dead body,  until after 20 years, history helped me solve the conundrum  when I was following Kaddafi’s scenario of over my dead body unfolding before me; But this time grown up and able to comprehend better.

Tyrants themselves are categorically distinct.  Siad Barre like Kaddafi can be aptly described as lowest of the low.   They both developed a strange personality behavior that would never allow them to consider the other better choices they could have had, so they would take sound decisions both for themselves and their respective countries. Siad Barre and Kadafi  of Libya are indeed twins in history. The other amazing coincidence is that they both Seized power illegally through military coup in the same year, 1969, and in the same month, October. I don’t know if it was on the same day!!!!

However, Had Siad Barre left the power when Hargeisa and Burao fell in the opposition hands, perhaps, he would have been associated with Bin Ali of Tunisia. Again, had he abandoned power when Jawhar fell, perhaps, he would have been twined with Mubarak of Egypt. Some dictators are even better than others!!!!  I wonder.

I am not belittling the atrocities and blood shed that followed the ouster of Siad Barre. In my view, he and his partners are utterly and squarely responsible for every drop of blood or human suffering that afflicted Somali people ever since he fled the country up to this moment, because he could have saved us from the tragedy.

In conclusion, I am personally against any act of reprisal or revenge. Magnanimity is virtue. Therefore I would propose for all partners in Siad Barre transgressions--individuals, clans, non clans-- to give sincere abject apology of their own volition to Somali people—Mandela way. If they do so, a sense of moral responsibility would develop amongst the youngsters by drawing up lessons learned, so that any thing like that might not happen again, and by the way,  this is what this small article is all about. I hope it is cogent not convoluted piece.

Prof: Abdi Ali Jama

Hargeisa

Abdirrahman99@hotmail.com