There is hardly any difference among Somalis that there is a crisis. Our very existence as a nation is in serious jeopardy and our territorial integrity is being threatened. There are many people making various diagnosis of this malaise that is plaguing the nation today. But indeed this only identifies the symptoms rather than the real roots of the problem. The heart of this crisis is basically in two folds: secularism and negative tribalism. First one is inherited from the colonial powers and it separates Islam from the affairs of the state; the second one is self-inflicted social decease that stems from the dark side of tribal institutions exploited by politicians. First is a form of governance developed by nations whose views of authority, morality, and history are different than ours. The later is a tool often used by wicked leaders in the time of crises.

For over hundred years, Somalia has faced the challenge of the so-called European enlightenment and modernity. While the rulers and nearly all of the nations elite have embraced European political systems, Somali public has witnessed total failure of these concepts in their country. We never had inquisition courts persecuting innocent civilians or clergy class that is allied with or justified the excess of ruling elite. Yet the imposition of ideologies, that emerged the experience of European states, on us was justified as step forward. Ideologies that emerged the conditions of modernity such as Marxism and Liberalism have had their chance to succeed in our country and they failed miserably and, to our dismay, they continue to compete with Islam in trying to shape our society today. Secularism, as is understood in the West, is the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. Our brand was a bit different as it allowed diluted and neutralized Islamic legal system in few areas of the constitution. We always had alternative systems other than colonial legacies left behind by European masters. Islamic political system is one of these options but we never explore it. But why did our leaders bought that nonsensical view. These political views do not resonate to the large public, nor do they conform to the values and ethical system that we hold so dearly. It was a deliberate self-deception to believe that Islamic political thought inhibits modernity or progressive ideas. It does not inhibit either of them and the historical record affirms that.

In the sixties we wholeheartedly embraced Democracy. Among other things it politicized tribalism. Justice was an option that enjoyed political support. Nepotism was the norm. The old notion of clan-based allegiance had taken new relevance. When the army revolted and ousted the government illegally, the public did not shed tears. To the contrary they explicitly supported the military junta. The new military regime and horrors it inflicted to the Somalis is well known to the survivors. Under Communism, the government had declared war to Islam. The system collapsed at a time the government had been waging undeclared war with very people it is supposed to protect. Both governments had one thing in common: they both advocated secularism. They truly believed an alien political system was needed to assure the development that country was desperately needed. Democratic government in sixties allowed tribal institutions and nomadic justice system based on sharia but made subject to the dictates of secular law that government adopted as its constitution. On other hand, military regime separated Islam and government as matter of principal.

The bare statement that secularism works is not impressive. Of course, it works in the West because this view has relevance to their collective history. After all, it is the result of their experience. What makes secularism impressive is the extent it worked or whether it will ever work for us. The fact of the matter is it did not work in Somalia. The only relevant question is how much did colonial political systems contributed to the crisis we are in today. Secular proponents led us in the wrong direction not only because they were indifferent to the interest of their nation but also they were ignorant about other alternatives or unwilling to embrace them.
At the height of the cold war, world super powers had compelling interests in persuading nations that have geo-political value. One of the conditions of getting their support was our leaders submission to their ideology. Thus corrupt regimes like ours, which would have otherwise been ousted by public uprising, got second chance to prolong their grip of power. These leaders of ours were asking handouts and were begging, in the true sense of the word, foreign aid by declaring that they implemented the policies that was favorable to the donors. In a way the very systems that supposed to modernize our means of production and lead us to prosperity reduced us to be recipient of corn shipments that could be easily grown on our fertile land. Junk of that aid shipment didnt reach the intended target but sold to business racketeers. While it subsidized agricultural industry of donor nations, it put the domestic farmers out of business more than anything else. There was no incentive to grow corn that you cannot sell due to the competition of cheap aid shipments present in the market. We could have easily found out the reasons that our farmers failed to mass-produce and then ask the assistance of others to rectify the problem if that is necessary. The mismanagement of public funds, corruption, and other social ills were symptoms of the problem not its cause. One may argue that this kind of problem is just indication of corrupt leadership more than failure of the system. But the leaders are the authors of the system and the public relies on their character more than the system since it is open for changes that supposedly reflect public desires.

Moreover previous governments launched campaigns to educate public so that they would have the skills to be productive citizens. The educated few have been perpetuating the same system. Absent from this curriculum, endorsed by the state, was the meaning and wisdom behind the Koran that most Somali children learned by heart at age ten. Yet the old ways of nomadic belief that moral authority comes from supremacy of Almighty God remained intact and conviction that they are accountable to no one but Allah is true as it was in early days. This coexistence of sharia and secular government created duality of authority. Striped its moral authority, government was seen as entity that serves the interest of leaders and their tribes. Thus strong clans had implicitly declared their candidacy of the leadership position and made clear of their resolve to achieve it by any means necessary. Confused and betrayed, Somali public had been suffering the blunders of the old-school politicians left behind by colonial masters. Laws written by philosophers that do not take into account the faith and code of conduct of communities that live on this side of the globe are doomed to fail. The reason is that Somalis are Muslim and Islam condemned shirki. Recognition of any authority as the highest or ultimate authority in place of god constitutes as shirki. The government used its might to enforce what most Somalis knew to be shirki. Nevertheless we were told that these ideologies provide tools that enable us to succeed. If one believes that we are masters to our future because we are free beings; one must also understand that we are equally the slaves of our past and must pay follys price by not realizing the correlation between our present conditions and past decisions.

The other cause that can be traced back to the roots of this crisis is negative tribalism. Negative tribalism as used here does not imply the strong loyalty the Somalis have their tribes as that is their nomadic way of live. Negative tribalism is when leaders motivated by ignoble motives hijack this unwavering clan loyalty and unsuspecting clansmen blindly support the blunders of their politicians. Previous governments had practiced negative tribalism and hence created animosity between clans. They excluded majority or minority clans from power and suffered injustice. Governments hypocrisy of declaring the end of such practice on one hand, and its persecution of dissenting politicians on the basis of their tribal affiliation on the other hand did not go unnoticed. In a culture where ones place, status, and strength is based on the severity of revenge that would be carried out on ones behave, politicians had played their hands right by counting on their clans. In the absence of just government, it made incumbent of clans to repel under the banner of negative tribalism. The classical Machiavellian doctrine of divide and rule, used by the government, succeeded beyond its imagination. It bided clans against each other; it created, recognized, and nurtured a new leadership within the clan against existed ones in an effort to destabilize clans and reward loyal comrades. Those who insisted that the country could be salvaged from brink of civil war were bound for disappointment.

The collapse of the oppressive regime was just a symbolic if anything because the new warlords were at bar with outgoing dictator if not worse than him. They are all skillful, shrewd politicians who are expert of negative tribalism. The civil war did not just happen overnight. It was partly the making of that culture. This culture is a new little dirty game where politician interest and their tribal interest take precedent over the interest of the whole country. They sincerely believe clan politics favors their clan and hence entertain a false hope in which they insist that their tribe would not settle anything short of the presidency or other important positions of the incoming government. As a result today every clan has exaggerated notion of its relative political importance. They consistently demand a big share of the national pie that is absolutely impossible to justify without doing at the expense of other tribes. Perhaps it is a valid political game if the calculus is based on might makes right. Whatever that is based on or however one justifies it, it is not reconciliation. The reconciliation process is just a power sharing process for these self-made leaders. Any sane person would have thought that prominent members of former government; and leaders, financiers, and deputies that led the civil war effort are on the run fleeing from war crime tribunals. To the contrary they are the ones who are calling the shots in the so-called reconciliation table. Ironically some of the victims are blindly supporting these mad men just because they are from their clan. Why? It is hard to tell. In one word, however, the real culprit is probably ignorance. What else does one make of the support these warlords have from their clans? These are individuals who have nothing good to offer and yet are powerful enough to deny a descent life for their followers and disrupt peace. Eleven years had passed since the collapse of former government and these clan politicians have been arguing or fighting over which clan gets what. They have never discussed what went wrong and how to prevent from happening in the future. What is to be said a physician, Rousseau once asked in his book on social contract who promises miracles, and whose art consists entirely of exhorting his sick patients to practice patience. The Somalis who had endorsed the transgressions of these self-made warlords are equally responsible of the crisis we are in today.
Negative tribalism introduced a new political tool to traditional tribalism: the support of international community and regional players. Transitional national government is presented as just government who are constantly reaching out to its rivals and worthy of world support. Now it has Arab states, among others, in its pockets. The reality on the ground indicates otherwise. They cannot or unwilling to secure its backyard while it is committed to take part, or allied with one side, in a conflicts as far as Kismaio. Interestingly enough the TNGs leadership had been prominent members of the ousted regime.

In the North, Somalilanders are saving no effort to highlight their grievances and they are digging graves to show the world the horrors they had endured. They vowed not to allow that to happen again by declaring independence. They want their own state separate from Somalia. Since there are other clans who also suffered in the hands of the ousted regime, the clan-grievances will justify the independence of every clan who is afraid such atrocities to be committed by the incoming government if things go wrong again. Perhaps better option would have been to demand the apprehension for those who had committed these atrocities. Somalilands strongest reason to separate, however, is its weakest point; the fundamental claim is that they were colonized by a different European power and hence attained its independence separately. This line of reasoning is equivalent to say that Berlin Conference of 1884-85 in which Africa was carved-up and in which our natural ethnic homogeneity was deprived from us by colonial powers is the basis of politicians claim of independence. However the clans who inhabit that region are not all for separation and some consider of themselves as Puntlanders. Negative tribalism is at work here again in the sense that the leaders are trying to set up a state for their clan all by themselves. An effort they know is not feasible due to the precedent it will set for other African states with ethnic composition. Even in the face of Britains rejection to this claim these shrewd leaders were still successful to mobilize a considerable support from their clan. Somaliland, however, with all practical purposes, is a functioning, peaceful, and an autonomous region. International community is cooperating with them but unwilling to entertain the idea of independence not for the sake of Somalias territorial integrity but the big picture political consideration.

Puntlanders too are guided by the negative tribalism by setting up a state based on clan kinship. The claim is that they are advocating regional autonomy and block-by-block peace approach. But the reality is to have something to bargain for and if the reconciliation does not work out something to go back to and also to minimize the influence of the central government if it comes to materialize. Today Puntlanders found themselves in a constitutional debate. They also found out that what is thought to be constitutional problem is really a factional struggles with clan undertone. They appealed their traditional leaders for unbiased solution to the situation they had found themselves in. But weak, unwritten tribal rules headed by Isimo lack the institutional capacity to manage factional struggles. Leadership of the region is out to destroy each other by aligning with Ethiopia on one side and Arab states through TNG on other side. They are willing to go all out war, a civil war, to save Puntland from each other.

In the South the civil warfare still rages unchecked. Occupation of valuable real state in Mogadishu, Kismaio and the river valleys continues and far too little is being done about it. Upper Jubalanders are forced to choose from other clans constant abuses, domination and exploitation and Ethiopian support with few concessions and they justifiably had opted the later. Ethiopia is determined to have a hand in Somalias future government or else destabilize the country. But the leaders who have established relations with Ethiopia always spoke of its good intentions in having broad based government in Somalia. Simply put, any Somali who thinks Ethiopia wants to see stable Somalia let alone united, and strong Somalia is in deep denial.
Negative tribalism is just the means to secure power. These cynics tend to regard power as its own end. They see it as a tool for accumulating and maintaining wealth. They have a tendency to use it for selfish purposes and would like to retain it at all cost. Unfortunately, the price to secure power had been too high to bear; too many innocent lives had been lost, a country was destroyed, and made reconciliation effort virtually too difficult. Negative tribalism is too costly; to ignore it would be nothing less than social suicide and to embrace it, as part of the solution is self-deception at its best. Unlike tribalism, it can be eliminated once Somalis acknowledge it as a national problem.

All in all, the traditional norms, tribal institutions, and political will to end this crisis remain inadequate. A nation guided by the whims of negative clannish zealots has no future and is vulnerable for disintegration. Likewise a nation that embraces alien ideologies contrary to its tradition, religion, and history is geared toward disaster. Italians gave Somalia a parliamentary system modeled of that Italy. This may work well in Italy where people were divided by classes: Landowners, farmers, businessmen, and city workers. But Italy is not Somalia and this model has no chance working for nomads. Somalis have two commitments: allegiance to a just government and strong loyalty to their clan. To reconcile these two diametrically opposing commitments needs a delicate balance and effort to address the underlying paradox. One way of addressing that is to override their loyalty to these two and elevate to something more just by giving chance to Islamic state. Rekindling their faith in Islam and reminding them Allahs directives would be good enough to reform the mooryaans, jirris, the tribalism supporters, and corrupted civil servants. They may not all practicing Muslims but Muslims nevertheless. For those who are stubborn and active in their search of secular state are bound for failure for they cannot eliminate negative tribalism but only promote it. For those who care and pay attention to the events back home, have to face the facts on the ground and do what it takes to address it. We all lost in a big way lets not lose the lesson. We are in a hole; lets not dig deeper.