Democracy is the worst thing for Somalia!

[Niin Ruun]

You damn right!

Seperate and get a longterm leader!

 

[The_Cosmos]

1. Democratic governance and economic development (if thats what u mean by flourish) are independent of each other and have no causal link. Look at 1930's Germany or present day Singapore and China, non of which were/are democracies and yet had/have strong economies.

2. The democratization of Europe was not the reason for the end of the devastating wars that ravaged that continent. The whole eastern half of the continent and the USSR were not democratic, so your argument doesn't hold. The main reason for the end of European hostilities after world war 2 was the introduction of nuclear weapons and the guarantee of mutual destruction if liberal democratic Europe went to war with the communist countries behind the iron curtain.

3. Liberal democracies don't go to war with each other because they already have other enemies keeping them busy like, China, a resurgent Russia, Iran and nationalist dictators in the third world like Mugabe, Gaddafi (Aun), Saddam (Aun), Assad. They can't afford to fight and must remain allies. Also their prosperity allows them to cooperate. If shit hits the fan in this world, you think America won't invade Canada for it's natural resources and fresh water?

4. Siyaad Barre resorted to clannism after the Majeerteen and Isaaq formed rebel groups to topple his regime. The man wasn't a clannist, but just used clan to remain in power when others tried to use clan to take him out.

5. As for making sure the dictator is removed from office if he is deemed unfit to lead, me and others in this thread have already spent a great deal of time devising a system to do just that.

1. Well I don't meant just economic flourishing but I imply something far bigger. Western civilisation has been placed has the pinnacle of human civilisation (whether you agree or don't is not the point) because of the emphasis on equal rights (hasn't always been equal), human rights, the rule of law on everyone including politicians (some loopholes there but it's been working in Britain albeit late) and so on. Simply put, the west has flourished as a society because of the principle of democracy which allows it to evolve when the environment requires it. We've seen this in the 20th century.

2. I think what I meant by this is that the European democratic nations have reached a point in which they no longer see the purpose to go to war thanks to democracy. I think it's a bit of an oversimplification to just state that it's because of nuclear deterrents or what not. That still doesn't explain why the nations of the East moved towards democracy.

3. I think it's disingenuous to state that it's due to them being overwhelmed with enemies that stop them from going to war with each other. As you've mentioned, cooperation through trade has made nations rely on each other for survival which makes war a disadvantage. Democratic nations are more likely to work and cooperate with each other and we see this from the current political climate.

As for America invading Canada, of the system fails tomorrow, then everything fails with it. The political and economic institutions are all intertwined with each other. Every form of system shall fall.

4. Whether Siad Barre was a clannist isn't the point, the point is that he resorted to clan association to consolidate his powers. When his power was threatened, he sought other means to ensure his survival.

5. A dictator by definition has full power, why on earth would they wish to leave office unless you wish to hold them accountable which then no longer makes them dictators.

 

[The_Cosmos]

You cannot simply transplant what has worked in America and Europe to a destitute African nation divided into dozens of competing subclans for no other reason than a severe lack of resources and a fear of domination by a so called rival clan.

Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with this scenario, and will only lead to more conflict, vote buying, and unprecedented corruption. At

The East has shown the world a far more feasible mode of development. If anything, countries like China and Singapore should be our blueprint until such time as our culture has evolved enough to implement a social democracy i.e. until we destroy the institution of qabiil once and for all.

Yes but as Siad Barre has shown, a dictator will utilise the clan system to consolidate their power when questioned.

You can't impose a dictator and presume he'll be incorruptible. Man by nature is highly corruptible.

 

[Prince of Lasanod]

There is no nationalism in Somali politics, that died off with Siad Barre rahimahullah. Now it's all about clan representation.

The situation won't change whilst we are as weak as we currently are. The thing is, we aren't the only people who came from a feudal/tribal society. We shouldn't import a finished system of countries who have already gotten rid of feudalism or tribalism. We need our own system.

 

[jugjugwacwac]

1. Well I don't meant just economic flourishing but I imply something far bigger. Western civilisation has been placed has the pinnacle of human civilisation (whether you agree or don't is not the point) because of the emphasis on equal rights (hasn't always been equal), human rights, the rule of law on everyone including politicians (some loopholes there but it's been working in Britain albeit late) and so on. Simply put, the west has flourished as a society because of the principle of democracy which allows it to evolve when the environment requires it. We've seen this in the 20th century.

2. I think what I meant by this is that the European democratic nations have reached a point in which they no longer see the purpose to go to war thanks to democracy. I think it's a bit of an oversimplification to just state that it's because of nuclear deterrents or what not. That still doesn't explain why the nations of the East moved towards democracy.

3. I think it's disingenuous to state that it's due to them being overwhelmed with enemies that stop them from going to war with each other. As you've mentioned, cooperation through trade has made nations rely on each other for survival which makes war a disadvantage. Democratic nations are more likely to work and cooperate with each other and we see this from the current political climate.

As for America invading Canada, of the system fails tomorrow, then everything fails with it. The political and economic institutions are all intertwined with each other. Every form of system shall fall.

4. Whether Siad Barre was a clannist isn't the point, the point is that he resorted to clan association to consolidate his powers. When his power was threatened, he sought other means to ensure his survival.

5. A dictator by definition has full power, why on earth would they wish to leave office unless you wish to hold them accountable which then no longer makes them dictators.

1. Democratic states do not have a monopoly on human rights and the rule of law.

2. European Democracies no longer see the need to go to war thanks to democracy you say? lol, I guess countries in the Middle east, Central Asia and parts of Africa are somehow invading and toppling their regimes themselves. And about nuclear weapons, there's a reason the West didn't attack Eastern Europe and the USSR during the Cold War but happily bomb the shit out of the Third World.

3. Eastern European nations and nations of the East in general moved towards democracy because Communism failed. This doesn't prove that democracy is superior to what i'm promoting, because I was never promoting Communism to begin with. I'm saying an authoritarian nationalist state is superior to a democratic one, especially for Somalis.

4. Yes, a hyper-linked world economy based on trade does dispose countries to cooperate rather than go to war, but yet again this has nothing to do with democracy but everything to do with trade/economics. For example China and America are loathe to go to war because their economies are intricately linked, but China is not a democracy.

5. Yes, Siyaad did resort to clan to remain in power, but this isn't irrational nor does it have anything to do with him being a dictator. The Mareexaan, Dhulbahante and Ogadeen (MOD alliance) remained loyal to him so he relied on them as his support base. If the Republicans staged a armed-rebellion against Obama, don't you think he would surround himself with his Democratic,Black, Hispanic, Feminist, LGBTQ base for support? Or do you think he'll make some White cowboy from Texas his Chief of Staff?

6. In the government I was proposing the leader does not have absolute power and can be removed if he works against the nationalist interests of the Somali people. Maybe you didn't read my posts.

 

[The_Cosmos]

1. Democratic states do not have a monopoly on human rights and the rule of law.

2. European Democracies no longer see the need to go to war thanks to democracy? lool, I guess the middle east, central Asia and africa just drone themselves to oblivion for fun.

3. Eastern European nations and nations of the East in general moved towards democracy because Communism failed. This doesn't prove that democracy is superior to what i'm promoting, because I was never promoting Communism to begin with. I'm saying an authoritarian nationalist state is superior to a democratic one, especially for Somalis.

4. Yes, a hyper-linked world economy based on trade does dispose countries to cooperate rather than go to war, but yet again this has nothing to do with democracy but everything to do with trade/economics. For example China and America are loathe to go to war because their economies are intricately linked, but China is not a democracy.

5. Yes, Siyaad did resort to clan to remain in power, but this isn't irrational nor does it have anything to do with him being a dictator. The Mareexaan, Dhulbahante and Ogadeen (MOD alliance) remained loyal to him so he relied on them as his support base. If the Republicans staged a armed-rebellion against Obama, don't you think he would surround himself with his Democratic,Black, Hispanic, Feminist, LGBTQ base for support? Or do you think he'll make some White cowboy from Texas his Chief of Staff?

6. In the government I was proposing the leader does not have absolute power and can be removed if he works against the nationalist interests of the Somali people. Maybe you didn't read my posts.

1. Democracy absolutely does when you compare it to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism literally violates the very essence of freedom which is recognised as a human right.

2. Apologies if it never seemed clear, I was implying between 2 democratic nations. Democratic countries don't go to war against each other.

3. The cold war was a proxy war between capitalism and communism, democracy and authoritarianism. The capitalist democratic nation reigned supreme. It was the authoritarian nature of communism which made it hard to swallow and lead to its eventual collapse. You're advocating for authoritarianism when the track record has been so poor I can essentially say with confidence that it won't work. Authoritarianism was one of the biggest reasons Somalia fell apart.

4. Yes true but the point still stands because there is a clear political tension between the two nations. Even in China, the Hong Kong residence are fighting against mainland imposition. There is a clash of democracy and authoritarianism.

5. Yes but that's exactly the issue is it not? How can you get rid of these clan institutions if authoritative leaders will just implement them to their interest? Defeats the purpose of having an authoritarian regime in the first place don't you think?

As for America. Well the republicans need a mandate to stand on and if they do, they'll still lose as the president has the best military every assembled in human history under his command. He does not need to beg support. Also, it's a bit confusing, do you support Barre's use of clan divisions to consolidate power?

5. Doesn't matter, you're putting your trust in the hands of the few and expecting them to make a difference. You're essentially creating a system that creates corruption. Why serve the interest of the people when you can serve your own? Democracy intends to limit the powers and terms of these people in an attempt to hold them accountable. Your system literally doesn't do that.

 

[Bahal]

Yes but as Siad Barre has shown, a dictator will utilise the clan system to consolidate their power when questioned.

You can't impose a dictator and presume he'll be incorruptible. Man by nature is highly corruptible.

Siad Barre made unforgivable mistakes that rightfully led to his eventual downfall, but there is no doubt the pre war policies instituted by his government and his achievements were far superior to the truly useless 9 years of so called democracy that preceded his rule.

I only wish he had focused more on development and less on an arms buildup and war, but we have the benefit of hindsight and I can understand the pressure to defend ethnic Somalis against a parasitic colonial state seeking to hold them against their will.

I return to China as an example. What we need is a one party state with internal checks and balances through a multi clan junta that focuses almost exclusively on economic development and mass education until we develop a robust middle class and the conditions for democracy.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Siad Barre made unforgivable mistakes that rightfully led to his eventual downfall, but there is no doubt the pre war policies instituted by his government and his achievements were far superior to the truly useless 9 years of so called democracy that preceded his rule.

I only wish he had focused more on development and less on an arms buildup and war, but we have the benefit of hindsight and I can understand the pressure to defend ethnic Somalis against a parasitic colonial state seeking to hold them against their will.

I return to China as an example. What we need is a one party state with internal checks and balances through a multi clan junta that focuses almost exclusively on economic development and mass education until we develop a robust middle class and the conditions for democracy.

Well first you need to understand that there has been no actual democracy before of Siad Barre. There has only been talk of democracy. The president was elected by the parliament which in turn was separated on tribal grounds. There is nothing about that which is democratic.

As for China, a one party system is highly fragile and just because it worked for them doesn't mean it'll work for us. In fact, we had a communist one party state and what happened to that? Also, not all of china is governed as authoritarian, Hong Kong is a democratic autonomous city that is literally completely different to the whole of nation. They have free speech, free expression and so on. Guess what's happening there? The mainland is trying curtail the democracy and install puppets that compliment the government.

Also, China suffers from widespread corruption that is literally due to the privileged position of putting a few in control of the many.

If you want a system like China, you're most likely not going to go far. Communist authoritarian states are very small in the world whilst democracy is many.

 

[Gilgamesh]

It would never work, one clan will come to dominate it along with allied clans something like the MOD of Barre. This explains why