We need propaganda

[ditto]

Spoiler

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

 

[Varriris]

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

 

[ditto]

Spoiler

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

Spoiler

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

 

[hayran]

Propaganda is worthless without a capable and effective state. Culture is downstream of law. People won’t take any propaganda seriously unless the source is able to put a bullet in their heads, that’s just human nature. An impoverished population is best motivated by fear.

Atomising families is a working solution to this problem, how does this hypothetical state find a way to give this new family structure an incentive? Or does enacting this require the state to be a lawless one?

as it stands the FGS cannot even tax the majority of the country, it’s an extremely weak state and that’s by design

 

[ditto]

Propaganda is worthless without a capable and effective state. Culture is downstream of law. People won’t take any propaganda seriously unless the source is able to put a bullet in their heads, that’s just human nature. An impoverished population is best motivated by fear.

I agree with your point that propaganda without a capable state is worthless

But motivation through fear alone is not sustainable in the long run, especially when dealing with Somalis who have always shown a strong resistance to anything they perceive as a threat to their autonomy. While fear might produce short term compliance, it will breed rebellion. People will probably comply out of fear but I don’t think they will truly ever support the state on a deeper level. I want Somalis to be able to give up their useless clan fiefdoms without a second thought. They won’t do that if they have a gun shoved in their face, but nothing to gain.

Atomising families is a working solution to this problem, how does this hypothetical state find a way to give this new family structure an incentive? Or does enacting this require the state to be a lawless one?

The state has to offer economic security that traditional family structures and clans are not able to, like affordable housing, decent health care, education and jobs. Also what I mentioned before, a common enemy and protection from who somalis perceive as an ‘enemy’. Other than other Somalis, it’s Ethiopia. All that can be used to incentivise them to accept a new structure and way of life, even if it disrupts what they’re used to it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t create hostility and resentment. The state should be seen as a protective force that aims to move the country forward, and protect the people from threats, but not be one that dismantles traditional support networks without providing anything in return.

To enact effective propaganda, the state should definitely not be lawless. It needs to be authoritative and able to exercise control, but not perceived as a threat to the average person. There should be a balance of commanding respect without provoking unnecessary fear.

 

[Farsi]

In order to create propaganda, one must first have an ideology to counter the prevailing ideology. The current ideology that most Somalis adhere to is qabil. Nothing stands against a doctrine except a doctrine. We’ve already experienced the Kacaan era, which ultimately failed. But the real question is: what ideology can unite us in order to establish a stable system of governance?

 

[olore]

Spoiler

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

 

[hayran]

motivation through fear alone is not sustainable in the long run, especially when dealing with Somalis who have always shown a strong resistance to anything they perceive as a threat to their autonomy.

We only act like this when this when the safety net of the clan is there. There is a very strong herd mentality among us that people just love to ignore, there is no "autonomy". The herd never allows for the true autonomy of the individual. When somalis rebel or question against their government, they are following their herd. The definition of the "herd" can vary by circumstance but the most relevant one here is the herd of the clan.

People will probably comply out of fear but I don’t think they will truly ever support the state on a deeper level.

the more people comply, the more they will accept things and it will be hard coded as they age. they will teach their children to comply out of fear for their safety (using a broad example but the somali view on the value of children is something that is also highly questionable. must also be addressed in tandem with the clan issue). repeat this process and it will be culture.

the trick is to remain in the position of being able to make them comply long enough, something that Siad failed to do.

I want Somalis to be able to give up their useless clan fiefdoms without a second thought. They won’t do that if they have a gun shoved in their face, but nothing to gain.

quite a romantic view on human survival instincts, when someone is backed up against the wall (stripped of all social protections) and a gun is shoved into their face they will do just about anything to survive.

The state has to offer economic security that traditional family structures and clans are not able to, like affordable housing, decent health care, education and jobs. Also what I mentioned before, a common enemy and protection from who somalis perceive as an ‘enemy’. Other than other Somalis, it’s Ethiopia. All that can be used to incentivise them to accept a new structure and way of life, even if it disrupts what they’re used to it needs to be done in a way that doesn’t create hostility and resentment. The state should be seen as a protective force that aims to move the country forward, and protect the people from threats, but not be one that dismantles traditional support networks without providing anything in return.

good point on the enemy.

the whole idea of unifying somalis in the modern era is rooted in a resistance to ethiopian christian encroachment onto our lands. without that blob there is no reason for us to unite, i'd have been of the opinion that it is okay if we all just balkanize and "develop our regions" but in the face of an expansionist ethiopia, which views mass scale ethnic wars full of death and misery as cyclical, such a view is utterly naive and self destructive to all somalis.

however i do not believe it is the responsibility of the state to provide everything people need, because they will have their cake and eat it too. there is nothing to incentivize people away from their clans in this model, the people at the top will just plunder the state and loot even more tax money to further their own clans interest. when the state is the biggest cash cow in town, everyone will just flock there, it has been the bane of us since 1960 and still is today.

the state should definitely not be lawless. It needs to be authoritative and able to exercise control, but not perceived as a threat to the average person. There should be a balance of commanding respect without provoking unnecessary fear.

economics is easy, law is not. figuring out what your governance ultimately means and direction you want to move your culture in requires difficult conversations. in this situation the state should be allowed to act "beyond acceptability" of somali norms. every skirmish ends with old garaads suddenly coming to a "peace" when lives are already lost and nothing major was gained for either faction. if that's the norm, then it is a culture of stagnation.


if you want progress, then the state should act "above the law". if it is unable to for whatever reason, then it has no sovreignity.

Culture is downstream of Law.

and

Law is downstream of Violence.