State Discourse
http://somalithinktank.org/wp-content/u ... test-1.pdf
The failed states discourse does not consider the possibilities of non- conventional
governance and authority that is beyond the concept of modern state because it is based on
the dichotomy- sate and non-state analysis. Failed state discourse is problematic because
“the traditional interpretation of ‘failed states’ such as DRC and Somalia is closely tied to
a view of the modern state system that assumes that all states are essentially alike and
function in the same way”( Merton 444). So using this dichotomy between the existence
of state and no-state in analyzing the social and political realities in Africa misses the
opportunity to incorporate the effectiveness of non-state governance that exist in many socalled
failed states (Hagmann and Hoehne 55).
This dichotomy –no state and modern state existence- assumes anarchy in all parts
of Somalia since there is no central government, which should impose law and order. As
Merton has illustrated, failed state is characterized by its inability to control its territory
and provide basic services to its citizens (447). Therefore, state failure discourse needs to
incorporate the sub nation entities that function in many parts of Somalia. Using such
analysis allows us to recognize and embrace the progresses of non-conventional
governance that exists in many parts of Somalia.
It is important to reflect on the possibilities and opportunities that traditional clan
systems could play in the process of peace building and restoring law and order. Beyond
failed state notion towards Somalia, Hagmann and Hoehne argue “Our analysis of subnational
political orders in the Somali-inhabited territories demonstrates that state
formation evolves in contradiction to the ‘state convergence” (53). For example, since
1991, there is relative peace and clan based administrations in the north east and west of
Somalia. These administrations are called Somaliland and Puntland respectively.
Somaliland declared its independence from Somalia in 1991 while Puntland, a semiautonomous
state, is a member of the federal states of Somalia. Both administrations
succeeded to restore and maintain peace and political stability in the areas they control.
They also succeeded in providing some basic social services to the people. What are the
social and political mechanisms that contribute the formation of such local administrations
in Somalia? What is also the political structure that guides them? To answer these
questions, we need to understand the traditional social structure in Somalia.
Social and political structures in Somalia are based on traditional clan authority and
customary laws. As British anthropologist I M. Lewis explored, Somali traditional
structure can be summarized into three main elements namely: clan, customary laws and
traditional authority (12). Before Europeans colonized Somalia, traditional governance was
based on these social structures, which still continue to play an important role in Somali
life today. Somali culture is based on a nomadic life style. Individuals and families belong
to clan, which provides the necessary government. Before independence, as Powell, Ford,
and Nowrasteh noted “Somalis preferred to be known as Isaaq, Darood, or Bantu rather
than Somali because loyalty to one’s clan, village, and ethnicity took precedence over
loyalty to the national government” ( 658).
Clan formation in Somalia is based on the concept that its members share common
family lineage. Clan lineage is based on male descent: “The Somali segmentary lineage
system is based on various breaks in the line of male descent” (Leonard and Samantar
567). Under this lineage system, clan encourages individuals to reside in close proximity to
their families. This is what creates close families who live in the same village. The fear
from hostile clans forces individuals to live in the village of their forefathers.
Traditionally, disputes and conflicts within this clan structure are resolved through
customary laws (Lewis 11).
Through traditional clan based governance and conflict resolution, Somaliland and
Puntland achieved success in terms of peace and development. The two regions broke
away from the rest of the country and now operate independently. In the process of their
formation, clan elders in these regions held conferences in which clans reached agreements
to form non-conventional governance which is based on customary laws and modern
institutions (Hegman and Hoehne 56). For example, Somaliland formation originates from
the Burao and Borama conference which was held by clan elders in 1991. At this
conference a constitution was written which led to lasting peace in Somaliland. As
Michael Walls notes “However imperfect, the process of conflict resolution, peace
building and state building in Somaliland in the periods up to and including the
conferences in Burao and Borama offers a clear demonstration of a form of consensusbased
democracy in practice” (389). The methods used during the Borama conference
shows the role of customary law in conflict resolution, and the traditional authority of
elders.
The existence of balance between traditional institutions and modern institution is
what distinguishes Somaliland and Puntland from the rest of the country. Areas of
Somalia where traditional institutions and clan elders do not play effective roles are
characterized by instability and insecurity. For example, people in the southern parts of
Somalia still live in political instability and civil war because clan elders in the region have
lost their legitimacy and traditional authority. As Michael Walls notes:
However, in contrast to the situation in the south and elsewhere in the Somali
territories, Somaliland’s success is notable…..peace and security in Somali society
will be best served by strengthening those emerging political structures that already
have the firm backing of their inhabitants. (373)
Thus, lack of traditional authority in Southern areas of Somalia has contributed to
prolonged instability and mayhem in the capital city of Somalia- Mogadishu and its
surrounding regions. This paper critiques the conventional approach of state building in
Somalia. The conventional approach the international community followed for many
years to rebuild the so-called “failed sates” from capital cities to hinterland areas has failed
(Morten, 444). Reflecting on the lack of traditional authority by clan elders in Mogadishu,
this approach by the international community to restore peace and government institutions
will most likely fail. As Morten observes, this approach should be reexamined because the
realities on the ground are different from what this approach preaches (445). In Somalia,
some hinterland areas such as Somaliland and Puntland, managed to restore peace and
stability through traditional social processes.
One of the reasons for this failure is lack of consideration for traditional social
processes by international community in in the last 20 years. As Leonard and Samantar
demonstrate, the international community should recognize and help local traditional
authorities if they want to help Somalis. They note that
Overall, the failed state index list ranks Somalia as a country where anarchy and
distraction prevail. On the other hand, we can see there is possibility of success beyond
failed state discourse. In Somalia’s case there is a functioning traditional clan based
governance in northern part of the country- Somaliland and Puntland administrations. Local
clans in Northern part of Somalia employ their social contract mechanism build traditional
institutions which maintain law and order in their area. The existence of the sub-entities in
Somalia shows how traditional social structures could play an effective role in restoring
peace and development in Somalia. The success of Somaliland and Puntland demonstrate
the critical need for balance between traditional institutions and modern institutions in the
