"The success of the break-away Republic of Somaliland and other
examples show the limits of Western political thinking on Africa". Sherin Helal
- While Somalia has achieved notoriety in Africa as the most striking
example of a failed state and the continent’s biggest battlefield, it
has nevertheless also been able to present a model in the form of the
autonomous Republic of Somaliland in the north of the country. This has
not gained international recognition, but it retains the elements of a
state capable of providing basic rights of life and coexistence.
It had been evident since 1988 that the Somali National Movement had
long been in favour of the secession of the north when it raised its
flag over the towns and cities it had seized control of with the
expulsion of government forces. On 18 May 1991, the movement announced
the formation of the Republic of Somaliland headed by Abdel-Rahman Ahmed
Ali Nur, saying that it would be ready to hold free-and-fair elections
within two years. In Somalia’s capital Mogadishu, the Somali Congress
refused to adopt this declaration, pushing aside the separatist option
and causing the Somali state to verge on internal collapse and ongoing
instability.
However, since its unilateral declaration of independence in 1991,
Somaliland has enjoyed independent administrative and political systems.
It manages its sea and land borders through its army, police and
security apparatus. Having a population of about 3.5 million, it
maintains informal relations with many foreign governments that have
sent delegations to the capital Hargeisa.
Ethiopia has commercial offices in Hargeisa, and relations between the
two countries are highly regarded. Ethiopia has also set up a number of
hospitals in areas that have special status with regional and
international organisations. The new state is the result of a political
and tribal consensus among the people of the region, and traditional
tribal leaders have played a pivotal role in preventing tribal clashes.
Although no other country officially recognises it, Somaliland has
issued its own passports that enable holders to visit a number of
countries, though most people who travel abroad use the passports of
other countries. Somaliland receives part of the aid budget allocated to
Somalia in general and has informal representative offices in a number
of countries.
It has succeeded, unlike many of the surrounding countries, in
overseeing the peaceful transfer of political power, as all its
presidents have handed power to their successors through elections.
Women are guaranteed representation in parliament, fortified by a state
constitutional quota that reaches up to 30 per cent of the seats.
Neither UN monitoring reports on elections nor UN Development Programme
(UNDP) reports on human rights have registered significant violations in
Somaliland, especially compared to the magnitude of such abuses in
Mogadishu.
The earlier civil war in Somalia continued for decades, during which
several foreign military interventions took place, starting with the
United States followed by the United Nations and then the African Union
and the IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) countries in
the Horn of Africa. The case of Somalia is unique, and it raises many
questions that may take years to answer. It is a regional and
international arena open to politics, war, economics and even education
and exploration in which international players have been represented
with their own arms and tools for influence in the region.
Ranging from a superpower such as the United States all the way to Arab
Gulf states such as the United Arab Emirates, foreign powers have been
represented in the region through financing or involvement in military
conflicts. Even Turkey has opted for a foothold that will enable it to
exert an influence that appears to be economically and political
imperialist. Few major powers seem to be absent from the scene, which
has made it difficult for political observers to invite all the parties
to meet at the table of reconciliation.
The circumstances and causes that separate states into states do not
explain the absence of international recognition for the current
political status quo in the country. We cannot predict the timing of
such recognition when it comes, and it might be sooner rather than
later. However, the delay of such recognition acts as pressure on
Mogadishu to force it to accept the political and economic ambitions of
the international powers.
All this is one example that forces political analysts to accept
Africa’s own unique contributions to political science. Somaliland,
Rwanda and Morocco have each presented a different approach to popular
consensus as a form of government that political science, in its Western
definition, refuses to recognise as good governance.
The Somaliland case enjoys its own form of political and economic
stability to a dramatic extent and one unrelated to that of traditional
democracies, whether consensual or participatory. This is while other
political actors have left Somaliland’s grand dream to fall between the
aspirations of ethnic factions and the aspirations of international
powers.
The second case mentioned above, Rwanda, has risen economically and
politically despite the rule of a dictator for more than a quarter of a
century. The West praises Rwanda’s figures on indicators designed to
measure democracy and political stability and economic and human
development. The final case, Morocco, is a monarchy defined as a
holistic political system, but it is the Moroccan people who hold the
king in his position and reject Western interference while interacting
in a positive manner with the political process in the country.
Given this political spectrum, we need to be ready to grant respect for
African political models by reviewing and evaluating them according to
their own unique considerations and circumstances.
Sherin Halal
*The writer is expert in African affairs.
No comments:
Post a Comment