From Self-proclaimed Republic to Self-deluded Repugnance

By Zakaria FarahTuesday, June 16, 2009

My recent article about Somaliland’s near impossibility of gaining recognition which appeared on the opinion pages of hiiraan.com, attracted an overwhelming response from both opponents and proponents of independence for the Northwestern region of Somalia. For practical reasons, I would not be able to respond to the e-mailers. Nevertheless, I would take this opportunity to thank all those who tried to make their feelings known, especially those who disagreed with me.

I do, however, reiterate that further geographical division of the Somali people is unwarranted, unnecessary, and unjustified. While the debate about Somalia’s future, political structure and its final boundaries is a healthy thing, two things are for certain: the secessionists are a vocal minority while the unionists are the silent majority. It is time to reclaim the mantle and challenge those who are drowning out our voices. Moreover, I want to tackle a few urban myths constantly propagated by secessionists to promote their separatist tendencies and advance their goals.

The first myth that secessionists always use as a pretext for splitting Somalia is that the Northerners created unionism, joined the republic of their own volition, and hence can rescind the act of unionism on a whim. First of all, there are several misconceptions and misrepresentations in this myth.

For starters, the creation of the union was a joint venture between all regions of Somalia. The colonial masters, especially Britain were interested in reuniting the two Somali protectorates and removing the artificial borders. This gesture, however, did not extend to the Somalis in Ethiopia or Kenya. Perhaps the thinking of the colonialists at the time was that if the Somalis at the North and the South were reunited, it will diminish, if not entirely eliminate, the Somalis’ irredentist desires. Incidentally, and maybe not surprising, the people who are now advocating for secession are the same people who did not approve of the union in the first place. The other point is that the existing act of union is a contract that cannot be abrogated without the consent of eighty percent of all Somalis in the republic.

The second myth which is related to the first is that Northerners made tactical errors in joining the union in the first place, so the current desire to secede is just a correction of past mistakes.

It is an outright lie to claim that the creation of the Somali Republic was born out of erratic fantasies rather than the genuine desire of the Somali people. As indicated earlier, bringing about the union was not only the just thing to do; it was the right thing to do. Not only was the creation of the republic something wanted by most Somalis, it was something the international community and the colonialists desperately needed. The gravest of errors is the current secessionist movements to break up Somalia as we know it.

The third myth is that there is a precedent for carving out a separate country from Somalia. For example, secessionists cite the cases of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia breakups into separate nations.

The secessionists are creating a logical fallacy here, because the mere mention of those famous breakups reinforces the Somali unionists’ idea that breaking up Somalia is illogical and untenable. To create a nation-state is the precise reason why the post-cold war breakup of countries took place. Somalia is already a nation-state, so slicing it further does not make any sense.

One common ingredient of any breakup is to unite people who speak the same language and/or practice the same religion. The last time I checked Somalis spoke the same language and practiced the same religion. In addition, those states that broke up after the cold war were already republics within a republic. The political, cultural, and social subdivisions of those nations were firmly in place. It was a matter of time before those republics were separated.

The fourth myth perpetuated by the secessionists is that the advocates of one Somalia are Southern clans or inhabitants of the former Italian Somaliland who have no moral authority until they resolve their bitter struggle for power.

It may surprise some people, but the strongest supporters of one Somalia are the clans from the Northwest. Many clans and sub-clans in the Northwest valiantly fought the British colonialists in the hope of creating one Somalia. I do not think that the legendary freedom fighters in the North shed their blood in order to sub-divide Somalis and create clan enclaves. The other point is that while the Somalis in the South are still fighting among themselves, it doesn’t absolve them from the responsibility of campaigning and advocating for a united Somalia.

The fifth myth is that the desire to secede was as a result of the policies of the President Mohamed Siad Barre’s socialist regime which created an atmosphere of mistrust, marginalized and alienated Somalis in the North, and eventually persecuted them when they fought his administration.

It is true that the socialist revolution in Somalia in the late 1960s was anathema to Somalis and an antidote to development and democracy. It is also true that there were rampant human rights violations in many parts of Somalia during Barre’s reign, most notably the counterinsurgency tactics of the regime in the towns and cities in the northwest. It is, however, disingenuous to suggest that Barre’s autocratic rule was the main instigator of the mono-clan movements in the North and the subsequent secession declaration. Most of the current political ills and maladies in Somalia predates and postdates Barre’s years of rule. Meaning that there were animosities and mistrusts before Mohamed Siad Barre and they exist nearly two decades after he left.

To illustrate the point that animosity in Somalia predates and postdates Siad Barre, I recall meeting many years ago an older man from one of the Northern clans in a certain city in the West. The older man was discussing Somali politics with another man who hailed from the South. I was the youngster in the group and was not an active participant in the discussion, but I recall the older man saying, “I recoil with distaste whenever I hear the mention of three Mohammeds.”

At first, I flinched, because Mohammed is a beautiful Muslim name, a common Somali name, and the name of our beloved Prophet. The other man then asked, “Who are the three Mohammeds that make you cringe?” The older man replied, “Whenever I hear the name Mohammed Abdille Hassan, I cringe. Whenever I hear the name Mohammed Siad Barre, I cringe. Whenever I hear the name Mohammed Farah Aidid, I cringe.” I do not even remember the response from the other man or the explanations given by the older man, but I will leave to Somalis to decipher the meaning behind the old man’s statement. But I always wonder that if in the unlikely event Somaliland becomes independent who will celebrate the legacy of Seyyid Abdille Hassan? Was he a Somalilander or just a Somali? Will he have approved the division and sub-division of Somalia? Was he a Somali hero or a Somali villain? If Muhammad Abdille Hassan was found walking in downtown Hargeysa today will he mobbed like a rock star or will he be handed to the Ethiopians?

The sixth myth is that if you are against the creation or the secession of Somaliland, you are envious of its democracy, peace, and modest prosperity. First of all, it is farcical to suggest that the self-styled republic is democratic. If Somaliland is democratic, so was Somalia under Siad Barre. One can hold half-baked elections and call itself democratic, but saying so doesn’t make it so. In a democracy, opinions of every individual and groups of political stripes are respected. I maybe wrong, but I have not heard pro-Somali union groups or parties registered or freely operating in Somaliland.

While Somaliland areas are relatively peaceful compared to most Somali towns and cities, there are still ethnic clashes, border disputes, and simmering tensions. For example, the Sool region and a large swathe of Sanaag region are forced to the fold of Somaliland under intimidation and the barrel of a gun. Similarly, the clans in the Awdal region are suspicious of the whole Somaliland experiment. They believe that, rightly or wrongly, the secession project is a clan-motivated adventure. If Dahir Riyale Kahin who hails from Awdal is removed from his leadership in the current administration whether by the ballot or by the bullet and especially if Somaliland was recognized, the Awdal region will undoubtedly seek a separation. Therefore, the whole peace mantra is built on a house of cards. If also Puntland goes to war over Sool and Sanaag regions, or a future Somali government decides to reformulate the republic by force, the whole thing will unravel. It takes years to achieve peace but only days to destroy it. Prosperity thrives on peace, political stability and recognition. As a result of Somaliland’s political limbo, investment and growth is and will continue to be limited.

The suggestion that if you are against secession you are “jealous” of something or someone is preposterous. I for one want the regions, towns, and villages that call themselves Somaliland to remain or to become peaceful, democratic, and prosperous, and finally continue to be part of a unified Somalia.
Zakaria Farah
zacfarah@yahoo.co.uk