Siyad Bare and the crisis of democracy by Khalid Hassan Yusuf

10:55 PM June, 27 2021

Sudanese Online
خالد حسن يوسف-الصومال
My Library
Short URL



Somalis describe Siyad Bare as tyrannical, but this trait is general and common among them, and therefore their former ruler was not an exception, and the result is that Siyad Barre and his opponents used the same tools.
His opponents described him as using the tools of repression against them, including preventing freedom of expression, arbitrary imprisonment, torture and murder against opponents of his regime and some of their social norms, using state institutions to consolidate his rule, not allowing political pluralism and free elections, harnessing state resources for the benefit of his authority.

As for the period prior to his rule, political life in general was democratic, but the symbols of government were not necessarily democrats, as they avoided direct repression and resorted to circumventing democracy through the practice of political corruption, buying debts, rigging elections, harnessing state institutions in favor of their political interests and the practice of favoritism.

The result is that both groups were corrupt and tyrannical and with the difference or multiplicity of the tools they used. In both cases, democracy was the loser in front of the Somali political elites. Nine years was enough to realize what the civilian rule elite is, and on the other hand, the twenty-one years of rule by Siyad Bare and his military and elite companions The civilian that I turned around is quite enough to touch the content of the regime.

However, what no objective can deny is that Siyad Bare surpassed those who preceded him and those who dealt with public affairs after his departure, as his performance was distinguished compared to his predecessors in power, after excluding the absence of democracy. As for those who took the lead in the matter after his departure, they criticized Siyad Bare a lot and in return they practiced what he did not practice!

He was the only one to issue major projects, whether on the social, economic, political, military and security levels. All the issues or projects that Somalis are proud to have accomplished were achieved during his reign, at the forefront of which was the establishment of state institutions and the formulation of the Somali identity.

Those who preceded him were under a democratic political system, but this did not help them to make a change in the country, although the society was very willing to work with them, while they slipped into the cycle of controlling power and continuing to rule, that was the priority for them, so they could not add tangible achievements.

As for those who came after him, they were just dwarves and hostages of foreign dependence and practiced fragmentation and fragmentation, and many of them were those who worked with him and his opponents under the civil rule, and they accused him of many flaws, while they committed what he did and more!

These people, in particular, their legitimacy does not exceed their rivalry with Siyad Bare, so they do not stop at what they represent at all, as far as talking about the fact that they formed an elite opposed to his rule, and the irony is that they were represented by leaders and effective elites during his rule, but they ended up as failures when they opposed him, and the reason is that they were unable to formulate projects from It would secure the present and future of Somalis, as racism and hatred overcame them, while Siad Barre was dealing with the whole of Somali society as an exclusive representative of all of them.

While these people took a course that did not exceed confinement in the context of their tribal components, which are unable to overcome the tendency of revenge against the society itself, and they were addicted to talking about the rejection of its central system, although the age of the Somali state in absolute did not exceed centralization, and therefore the problem was not centralization in itself as much as The crisis was the absence of democracy and the lack of separation of powers.

In sum, everything that the Somalis in general achieved as a nationalism in their modern history, Siyad Bare has an impact and imprint towards him, and despite the efforts to obscure his political era, the Somali history has written for his political role positively and negatively, and it is worth noting that Siyad Bare himself has regressed politically after the fall of his rule.

Where he wanted to control the power again by returning to the support of the tribe, similar to his political opponents, and therefore his previous distinction came against the background of his control over the reins of power, in which many of his opponents participated, as that era was characterized by concerted efforts within the framework of the state, while resorting to The tribe as a tool to reach judgment in a case of failure for both Siyad Bare and his opponents.

His rivals and opponents have failed in all their entitlements, and in return he, in turn, has failed in the most important entitlement, which is to consolidate the reality of democracy. In principle, it is not logical for a coup d'état to deal with the democratic state, which does not give him political legitimacy, rejecting the approach of seizing power and controlling it through illegal tools.

Democracy could have been the real guarantee and safety valve for the continuation of the major projects that he accomplished, in isolation from tyranny and its addiction to control the government while he was an elected ruler. In return, the Somali society is unable, after decades, to establish a state, let alone be characterized by democracy, in the shadow of elites on the Break with democracy and impose on their society fragmentation and authoritarianism.

Khalid Hassan Yusuf

Arabic Forum