PROPOSED CHANGES TO OUR CONSTITUTION

National constitutions are always subject to change provided there is genuine and a pressings need to do so. The trade-offs between what is to be changed and the new improved version as well as the integrity of the process is guaranteed. For minor changes that do not affect the essence of the constitution, legislative amendments are sufficient enough to do the job. In case of conversion from presidential to parliamentary system of government, Kulmiye party has no mandate to propose such a change. A change of that magnitude needs a national referendum. It is that simple.


WHAT IS IN KULMIYE'S PROPOSED CHANGES?

Call it nostalgia to the good old days or else; it boils down to one and only one thing: TANGENCY TO THE GREATER SOMALIA OR BETTER STILL A UNITARY STATE! Nothing more, nothing less. Our past experience with the failed Somali state attests to the fact that a unitary state is not necessarily a democratic one. In a parliamentary state all the legislative powers are concentrated at the centre and regional and local authorities are at the mercy of the central government for any devolved powers. In other words, the centre can revoke such powers at will. This kind of authoritarianism will not thrive in a presidential system of government. Why is the issue of constitutional gerrymandering relevant to the coming election? The old English cliché applies perfectly here: "You can get the man of the desert, but you will never get the desert out of the man." Perhaps, Somaliland is an insult to the alter ego of some of our politicians.


WHAT IS IN OUR CONSTITUTION

Our national constitution is compendium of laws, rules, regulations, and procedures that establish and define the functioning of a modern nation state. This compilation encapsulates the shared common values of our society, such us: Our cultural heritage, our history, our language, and our religion. These laws are the binding glue that holds us together. Any change to the Constitution is the collective responsibility of the whole society through a national referendum. Therefore, no political party or individual can adopt any unilateral action to tamper with the nation's constitution without the overwhelming consent of the general public.

It also noteworthy to state here, that our constitution is structured to meet the basic needs of a modern nation. It conforms to international norms and standards in many aspects such as individual rights and freedoms; delegation of power to different branches of government; etc. etc. The mechanisms for modifications/amendments are usually built in within national constitutions. In other words, constitutions are neither sacrosanct nor free of imperfections.


THE NEED FOR CHANGE & RIGHT PROCEDURES TO FOLLOW

Once a constitution comes into force, certainly difficulties in the interpretation and the practical application of some article may come to the forefront. Then the need to make some adjustments is necessary. Constitutional amendments are usually made in the legislature. However, revision (substitution of constitution with another) is another.

More than often, contradictions and conflicting texts may be found within the document and the means to address such issues is through the national legislature. It is the exclusive responsibility of that state organ to streamline such deficiencies in the Constitution. If any national political party intends to effect amendments to the Constitution, then such a party have to submit such a motion through its MPs in the legislature. In a presidential system of government, direct party intervention to redesign the nation’s Constitution is out of the question; and suffices to say there is no need to go further than that.

If ambiguity is a major cause of conflict in the interpretation of certain sections of the Constitution, it is also the responsibility of the duly elected representatives of the people to make the necessary adjustments to rectify the problem. If the legislature fails to resolve the issue, then the matter should be referred to a competent Constitutional Court for a binding final decision, provided such an institution exists in the country.


THE EFFECTS OF KULMIYE'S PROPOSED CHANGES


For one thing, the proposed constitutional, if given the chance, will lead to only one thing: gradual dismantling of Somaliland and its eventual incorporation into Greater Somalia. For another thing, it is a serious flawed gamble that will backfire on the party.

First on November 2, 2008, in a press conference originally billed as a reconciliation of the feuding factions of the party, the party leaders dropped an unexpected ticking time bomb. Instead of addressing the chronic problems within the party, the party hierarchy declared that the reopening of the Constitution will be a major campaign platform in the upcoming presidential election scheduled on March 29, 2009.

The timing and the good intentions of the party are questionable. The announcement came three days after the Al- terrorist attack in the capital of our nation. To reap the maximum possible advantage, timing is a decisive factor in politics. A savvy politician never makes major policy announcements if the intended audience is focused elsewhere- In our case, the tragedy of the suicidal terrorists. Hence, the sincerity of the initiative is on a very shaky ground!


If this wild dream is not challenged and stopped right on its tracks, it will lead to the eventual dismantling of Somaliland as we know it. Rewriting of complete sections of our Constitution or introducing a revised version in order to alter the fundamental characteristics of the document shall come only through a Constitutional Referendum. End of the story period. The same thing applies to substituting the current presidential system with a parliamentary one.


KULMIYE'S DIVERSIONARY TACTICS


Assuming the proposed change is modeled on what existed in Somali from 1960-1967; let us examine how that system worked:

The President should be a member of the national legislature;
The elects the President- indirect election;
The President in turn appoints the Prime Minister;
The Prime Minister appoints in the Cabinet.

Granted Kulmiye wins the upcoming election, a cabinet of 24 ministers, a President, a Prime Minister, and Vice-President, effectively removes a third of the MPs from active legislative duty. This leaves the party with only ONE Member of Parliament to look after the government's business. This not an improvement to the current, but a criminal act intended to flush Somaliland down the drain.

On the other hand, the combined opposition ranks swells to 54 MPs! This is not at all an efficient way to run a functioning government. The opposition will avail them the advantage of the no-confidence card and the resulting gridlock will bring the nation to its knees. As it is, we can surmise that the party is counting on the old Somali Youth League culture- The opposition breaking ranks with their parties.

Recall the frequency of Italian governments changing hands since 1945? Amintore Fanfani became Prime Minister on six different occasions between 1954 and 1987. Perhaps the proposed Constitutional revision will break that record.



We do have enough experience with the mayors of the major cities and there is no logic in adopting a corrupted system. Do we need to borrow a page from that? This leads us to conclude that the idea was not properly evaluated; otherwise any objective analysis of the matter would have come to a different conclusion.



In conclusion, there is more than a simple constitutional overhaul in Kulmiye's proposal and those who care about this nation should be more than vigilant.





God bless Somaliland and its people.