Names of oct.21 1969 Coup d'etat

[AbdiWahab252]

Warya,

The 1969 revolution was the beginning of the end of the Somali state. The democratic institutions were in work in progress form 1960 to 69. We were a burgeoning democracy that faced many challenges but we were making great progress. The multiparty politics helped keep the peace and contained the SOmali rivalries in a political arena and dissauded us from civil war.

The 1969 revolution turned the country into a one man state. The President had absolute power in the very sense of the word. Opposition and dissent was not allowed. Fear gripped the land to a point where no one could speak truth to the President. The Ogaden war helped escalate the demise of the state by ruining the one institution that traditionally enjoyed respect from most Somalis, the military, depleting the state coffers, and flooding the country with refugees from Ogadenia who were then manipulated to serve the interests of the regime.

Yes, the regime apologists will point to some of the successes of the autocracy yet they fail to point out the severe failings such as the start of the first Somali civil war, ending of civil political opposition and the rise of armed movements. The armed groups simply arose because there was no space for #nonviolent political discourse and because the government responded to all peaceful opposition through force and jailing. The source of most of our problems emanate from mistakes caused by the dictatorship. The seeds for our collapse were sown on 1969.

Now, say if Xasan Sheik took on MSB's methods and was backed up by AMISOM, he could make the same kinds of sweeping changes (liquidating opposition, one party rule, suppression of dissent) that could propel to progress albeit at a massive cost of human lives but I doubt those MSB apologists would support such a move. Imagine a 100,000 AMISOM force sweeping through Somalia and slaughtering all opposition. Peace would arrive very quickly.

[KingBlack]

AW - During the 1964 and 1969 General Elections, the Somali Youth League (SYL) won the
significant majority of votes; immediately following each election, significant numbers
of “opposition MPs” crossed party lines and joined the SYL. Further, the 1969 elections
saw 1000 candidates representing 62 parties standing for only 123 seats in the National
Assembly.

During the 1969 elections, 1,002 people, representing 62 different political
parties, stood for 123 National Assembly seats; after the SYL won 73 seats, all but
one of the non-SYL politicians crossed over, effectively creating a dominating singleparty
state.

General Mohamed Siad Barre emerged as the leader of a Supreme Revolutionary Council
(SRC) and simultaneously catapulted himself into the vacant presidency. Through
his policies of ‘scientific socialism’ Barre sought to transform Somalia into a modern
nation-state that would “substitute the clan in providing leadership, security and
welfare…” (Scholiswohl 2004). Following the abolishment of the constitution,
National Assembly, Supreme Court and all political parties, Barre and the SRC
unilaterally mandated themselves as the sole proprietors of the government

[waryaa]

awahab, 1960s/70s folks are abundant in Mogadishu and I am very lucky to sit with them frequently while they discuss about history and what went wrong. Just yesterday I sat with once the head of Somali commandos. He said the nite b4 the coup his team was told to prepare for an action and stay alert all night. In the morning he and others were taken to Igal's (former prime minister and somaliland president AUN) residence where they guarded three months and allowed nobody to enter. He was not a senior officer at the time. What I gathered so far is that Somalia's democratic government was not as bad as it is portrayed by the military regime. History is written by the winner.

about hassan sheik/one party, It is impossible.

fyi, countries that kept systems left by the Europeans in 60s are much more stable than those that did not. All military coups were followed by other coups or civil wars.

[AbdiWahab252]

Warya,

In my example of giving Xasan Sheik the same kind of sweeping powers, was to lead that it would to sweeping stability in the mid term but at a prohibitive cost in the long term.

The 60s democratic model was not perfect but it kept the peace. We had a political system that allowed groups to compete in parliament and without needing to resort to violence.

[guhad122]

Waryaa and A/W;
I think it was Waraa who once said that I would choose freedom over being robbed daily. That sums up the difference between the two governments. Regardless of its shortcomings, we had a democratic government where people were free to express their views freely. There was a freedom of press and there were many political parties. Yes there was corruption and nepotism but who is to address that? Siyad Barre regime? The MOD? Everything that was done in Siyad Barre regime is clan-driven.

And look who is defending the Kacaan? Booli-Qaran kids? Siyad took us back in time for over 100 years and it would literally take close to that to get back to where we were.

[Advo]

What happen in 1991 would have taking place in 1969 if it wasn't for Kacanka, we were saved from an erupting volcano but how can u help others who dont wanna be helped? Exactly the same folks whining are the same ones who never contributed anything but took and took and took til nothing was left then got together to over throw the regime.

But could they replace it? NOPE!

They were so busy over the years looting, they had no idea how to govern effectively.

[AbdiWahab252]

Guhad and Waryaa,

Egal failed to move quickly to suppress the coup. We should have had our civil war in 1969 with the civilian government versus the coup leaders. It would have been less bloody and saved us from this destruction.

[guhad122]

With the pace things were going; we would have been the first full democratic nation in Africa. If you actually read the elections of the MPs, you would realize that in the later years, say 1967 and 68, people were starting to trust their party over their clan. It was an ongoing process and I am sure things would have improved. To give you an example of how things changed, from 1961 to 1967, it was next to impossible for any MP to be elected from areas where his clan is not the majority. That changed in 1968 elections when an Ogaden MP was elected from Hargaisa. I think his name was Cumar Dheere or something like that. People were getting educated and were headed in the right-direction. Remember that having a high school diploma at that time was a big thing

[The`Republic]

Lol @ Waryaa. Objective writing from non-Somali sources observing what was taking place at that time and place, even declassified CIA report on the night of the coup are "written by the winners" yet people's subjective ruminations and "in hindsight" influenced by many factors and subject to the biases and prejudicies which are either subconscious or conscious is somehow a scientifically sound and theoritically applicable justaposition vis-a-vis the significance of the Revolutions happenstance and the state of things in the "fledging democracy" that contributed to it.

Honestly, if you want a coffee shop talk, by all means have it. If you want embrace an intellectually sound discourse mitigating our personal feelings but rather only taking into consideration the facts then be a little bit more astutue than "people said." A significant number of Americans right now believe Obama is a Muslim and/or was born in Kenya...what is to make of the stories they will pass down?

Seriously man this conversation is not conducive for an idealized exchange of information so what's the point? That doesn't mean I don't respect you Waryaa; to the contrary I have a healthy amount of respect and affinity towards you but I also have a healthy amount of respect for upholding common decency in analyzing the truth.

As for Abdiwahab and Guhad, you remind of street peddlers hawking from the a deceitful corner. Sell me not a penny of your wares.

[gurey25]

Lol @ Waryaa. Objective writing from non-Somali sources observing what was taking place at that time and place, even declassified CIA report on the night of the coup are "written by the winners" yet people's subjective ruminations and "in hindsight" influenced by many factors and subject to the biases and prejudicies which are either subconscious or conscious is somehow a scientifically sound and theoritically applicable justaposition vis-a-vis the significance of the Revolutions happenstance and the state of things in the "fledging democracy" that contributed to it.

Honestly, if you want a coffee shop talk, by all means have it. If you want embrace an intellectually sound discourse mitigating our personal feelings but rather only taking into consideration the facts then be a little bit more astutue than "people said." A significant number of Americans right now believe Obama is a Muslim and/or was born in Kenya...what is to make of the stories they will pass down?

Seriously man this conversation is not conducive for an idealized exchange of information so what's the point? That doesn't mean I don't respect you Waryaa; to the contrary I have a healthy amount of respect and affinity towards you but I also have a healthy amount of respect for upholding common decency in analyzing the truth.

As for Abdiwahab and Guhad, you remind of street peddlers hawking from the a deceitful corner. Sell me not a penny of your wares.

i wonder what your interpretation of the events are?
do you think the "kacaan" or coup was positive or negative generally.
i dont argue that somalia's politics in the 60's was dysfunctional,

[The`Republic]

Gurey-

In my post in the first page, I said:

2.) Coup did many great things such as educating the masses, standardizing an orthography, bringing Somalia to the world stage, developing the country to some extent where possible, etc; but admittedly the Coup ultimately left a negative legacy because it led to the implosion of the Somali state. I will not argue about the legacy of the coup but like I said you cannot go off of the legacy to make an indictment on the necessity of the Coup when it took place. The Coup was justified which is something you need to understand is separate to what ultimately happened at the end.

In my individual assessment, the Kacaan failed because ultimately it led to the disintegration of the Somali State. However, the Kacaan's legitimate formation cannot be reintrepreted. I have looked at so much information on this, and even using non-Somali sources so others cannot say there is domestic bias, and the conclusion is very convincing: the 60's experiment was not sustainable.

The President was assasinated by a policeman from his own "clan" who felt his "sub-clan" within it was not faring well as compared to the president's sub-clan. The entire thing become so rotten like that of the tree about to collapse over. That raw observation from the CIA on the night of the coup puts it into perspective. How is that assessment from October 21, 1969 so different than anything that led to the civil war or take place? There is virtually no difference and no amount of subjective redressing can explain that away.

At the heart of the failure of the Somali question is more cultural than political and the irony is I still see those cultural foundations subsisting to today. This is why I am catiously optimistic about the entire Somali question due entirely to my misgivings about the culture which will manifest within it. Somaliland, no matter how much you may spin it, is no different to wider Somalia in this reservation of mine.

The Kacaan: Legitimate formation
The Kacaan: Failed legacy

That's my verdict.

[gurey25]

i agree it was not sustainable and the government was barley functioning.
any tiny events could have sparked a civil war, but you underestimate the people.

i think we could have survived another 10 years or so of dysfunctional SYL rule and we would have avoided total collapse.

better a half dead state stumbling along than a dead one.
at least somali nationalism would have survived.

[The`Republic]

Ifs and buts have never done much to change the world. I also find it scientifically imprudent to hypothesis where factors do not exist for us to analyze. I am not saying it could have been that way or it could not have been that way but rather we are without the controls to assess. As such, I do not find much use in contesting an analysis which is solely subjective and influenced by how we feel now, in this given time and situated realm.

As for your point about Somali nationalism: the stronger the test, the strong the durability rate. If Somali nationalism is worth it, it would survive now.

[gurey25]

one thing that is very clear though is that being the only working organ of the state, the only one with professionalism i.e The army
there would have been a coup sooner or later, and depending on which clan gets the lottery , they would be the ones reviled and accused of destroying somalia
if the same scenario replayed again.

[The`Republic]

Lol. I don't think Marehan is really "Reviled" though, in fact even I am sometimes surprised by how much goodwill most Somalis show the clan.

But you are right. Wadaad vs. Waranle. The basis of Somali culture since time immemorial; especially the post-colonial Somali army without having the "precedent" we have now which forces them to see the wisdom of being under civilians would have come into the equation sooner or later. That much is a solid theory once you take into consideration the very foundations of Somali culture.