Pan-Somali Council For Peace and Democracy

Title:

ISRAACA Policy Statement on System of Government

<img align=right src="sawir/logo.gif" id=right border=0>I. Issue Analysis: Nothing is more important to a nation than having a system of government that fits its culture, character, and general way of life. The nature of a country's system of government determines, among other things, whether governmental power and authority are centralized or decentralized; a constituent region is created or abolished; and, most of all, whether the democratic principle of one-man one-vote is preserved or negated. This issue constitutes the source from which all modern political conflicts arise. Realizing the gargantuan importance of the matter, the members of UIUS resolved to reexamine and reevaluate the design of the system of government in Somalia and recommend ways to improve or replace it altogether. As the discussion on the topic ensued, participants came to the following points of consensus: (1) The Somali people never had the opportunity to decide for themselves the design and character of their government. (2) As a subject society, they simply accepted and employed whatever the colonial powers bequeathed to them at the time of independence. (3) The unitary system, which they inherited in 1960, did not suite the life and outlook of the free nation. (4) It was both exploitive and oppressive. (5) It must be replaced with a system that is more congenial to Somali culture and general way of life. II. Options and Risks: In order to ascertain the most suitable system of government to the Somali milieu, discussants looked at the four most common systems of government today�i.e., unitary, federation, confederation, and consociation. During the discussion, they carefully examined the foundation on which each system is established, the sources of its powers, and the reach and limits of them. In regard to these issues, participants have expressed diverse and at times conflicting opinions. However, after a long and arduous debate, their ideas converged on the following points: (1) the unitary system has failed the country. (2) A confederation would legitimize and freeze the current clannish states. (3) A consociation would negate the democratic principle of one-man one vote. (4) A federal system is the most suitable system to the Somali milieu. The majority of those who voiced their opinion on the subject expressed unmistakable preference for a federal system of government founded on democratic principles. They envision for Somalia a federal system whereby governmental power and authority are constitutionally divided between the federal and regional governments. Theirs is a system, which recognizes the autonomy of the constituent regions without compromising the unity of the sovereignty of the Somali people. It is a system, which promises to bring the administration and services of government to the average citizen in his/her place of residence. The proponents of the federal option had two main rivals, i.e., those who favored the unitary system and those who preferred an Islamic system of government. The former group found no fault in the previous system and questioned the reason for abandoning it. They argued that the Somali people do not have major cultural, economic, and social differences that would justify a federal system of government. They questioned the basic rationale for a federal system enquiring, "What are we federating, clans or regions?" As they see it, federalism is just one step away from the total disintegration of the country. It will legitimize the current clan-based states and eventually lead to the permanent dismemberment of the country. As one of them put it, the Somali political culture is not well suited for a federal system of government. The proponents of the unitary system received unintended support from several members, who, without stating any preference for any particular system of government, registered deep concern about the prevailing social climate in Somalia. Theirs is a question of where to begin: The education of society or the creation of governmental institutions. These members hold that the task facing UIUS is a lot more complicated than stating an organizational preference for one type of government or another. It entails changing the heart and mindset of the average citizen. The second group who rejected the federal option advocated an Islamic system of government. The members of this group have made a passionate plea for an Islamic system of government. They asked:� Why the members of this organization are all too willing to try anything and everything under the sun but an Islamic system of government?" They went at some length to convince the members of this organization that an Islamic system is more suitable to the Somali environment than any secular one. They maintained that, since Islam pervades all aspects of our life, it would be easy for the average citizen to comprehend and identify with an Islamic system of government. By adopting an Islamic system, they say, it will that much easier for us to sell our ideas to the average Somali citizen. III. A Categorical Statement of What UIUS Believes Regarding the Issue: The post-colonial system of government was unitary�and a tightly centralized one at that. It was initially created for the colonial purposes of maintaining European hegemony, cultural expansion, and as an apparatus for surplus extraction. This system, though manned by Somali nationals after independence, was still exploitive and oppressive. As during the colonial era, it grated on the Somali people's free spirit and sense of justice. Consequently, it elicited widespread distrust of all modern governments and general aversion toward politics and political authority among Somalis. Today's pronounced popular opposition to the reconstitution of the national state is intimately connected with the Somali people's negative experience with this tightly centralized system of government. After considering these matters, the majority of the discussants have expressed unmistakable preference to the federal option. The latter received a considerable support in the forum in part because of the weakness of the other alternatives. As demonstrated above, the unitary system had a monumental weakness: A thirty-year record of failure. On the other hand, a confederation would legitimize and freeze the current clannish states; while a consociation would negate the principle of one-man one vote. This is why the majority of the discussants looked askance at these three options and voiced unmistakable preference for a federal system of government. While the other systems have negative repercussion for Somalia, the federal system has some politically useful features that add to its attraction for the majority of discussants. These include: (A) Providing a "safety valve" through which the most ambitious elements in society can seek and attain power without rupturing the whole political system. (B) Under federalism, the constituent regions may serve as training grounds for aspiring political leaders. (C), the constituent regions may serve as testing grounds for pilot projects whose future results are in dispute. The federal option has another advantage over all other systems: It is already decided on the ground. The mini states of Somaliland, Puntland, Jubaland, and Hiranland have struck a national trend. They are poised to become a permanent fixture on the Somali political scene. Given the current situation, the members of this organization thought it wise to find ways to consolidate these regions under a federal system rather than try dismantling them. IV. Conclusion: By the time the discussion on the topic ended, only two systems of government received numerically serious endorsements, namely unitary and federation. Both consociation and confederation were apparently deemed unfavorable to the Somali situation. On the other hand, Islamic theocracy, though strongly asserted by its proponents, did not receive numerically substantial support from the general membership of UIUS. V. Strategies and Interim Steps: The most poignant criticism that discussant have made against federalism concerns the possibility of a whole region coming under the sway of a single clan, who may seek to lock out non-members from opportunities. One way to overcome this is to superimpose on the constituent provinces federal regions through which federal grants and programs can be channeled and dispensed. Another way entails closely merging the operations and powers of the regional and national authorities and institutions. Although these arrangements may not totally forestall the discrimination of regional minorities, they may serve s ways to lessen their impact.

Hits:

Rating:

Rating:0 Votes:0 (Rating Scale: 1 = worst, 10 = best)

Added on:

03/20/2004

Author/Source:

Pan-Somali Council for Peace and Democracy

Author's email/website:

israac.org

Posted by:

admin

Comments:

0 Comment(s)

Menu