Somalia can have no 'political legitimacy' without genuine reconciliation

Out of context, all concepts and issues find themselves under the mercy of the dim-witted and exploiters.

As the old saying goes, the more things change, the more they remain the same. On the one hand, Somalia seems ahead of the curve, as the debate over what might be the best process that could ensure a legitimate outcome in the election scheduled for August next year is already underway. On the other hand, the fact that the whole debate on political legitimacy is confined exclusively within the parameters of the upcoming election in and of itself indicates that nothing has changed.

The Somali state did not disintegrate because of elections or lack thereof. It disintegrated because of institutional injustice and chronic foreign meddling. That is why the state imploded, over a million people died and clan-based balkanisation or “federalism” became the rapidly spreading cancer that is destroying an already ailing country and keeping it in a state of perpetual dependency and subjugation.

Make no mistake, the most serious existential threat facing the Somali nation is the status quo. In other words, any time that the peripheries resort to the cultivation of international relationships that are wholly independent of the centre, sign agreements of serious consequences haphazardly with foreign countries, and build clan militaries, they make the latter wholly irrelevant and the recovery of the state an impossible task.

What’s on first?

In broken nations where the political system and all essential elements that keep societies functioning in unison go haywire, all political issues of contention must be renegotiated and, indeed, reconciled before a nation is pieced back together and the healing process is set in motion. Through such a process, trust is cultivated and sustainable peace is achieved. Naturally, the process must be both genuine and indigenous.

Failing to recognise these fundamentals, or, as usual, rushing haphazardly into a power-sharing arrangement, would only exacerbate matters. Somalia has a quarter of a century-long experiment to prove that. Placing the Somali political dilemma within the fallacious framework that an election is a panacea undermines the direly needed debate on justice, reconciliation and how to break the shackles of foreign dependency.

What might a viable alternative be?

Under the current system where foreign political actors, mainly the Ethiopia/Kenya tag-team, dominate the process, genuine reconciliation is simply a pipedream. As such, total transformation of the current system that perpetuates the status quo is an imperative prerequisite. After all, it is not only the Somali state that failed; the steam engine of waste, or the international community model, has also failed.

By default or otherwise, the system at hand has been sustained by reinventing itself periodically. Domestically, by partnering with “leaders” who possess a relentless appetite to hoard executive power, it has kept an entire branch of the government engaged in “on-the-job-training” by changing prime ministers and cabinets annually.

Regionally, the system keeps going by partnering with frontline states such as Ethiopia and Kenya, who are in Somalia legitimately as part of the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM). In reality, though, they implement their own thinly disguised zero-sum schemes to co-opt Somali political actors in order to expand their spheres of influence.

Internationally, it operates by bringing in the UN Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM) to replace the tarnished UN Political Office for Somalia (UNPOS), but still acts the same. It keeps Somalia in a perpetual transition where decisions are dictated, lucrative security projects are sustained, corruption and economic exploitation (as in Soma Oil and Gas) are facilitated and shadowy characters are allowed to enter by the back door to keep the fire burning and the cash flowing endlessly.

Despite what they were intended for initially, at the moment the abuses and financial costs of the international community and its regional partners far outweigh their benefits.

Not for the first time, I believe that it is time to cut this umbilical cord of dependency. It is time to focus on bilateral strategic partnerships within which parties can hold each other accountable. The benefit is self-evident. Practically all foreign-financed, successful development projects in Somalia are the by-products of nation-to-nation relationships.

Misplaced focus, erroneous outcome

Currently, some election-focused alternatives have been proposed by a few individuals. The most prominent of said proposals argues, in essence, that political legitimacy requires side-lining the federal parliament and empowering regional actors and their clan-exclusive parliaments, thus keeping political parties with any Islamic identity arbitrarily at bay. This proposal, needless to say, considers reconciliation before power-sharing as irrelevant, the Somaliland issue as an independent problem and that constitutional reform should take place before any reconciliation.

While this might satisfy certain domestic and foreign actors and special interests groups who may see some benefit in another four years of transition, it by no means ensures legitimacy as the proponents argue.

By contrast, the Gurmad Movement underscores the importance of reclaiming Somalia’s right to shape its political future independently and craft its own strategy to pull the nation out of its current subservient dilemma. Real legitimacy, according to Gurmad, could only be attained through a Somali-led process that is negotiated in the interest of the collective good, not by a drive-through legitimisation process that may or may not be motivated to maintain the status quo.

All said proposals agree that an election of some sort would be necessary in August next year. However, according to Gurmad’s proposal, the current federal parliament should be given a conditional two year extension during which the institution would complete, among other things, the establishment of the Constitutional Court and National Reconciliation Commission, and elect an interim president for the duration.

The election process must be open for the fair participation of any and all candidates who possess fresh ideas to salvage this dying nation.

No more sticky tape solution

Despite the façade of sustainable recovery, beneath the veneer of Mogadishu’s rapid development is societal erosion rooted in innate hopelessness perpetuated by a lack of genuine reconciliation.

Against that backdrop, the need for indigenous discourse and a process to repair this broken nation and inspire its demoralised and beaten psyche out of seemingly perpetual cynicism is a serious priority. You would not know that, though, from the current political actors, both domestic and foreign. That is why Somalia is caught in that stubborn Sisyphus effect where we as a nation roll the boulder of peace to the top of the hill periodically, only to watch helplessly as it rolls back to the bottom.

One of the most prevalent fallacies that prolonged the status quo of distrust, division and sporadic hostilities in Somalia — not to mention hopelessness and chronic dependency — is the erroneous claim that the multi-faceted Somali political conundrum could be solved by holding an election, and in pigeonholed ways that are entirely independent of one another.

Herd-mentality leadership

The herd-mentality leadership has been one of the corrosive phenomena that have facilitated the systematic destruction of the Somali nation. The current government is just one example, although considering the irrefutable failure of its political strategy, its failure to pay its soldiers for over six months (thus exacerbating insecurity) and its well-deserved reputation as the posterchild of corruption, it certainly occupies a unique place in history’s pages of infamy.

Granted, such herd leadership — both in the centre and on the peripheries — as well as some within civil society who are direct beneficiaries of the current arrangement, might attempt to torpedo any transformative effort that threatens the status quo. However, neither of these entities have the necessary public support to sustain their immanent resistance.

At this do or die moment, Somalia needs more than random political belches from its so-called leaders. Granted, at all times, leaders ought to be judged not by what they promise but by what they deliver. The country needs leaders who will govern ethically and justly, and who will lead the state in the best interests of Somalia and its people.

Difficult as it may seem, history attests to the fact that when the human will is driven by good intentions and a willingness to compromise for peace, it can beat all odds and overcome all obstacles. Failure is not a permanent status unless those who experience it opt to make it so.

It goes without saying that the Somali people and nation desperately need transformational leaders with vision, strategy, courage and willingness to sacrifice for the common good and help pull the nation off the current tracks of self-destruction.

A necessary foundation

Reconciliation is the foundation that is yet to be built for sustainable peace to materialise. Somalia is a broken nation that is handicapped by a generation of bloodshed and trauma.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom of Somalia’s political elite and power brokers, reconciliation is not the express powwows, artificial communiques and photo opportunities orchestrated by regional actors or the international community in banqueting halls. It is a deliberate and systematic process driven by a comprehensive strategic plan implemented by Somalis who are not blinded by the musical chairs of being appointed for symbolic governmental posts or in the dirty, clan-based political fights.

Reconciliation is necessary as it deflates the hate narrative that sustains inter-clan distrust and enmity. It helps open a new page for negotiating the terms of a permanent social contract and, indeed, for coexistence. It will enable the centre and the peripheries to recognise their interdependence. It plays a significant role in teaching future generations that impunity and the habit of sweeping problems under the carpet only make matters worse. It sets in motion a genuine process of repairing our broken nation.

Finally, reconciliation is a critical post-conflict element necessary for healing and trust-building; it is a noble objective and a process that takes time. Neither its pace nor its broad impact can or should be rushed for the sake of political expedience.

Abukar Arman is a foreign policy analyst and a former diplomat. [Disclosure: This author is one of Gurmad’s founding members, though this piece is an independent viewpoint.]

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.