Hiiraan Online

by Mohamoud Abdi
Saturday, March 28, 2009

The learned professor (PhD, CGA, Accounting Area Chairman and CGA Faculty Fellow) took the soft option and complied with an apparently unreasonable order of the manager of Tim Hortons’ restaurant (apparently to safeguard his image and ego) instead of challenging the manager to justify his behaviour. Many years ago, other men who occupied similar positions in their society took a similar soft option and left Somalia (apparently to save their skin) instead of challenging the despotic ruler of the country and opposing his unreasonable behaviour. The undignified departure of the professor from Tim Hortons’ restaurant may have caused him transient embarrassment from which he recovered as soon as he managed to get another cup of coffee elsewhere. The departure of the crème of Somalia had an unintended consequence and paved the way for the destruction of the country and its people. Unlike the professor, Somalia may not recover for very long time. 

The professor’s plight raised more questions than it answered. I could understand the embarrassment that the learned professor and his friends felt as they were told to leave the restaurant. I could also entertain the view that their [mis]treatment might have been racially-motivated (over-identification). The professor discounted any business basis for the manager’s behaviour given that the restaurant was half-empty and the manager wouldn’t accept their offer of making new orders every twenty minutes in order to comply with his rule. The fact that the professor could go to another Tim Hortons’ restaurant alone and sit and read his difficult accounting and taxation papers “for close to an hour” showed that the 20-minute rule was only enforced in this restaurant. If the rule applied to all Tim Hortons’ coffee shops, the manager of this particular restaurant could not be faulted for enforcing it. Rules are rules.

A very important element, which would have made the learned professor and his friends less embarrassed, was missing from the incident, however. Was the 20-minute limit Tim Horton’s hospitality prominently displayed in the restaurant so that every customer could see it? If not, does the law require the display of such a notice? In the absence of a notice, is it reasonable in Canada to challenge the manager’s decision as unreasonable, selective and – in extreme cases – racist (over-identification)? The manager’s assertion that the professor would lose the argument would indicate that it wasn’t.

Where does the law stand on the dispute? What would have happened had the professor and his friends stood their ground and refuse to leave? Could the manager seek the assistance of the police to remove them from his premises? Would the police respond to what is basically a commercial dispute that did not involve violence or a breach of public order? If they do respond, could the professor argue that he was within his right as there was nothing in the restaurant to indicate a time limit and, therefore, as legitimate customers he and his friends could stay any length of time as long as they were ordering food and beverage? Could the manager take the matter into his hands and with the help of his staff frog-march the professor and his companions out of the restaurant? It seems that the professor was more mindful of his image and ego (as he put it) than the breach of their rights in a public place.

Now, here is a problem. If such a highly educated and articulate person as our learned professor could not stand up to an unreasonable behaviour (the behaviour would be unreasonable if deemed so by Canadian social and legal norms), what is the chance of an ordinary man in the street taking doing so? Not impossible, but less likely.

By taking the soft option, the professor has lost a chance to force a change in Tim Hortons’ customer relationship. At the least, the price for his embarrassment and bruising of his ego would have been a decision by management to display a notice in a prominent place in the restaurant tadvising customers that their welcome would be limited to 20 minutes. Instead he decided to seek his caffeine from elsewhere. He was happy and Tim Hortons was happy.

A similar soft option was taken many years ago by many educated Somalia to a devastating effect. Since the late 1970s, thousands of Somalis left their home country Somalia instead of standing up to the unreasonable behaviour of the regime and forcing a change. There was a hefty price for such action. Saving one’s life – or ego – is a human nature. Few people are prepared to sacrifice their lives for a principle.

When the military regime of General Mohamed Siyad Barre started a systematic abuse of power, the educated few to whom the public looked for guidance and leadership took the soft option and run for their lives. They left the country in droves. Within a few years, the thin educated crust of the society became noticeable thinner. Senior management positions left by their competent but disloyal managers were filled less capable but loyal individuals. Those who left the country settled in Europe and North America and started a new more prosperous and easy life. They were soon followed by other educated as well as less educated (but more enterprising) and by the mid 1980s everyone who could leave Somalia did so. They were happy that they left and the General was happy that they left. What followed is history.

Now here is a hypothetical question. Could the recent history of Somalia have taken the same course had those of us who bolted out stood up to the regime – come what may? I don’t know. I asked myself that question many times; unfortunately the answer always came the same. If I had not left Somalia and taken the action I am hypothesizing about, could I have changed the course of history? Very unlikely. At best, I would have rotten in jail and at worst would have faced a firing squad as happened to a few courageous men who said no to the dictator.

What if most of the crème of the nation decided to say “no” to the dictator and faced the consequence instead of leaving the country? Could that have changed the situation? I am sure they stood a better chance – provided that they had a leader and a plan. But, like our Professor, we took the soft option and fled rather than fight injustice. And the roof fell on us.

Nearly two decades after the collapse of the regime and the mass migration of the Somali people to every corner of the globe, Somalia has been reduced to a pitiful nation that exemplifies everything that is rotten in socio-political aspects of the life of a nation. Would we go back and help rebuild our shattered country or would we take the easy option again and stay in the comfort of our new homes. Some people have drifted back and did not have an impact; a critical mass is required to make a difference.

Ironically, the people in Somalia may resist any attempt to reverse the brain drain. While the return of a significant number of the Somalis would benefit the country enormously, it could also have a negative effect on the living conditions of millions of people who are the beneficiaries of the estimated one billion dollar a year remittance from the immigrants. The short-term negative impact the return could have in the society outweighs the long-term positive impact it could have on the country and people.

Finally, while I was literally writing the paragraph before this one, a friend of mine called me and told me that he heard on the radio that some restaurant owners in his country were complaining about people who occupy seats for a long time and they started to ask customers to leave after finishing their food and drink. May be the professor has stumbled on something that will occupy our mind for quite some time.