DAY REMEMBER ARCTICALS Ibrahim Megag Samater

(KampalaSDN)My name is
Ibrahim Megag
Samater. I was
a Cabinet
member of the
Siyad Barre
regime for nine years and then
his Ambassador in Bonne for
one year. In 1981, I defected
from his regime and sought
asylum in the US. After a few
years, I became active in the
liberation movement against the
dictator, becoming one of the
leaders of the Somali National
Movement ( SNM).
Even though my official job was
the representative of the
movement in North America,
more than half of my time was
spent in the field among the
elders and militants, risking my
life several times.
My last task in the SNM was as
chairman of its Central
Committee. My most
exhilarating moment in that
struggle was in Burao, May
1981, when as chairman of the
Central Committee, I had to
announce officially the decision
of the people of Somaliland to
restore their sovereignty.
After the Borama Conference in
early 1993, I was elected as a
member of the House of
Representatives. But, I
immediately resigned to pick up
the pieces of my life, which I
have sacrificed so much during
the struggle.
Since then, I have been mostly
silent on political issues. I
feared that my words would be
misinterpreted. I had no
intention to create any problems
for my people. One can only give
so much if you are sincere. Now
that I have been away for so
long and I am not in any
competition for a political post,
it may be about time for me to
speak.
In thus speaking, I am not in
the business of personal attacks
and condemnations. I intend to
stick to the higher field of
principles and morals. What I
want to do here is a statement
of principles. It is mainly for the
younger generation to whom the
future belongs. These are simple
words of principle from a retired
man. This statement as such, is
simply to clarify for citizens of
Somaliland where they are going
and what their future is to be
and where they are to go from
here. The future is theirs and
the decisions are theirs. All I
want to do now is to state in a
concise manner what the
outlining principles should be as
I see them.
I am outlining here some major
issues of principle of which the
wider public should know of
every “politician’s” position.
Without further ado let me list
some of these issues of
principle.
I-On Somali Unity
This was an issue of great
importance for all Somalis
everywhere and anywhere
during the struggle for
independence. The goal was to
unite all the Somali territories
that have been divided by the
colonial masters.
As a young high school student,
I was one of those who were
totally absorbed by that issue.
As a student and later as a
responsible adult, I fought for
that cause. We all know the
story now. To unite all Somalis
and their territories became
impossible in the present state
of the international arena—
There is no need to go into
details.
Now, Djoubti is an independent
country, the Somalis in Ethiopia
and Kenya are trying to get their
luck and rights in those
countries where they live. We
were then left with the union of
Somaliland and Somalia alone.
Even though Somaliland, before
1960, had more economic trade
and other relations with Djoubti
and Ethiopia, it opted for unity
with Mogadishu for the sake of
that larger cause. It was not to
be and yet the union between
Hargeisa and Mogadishu became
sour.
The union kicked off without
real negotiations and sound
legal foundations (this was the
fault of the people and
leadership of Somaliland). It
started with inequality with
Somaliland being treated as
simply a backyard province
rather than a country, which
sacrificed its sovereignty for the
sake of larger unity. As long as
the democratic system was in
place people entertained the
hope that change for the better
was possible.
But after the military coup a
slow process of recolonizing
Somaliland by Somalia began
until, in the later years of the
regime, it culminated in total
suppression, destruction, and
attempted genocide. In such
conditions, resistance was
inevitable. In 1991, the
resistance succeeded, the
regime disintegrated, Somaliland
restored its sovereignty, and
Somalia ran into uncontrollable
mayhem which is still
continuing.
What needs to be done now is :
i- Somalilanders should stick to
their sovereignty
ii- Those in Somalia have no
choice but to accept that
sovereignty
iii- When Somalia reaches that
stage the two states should
become friendly and work out
their relationships in a fraternal
manner and after that work on
a more rational relationship in
the Horn of Africa.
The different governments that
succeeded one another in
Somaliland were all dedicated to
seeking recognition from the
international community, as was
the general public. In order to
forestall this issue, with which
we all concur, from becoming a
bone of contention between
those contending for power, let
us make it a collective effort in
which the executive, the
legislative bodies, the political
parties and civil society
associations all take their part.
This is a process that has
already started but it needs to
be formalized and structured.
This approach led of course by
the executive will enable us not
only to take initiatives in the
countries we consider vital, but
also to be present in every
international and regional
meeting or conference where
Somali issues at large are being
discussed, without becoming
one of the Somalia factions. Up
to now our public were
suspicious that the leadership
may reach an accommodation,
which undermines the
sovereignty of Somaliland and as
such the various governments
were prevented from making our
voice heard in such forums. The
new collective approach should
dispense with that suspicion and
may even enable us to gain
some friends in Somalia for our
cause. When and if the
opportunity arises we may also
be of some help in their
reconciliation. This will also
speedy up the attainment of our
recognition. I believe Somaliland
has reached a stage that is
beyond fear on this score.
II- On Democracy
Democracy is one of the
misunderstood, misinterpreted
and misused words in the
political vocabulary of the world.
Again, these words are not a
treatise in political science, so I
do not want to go into further
analysis. But, in the context of
our situation in Somaliland
certain points have to be
highlighted. The essential
content of democracy is that
political rule must be based on
the consent of the governed—
the people. This can take many
forms, some better than others.
It has been experimented in
many ways in many places
throughout human history.
We Muslims know democracy. It
has been practiced in the early
days of Islam. The basic
principles are enshrined in the
Quran. Those who are sceptical
about this matter please read
Surat ‘Ala-Umran.’
Nevertheless, I do not believe
that the present form of
democracy through multiparty
system and one person-one-vote
is evil. It is only one of the
forms of democracy that has
been performed and practiced by
humans. And it is fine if we
continue to improve it. Having
said that , I do not believe that
the multiparty system is a cure
for all our ills. It hast to be
complemented by our cultural
and religious traditions.
Otherwise, the parties will
become a shell without content.
They will become a façade for a
new type of dictators who
dominate their parties
preventing their members and
their voters at large to have a
real choice.
There is a simple way to avoid
that pitfall. Let our democracy
be participatory rather than
formal. The way to do it is two-
fold:
i- Let the parties themselves be
democratic. There should be
registered members at the
lowest level who pay their
subscriptions. These members
should be able to elect their
committees and representatives
at all level all the way to the top
of the leadership. This means
that the members of the Party
will have a common programme
to which they are committed
and a leadership, which they
trust, rather than nepotism. If
this is not done the political
parties, which we are imitating
from the West will just
deteriorate into clan affiliations
with all their inherent conflicts.ii- The second means is
decentralization of the
administration.
This should not be a formal
statement. It must be enshrined
by law and put into practice
from the villages, districts and
regions. These organs must be
able to not only elect their
leaders but conduct their own
development projects and their
administrations. What is left for
the Central Government would
be co-ordination, planning and
keeping the peace of the nation
at large.
III-On the Guurti and Clannism
What I have said above in no
way negates the importance of
clans. They are institutions that
have evolved through the ages
and enabled us to survive.
Unless the function clanism
performs is replaced by other
institutions it is not going away.
But, we know it is a double-
edged sword. Depending on how
it is handled by the leaders of
the time, whether they are
elders or politicians, clanism can
be a good tool for peace,
reconciliation and progress.
Handled wrongly it is a powerful
tool for fratricide and conflict.
Just look at what is happening in
Somalia (the former South). The
question is what to do with this
double-edged sword in our
cultural tradition. It has been
the genius of the SNM struggle
to find a way out. Making the
Guurti, representing traditional
leadership, a constitutional
political body, rather than
peripheral individuals which the
then authorities can use them
as they wish, was a good
solution born out of the SNM
struggle. And that is one of the
reasons that Somaliland is
blazing a road much different
from what our brothers in
Somalia are going through.
Recently, we went through a
crisis when the Guurti
unilaterally renewed for itself
another term. For a self-
interested body to do this is a
travesty of justice. But, we know
the root cause. We haven’t yet
found a way of electing the
Guurti. Before the constitution
was passed the members were
simply selected by their clans
through the traditional system
of elders. Now our present
constitution says that the
Guurti—the upper house of our
bicameral system—has to be
elected, albeit under a special
law. That law has not yet been
debated or drafted. Without
belabouring the point, I
personally do not believe that
the Guurti should be elected
through a general one-person-
one vote system. If this is done
it will not be a Guurti, but a
replica of the house of
representatives.
We have two choices to solve
this problem:
i- to elect the Guurti on a
popular suffrage like the House
of representatives, as I said
before I oppose this alternative
because the Guurti then loses
its reason for existence. If we
choose the above position the
Guurti will be like the American
Senate. And then we would need
another body to represent our
traditional clan system for
which we have a sociological
need.
ii- Rather than creating too
many bodies which we can
hardly afford in our nascent
democracy. Let us have the
Guurti in its present form but
debate seriously how we can
reconcile the electoral and the
traditional. Let the Guurti
represent the latter but find a
way where clans can select their
representatives in an agreeably
equal way. I believe we can find
a solution. But, let us be open-
minded.
IV- On Islam
It is clear today that there is a
Western onslaught on Islam
presenting it as backward, anti-
human, anti-women, anti-
democratic and most recently
terroristic. This is nothing new.
Long time ago since Europe
dominated us, it was the
function of so-called Orientalists
to present an ideology in which
the West is the progressive,
logical and rational entity, while
we are showed as irrational
people who deserve to be ruled,
to be civilized. It is enough to
read Edward Said’s Orientalism
to get the picture.
What is new today is the
infamous War on terror and the
new ideology of “Clash of
Civilizations” to justify all types
of aggressive and destructive
wars from Iraq, Afghanistan,
Somalia and other places in
order to ‘democratize and civilize
us through ‘Regime changes.’
We in the Islamic world who
know better realize that this is a
dead-end road that leads
nowhere for all of us, the East
as well as the West. We also
know that this so-called “clash
of civilizations” is a figment of
some peoples’ imagination. It
has little to do with historical
reality. We know that, and they
know it too, despite their
denials, that it was Islamc
Civilization that has revived the
Egyptian heritage, the Greek and
Roman Civilizations. From
Islamic Scholars like Ibn Rushdi
and Ibn Khaldun they have
learned their heritage when
they were in the ‘Dark Ages.’
Cultures and religions learn from
one another and there is no
clash, unless artificially created
by the imagination.
Genuine Muslim Scholars know
better. They not only know the
basics of Islam. They also know
the history of its development.
Those Orientalists, who are
sincere, in their study of the
Orient, also know that Western
Civilization would not be what it
is without Islamic contributions.
We were their teachers and later
they imposed themselves as our
teachers. It is not a question of
knowledge. It is a question of
power. But, still we cannot deny
that, after our glorious days, we
Muslims declined. Long before
European invasion and
colonization of our lands we
were weakened by internal
conflict of many sorts—Sunni
against Shia, umawiin against
Cabbasiyiin, and later particular
nationalisms. What the
colonialists conquered was an
already weakened Umma by its
own conflicts. Now where do we
go from here as an Islamic
Umma? I myself have no
definitive answer. But, certain
things are clear: (i ) Revival of
Islamic morals are necessary. ( ii)
Democratization of our countries
so that in each country it is the
voice of the people that is heard
and rules. (iii) Co-ordination
among the countries
themselves, even in their
present condition. (iv )
Resistance to this onslaught and
showing our weight to the world
as an Islamic umma.
But, there are more points that
have to be said on this issue.
There are those among us,
feeling frustrated and
humiliated, who are lashing out
indiscriminately killing innocent
civilians, including fellow
Muslims, in the name of Islam.
I, for one, do not sympathize
with those kind of people. These
groups and their actions are
providing the perfect excuse for
those in the West who want to
attack us morally, politically and
militarily. You can say that they
are two sides of the same coin.
In saying this we have to
distinguish them from genuine
resistance movements like
Hamas and Hizbullah. Theirs is a
true liberation struggle against
oppression and they have every
right to utilize their faith in
strengthening their morale. The
ones I cannot sympathise with
are those groups elected by
nobody, representing nobody,
having no country and yet are
trying to impose on us their
brand of Islam, if Islam it is.
The result of their actions only
serves and strengthens the
oppressors.
Let us not get confused by these
demagogues. Our heritage is
clear. We have the Quran and
the tradition of the prophet
(CSW). But, we also have our
differences in interpreting these
texts and traditions. This is
normal. The prophet (CSW) said
that differences of opinion in
my umma is a blessing
[ Ikhtilaafu ummattii Rahma].
This is the basis of the
“shura” [consensus] because
this is how decisions are made in
society. We should also
remember that the great Islamic
legal scholars who codified the
sharia laws did that several
hundred years after the prophet
(CSW) and the khulafa u
Rashidin. Of course these legal
codes are based on the Quran
and the tradition of the prophet.
But, they did it through their
“Ijtihaad” and they did us a
favour. Who said the ‘Ijtihaad’ is
over and done with?
V-On Governance
It is a well-known historical fact
that after decolonisation the
newly independent African
regimes did not go foreword: the
economy, after a short spurt of
growth, slumped into stagnation
and decline in many countries;
political freedoms
metamorphosed into one-party
systems or military
dictatorships; the standard of
living of the common people
deteriorated while few enriched
themselves—primarily on public
resources; and finally the very
security of persons and groups
became in danger if they called
for correction.
There is no wonder if such a
deterioration in the system of
governance led to social and
political strife: in some cases
resulting in peaceful
accommodation and transition to
a better level, and in others to
violent civil wars and sometimes
a failure of the state.
Explanations for this atrophy
differ. Old colonial ideologues
revert to overt racism—Africans
are not fit to rule! Dismissing
that racism aside many African
intellectuals put the blame on
the operational domination of
the world economy and the
strengthening of power in the
hands of old colonialists, their
new replacements and co-
operation with local elites
through neo-colonial
attachments. I have no quarrel
with that explanation. I just
believe it is not sufficient. There
are other former colonies,
especially in Asia, which did well.
So, we must also look inward, no
only for explanations, but also
for further change and
improvements.
Needless to says the system of
how to run a government:
constitutions, political parties,
civil service, police, army etc,
was imported wholesale at the
dawn of independence. The
West, from whom we imported
the system, had several hundred
years to digest it: they had their
internal strife’s, their
revolutions, their inter and
intra-wars. The African
indigenous systems of rule did
not have that chance to evolve.
They were destroyed or
mutilated by cataclysmic events
like the slave trade and colonial
subjugation.
It is not a crime to borrow
something from a better
system. I have said earlier that
human cultures interpenetrate
one another. But, the
importation of a whole system,
stock-lock-and barrel, is the
problem. Plants do not grow in
an inappropriate soil and
climate. It was therefore
inevitable that historical
development after independence
would be bumpy until African
peoples find the road to their
second liberation, each country
in its own way. I believe that
future historians will regard
Somaliland as one of the
countries that have blazed the
road for the new African
regeneration, that is the
regaining of the original goals of
the decolonisation movement:
Liberty with social and economic
progress. In the meantime, we
have to consolidate our
achievements so far, refine
them and think ahead in order
to avoid continuous crisis.
What I have said so far about
the political parties,
decentralization, the role of
culture and religion is part of
the general system of good
governance. I want to add only
two more points. To confine
political parties at the national
level to three is sensible. We
wanted to avoid the free for all
confusion that paved the way
for the military coup de tat in
1969. But, that should not mean
the creation of monopoly
political power to three
particular parties only. That will
ossify political development and
will definitely breed future
crisis. There is nothing better
than to leave the market of
political ideas open, trust our
people, whom I consider mature
enough, but still limit the
number of national parties to a
few. How to do it is a matter of
detail, which we can achieve,
given sincerity and good will.
The other point I want to make
in this context is government
performance per se, no matter
which political party holds the
reigns of power.
i- To consolidate the existing
peace and expand justice the
government as the guardian of
the law must be the first to
uphold and abide by it. The
checks and balances between
the branches of government
must be respected, with the
independence of the judiciary
invioble.
ii- The executive branch of the
government must be lean and
clean. We cannot afford huge
ineffective bureaucracy which is
valued not for its productivity
but for its job providing service
through nepotism. The main
task of the executive, as I see
it, is to implement the laws
passed by the legislative branch,
propose new ones, guide plan
and co-ordinate and provide the
vision of where to go next [ I
am, of course, not minimizing its
job of providing for defence and
security, and conducting foreign
policy,] Its job, viewed from the
is perspective, shares the
characteristics of a teacher. As
such, therefore, it must stress
quality and assist the private
sector, in job creation. However,
stressing quality in the civil
service and the armed forces
should not go to the extreme of
neglecting representation. After
all we are a nation of clans
where unity and justice requires
fair representation of the
various clans in public affairs
and institutions. We should
therefore work very hard in
combining merit and
representation.
iii- The requirement of
government to be clean means
the struggle against corruption.
Needless to say, corruption is a
fact of human life in both rich
and poor countries, especially
the latter, and has been so
throughout history. It stems
from greed, a bad aspect of
human character, which
unfortunately gets more
pronounced in some of the
powerful and wealthy in all
countries of the world. However,
admitting this fact in no way
means submitting to it. Horrible
facts can be fought and have
been fought like slavery and
colonial oppression and have
been defeated. So, today horrible
facts like poverty and corruption
can be fought and overcome.
This means that we have to be
vigilant
iv- This vigilance has several
means at its disposal. The
primary requirement is that all
government activities [may be
with the exception of concerns
of national defence] must be
transparent; organs of the
executive such as the
accounting office, the auditor-
general, and the Presidency can
first check this transparency.
Then by the select committees
of both chambers of the
legislature. And finally by the
public at large, especially civil
society organizations and the
independent media. Putting
such instrumentality into action
constantly will reduce
corruption, though it may not
eliminate it altogether. In all of
this the leadership, at all levels,
must provide exemplary model.
VI-On the Economy
I am not writing an economic
programme. Neither am I
writing a party platform. This is
a statement of principle by one
person. Therefore much will not
be said here, except a few
points that touch on the
principle aspect. There was a
prevalent opinion, in the early
days of independence, in many
African countries that the state
should take a leading role in the
economy, not only in planning
and guidance but in directly
productive activities as well. The
lack of a middle class who could
make the required investment
and the success of Soviet-type
economies at the time provided
the rationale. Some expressed
this in terms of some kind of
socialistic rhetoric, others in
simple statism. But in all, the
attitude was overriding. Hence
the proliferation of parastatals.
The capitalist world, because of
Cold War competition, tolerated
this approach.
We all know that with the
passage of time this did not
prove to be a panacea. On the
contrary parastatals became
inefficient, a breeding ground
for nepotism and corruption,
and a source oiling dictatorial
machines everywhere. The
resulting disillusion is inevitable.
Then, with the weakening of the
Soviet system, and the rise of
the right-wing in the West, came
what was termed the
Washington consensus. This
refers to the agreement on
global economic policy among
the US treasury, the
International Monetary Fund,
and The World Bank—all in the
same proximity in Washington
D.C.
The essentials of this policy
framework were an emphasis on
the market and the reduction of
the role of government in the
economy. The catchwords were
privatization, stabilization (i.e.
reduction of government
expenditures, especially on
social services) and open trade.
In this view the less regulation
the better even after the state
auctions off its assets. It was a
policy of unbridled capitalism,
with which the European Union
and other donors, both official
and commercial, concurred. It
was applied without mercy to
developing countries and those
in transition from communism
to capitalism with disastrous
results. Today even the IMF and
the World Bank have admitted
some of the adverse effects of
such policies on the poor and
are claiming to revise them.
Today we can see with hindsight
that both approaches served
ideological positions—from the
left and right respectively—
rather than economic
rationality.
The experience of many
countries—specifically East Asia
—has shown that there is a third
way. Rather then viewing
thestate and the market in
antagonistic conflict, they can
be seen as complementary.
Economic growth requires a
vibrant private sector. But,
there is also need for strong
state policy to plan, guide, and
co-ordinate all kinds of economic
activity, specially the financial
aspect. Also an unbridled market
is a greedy machine that rolls
over the weak resulting in
misery and unacceptable
inequalities. Governments,
therefore, must look for the
public good. That means, not
only regulating the market, but
also engaging in human
development such as health,
education and the environment.
In our case, this third way is the
best option.
VII- By Way of Conclusion.
We know we are a poor nation.
But, poverty need not be a
curse. There are nations with
meagre resources like us who
overcame poverty. Human
development and its mobilization
can compensate for the lack of
resources and perform miracles.
In addition to investing in health
and education human
development also means
instilling solidarity and a sense
of belonging to one another,
having a common future and
destiny, among the citizenry and
their various communities and
clans.
Competition in business, politics
and among the communities can
be both healthy and unhealthy.
If the unhealthy aspect is not
fought fiercely it can turn into
ugly fratricide [look at the
situation in Somalia]. One of the
reasons motivating me to write
this simple piece is that I
noticed from afar that this
competition is beginning to turn
ugly.
Simple matters that can be
resolved through amicable
discussion and dialogue between
the concerned personalities and
organs are sometimes turned
into unnecessarily highly
contested national controversies
wasting, when they are finally
resolved, a lot of energy and
good will.
Let us check that tendency in
time. We still have not lost that
capacity for good will and
democratic dialogue, inherited
from the struggle of SNM , which
is the basis for the success of
Somaliland so far. We need to
revive moral values of integrity,
cooperation, forgiveness and
brotherhood in our people.
And while this task is the duty
of all of us, the primary burden
falls on the leadership: political
(whether in power or aspiring to
it), religious, community elders,
and the intelligentsia. We need
to rise above minor squabbles
and take the high moral ground.
Some of you may say that I am
too idealistic and out of touch. I
do not think so. I believe what is
written here is simple and
practical. I am an optimist and
have always been so even at
dark moments when my life was
in danger. Even if these words
are idealistic, so be it. After all it
is the image of the future that
moves people and it is vision
that enables a society to
organize itself for the better. It
has been said long ago that
those who do not learn from
history are condemned to repeat
it. It is my hope and belief that
we have learned enough and will
continue to move forward.
Wa billahi al-towfiq.
Ibrahim Maygag Samater
E-mail: lurash55@yahoo.com

KHADAR BITIOOR
KAMBALA/UGANDHA
+256791661106
00256791661106