Feasibility of central and federalism in Somalia by Khalid Hassan Yusuf

08:05 PM March, 22 2020

Sudanese Online
خالد حسن يوسف-الصومال
My Library
Short URL


Somalia is a country born in 1960 from the womb of three Somali geographic regions, namely the British protectorates in northern Somalia, a state of Warsangeli, to return to the agreement of January 27, 1886 with Britain, and the Italian colonies in northern Somalia, east, middle, and south. While there were other Somali lands and territories included Under the British protectorate, it was handed over to Ethiopia in the years 1948-1954, while the lands of the colony of the Dhulbahante tribe were forcibly annexed by Britain to the protectorates in northern Somalia.

With the unity of the north and the south, a new state was created between the two regions in the north (the protectorates and the Sultanate) with the southern region of Somalia, which in turn included a number of Italian colonies. With the birth of the Somali Republic, the central system became the administrative formula adopted in Somalia from first July 1960 until the collapse of the Somali state in 1991.
Throughout the three decades of the Somali state, the central (severe) administrative system was the dominant and followed in the experience of governance and administration, during the civil phase or in light of the military seizure of the country’s fate, and that centralization became a distress and a burden on the lives of Somalis between 1969-1991
, which resulted in On the tearing of the society in Somalia.
Given the enormity of experience and the existence of illegal political aspirations, among which are the Somali conflicts after the collapse of their state and during the life of the state, all of this has led to a craze for research and the pursuit of a federal system, while the advocates of the federal project do not have the vision to embody their project away from the feelings of dissonance as political parties.

Which necessitates looking at the central and federal formulas in Somalia in isolation from the current political conflict situation and the perceptions of the conflicting political and tribal powers. And due to the existence of a bad legacy with the experience of extreme centralization in Somalia, and as a result of the birth of the current Somali state comes in the context of political, social and economic dilemmas, it is not possible to embody the extreme centralization system again in Somalia, but this does not mean at all that centralization is a form of an inappropriate system for a country Somali, especially since the intended centralization is administrative (flexible or moderate) decentralization.

Administrative decentralization is based on granting the regions broad powers to manage their internal political, social and economic affairs through the formula known as local government councils, and the governorates, directorates and their governing councils become the executive authority governing the regions, and therefore their rule is not directly through the center (the capital, Mogadishu, for example).
Thus, local government councils become the actual executive authority of the regions and curb direct interference from the central government in the powers of local government councils, and the central government’s role is limited to providing logistical support and setting security programs and outlines the relations of the center and regions.
Returning to the experience of centralization in Somalia, it is clear that the lack of administrative decentralization (flexible) and therefore it is not possible to say absolutely that the central system is not suitable for Somalia, as the difference here is a difference between theory and practice, and in a more correct sense it can be added to say that a flexible central theory theory originally did not exist in Somalia or was not available It has room to translate itself.

Upon closer examination of administrative decentralization experiences in the world, we see clear political models in countries including France and Italy, and the last came from the womb of the union of multiple Emirates and crowned unity with the territory of Sicily in the year 1860, and this is what applies in turn to France, which had joined Corsica in a unilateral step the side.
And with an audit of the experiences of France and Italy, it can be said that the success was accompanied by them, although the Italian experience still suffers from some political imbalance, which established concessions for the northern regions of the state compared to southern Italy, but the failures are addressed to overcome them, and they were not translated into a form of final frustration by the Italian society towards Their central system, and the equation of economic differences between north and south remains subject to change and through decentralization.

In France, centralization was translated according to a wonderful image through the adoption of the formula of local government councils and the distribution of competences between local authorities and the central government, which confirms that centralization is not a formula coupled with tyranny and intense bureaucracy as it is believed, but that what determines the success of centralization is related to theoretical clarity, accuracy of application and extent of community awareness And the correctness of the relationship between the center and the parties, and then determining the body of the political and administrative system and the pace of its work.
Centralization is not necessarily the most appropriate administrative system in comparison with federalism, but the criterion for assessing the feasibility of both centralization and federalism depends on the national needs of a particular country, as federalism is upright in the experiences of some society's.

There are various federal models in the world and motives behind the various federal options, for example:

India, which includes a large number of nationalities, languages, traditions, religions and disparate social patterns, as federalism contributed to the unity and cohesion of this subcontinent, although Hindu nationalism has become a threat to the nature of federalism and citizenship in India.

In turn, it represents the American model of success, as it includes dozens of states that have fused many races and cultures, and all the variations experienced by the broad and pluralistic American society in the shadow of a country, knowing that the American federal system has taken many stations in the context of its progressive historical development, and that the features of the existing union, represents The last stop on federal flight.

Canada was its federal choice as the outcome of the unity of two Canadian provinces that survived by themselves French and British control and culminated in their confederation in 1887. The Canadian forces behind the unit ignored all their contradictions in order to obtain an entity that avoids French and British tensions, while Quebec raises attempts to separate from The current Canadian state from time to time.

As for the United Arab Emirates, its birth was with the union of seven Gulf Emirates in 1971, and then there were no differences on the social and economic levels among the tribes in the UAE, but the political choice of its rulers was with federalism given the previous multiplicity of the Emirates that merged, and this can be explained in the lack of The desire of the elders of the central (ruling) tribes in the Emirates to lose their rule, their political role and their independence in the shadow of the federal state, which constituted the main motive for the federal option, and the emergence of the oil boom, which created sharp economic disparity between some of the Emirates, was a factor for some adherence Federalism in order to take advantage of the oil concession.

The northern emirates, due to their weak economic effectiveness, their small geographical area, and their small population, have become subject to both Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and therefore their presence in the union is not ideal, as the confederation that was the birth of the state is subject to decline in light of economic or political changes, and the British external factor stood strongly behind the birth of that union Fed by the resources of the Emirates of Abu Dhabi and Dubai.
The UAE federation has succeeded from several factors, the most important of which is the absence of sharp disparities in the Emirati society at the political, social and economic levels, the presence of the oil boom, which has achieved the basics of living in this country and the rich emirates support for the state budget, but this does not necessarily mean that the Emirati society is not It was impossible for him to live under the system of administrative decentralization in the absence of ownership.

The federal model of the Ethiopian content is an attempt to escape forward and out of the state of contradictions experienced by the communities of the Ethiopian state, which represents federalism with the only link to the coherence of the political geography of the Ethiopian state, where there are national conflicts, desires of separation and the authoritarian legacy of the central state historically, when federalism is considered in the case of the multi-ethnic Ethiopian state , Habits, Languages, History, Religions with a lifeboat from drowning in theory, and it is worth noting that the Ethiopian model was lowered on Somalia, as a large tribal group seeks to devote a canton to it urging the cover of federalism.

The other notable issue is that the vast geographic area of ​​the country is a factor in choosing federalism and this is evident in countries including Russia, Brazil, India, Canada, the United States, Nigeria, and if not necessarily a condition, just as the countries that used to take the federal system are countries that have not They are combined by a common administrative component, or not by a common political entity.
However, this does not mean that countries that are small in size or have not previously been involved in a common political entity without the ability to choose a federal option, but it is noticeable that cultural, religious and ethnic pluralism are the main factors that pushed some peoples to create homogeneity for the sake of coexistence and based on devoting federalism as a valve To achieve citizenship and political homogeneity.

While federalism in Somalia was put forward in Somali circles since 1993, through a document developed by a number of foreign experts, the document referred to has been circulated in some Somali circles, and after that, federalism was introduced in Somalia based on the Somali parties conference held in Ethiopia in 1996. And who devoted tribal quotas according to the 4.5 equation of power-sharing in Somalia, and in another direction the prelude to offering the federal option was made by supporting the Garowe Canton and groups of militia leaders in Somalia.

This confirms that this preamble, along with the prolonged continuation of the Somali conflict, has resulted in psychological and political acceptance among many Somali elites, in order to take federalism as an administrative system, and as an attempt to escape forward, while federalism in Somalia represents an ill-considered state, imposed on the Somali people. In light of the reality of being torn apart and powerless at all levels of life.
And the beneficiaries of the illusion of federalism in Somalia are some of its political elites, which are gathered by cases of political hostility. The neighboring countries that see federalism in this country constitute the true guarantee of its continued existence as neighboring countries. These countries, which are each from Ethiopia and Kenya, in addition to Uganda, have pushed to devote the option of federalism In Somalia, not to mention the role of major international powers that control to varying degrees the performance of the United Nations.

Would federalism have been proposed in light of a different reality from the stage of the collapse of the Somali state and its repercussions؟
Of course not, as it was reported that the repercussions of the absence of the state and the aspirations of some elites play the main role in perpetuating the federal option.
It is necessary to present the motives that confirm the uselessness of federalism in Somalia, including:

1- that the federal option in Somalia is unclear in its details and its vision for the future of the country as it came in a hurry.
2 - The justification for the federal option in Somalia was devoted to stopping the conflict between the political forces, and with the adoption of federalism, the contrast was exacerbated by the conflict and more external interference.
3 - The call for federalism in Somalia is of political dimensions that are inconsistent with the interests of the people, and represents a case of tribal intolerance and is not based on substantive justifications that confirm the existence of social and economic disparity between Somalis.
4 - Federalism will establish in Somalia, in the short and long term, a state of conflict and instability at various levels of life between the elites on the one hand and the tribes themselves, and this has been felt on the ground.
5 - The presence of a wide audience of the Somali people, which began to understand the dangers of applying federalism to the current and upcoming Somali reality.

This means that the current and similar political conflict between the current Somali leadership and some political forces in the regions, including the Puntland administration and the interim administration of the Juba and Gedo regions, falls within the framework of the aforementioned motives, and the conflicts between the parliamentary blocs come within this context, while the political leadership approach to Somalia It is an attempt to devote to centralization and if it is not disclosed, however, the indications confirm this, and therefore this attraction between the federal and central currents is a return to the cases of political conflict in Somalia.

On the ground, the Somali people are homogeneous at various levels, and the result is that federalism will create more political, social and economic barriers for it. For example, the Habargider tribe has devoted its elite to dividing the tribes ’clans into several cantons, such as (Galmudug, Heyman and Heeb), the Galgudud of the Sunni community. , in the past, the birth has remained the federal model difficult, and it includes other cantons, and in the collected profiles of those cantons began to melt in the Canton Mosque , which Galmudug.
in Puntland (Nugal, east and Mudug), Juba (Juba , Central, Lower Juba, Gedo), Southwest (Bay, Bakool, Lower Shabelay), Hiirshapelay (Middle Shabelay, Hiiraan), the drawing of this reality federal through the alignment and differentiation of tribal, you can imagine the extent of its consequences, where the whole tribe collects its geography scattered here and there in the canton meant to end to the body of a federal parallel state, disputed the state 's political legitimacy, sovereignty and powers.

The struggle to establish federalism and centralization will result in the deterioration of the country, conflict on behalf of external forces, and the intimidation of the Somali factions with these forces, and given that the social contract on which the institutions of the present Somali state are based is represented by the federal system, the Somalis are obligated to it in order not to fall into the conflict again, while the necessity Somali elites are required to engage with federalism to achieve the greatest positives, in order to create a tolerable coexistence among them, while developing this federal contract towards administrative decentralization at the next level, this is the entitlement entrusted to all society, and that Considering that centralization is the best option for Somalis.

In principle, the nature of the authority and elites ’dealings with the country’s issues historically, such as the problem that has been placed on the central government, while making the federal option did not lead to boycotting with how the traditional elites deal with these issues, and at the level of details we find the absence of a large part of Somalia due to its making a separatist option On the other hand, there are those who embrace unity in this section, and both of them are realistically outside the federal circle for an unknown period.
Federalism in Somalia is coupled with racism and fragmentation, and society's aspirations to restore the collapsed state and the aspiration for Somali nationalism do not meet, while the bad face of centralization has been tried and there is sensitivity to its return, and despite this, centralization has a pluralistic context that has not yet been tried, and gives the parties independence and reliable opportunities Under a system of decentralization.

Khalid Hassan Yusuf

Arabic Forum