In the communist concept, Karl Marx and his philosophy colleagues believed that workers must unite to overthrow capitalist system and seize the means of production in order to eliminate the exploitation of man by man. October Revolution of 1917 in Russia promised this opportunity for workers in that country, calling it the Soviets or councils. As time passed, the plight of workers remained the same, if not worse, under socialist regimes. Leaders persuaded people that under the final stage of socialism, the communism, things will change to the better, until socialism had collapsed under the heat of Cold War and fierce competition with free market capitalism. In today’s sense of governance, any dictatorship, proletariat or otherwise, is unacceptable to most nations, barring suppression and repression by local authorities.
In the case of China, they learned from Soviet experience to by-pass the doomsday of collapse of communism. To consolidate power, Chinese Communist Party devised a system that releases people’s entrepreneurship along capitalist principles, while maintaining supreme control of power by the Communist Party. Democracy through selection by meritocracy is unique to China. In other words, power and public responsibility are entrusted in leaders who are capable, tested and highly qualified ideologically and by merit. In ancient China there was a period of time they had had a government by scholars. Ministers, provincial govenors etc must have higher degrees in education. There were other times in ancient China when no one dared to tell the King anything, unless asked for. When things go bad, in order to inform the King, artists drew and painted strange phenomena like birds flying backwards. The Chinese were clever to think strategically.
That question was raised by one of us in a group discussion tonight at teatable in Garowe, Puntland. Everyone expressed his take on that colossal Somali tragedy. The consensus was that Somali state failed due to one man-rule. In other words, the rise of Madax-Ka-Nool is the root cause of Somalia’s collapse. Did we learn anything from this experience?, asked one man. Nothing, responded another. Is there a guarantee that it won’t fail again?, asked 3rd man. No, you won’t get different result from repeating the same experience, volunteered to the debate yet another man.
The conversation was as enlightening as it gets. But what was more exciting was the understanding that since some past and present leaders of the Federal Government and Federal Member States have no capacity or resources to act Siyad Barre, at least this weakness combined with Federal system are deterrent against dictatorship, but for how long? The current problem though lies in leaders of mini-states have created their own enclaves to act as mini-despots in their own right – again one man-rule in a much smaller scale. It means the sum total of the leaders of the Federal Government and FMS amount to a system of despotism in Somalia – an unintended outcome of federalism.
How to come out of this political quagmire? Did you see workshops and training on governance by subject-matter experts in Somalia? But do despots need such transfer of knowledge to the general public and government personnel? Of course not. A vicious cycle sets in which leads to the philosophy hardest question of which was created first, chicken or the egg.
Where does the rule of law fit into all of those? How about independent body of legislators? How does a country call itself democracy in the absence of free and fair elections? We must be all kidding ourselves.
In the world of disinformation, four “Ds” are important. You first “dismiss” reality and everything that does not suit your chosen narrative. Think of how Farmaajo spent months dismissing he was the obstacle to the elections and harbouring dictatorial ambitions. You then “distort” facts so that it becomes impossible to distinguish between right or wrong, or what to believe or not. The outrageous counterclaims on why the election summits failed; the use of government machinery to silence political opponents explained away as “law and order”; how we are told Farmaajo is always “compromising in the national interest” without doing anything of the sort.
Then comes the “distract” bit in which attention is diverted way from failures. For instance, picking fights with neighbouring countries, including those subsidising the government to create the impression foreigners are stirring unrest; late night press releases to pre-empt emerging events; opening up multiple channels of dialogue to stall progress, knowing none of them will come to fruition.
And finally, you “dismay” everyone by doing something so outrageous, the extreme becomes the new normal. For evidence, look at how Farmaajo is now squatting in Villa Somalia and attention is on what he can be asked to do, rather than why he is there in the first place; the constitutional destruction of the “Upper House” which is now an accepted non-entity; the “Qabiilisation” of security services. Because things are so extreme, people begin to accept previously unthinkable scenarios as the new normal, hence the reason attacks on political opponents are now seen as merely routine events
Farmaajo’s speech in his servile “Lower House of Parliament” was incoherent and dismally familiar. Preferring Farmaajo’s promises to reality will always lead to the wrong consequences and the fact remains that he will never accept fair elections. He is merely indulging in another helpfully-timed political fiction when every other door has closed. It won’t be long before this unravels again.
Legal Somalia is no “sovereign” Somalia
There has been much nonsensical posturing about “sovereign Somalia” in recent weeks. There is of course a key difference between legality and sovereignty. The former is a country with legal recognition but is otherwise weak or irrelevant; the latter is one that can also defend its territorial and national interests adequately. Somalia is country that can only be stabilised by foreign forces, whereby the president relies on foreign troops to keep him safe and donors’ cash puts food on everyone’s table. This is hardly a sign of sovereignty. Paradoxically, the very things that would have led to sovereignty – peace and stability, self-sufficiency, economic progress and democratic norms and institutions are the ones Farmaajo has done his best to kneecap during his term.
That is why whenever Farmaajo is diplomatically isolated, the cry for “sovereignty” is not far behind. What Farmaajo sees as sovereign Somalia is one in which he is free to rule as he pleases, freeriding on donors’ cash without questions. In reality, Somalia is threatened less by others than by a former president who is now spilling Somali blood in every corner of the country.
Holding the line against Farmaajo
The bravery that we have seen on the streets of Mogadishu against Farmaajo’s tyranny matters much more than many people realise. These soldiers, and indeed some determined politicians, stood up for the country’s constitution and showed Farmaajo the limits of his murderous thuggery.
This is also why, in many ways, it is another disaster delayed. A prime minster, who had shown no credible authority when it really mattered, is now claiming that he can deliver a contradictory task: appease Farmaajo’s demands of fealty but also do what is right for the country. There can only be one winner. If he has waited this long for Farmaajo’s nod to take the lead in a process he was constitutionally mandated to perform long ago, one could hardly think following him blindingly into another rabbit hole will deliver any results.
The reality is that the respite from Farmaajo’s rampage is only short-lived. The irony in all of this is that this latest political fiction which the prime minster is leading makes Farmaajo’s eventual downfall much bloodier than it would have been had the country gotten rid of him today and moved on.
Dig deep to deter and defend democracy
What happened in Mogadishu is another formative trauma that holds lessons for all of us. As much as any war appals us, there is nothing worse than remaining supine in the face of atrocities when your own people’s lives and the country’s future are at stake. The young soldiers who dug in the streets of Mogadishu, putting their lives on the line were the last line defence between defending the country’s constitution and falling into the depths of dictatorship.
Make no mistake: Farmaajo was forced to give up on his extension not by diplomatic wail or empty threats, but by the cold realisation he could not crash the people of Mogadishu to docility. Had it not been for these soldiers and few politicians, we would have woken up with the grim realisation of living in a country where everyone is politically asphyxiated and an emboldened despot rules as he pleases. It puts into context how the country has come close to becoming Eritrea’s twin sister.
Farmaajo is still a threat to democracy and will remain so until he is out of the way. Do not expect any progress while he remains, unconstitutionally, at Villa Somalia.
Although I heard about it and reminded myself, on several occasions, to have a look at it, I, finally, had the opportunity to read Mohamud Jama Ghalib’s book, The Cost of Dictatorship, 1995 Edition. While I commend the author’s efforts to record his own experience with the extremely repressive regime he served loyally for such a long time, and although I am, perhaps, a bit sympathetic to his inclination to the Somali unity, I found the author’s account in the book full of historical distortions, perhaps with intended omissions of facts and extreme partiality towards forces that led to the removal of Siyad Barre Military Dictatorship.
When I read Ghalib’s book I suddenly remembered one incident involving the author during the Somali National Reconciliation Conference in Imbagati, Kenya, 2002-2004. For whatever reasons he avoided Hargheisa even when it fell to the forces of Somali National Movement (SNM) he claims that he was the key man in Mogadishu at
t
he time to support its armed struggle against Barre, the General remained connected to Mogadishu even after the collapse of the Somali State. Whatever role he played within the reign of Mogadishu Warlords and their struggle to finish one another, the General finally decided to act as an active member of the Mogadishu civil society politicised organizations. Because of external donors’ manipulations, these organizations became the most serious obstacle to the restoration and re-institution of the Somali State. One day in 2004 at the Safari Park Hotel, Nairobi, the President of Uganda, Yoweri Musaveni, in his capacity as the Current Chairman of IGAD, and in an effort to reconcile severely opposing views and differences within the Somali parties at Conference, met with predominantly members of the Mogadishu civil societies. During the briefings and discussions with M7 (Musaveni), one lady from the Digile and Mirifle group, Ms Ardo, who later became a member of the Somali Transitional Federal Parliament, complained to him that the “warlords are giving no chance to any one, including a claim to be members of the civil societies like my brother General Mohamud Jama Ghalib”. Ghalib was comfortably sitting there when President Musaveni looked at Ghalib and asked him,” aren’t you a General? What are you doing here?”
The point here is that General Ghalib can claim for himself any past societal status or role rightly or wrongly he so desires to be remembered of, but he cannot be allowed to distort modern history as we are all witnesses as well, and perhaps more informed than him with regards to the Somali movements established to fight against Barre Regime.
Let me set the record straight. The movements of SNM and USC the esteemed General glorifies are nothing, but the work done by the Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF) in its historical efforts to mobilize Somali masses against the Military Junta in Mogadishu. When some political leaders of prominently Issaks led by Mr Duqsi and Mr Jumcale, came to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and met with then leaders of the Somali Salvation Front (SSF), a successor of Somali Democratic Action Front (SODAF) in 1981, it was agreed to form a united front against the Regime. There was no SNM at that time. It was decided that Issaks had to organize themselves, either to join SSF individually and in groups, or to form their own movement with an intention to join forces later. The formation of SNM was announced in London, UK, in 1982 after SSF became SSDF with its merge with the Somali Communist Party led by Abdirahman Aid, himself hailing from Sool and Togdheer regions of Somalia, and Somali Workers’ Party led by Said Jama, hailing from North-western Somalia.
SSDF sent a high level delegation composing of Mr. Jama Rabile God (after he defected to SSDF) and Abdirahman Sugule Xaabsey to SNM leadership in London for unification talks. An SNM delegation led by the organization’s Secretary-General, Mr. Duqsi, came to meet with SSDF leadership in Addis Ababa for unity talks. The talks continue for several weeks and ended in stalemate. The main reason for the failure of talks was the position of SNM leaders that if they were to join with SSDF, they might not secure the support of Issak masses as they were mostly bent to fighting against what they called Southern domination. It was agreed that SSDF, rich with Qadafi money and huge and generous supply of modern arms, would bankroll SNM and arm its forces for the next two years, or until SNM could secure enough support from its own constituencies while the unity talks would continue in the foreseeable future. SSDF shared its broadcasting Radio Studio, Radio Kulmis and changed the name to Radio Halgan, the United Voice of the Somali Opposition. That cooperation continued through Sheikh Yusuf Madar/Issak/Habar-Awal until the SNM leadership of Col. Kosaar/Issak/Habar-Younis, who was assassinated, perhaps by Siyad Agents, in a Mustahiil (off Hiraan Region) SNM Military camp.
Ahmed Mohamed Silaanyo/Issak/Habar-Jeclo/Adan Madoobe was elected as Kosaar’s successor. SSDF leadership ran into trouble with Mengistu Haile-Mariam. Then, SSDF leader, Col Abdullahi Yusuf was arrested by Mengistu because of serious political differences involving opposing national interests. There was a temporary lull in the activities of SSDF. Then, SSDF broke into two factions.
Mohamud Jama Ghalib ignores the fact that USC was a splinter group of SSDF following the arrest of its leader in Ethiopia. The second and most influential figure in USC leadership after General Aideed was the Late Mohamed Farah Jimcaale/Harbar-Gedir/Saad, a once Deputy Chairman of SSDF until General Aideed forced his way to remove Hussein Ali Shido/Harbar-Gedir/Suleiman with the support of Jimcaale at a militia camp at border. When General Aideed came to Ethiopia, in his initial attempt to remove Hussein Shido from USC leadership, he was received by Mengistu. In that audience, Aideed requested for the release of Abdullahi Yusuf. Mengistu warned him not to try that again.
The trouble I have with Mr. Ghalib’s accounts is that he could know better, having a formal police and intelligence training, unless his intention is to distort facts, deny others of their historical role and glorify the works of yesterday’s political stooges of the hated regime. One should not stay with and serve a dictatorship for twenty-odd years, always in-waiting for an appointment to high office and higher promotion within the regime while claiming to be a staunch supporter of the opposition. You cannot be a Police General and a member of the civil society at same time!
In the Cost of the Dictatorship, Ghalib has no slightest fairness or guts to mention about the role of the first organized opposition to the Regime, The SSDF. Read and see his tendency towards not mentioning even once the name of its Leader, Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, while he glories the names and noble contributions of his colleagues, including himself, in the Regime of Siyad Barre. He is easily exposed, however, when he ignores the fact regarding the SNM that an organization does not fight for liberation and independence while at same time installing yesterday’s political stooges and security agents of the dictatorship as its new leaders. It makes no sense.
I, therefore, strongly believe that there are many distortions and twisting of facts in the Ghalib’s book, The Cost of Dictatorship. Some stories recounted in the book must be re-examined and verified as its author seems emotionally partial, accompanied with a motive, I suspect, to deny his role and responsibilities in the gross misconduct of Somalia’s affairs, horrendous abuses of power and human rights violations during the period the author served not his country, but Siyad Barre’s Junta for many years.
Having said that, I am, however, a bit inclined to agree with General Ghalib’s overall assessment of the extent and the irreversible damages Issak intellectuals had done to undermine the existence and vital national interests of Somalia’s state in their blind fight against Siyad Barre Regime or the “Southern domination”. In that regard, I recall one painful expression or rather a question relayed to me in a conversation in Nairobi, Kenya, a few years ago, with Mr Mohamud Jama “Sifir”, a long time employee of the UN about the extra efforts of these intellectuals have been exerting in destroying Somalia as we knew it: “Who will ever dig Somalia out of the deep hole of our own making?” Sifir told me that the question was raised by one of his colleagues as they assessed the tremendous damages done not only to Siyad Barre Regime, but to Somalia to a much greater extent, during their anti-regime campaigns in foreign and Western capitals within the international community. No wonder Somalia becomes too difficult to fix.
Warsame Policy & Media Network (WAPMEN) 
You must be logged in to post a comment.