Somalia was a failed state and not truely Anarchic, we still had local governance and clans still existed. Multiple transitional governments were formed but failed many times. So Somalia wasn’t a true anarchy.We already experienced anarchism in 91
There has always been structure in our history though within the clan system. We have Xeer/Sharia and whenever there are disagreements clan elders usually sort it out under a tree.Somalia was a failed state and not truely Anarchic, we still had local governance and clans still existed. Multiple transitional governments were formed but failed many times. So Somalia wasn’t a true anarchy.
First learn about some of the effects anarchism has had. War, Violence, Counter Culture Movements, ect. Imo its probably best to research the others then make a final decision about which to add.Why don’t us Somalis try to apply anarchism to our mother country of Somalia? Communism doesn’t work, Liberal democracy doesn’t work, Islamic theocracy doesn’t work, why not just anarchism?
Somalia was a failed state and not truely Anarchic, we still had local governance and clans still existed. Multiple transitional governments were formed but failed many times. So Somalia wasn’t a true anarchy.
Clans are not a governing system, or something that competes with the state. They are family lineages created for resource pooling and connection building, they are not culturally speaking political entities but rather economic. For big chunk of Somali history we've been living in city states and larger empires and sultanates, it has never truly been a society without hierarchy .i.e anarchsim.
The first two governments after the colonial period emerged in succession of eachother , the first 1 emerged out of Somali peoples self determination in creating an independent state of their own, but fell short on only uniting 2 territories, it also inherited a neo-colonial structure where colonialists controlled key sectors of the economy and education, there was foreign interference as well and the democratic system became corrupt because of lack of capital. Unlike regular states that have accumulated wealth over decades taxing trade and agricultural production, whereas for Somalis our cities and sultanates that accumulated that type of wealth were dismantled by colonialists, so most wealth was in private hands and not public/state hands when the state was established. The private individuals/groups with wealth monopolized the political process , whereas the ones with lack of wealth took bribes and allocated public funds to fund their election campaigns. You need to raise a lot of money to fund elections, thats how democratic systems work.
The revolutionary regime emerged out of the backdrop of that to redress the problems.
It was the right direction. Believe or not most modern democracies that are functional today, started as monarchies and dictatorships and transitioned into an electoral democracy, after laying a framework, building key industries and collecting state capital. Its more effecient because you bypass all the beaucratic barriers to get stuff done.
Naturally the revolutionary regime made enemies trying to fight for the interests of the Somali people, and because it ran contrary to foreign governments interests and plans for us, so they ended up supporting our historical adversary against us and they together started arming insurgencies to make war against the Somali people.
That government collapsed due to foreign governments arming insurgencies that acted as proxies to destroy and remove the government, to replace it with something that appeases their interests. Now its basically kept in that state of rampant foreign interference that basically keeping the government from coming back and destabilizing it, this is where transitional governments and federal structures comes from, they are all imposed from the outside.
What is more apparent is that anarchy is not our natural inclination, because our kneejerk reaction to the collapse was to set up Islam courts, so our natural tendency is to seek law, order and structure. But that was dismantled as well by foreign interference.
I disagree with this point. Despite the corruption and dysfunction of Somalia's early government, there was still real political representation and low tribalism as Somali nationalism was at its peak during this time. The Kacaan removed all that by introducing MOD, an oppressive qabil based system. Your point about insurgencies being funded by foreigners is true but people don't rebel without good reason. Barre's oppressive rule gave the rebels a reason to accept foreign help to overthrow the government.It was the right direction
I disagree with this point. Despite the corruption and dysfunction of Somalia's early government, there was still real political representation and low tribalism as Somali nationalism was at its peak during this time. The Kacaan removed all that by introducing MOD, an oppressive qabil based system. Your point about insurgencies being funded by foreigners is true but people don't rebel without good reason. Barre's oppressive rule gave the rebels a reason to accept foreign help to overthrow the government.
His socialist policies, qabilist agenda + the failed Ogaden War tanked Somalia's economy thus reversing the growth it was achieving in the early 70s and subsequently created a bunch of internal enemies eager to accept foreign help. The 60s civilian government while far from perfect would have eventually grow past its issues instead of needing a dictatorship or monarchy to do that.
Really walaal? How do you explain Jubaland going from being a mainly Rahanweyn territory to a Darood one? Its well known that Barre settled a lot of Ogadenis and Marehan in Juba at the expense of Rahanweyn and was taking their properties and farmlandThere was no MOD ,
And this was due to the civilian administration? Either way, the economy wasn't doing very well under either the civilian administration or the Kacaan. There was tons of growth during the UN administration until it fell off., it was the IMF structural programs that did.
Groups like SSDF and SNM existed in the 60s? What are the names of these groups? I only know of a single attempted coup in 61 and the was done by members of the military.All the insurgent groups that wanted to take down the government existed before Kacaan entered office
Firstly the Darood migrations into Juba happened 1 century before Siad Barre was born , they were already living there.Really walaal? How do you explain Jubaland going from being a mainly Rahanweyn territory to a Darood one? Its well known that Barre settled a lot of Ogadenis and Marehan in Juba at the expense of Rahanweyn and was taking their properties and farmland
And this was due to the civilian administration? Either way, the economy wasn't doing very well under either the civilian administration or the Kacaan. There was tons of growth during the UN administration until it fell off.
View attachment 344940
Regardless, at the end of the day: how do you justify what Barre was doing in the late 80s? The Isaaq genocide, the Majeerteen masaacres, poisoning wells, executing religious scholars who disagreed with him ect. The man has a lot of blood on his hands even if his intentions were to clamp down hard on foreign funded enemies. I heard a theory that after his car accident, he was not of sound mind and all those atrocities were perpetual by other members of his government instead but that sounds like an attempt to absolve Barre of any responsibilities