Hiiraan Online

by Abdirahman Abdishakur Warsame
Friday, November 22, 2013

From 1960, when Somalia gained independence, to1969 Somalia was governed under a multi-party democracy. The constitution and electoral laws was drafted by foreign experts who failed to take into account the inherent threat of contestation among Somalia's clans and sub-clans. A relatively clan-representative civilian government grew increasingly , but the absence of political parties that compete on the basis of ideas, the tribal politics has become the foundations for political competition ,which became a powerful tool through which politicians mobilised supporters for narrow political motive, and where the principle of politics become not the achievement of public goals of state building, but the promotion of individual interest of status, prestige and power.

As the government crumbled General Mohamed Siad Barre seized control in a bloodless coup d'etat establishing an anti-tribal system of governance inspired by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels under the banner of ‘scientific socialism’. The military regime, rebranded as the Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC), suspended the constitution, abolished the Supreme Court, disbanded parliament, and banned all political parties and professional associations.

Glad to see the removal of the previous government Somalis initially welcomed the military takeover. Siad Barre's SRC would however soon fall foul to the same nepotistic and corrupt tendencies as its predecessor.

Civil war broke out in 1980 with an armed uprising led by the Somalia Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF) against the regime in southern Somalia. Soon after, in 1981, another rebel group, the Somali National Movement (SNM), emerged in the north. The regime's brutal campaign against the SNM resulted in the near total destruction of urban centres in the northwest in 1988. The United Somalia Congress (USC) emerged as another rebel group in 1989 in Mogadishu and the central regions marking the beginning of the end of Siad Barre's dictatorship.

The President was finally forced to flee Mogadishu in 1991 finding refuge in Gedo among fellow clansmen, then Kenya, and finally Nigeria where he died in 1995. Losing their common cause—to rid the country of Siad Barre—Somalia's plethora of armed factions turned against one another resulting in the killing, dislocation, and starvation of thousands of Somalis.

Interventions by the United States and United Nations aimed at ending the ensuing chaos in the early 1990s were unable to stem the violence erupting throughout the country. A seemingly endless series of national reconciliation conferences, held in cities throughout the region, failed to establish a legitimate government in Somalia. Warlords, transitional governments, and Islamist groups unwittingly passed power from one to another without establishing a firm foothold of authority and public support.

On 20 August 2012, after a decade of sequential yet equally ineffective transitional governments, a new government and parliament were sworn in marking a milestone in Somalia’s revival. Somalia now has a more legitimate government that it has seen in several decades. This offers a unique opportunity for the Somali people to rebuild their nation and establish governance across the county which may pave the way to sustainable peace and stability.

The mandate of new the government is to improve security, initiate political reconciliation, development a federal system of governance, adopt a permanent constitution approved by referendum, and prepare for general elections in 2016.

The Provisional Constitution

As expressed by political scientist Andreas Kalyvas, the constitution "embodies the founding political decisions of a sovereign community concerning the form of government, the fundamental rules that regulate the exercise of political power and is circumscribed area of competence, the form of political representation, and the higher principles of and symbolic values of a political association. It denotes, in other words, the constitutional identity of democratic political order."

As W.F. Murphy points out, however, "If a constitutional text is not “congruent with” ideals that form or will reform its people and so express the political character they have or are willing to try to put on, it will quickly fade."

The first article of Provisional Constitution of Somalia stipulates that "Somalia is a federal, sovereign, and democratic republic founded on inclusive representation of the people and a multiparty system and social justice." Federalism is identified as the form of governance in the Provisional Constitution but how it will be implemented—including how power, resources, and revenues will be shared between the federal government and federal members’ states, is left for future negotiations.

The ambiguity of the Provisional Constitution is now emerging as one of the primary drivers of conflict in Somalia. The population is divided between those that consider federalism to be a tool divides the country into weak clan-based states, and those that regard federalism as the final opportunity to reunite the country and reinstate its sovereignty.

What is federalism?

In Aristotelian terms, federalism is a medium between unity and separation. A federalist state is one in which the several units are constitutionally united under a central government. It is also a defining feature of a federal state that subordinate units retain irreducible powers operative within their territory. ( Wheare 1963)

Federation is a state with at least two constitutionally independent territorial levels of government; the powers are provided for and protected by the constitution. It is a form of government designed to permit and facilitate diversity within an essential unity. Unity is exemplified by the constitution. Diversity is exemplified by the autonomous power of the provinces, regions, or state that join together (Franck; 1968).

Under this definition a federal form of political union is contrasted with other forms of union by the distinction that in a unitary system the state government are legally subordinate to the central government and in a confederacy the central government is legally subordinate to the state government. 

There must be a constitutional division of legal authority within the federation, each component government must be independent within its own sphere of competence; the division of authority must be clearly laid out in the constitution, the constitution should not be amendable by one level of the government alone, there must be adjudicator usually a Supreme Court, to resolve the disagreement.

However, there are three ways of organizing federal-provisional relations. 1) The provinces have most of the powers of government, with the centre only exercising limited powers; 2) the centre has most of the powers with provinces having a limited amount or 3) the provinces and the centers share powers of the government with specific means of mediating disputes between them. It is also possible to grant considerable autonomy even the right to secede to some region within any of these (Wheare 1963)

The case for federalism

The case for federalism was raised in modern Somali history in 1947 by the agro-pastoral Rahanweyn clans inhabiting parts of Italian Somaliland around the city of Baidoa in an attempt to avoid domination by surrounding stronger pastoralist clans. (Hussein M. Adam. 1994). They lost their bid to attain federal status as Somali achieved independence and July1960, the ex-British and Italian Somalilands joined to form a single unitary state.

When civil war broke out in Somalia populations were often forced to return to their original clan territories to seek refuge. Once there, dominant clan groups in the areas established loose regional administrative structures. Puntland State of Somalia was established as a Darod homeland under the banner of 'hartinimo' or Harti-unity. Such local administrations advocate a federal system of governance arguing that it is the only means by existing units can unite.

The political elites of Darod and Rahanweyn clans are the strongest advocates of federalism for fear of Hawiye dominance of the capital city of Somalia, Mogadishu. This fear is a result of past experience of state power had been concentrated in hands of central government in which dominated every economic enterprise, and most social  organizations, labour unions, co-operative organizations, the market, local government, traditional political authorities, education, voluntary organizations, even religious were banned, pre-empted  or controlled by central government.  

The case against federalism

The most challenging issue facing Somalia today is the establishment of institutional arrangements that can effectively deal with clan division, allowing communities to peacefully coexist.

Many Somalis propose an approach to coexistence that involves the establishment of strong and centralised state institutions. They argue that national unity would be sacrificed if federalism is fully established. In their view federalism will result in weak states based on clan loyalty and promote clan conflict based on demarcation of state borders, resources, and revenues. The establishment of strong centralized state is, they argue, the only solution for uniting diverse groups in a divided country.

This unitary centralised system of governance is often advocated by the Hawiye political elite  who see federalism as an instrument of dispersing power to federal entities dominated by their rival clan, the Darod. The lack of experience in decentralised and federal forms of governance in its history, combined with the deep-seated clan loyalties that continue to govern the way politics and business is conducted and suspicions and perceptions among clans ensures that reaching an agreement on the way forward for Somalia will not be an easy process.

 The process of constitutional design creates risks that may threaten the fragile (relative) stability Somalia currently holds. Under conditions of intense internal disagreements, constitutional interpretations risk returning Somalia to a state of widespread conflict, emphasizing differences rather than bridging them. Conflict may be manageable, even absent, if and when a constitution is functioning and a shared vision is taken for granted.

While the constitution remains provisional, however, conflict is likely to erupt. Instead of being a vehicle for compromise, the constitutional debate is likely to provoke escalating tension.

The challenges of implementation

Despite disagreement among Somalis on the issue of federalism, the provisional constitution stipulates that Somalia is a federal state. Traditionally, the study of the federal system has tended to focus upon the constitutional and legislative framework within which the two sets of government—central and regional—work together. In Somalia a number of challenges associated with federalism must be recognized, such as the effect of demarcation of state boundaries, clan interests, and regional administrative practices upon interstate relations.

Also important are future centre-periphery relations, currently characterised largely by misunderstanding, miscommunication, and mistrust. One irony of the federal form of governance has been its requirement for the central government to undertake oversight and strategy without interfering in process.

What is state level legitimacy built on? How can current de facto local authorities improve their legitimacy and relationship with central government? How can the central government support and regulate the emergence of local governments? These are questions without an answer. There is a growing need public debate, and creative dialogue among the political elite.

 It is clear that there is no single model of federalism that is appropriate for all situations. The administration within a federation differs according to where a presidential, collegial or parliamentary executive system has been established. Some federations have offer dual public services, while others share the responsibility. The size, number, and internal homogeneity of federal state units varies. There are different degrees of legislative and administrative co-operation between the centre and periphery.

Conclusion

Somalia has experienced highly centralised forms of government where policies and practices designed to capture the wealth and resources of the country for the benefit of a small but politically powerful elite. This has resulted in highly uncertain political environment compounded by pervasive distrust, weak national institutions, and political culture defined by conflict.

Trust must be restored and legitimacy built. The post-conflict state such does not tend to enjoy strong legitimacy throughout its territory. This is often a consequence of lack of social contracts between state and citizens due to corruption, poor political representation, and the abuse of military power. The shape of the state in Somalia, the configuration of its power, and preconditions of its rule remain hotly debated issues in today’s political process. Greater consensus must be sought before progress can be made.

The federal form of government will be accepted by all Somalis if the powers and functions of federal organs would secure the unity of the country, promote co-operation throughout the republic, maintain the single international personality of the state, promote the unity of the internal market and economy, and contribute to the harmonization of federal and state organs.

Ironically, the survival of the would be federal state of Somalia can only be safeguarded by the establishment of a strong central government, with federal member states having sufficient autonomy to prevent centrifugal tendencies.