Muuse Yusuf

While surfing the net, I came across an essay by an Iqbal Jhazabhay, a South African of an Indian descent who advocates for the dismemberment of Somalia. The essay titled “Somaliland: Africa’s best kept secret: A challenge to the international community” was published on the website of the Institute for Security Studies, a not-for-profit research institute in Zambia that supports policy development for the enhancement of human security in Africa.[1]  Besides its obvious bias, the most striking feature of the essay, presumably intended to be a well-researched document to influence policy - in this case to persuade African intellectuals and statesmen to let the “Somali-land” go its way, is its lack of an in- depth analysis of issues raised, and the misquotation or taking statements of well established authorities out of context. Although the statements seem to be the reason de etre of Iqbal Jhazabhay’s essay, ironically some of them quite clearly dislodge his argument for the partition of Somalia. For example, in the first page of his essay, he quotes an interview with an Ali Mazrui, an African academic who lives in America. The following are the statements:  

“Somaliland should be let to go its way, for it has resources to sustain itself. The situation in Somalia now is a culture of rules without rulers, a stateless society” “There is order there {Somaliland}, they have the potential to survive.” One day, he says, Somaliland will organise and get back to the larger Somalia”

First of all, the lecturer fails to mention the source of the interview and does not footnote it. In fact, in the entirety of the essay the only time that he mentions Mr Mazrui’s work is when he footnotes an unpublished paper, which he attributes to the author. Secondly the statements seem to be contradictory. Close analysis of the statements reveal that one part purports a secession idea, while another part clearly asserts the inevitability of “Somali+land” as part and parcel of a greater or a larger Somalia. This is when the statement goes: “One day, he says, Somaliland will organise and get back to the larger Somalia.”  Obviously that statement is a re-affirmation of greater Somalia, a vision that the fathers of this nation had conceptualised a long time ago. So it is incomprehensible how the academic would use two contradictory statements to support his futile idea, unless he had misquoted Mr Mazrui, or he had taken statements out of context.

It may well be that when Mr Ali Mazrui said those statements they were in the context of the huge debate about modern state structure vs. societies in developing countries, particularly African societies, and how the structure might sometimes be in conflict with their traditional ways of life and governance. Here is another statement by Mr Mazrui, which may illustrate the author’s point:

“Before colonialism, they came from a culture of minimum governments not minimum rules, they had rules but minimum rulers and then the colonial system started this institutionalized government and the idea of having rulers rather than just rules of conduct. And our brothers and sisters in Somalia as a whole including Somaliland are adjusting to these new ways of government and are attempting to find satisfactory ways of maintaining rules, but nowadays just observing rules is no longer enough. You also need instrumentalities of power for law and order. They are having some difficulty in learning something, which is alien to their culture because previously they were ahead of other people who needed rulers and now they are left behind because they haven’t adjusted. But we in Africa, in Somalia and elsewhere of course must never give up we must continue to find the right formula for our people.” [2]

In others words, the Somali society like many other societies are still trying to come to terms with the imposition of modern state structure and its requirements, which may well be against their traditional ways of governance, i.e. yes there are many rules to adhere (xeerar) but there are no definite rulers or a centralised authority and the mechanism that are required in the modern world in order to enforce law and order and to deliver socio-economic goods to a modern society.  In this context, after the collapse of the central government, Somalis either in the north or the south are in a search of other forms or best ways of governance, that is whether to govern themselves through a centralised authority (for instance as Federal Somali States), or whether to remain as tribes and stateless as they did before the imposition of the centralised state system, as they continue to do so since 1991. So it is not clear where Mr Mazrui stands about the secession or union debate. However, having visited Mr Mazrui’s website www.alimazrui.com and having briefly skimmed through some of his publications and his curriculum vitae, it is quite difficult to believe that such an authority, a member of the Pan-African Advisory Council to UNICEF (The United Nations' Children’s Fund) [3] and who seems to be inclined towards the pan-African ideology - unity among African societies and even the black people worldwide, would support the notion of a secession, and would not promote the idea of greater union not only among Somalis but also among the peoples of Africa, whose tribes had been divided by the colonial powers. I say this in the framework of the current world politics and international relations in which major economic and political unions and blocks such as the European Union (EU) are being created by the unitary states in their struggle for survival and their effort in delivering socio-economic goods to their societies in a world where even the existence of unitary states in some developing or even developed countries are under threat by globalisation led by multinationals and corporations.  

Although it has been trying to go it alone for over a decade now, it seems that the secessionist ideologue failed its goal maybe because some unionist communities in the north – despite “referendums” etc - are still questioning whether they would be better off staying as clans within that region and then join their brethren in the South in a negotiated union; and they are questioning the wisdom to subscribe to a notion that is called “Somali+land” which even, if recognised as an independent entity, might not work. In other words they maybe asking themselves questions like: who is to say and guarantee that the current “alliance” of clans – which is more or less something that has been spearheaded by the secessionist ideologue – will not disintegrate into mini clans once the real-politics of maintaining a modern state structure and making it work in a tribal society creeps in, and when not only clan-families or clans but even smaller lineages begin to vie for socio-economics benefits and advantages of the new entity? When the honey-moon of the “struggle for independence or the restoration of sovereignty” elapses, and questions like which lineage should get presidency or ministerial posts is asked, who is to say that the new body – which is more or less a concoction of clans - would not disintegrate into warring fiefdoms of lineages and would not crumble under the divisive clan politics – “reer hebel madaxweyne ma noqon karaan oo mana xukumi karaan” (that clan cannot dominate or govern us). So maybe those unionist communities in the north with all those anxieties about an uncertain future, would prefer to remain in the union with their brethren in the south and try to make it work but this time in a negotiated union with loose federal structure rather than risking or entertaining a new adventure and untested idea of a “Somali+land” that might never work.  

The international community with its full knowledge of the fragility and the fluidity of clan and tribal alliances and politics in post-colonial Africa, and as it is aware of the current situation in which failing or failed states like Somalia, Burundi, Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Angola etc had disintegrated into tribes, has so far been prudent not to recognise the breakaway region. This is because first of all no state would want to be the first to be blamed for the dismemberment of the territorial integrity of a member state whose territorial integrity is guaranteed under the international law. Secondly, the international community is not satisfied that the current clan-alliances created by the secessionist ideologue and opposed by unionist communities will not crumble under the pressure of the demands of a modern state structure in a tribal society. It is worth mentioning that if the current clan “alliances” in the north survived in the past 14 years or so and maintained some kind of peace and normality, which is one of Mr Jhazabhay’s main arguments for secession, it is also true to say that the Somali Republic – the union between the North and South, although not perfect, had survived for 30 years, and the union although not perfect enjoyed peace and stability with a multi party system in the first decade of its existence.  Therefore current political dynamics may not guarantee against future fallibility and fallouts

Race: Black Ethnic group: Somalis Languages: Somali (Maay iyo Maxaa tiri) Religion: Islam – Sunni Figure 1: Homogenous and united for ever

In his essay, Mr Jhazbahay understandably tries to belittle the importance of the union in 1960. Although he quite rightly accepts the historical fact of the union, unlike some secessionist ideologues who deny the union or try to discredit it, he is quick to come to the conclusion that the south dominated the union, and this caused great suffering to the peoples of the north, which led to the north’s decision to revoke the union. Mr Iqbal Jhazabhay, for a bit of enlightenment, the union was born out of a great vision of great leaders who could see the possibility of uniting all Somalis-who existed as a nation before the colonisation-in a modern state structure that includes all Somalis regions. For his information, the star sitting in the middle of the blue coloured flag was adopted as a symbol of unity of all Somalis. The union was achieved in a historical moment in which leaders in the north and the south had secured a well-deserved independence from the colonial powers, which divided the Somali people.

The feelings of those leaders in 1960 must have had been similar to the feelings of the leaders of the present day South Africa who, after dismantling the apartheid system, had the courage and the vision to formulate a rebirth of a new South Africa that is inclusive of all its very diverse peoples with their different cultures and skin colours ranging from ebony to sunburnt pink to be united in one nation state with its colourful flag as symbol of identity and unity. A nation that Bishop Desmond Tutu called the “rainbow nation”, as a metaphor for unity, peace, hope and a bright future.  Mr Mandela did not waste time to re-affirm the term “rainbow nation” [4] that the Bishop coined when Mr Mandela said "Each of us is as intimately attached to the soil of this beautiful country as are the famous jacaranda[5] trees of Pretoria and the mimosa[6] trees of the bushveld - a rainbow nation at peace with itself and the world" (cited in Manzo 1996, p.71)[7]  The great leaders of the scholar’s country had the compassion and the courage to include even the oppressor in the new entity. So my advice to the scholar is to try to examine the importance of a nation’s historical development in his essays rather than jumping to ill-advised conclusions. 

Race: African/Black; white, coloured; Indian/Asian Major ethnic groups fo the Black Race:: Zulu, Xhosa, Basotho (South Sotho), Bapedi (North Sotho), Venda, Tswana, Tsonga, Swazi and Ndebele. Some, such as the Zulu, Xhosa, Bapedi and Venda groups Languages: Afrikaans, English, Ndebele, Sepedi, Sesotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa and Zulu Religion: All major religions are represented in South Africa + religion of indigenous people! Figure 2: Diverse and united

As he is out with the might of his intellect and knowledge to destroy Somalia, here is a hypothetical scenario, which I have created just for Mr Jhazabhay. The hypothetical scenario is a challenge for his intellect! In my hypothesis, I am using the Republic of South Africa as an example. This is because it has been reported in some media circles a mythology that associates this great nation with a move to sanction the fragmentation of the territorial integrity of the Somali Republic. The hypothesis goes like this. Five years down the line and the great leaders of the scholar’s country - who are symbols of unity, cohesion and hope - pass away or die. Remember, a five year period is a long time in politics: governments collapse; states disintegrate like what is happening now in Iraq. Then the troubles of political division, civil wars, and mistrust between the very diverse peoples threaten the foundation of this nation. Some ethnic groups question the wisdom and the vision which invented the modern day rainbow republic, and they demand total independence. Say for example one of the homelands is demanding sovereignty and total independence from the Republic of South Africa, or pan-African movements requesting the expulsion of all whites, or the extreme rightwing whites insisting on the resurrection of the Union of South Africa that was created in 1910 after the Boer war!!!! They are out with their spears and machine guns to divide the republic, which, in accordance to the 1996 Constitution (Chapter 3, 41 (1) a)[8] is indivisible. Some of those communities have stable and democratic institutions, which seems to be the thrust of the scholar’s secessionist argument for the northern region of the Republic of Somalia. A Somali academic comes to the scholar’s country to advocate and support the secessionist movements. Given the historical complexity and political dynamics that led to the re-birth of the present day new South Africa, would the honourable scholar subscribe to the secessionist argument? And if yes, could he enlighten us of the position of the secessionist demands under the framework of the current international law and international institutions????

Mr Jhazabhay,  if he already do not know, the Somali nation has one of the most homogeneous societies in Africa unlike the Republic of South Africa, which has one of the ethnically and racially diverse and complex societies in the world (see the pictures if he needs to compare the two nations). So if his country with its diversity and complexity is indivisible and is united as one, sovereign and democratic state as his country’s constitution guarantees, so is the Republic of Somalia, which has all elements of a homogeneous society that can create and maintain a stable and democratic United States of Somalia (USS). I say this having taken into consideration of the pros and cons of the debate over whether a modern state is viable and maintainable in homogeneous or heterogeneous societies, which is beyond the scope of a short article like this. However, as the academic probably knows most of the modern states in our trouble world are almost in homogeneous societies.

I will not comment on the rest of the ill-founded essay as it is an attempt to discredit the great works of President Ismail Geelle; the scholar’s comments about the failures of the current Transitional Government, which is something I would probably agree with; his unsuccessful portrayal of the “Somali+land” as acting as sovereign state, and his intention to undermine international laws regarding the territorial integrity of member states, without first of all carefully and intellectually analysing the complexity of the historical development of these laws like the Charter of African Union (AU) which guarantee the territorial integrity of all its member states including Somalia.