Is federalism 'treaty' good or bad for .So?

[GaradShabeel]

We already have authoritarianism but just at state level tbf. The states are actually mini-dictatorships.

View attachment 287824

I agree with a lot of what Faroole said

He made great points. The problems with extending terms isn't usually an immediate problem with the one seeking power, but the precedent that it may create. Over time, if it falls into the wrongs hands and abused by people with ill intentions, it can regress the trust achieved into the system in place. I don't believe that is the the case with Deni, but you never know the ambition of the next leader who may take it further. That's why it's vital that we build strong institutions ASAP that can uphold our political stability and never have to resort violence means.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Its called choosing your enemies and your battlefield. With what Madoobe works with he and his merry band are more shrewd then any politician post 91’ barring AY.

Valid points. Survivalist indeed. I would rather not get the projects than comprise a principle only to lose the bigger stake for having compromised, but hey that is just me.

I dont want my President playing lion over a smaller issue when I dont have my capital. The infrastructure projects are a plus and the PM is decoration.

Hmmm, smaller issues, eh? The future of the nation in the balance? Or perhaps you do not quite see the sweeping ramifications of the proposed unilateral amendments as a concern.

Back to the federalism debate.

 

[Thegoodshepherd]

Your jumping past why Xamar would have disproportionately more wealth to other states then what currently exists.

You havent explained how Xamar will actually take control of Kismayo or Bosasso port other then it potentially being codified(Ethiopia and Sudans civil wars for control can show us why that means so little)

When your a younger state missing a gobol/capital you cant afford to operate as a “pariah” state.

Projects not going through as they should and constant political warfare with an internal region means we cant enter political warfare at the drop of a hat like PL.

When I weigh between the effects of a political war and an amendment that cant be put into action but is problematic in principle I know which one is more damaging right now.

He makes an assumption that the World Bank and the IMF will make consistent grants/loans to the FGS even though none of these loans/grants are making it to Puntland or to any other FMS which does not sign on to the proposed constitutional amendments.

What is more likely is that the World Bank, IMF and other concessional lenders will carve out an arrangement for funding development in Puntland similar to the arrangement in place for Somaliland. The only thing the FGS holds over Puntland is foreign aid.

Another problem for this vision is that FMS have representation within the FGS, so while they are independent of the FGS, the FGS is dependent upon them politically.

 

[bidenkulaha]

He makes an assumption that the World Bank and the IMF will make consistent grants/loans to the FGS even though none of these loans/grants are making it to Puntland or to any other FMS which does not sign on to the proposed constitutional amendments.

What is more likely is that the World Bank, IMF and other concessional lenders will carve out an arrangement for funding development in Puntland similar to the arrangement in place for Somaliland. The only thing the FGS holds over Puntland is foreign aid.

Another problem for this vision is that FMS have representation within the FGS, so while they are independent of the FGS the FGS is dependent upon them politically.

You sort of get it but Somaliland agreement was a special arrangement initiated by Sheikh Shariif and HSM, both supportive of SL’s development and keeping development out of politics. Farmaajo actually demanded the end of it and the World Bank/IMF obeyed till Farmaajo was pressured by SL Xamar MP/Deputy PM.

World Bank/IMF tend to follow government’s demands on these sort of things. They don’t work with individual member states without the permission of the sovereign state.

Also IMF isn’t the only loaner, FGS will likely have access to China, Gulf loans which they can use as they please similar to how FGS chooses how it wants to spend grants currently.

Likely scenarios include FGS loans a billion dollars from China, spends it on cooperative states, uncooperative state buckles.

It’s why PL minister said if debt relief happens without agreement on that end of the process we could see a return to civil war

Currently PL has representation within the FGS, let’s see how much they matter for, I personally believe FGS MPs are just after Ministerial jobs and being paid off for votes.

 

[Removed]

It’s a combination. If you look at my comments in the beginning of the thread and the OP’s listing of the powers granted to the FGS by the new constitution

FGS power over the FMS is both economic and military. Both suffice on their own, both compliment each other.

I almost feel more engaged talking to AI chatbots then in this thread.

When confronted on the military point that JL for example is already functioning with the SNA as its mainforce but independent, you switch gears to economy where you cant explain how Xamar will be able to secure the revenue except through similiar policy to the military one, you then alternate back and forth.

He makes an assumption that the World Bank and the IMF will make consistent grants/loans to the FGS even though none of these loans/grants are making it to Puntland or to any other FMS which does not sign on to the proposed constitutional amendments.

What is more likely is that the World Bank, IMF and other concessional lenders will carve out an arrangement for funding development in Puntland similar to the arrangement in place for Somaliland. The only thing the FGS holds over Puntland is foreign aid.

Another problem for this vision is that FMS have representation within the FGS, so while they are independent of the FGS the FGS is dependent upon them politically.

It is either a lack of understanding how much the IMF can loan us or a lack in understanding how far that money can go.

With a gdp of a few billion Somalia isnt getting loans large enough yearly to secure a monopoly of violence regardless if they give it to the fgs solely or otherwise, especially if the arms embargo doesnt go under HSMs term.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

You sort of get it but Somaliland agreement was a special arrangement initiated by Sheikh Shariif and HSM, both supportive of SL’s development and keeping development out of politics. Farmaajo actually demanded the end of it and the World Bank/IMF obeyed till Farmaajo was pressured by SL Xamar MP/Deputy PM.

World Bank/IMF tend to follow government’s demands on these sort of things. They don’t work with individual member states without the permission of the sovereign state.

Also IMF isn’t the only loaner, FGS will likely have access to China, Gulf loans which they can use as they please similar to how FGS chooses how it wants to spend grants currently.

Likely scenarios include FGS loans a billion dollars from China, spends it on cooperative states, uncooperative state buckles.

It’s why PL minister said if debt relief happens without agreement on that end of the process we could see a return to civil war

Currently PL has representation within the FGS, let’s see how much they matter for, I personally believe FGS MPs are just after Ministerial jobs and being paid off for votes.

There is unrealistic nativity evident in your analyses, and I do not know whether that is 'cos you are new to politics, or are in a persistent echo chamber. It is as if the last 50 years has not happened. As if you do not know the country, is a project, in bankruptcy, a de facto trusteeship with all the decision being made by foreign entities. Which is it?

 

[bidenkulaha]

There is unrealistic nativity evident in your analyses, and I do not know whether that is 'cos you are new to politics, or are in a persistent echo chamber. It is as if the last 50 years has not happened. As if you do not know the country, is a project, in bankruptcy, a de facto trusteeship with all the decision being made by foreign entities. Which is it?

Any points I make are not relevant to the immediate future.

But everything signed and proposed when it comes to the constitution will have a long term effect.

And yes the FGS is barely able to pay for it’s own operating costs. But by 2027 the FGS will be self sufficient and sovereignty would be achieved when we’re out of chapter 7.

 

[Thegoodshepherd]

I almost feel more engaged talking to AI chatbots then in this thread.

When confronted on the military point that JL for example is already functioning with the SNA as its mainforce but independent, you switch gears to economy where you cant explain how Xamar will be able to secure the revenue except through similiar policy to the military one, you then alternate back and forth.

It is either a lack of understanding how much the IMF can loan us or a lack in understanding how far that money can go.

With a gdp of a few billion Somalia isnt getting loans large enough yearly to secure a monopoly of violence regardless if they give it to the fgs solely or otherwise, especially if the arms embargo doesnt go under HSMs term.

It also shows a lack of understanding of why MSB's government collapsed in the first place. MSB had jets, he had artillery, he could level cities, was receiving hundreds of millions in grants and loans each year, had a monopoly on violence until ~1987, etc.. and yet his government was defeated by ragtag militias armed with light weaponry. How did this happen?

Why can't the Saudis defeat the Houthis? Saudi's military budget is 3.5x Yemen's entire GDP!

Why has Burma been in a civil war since 1948? If all it took was money for weapons, money for soldiers and money for bribes, the Tatmadaw would have won in Burma decades ago.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

With a gdp of a few billion Somalia isnt getting loans large enough yearly to secure a monopoly of violence regardless if they give it to the fgs solely or otherwise, especially if the arms embargo doesnt go under HSMs term.

To put this in perspective, I recently learnt the Ministry of Education of

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

has greater annual budget than the entire .So gov't, both Fed. & States combined? And its Foreign Ministry is thrice of that of the country. Sadly, that is our current standing.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

On the question of Amending the Constitution:
To effect Constitutional amendments, Article 132 provides in section(6), sub-section (f) :

The joint committee appointed in terms of Clause 5 shall:
(a) Review a proposal for the amendment`
(b) Inform the public of the proposal`
(c) Ensure that adequate opportunity exists for public debate`
(d) Consult with members of the public`
(e) Ensure that members of the public have adequate opportunity to present their comments and suggestions to the joint committee` and

(f) Engage Federal Member State legislatures and incorporate the harmonized submissions into the proposed amendment, whereas the matter concerns Federal Member State interests.

None of the aforesaid requirements had been satisfied, primary of all with Fed. Member States legislatures neither consulted, nor included in deliberations. NCC is neither a legislature body, nor a Constitutionally representative authority.

Under section (10) of Article 132 provides:
If the Parliament approves one or more proposed amendments in terms of this Article and Article 136 concerning the review of the final Constitution, it shall conduct a referendum on the revised Constitution as amended.

Where

Article 137, section (3) requires:
After collection and consideration of the views of the Federal Member States, the public, and monitoring and evaluating the implementation and application of the final Constitution and not less than six (6) months before the expiry of the second term of the Somali Federal Parliament, the Commission, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court to ensure that the letter and spirit of the Constitution is respected, shall revise its report and submit to the Federal Parliament its proposals, if any, for amending the Constitution in terms of Article 132

Ergo, even after Amendments have been deliberated, subjected to review, and harmonised* with provisions and requirements, a referendum must be carried out, after which, and ONLY after shall it become the law of the land.

Further, Fed. Parliament could enact laws, concerning Fed. Member States, ONLY after respective legislature bodies had been consulted, and included in the deliberations with respective bodies offering own amendment(s) to proposed amendments.

* In the legal sense, harmonisation denotes influence flowing from States, and their respective Constitutions being harmonised with that of the Federal government so as to the Federal Charter becoming wholly representative of the States. That was the reason 'reconciliation' was not used, which denotes the opposite meaning.

 

[DR OSMAN]

If Somalia had such a council of elders and a system based on traditional models, arguably they could have saved the country from civil war. Imagine if they had the power to “fire” MSB and hold emergency elections

We all saw the saving grace of queen elizabeth in 1975 when her governor general fired our then prime minister Gough Whitlam when all politicians had a deadlock in all parliament, govt, courts and a national disaster was emerging.

National Emergency reserve powers to a historical trusted royal class is wise system check n balance as all the govt, courts, parliament are manned by politicians. But they should be isolated from politics or day to day affairs in parliament, court, govt as long as everything is running as according to constitutional law and there isn't a national disaster or war emerging or else iyagu ayaa yeelan kara weji siyasadeed losing their neutral status.

 

[Sheikh Kulkuli]

Under the social justice concept, I shall argue in its favour, and if you think otherwise, make the case against it, whichever way you think of it, for right, or wrong, there is none.

In its elementary form, powers of government are divided between the Federal government at the national level, and State at the local level, where there exists a federation of States.

At a high level, there are two types:
a) Dual, where clearly defined terms and powers are drawn, and agreed upon.
b) Cooperative, where Fed. and State governments collaborate on policy.

We are neither, for we are not quite there yet, and shall explain appealing features of either, and to whom at a given time using the US as a test model.

There are other forms to consider including Devolution, Creative Federalism etc., yet we are not quite there yet to consider in our current state.

As stipulated under Article 54, Allocation of powers, Fed. Government's powers are defined as:
(A) Foreign Affairs,
(B) National Defense,
(C) Citizenship and Immigration, and
(D) Monetary Policy.

To name a few, Federal Member States' powers include, but not limited to laws of:

i) Elections,
ii) Land use,
iii) Education,
iv) Public health,
v) Commercial,
vi) Corporate,
vii) Property,
viii) Morality,
ix) Criminal,
x) Inheritance,
xi) Banking,
xii) Family,
xiii) Licensing.

There indeed shall be instance where laws of Fed., and State gov'ts shall both
apply, with taxes being an example.

Regulation of Commerce, as in the Commerce Clause, is an area of interest, which shall be revisited at a later time.

Supremacy Clause is another.

All these are just theory.
We still are in civil war mode of 1991.

The moment the western nations leave we will go back to square one.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

All these are just theory.

I am afraid you are in for a rude awakening, for most are in practice, if real, and are impacting peoples' lives, many adversely, I might add.

We still are in civil war mode of 1991.
The moment the western nations leave we will go back to square one.

One could say it is not as bleak as it were then, for we have come some way from then days, yet have a steep ascension to climb.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

Under this system, say Captain Ahab takes over the leadership tomorrow, depletes resources, starves States, wages wars, starting with your beloved State, what is your recourse?

@bidenkulaha
As the only proponent of centralism, and despondent of loose federalism, could you formulate a well-thoughtout response to this question? Your earlier response of 'Courts' was not satisfactory, for there are no reputable, nor reliable Judiciary institutions at the present. Ruminate for a moment in the context of your beloved village now being under assault from a ruthless leader.

 

[Haragwaafi]

Regions with 2 or more clans on similiar footing has only led to constant infighting between them.

Those fighting only happened after the fall of the central govt.

The idea that the 18 gobols wouldnt devolve into their own clan states aswell is out of touch. Somalis are a tribal society to the core its more efficient to build around that reality then force political systems that dont fit to try and remold Somali society.

Being a tribal society doesn't gurantee you to have your own autonomous clan border state just bcuz you're lineage wise different than the others like we're not the only tribal society that exists in this world you have got the neighboring country of Yemen a tribe based society where tribilism isn't discussed in the politics instead is mostly about regionalism and in every region or district is tribally more diverse than the somali ones but we're the only ones who have a clan political structure in our govts like we're different ethnic people.

 

[Haragwaafi]

Arguably, two of the current states (Jubaland and Puntland) are roughly modelled on two traditional monarchies that pre-date colonialism (the fledging Waamo Sultanate under Ogaden in Jubaland and Tanaland, and Majertenia in the North East). Aren’t such native state structures more deserving of being used rather than foreign imports?

Bari and Nugaal used to be under the old region of Majeertanya and I have no problem of it being a federal state in that historical sense nor with Jubaland but assigning them with Qabil name instead of geographical shared identity in my opinion as we are currently seeing in Somalia isn't healthy way if the country really wants to regain its feet back again in the national and intl stages.

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

[ ... ] but assigning them with Qabil name instead of geographical shared identity in my opinion as we are currently seeing in Somalia isn't healthy way if the country really wants to regain its feet back again in the national and intl stages.

Along that line of thinking, what do you think about UK regions viz. England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland? Do you think their configuration works?

 

[Haragwaafi]

Along that line of thinking, what do you think about UK regions viz. England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland? Do you think their configuration works?

I'm more like in favor of German federal system with parliamentary system

 

[𐒋𐒖𐒆𐒔𐒖𐒕𐒈]

I'm more like in favor of German federal system with parliamentary system

Understood, but do you think the British Isles configuration works?

 

[Haragwaafi]

Understood, but do you think the British Isles configuration works?

No it won't as British Isles are bassed on old geographical entites that existed well before the UK was established and Somalis never had anything similar to that.