Clanship Politics:a critical analysis
This seemingly positive aspect of clan politics is undisputable; ‘seemingly’ because (as will appear later) solutions brought about by clan based thinking are not self evident. They merely resolve problems they create. Nonetheless those well-versed in the traditional social structure were formally recognized and provisions were made for them in the form of Guurti or House of Elders. But true as it may be, the role of Guurti is often used to over explain peace and stability Somalilanders are so proud of. Also I am not suggesting a
wholesale or an outright rejection of clanship politics, because
that is unrealistic and because also we may feel lost and
bewildered, as it gives us a sense of belongingness, sense of
security. At least for now. But my concern is that with the use of
clanship approach over and above ideological views we are
unintentionally conspiring against our emerging nation. The point I
am trying to make is that the use of the Guurti model as a blueprint
for all political associations is ill-advised. Modern
state-building, clearly calls for a more sophisticated approach,
where personal dispositions are much more important than clan
attributes. It involves in norms and values. It also involves in
competencies, knowledge and skills that do not inhere in the lineage
structures. My argument, though I am not pretending it is a novice
one, is that our tendency to use clan based approach as a ‘master
key’ to all problems (from land demarcation to institutions building
as will be discussed below) is, though not the only one, at the
core of our self-imposed political impasse. Clanship politics, as many would agree, is inherently destructive. It is a subtle agent that undermines all processes of nation building, much the same way termites eat away wood and gradually cause it to disintegrate. Worst yet, it is counter-productive and frustrates the emergence of common citizenry that unites people. It is surely devoid of altruism, but rife with rivalry sentiments and fragmentations. Whilst it is understandable that clanship mentality is stubborn, difficult to eradicate social ailment which now sadly permeated political institution building at all levels, it is however not undoable to neutralise its undermining impact. My concern is that kinship card is now being played openly in the political arenas - areas where ideally speaking clan doctrine has no business to do. What troubles me is that on the one hand we want some sort of an effective national political system to emerge, but on the other hand we nonchalantly tolerate political thought formation which is construed within the confines of one’s clan. The dysfunctional clan politics and the absence of collective national identity which transcend clanship behaviour, I maintain, is a dangerous stalemate. Indeed if we do not de-tribalise our political ideas formation and develop a culture of independence of thought, we might as well forget the nation state we dream to build. For our recent history is rich with evidence showing that when clanship doctrine enters the political arena through the front door, nationhood escapes through the back window. As the renowned Somali anthropologist, I. M. Lewis in his book A Pastoral Democracy suggested the major fallacy of clan logic is it is inherently indeterminate in the sense that it has no permanency in the formation of for instance a coalition at even sub-clan levels. If we extend that logic we might partly understand why we are where we are in relation to nation building. It is disheartening to see how the destructive working of clanship politics escapes our attention. Whilst we probably might all agree that the clan logic is incompatible with modern day state machinery, for some obscure reasons we continue utilising it with much indifference. We may blame our leaders for the political mess we are in, but equally important is to note that there is a collective failure on our part to conceptualise our problems in their proper historical context. To accept the inept explanation that the sitting government is responsible for the current political impasse is to me unpalatable and even absurd. Because if this were true we would not only have been fault-finding with our leaders but we would too have nostalgically been talking in terms of the ‘good old times’. In fact we have been moaning all along since the new history of Somaliland begun in 1991 or since 1960 for that matter. Somaliland’s current problems are thus, I think, not only historical as just suggested, but also structural; because they are deeply engrained in the social organisation of our segmented society. It is true that we are trapped in a tribal prison in which our behaviour is sadly sanctioned, as Lewis put it, by an ever shifting clan loyalty. Against this backdrop, one can
paradoxically suggest that the much referred reconciliation
conferences in Burao and Borama in the early 90s in which
traditional elders convened to broker peace deals was perhaps no
more than a tribal solution to a tribal problem. What I am getting
at is to suggest that despite its significance in peace making,
clanship politics was never looked at critically. Indeed its
destructive working on nation building was glossed over with the
simplistic explanation that our traditional or indigenous approach
to nation building is fit for purpose. To some extent this may be
the case, but only in so far as the issue at hand is of
genealogical nature; in other words ensuring that social contracts
between different clan and sub-clan families function at their very
basic level. But beyond this point it has no value anymore than
traditional medicine can be used to cure fatal diseases. Needless to
say then that clan based approach to nation and institution building
is the prime suspect in our nation’s malfunctioning political
system. To illuminate the above
discussion let us consider the issue of the new regions as an
example. Whilst clearly there was no pressing need, Udub recently
shredded this small emerging nation literally into smaller sub-clan
entities. No one protested. In fact there were jubilations and
celebrations at the announcement of the new regions. Udub, I think,
took a potentially disastrous step into the unknown. Will such move
help Somalilanders gel together as a nation or will it further
reinforce clan identity at the expense of the national identity?
Given the nation’s segmented social structure I am afraid that such
move is likelier to reinforce social disintegration. Udub’s creation
of the additional regions is a prime example of what colonial rulers
saw in us – that we are socially a deeply divided society. It is
also what allows hegemony seeking Ethiopians invade neighbouring
Somalia, commit atrocities and get away with it (hopefully at least
for now). Further with these irresponsible moves we run the risk of
lapsing unwittingly into a sort of feudal political system. One could be tempted (and
justifiably so) to blame both parties for showing despicable clan
behaviour, but any outcry would most probably be met with resistance
because such moves are merely responses to the directives of the
clanship doctrine. Important question to be asked here is: can
Somaliland transcend the dangerous clan based politics? Perhaps yes.
If we are morally serious (and probably we are), we should be
addressing our propensity to form alliances along genealogical
lines.
|