From May-91 to Tolwaanaje 2: Somaliland at Critical Juncture

More than a quarter a century has elapsed since the May 1991s impromptu unilateral dissolution of the Union with the southern partners. It was a turning point in the history of our country, where we stopped being guests on our land and decided to take control. The events of that day marked the end of the armed struggle against Siyad's brutal regime, which carried out a hellish strategy to uproot Somaliland's inhabitants. It heralded the demise of the Siyadist ideology of statehood that builds its legitimacy on a relentless pursuit against sections of the population, stripping them of their fundamental human rights and subjugating them into second-class citizens to silence the rest and reign for eternity. Somalilanders sacrificed their lives for their freedom, wealth for their children's future and stability for democracy and self-rule. 

It was a moment of profound emotional upheaval and decisive self-reliance. Despite appreciable differences among the top leaders of the liberation movement about the long-term strategic significance of the decision and the feasibility of its implementation, they ultimately came together to a collective judgment by declaring the reclamation of Somaliland's sovereignty. It is memorable that ordinary people tipped the balance and all parties succumbed to the people's will by selflessly collaborating to reclaim our sovereignty and, with it, our right to self-determination. Although weak and destitute, the citizens of the newly proclaimed nation were full of hope and pride. They were adamant in their quest for a better future, but they knew the realisation of their dreams needed an indomitable spirit of resilience and tiresome hard work. The mission, since then, stumbled several times and proved more complicated than expected.

Our founding fathers had an ambitious clear, and tangible goal. They aimed to build a modern democratic nation where all its citizens enjoy the same rights and obligations, a government in which the rule of law is the central fixture that holds the subjects of the state together. The country they envisioned was one in which citizens enjoy their full rights to express their views and opinions without duress or coercion, where the painful experiences of the past could heal. They dreamt of a country where peace and stability are maintained with justice and dignity- invested in and protected. It was our collective passion to live in a country where ideas of self-appreciation, creativity, and innovation are embraced and allowed to thrive by giving the new generation of citizens the freedom of choice, innovation and thinking. Our dreams were grand, and the path to their fulfilment was fraught with countless obstacles, interventions, and extensive resource limitations.

 

 With the newly established state came significant challenges. After a long decade of armed struggle, with the loss of tens of thousands of civilians due to war, diseases and starvation, the existing differences in opinions and strategic thinking between the major clan leaders and the divisions were trenched such that they were ripe for internal armed confrontation. Many factors contributed to the unfortunate inter-clan fighting during the new nation's early years. Most notably, scarcity of resources turned the hasty-for-fortune armed factions against each other for controlling the few operating income-generating facilities. The absence of credible national institutions, the destruction of the major cities, and the lack of friendly, reliable external support prolonged those confrontations and catalysed their recurrence. Integral to our culture, traditional tribal leaders solved the internal conflicts through our conventional methods of conflict management and implemented damage-control mechanisms, representing an admirable milestone in the long march to proper statehood. 

However, the tribal leaders, consequent to their initial pacifying role, had gained an over-arching sway on the immature political system, which continues to be felt until now more antagonistic than before. The current Somaliland political climate and the recently concluded clan conference at Ga'an-Libah mountain indicate that some resentments from the first few years of the republic are still festering, with grievances continuing to be expressed by significant sections of Somaliland communities. The core of that dissatisfaction is deep-seated discontent with how Somaliland's government is constructed, the dynamics of its authority, the distribution of resources and the constitutional functions assigned to authority-wielding figures. The legitimacy and validity of those grievances and the parties obligated to accommodate them are the subjects of informed debate and careful discussion.

Nonetheless, a grave danger to social cohesion and the state's longevity is that such grievances resisted appeasement and compromise through formal institutional channels. The prime players behind these demands preferred to seek a final settlement through regression to the old tribal narrative of them-versus-us and collective condemnation rather than accepting the rules of democracy and the multi-party system. Any complaints about the election outcome or objections to the pace or design of the state-building process should have been addressed by active, demanding and diligent implementation of the constitution and the rules of law. Alongside the aforementioned incidents that repeatedly hampered the progress of the newly established nation, there was a miraculous zest for life and eagerness to succeed from most Somalilanders. They built Schools, Hospitals, Universities and many public institutions from scratch with meagre resources and patience.

 

Twenty-seven years since 18 May 1991, our once demolished cities, however dusty and disorganised, are bustling with life; businesses are flourishing and growing; more children attend schools more than ever, and, for many families, life has changed for the better. We proudly accomplished what foes and friends never expected us to achieve. And above all, we survived with dignity. Yet, the task of state building is never near finished. And with all our high hopes and dreams, our efforts are far from fruition. The successive political leaders and social intellectuals failed to address many elemental prerequisites for credible and competent state institutions. Important regions of the nation feel abandoned and marginalised, and new hostilities are fomenting at the eastern border. Many social ailments and structural defects in our national institutions undermined the healthy progression of institutional maturity, accountability, and responsibility. 

 

For instance, our democracy is still procedural assignments intended to settle the internal tribal tensions periodically and to impress increasingly unsatisfiable foreigners: an endeavour it has so far failed to imitate, let alone achieve. National institutions such as the Parliament, High court, Central bank and the Prosecution office lack the technical capacity and autonomy to carry out their duties and moral supremacy to project a more representative image to the public. The unrestrained powers of the Presidency have long enfeebled these vital departments and restricted their function, autonomy, and efficiency. When public institutions fail to strengthen their professionalism, independence, and sense of duty, their connection with citizens is lost, and they become hollow structures, vulnerable to personal exploitations and profiteering. In the case of Somaliland, most institutions evolved into unavailing, futile skeletons with no public trust and respect. That explains why with every political disagreement, all involved sides revert to their respective tribal trenches and look for the solution within their realms.

Systemic corruption and pillage of public funds became endemic in all agencies of the successive administrations. Those who unashamedly caught the public eye with their extravagant lifestyle and instant get-rich frenzy were never chastised, let alone prosecuted. Over the years, government officials adopted a laisser-faire attitude toward the public purse; bribery is heedlessly tolerated, and nepotism and tribal fidelity transcended individual faculty and virtue. As a result, uneducated and incompetent officials were appointed to highly sensitive offices tasked with formulating strategic plans for an impoverished and unrecognised nation- the outcome is dreary to describe. Tribalism is another issue that seeped into the core of the system and eroded what credibility it retained. Temporary power-sharing arrangements were put in place to suppress any impending tribal tensions, and mutual understandings were reached regarding the highest positions in the government. The objective was to bring feuding clans to the negotiation table by enticing them to equally and positively participate in the democratisation process. Though very bothersome, the arrangement yielded an acceptable degree of cooperation from all parties and gave birth to the current fit-for-purpose system of governance.

 

To conclude, Somaliland is facing many challenges. For too long, we constructed our foreign policy on two significant issues: democracy and stability. We unremittingly lamented Somalia's lack of credible partners to negotiate with, waiting for them to authorise somehow our finalise our statehood, not exploring other venues to strengthen our capabilities and stance. That strategy proved naïve and a waste of time, and the presumptions upon which it was built were categorically erroneous.  Most of these problems predate the incumbent president and his cabinet; they are merely a few months in power. However, the Party machine that brought him to power has ruled for so long, creating or aggravating most of the problems. The president should take a damage control approach towards these challenges; he should refrain from initiating new irritations and wisely downsize the old, chronic issues. Specific topics need an urgent response: the most alarming is Foreign policy. The long-awaited Southern partner turned out to be combative and hostile. He is ready to act aggressively and has already initiated a synchronised effort to destabilise Somaliland through economic embargo and security violations. Thus, our foreign policy must change direction and embrace a new vision and energy. A strong drive for survival and diplomatic militancy is required to diversify our engagement with the outside world; the current Minister cannot provide these qualities, and the desired change should start with him and his advisors.

 

Let us not forget that our strength lies in our society's cohesion and unity, which helped us march through the years of uncertainty at a steady pace. So, grievances coming from some parts of the country must be listened to and positively engaged. The leader must not allow citizens' legitimate demands to escalate to an open dissent by belittling or ignoring them. Serious questions about the concept of statehood and governance must be asked and presented for intellectual debate; an example of that would be; why our institutions cannot flourish and attract public approval. The relationship between statesmanship and tribal inclinations must be defined and preserved by law, and the role of clan leaders must be restricted to traditional transactions among clans. Our region is dramatically changing, and new realities are being created. Old enemies are reconciling and burying their animosities to create new opportunities for their citizens, and new alliances are emerging. We have to re-evaluate our position in the region and explore what vital roles we can play to promote our cause and capitalise on our untapped natural resources and strategic location.

 

In a nutshell, Somaliland needs a new way of thinking and bold actions to shake the status quo if we want to survive in an emerging country surrounded by hostile regimes.

 

I published this article on July 4th 2018, on Bandhige.com and Somalilandchronicle.com.

From May 91 to Tolwaanaje 2: Somaliland at Critical Juncture (By Dr. Abdikarim D. Hassan) |