Carafaat, I could not follow your reasoning, so I'll leave it there. It is only fair I re-insert this line here for the right context. NORF, If so, you would have known that if provisions of an article are not implemented, the rest of the article becomes untenable, and therefore in a pending status. And yes to discussions, but by people who understand its inner workings, and can engage in intelligable dialogue. N.O.R.F wrote: One doesn't need a law degree to scrutinise the constitution and see where there may be areas of contention saxib. A discussion on the articles and their implications should be encouraged.

Where are the Jubaland enthusiasts? any updates on the presidential election?

To be fair, Hargeysa is more populus than Bosaso the same way Galkacyo has more population than Burco. Also, Garowe and Qardho are more populous than Borama and Berbera respectively. So, Dr. Sacad is right on the Hargeysa front, but wrong on all else. And the Goolge reference is weird. And by the way, he did not say 'qoyskaasi'. that was the creation of the reporter. Wasiirku ayaa sheegay in somaliland la tirinayey guryaha, halka Puntland la tirinayey qoyskaasi, taasna uu faraq ka soo baxay, isla markaana hay’addii hawsha wadan ka ogolaatay in dib loo eeggo xogtaasi inta aan wejiga labaaad loo gudbin.

NORF, Agreed, but could you read it again please, and tell me what your understanding of the two articles is? Are the two articles complimenting each other, or are they contradicting each other, or is one to cancel the other one out? Or is one simply dependent upon the other? I ask 'cos the answer might lie therein. 2) The House of the People of the Federal Parliament, before determining the number and boundaries of the Federal Member States, shall nominate a national commission which shall study the issue, and submit a report of its findings with recommendations to the House of the People of the Federal Parliament. (4) The number and the boundaries of the districts in a Federal Member State shall be determined by a law enacted by the parliament of the Federal Member State, which must be approved by the House of the People of the Federal Parliament. N.O.R.F;934712 wrote: Fair points Illyria. It is a confusing document. I still reads as though 49 (4) is subject to 49 (2).

Xiin, Would you agree there is a difference between a weak gov't which still manages its affairs, even tho' it is unable to stand strong against more powerful nations which seek to exploit its weaknesses, and a gov't which cannot make a decision of, say appointment of director generals, unless it has consulted or be dictated to from afar? xiinfaniin;934641 wrote: ^^And in that definition, Somalia is not a trusteeship in the technical sense of the word. But Somalia is not a fully functioning, sovereign country either. In the context of one hyper supper power dominated world, one could argue few countries could claim to be fully sovereign. Even Pakistan, a nuclear armed, 200-million, country cedes the control of its airspace to Pentagon's unmanned drones ---the locals have to put up with the weekly tragedies of drone strikes and the deaths and destruction it leaves behind. My point being, if Somalia's inability to muster modern state capacities to control the security and political events that take place in its territories is what the author of this post is referring to, then obviously we are not alone. And I am in agreement here. But Somalia is not under trusteeship, modern or not, by definition. After twenty one years of a stateless status, Somalia is beginning to come back to fold the of nations. We are, I think, much better than the days when our politics were dominated by warlords that directly report to Ethiopia , Eritrea or the intelligence apparatus of other foreign countries.

Gents, I raised this topic for the simple reason that while Somalis are bickering over minor issues at the bottom of the barrel, the country is being managed or mismanaged by proxy agents. And for the record, I blame Somalis for all its ills and feeble. And I go by the simple axiom 'Lax waliba shillinkay is dhigtaa lagu gawracaa'. I ask myself how is Somalia today any different from Somalia of 1840? To be continued ...

Wow, so this guy did all of this just to get a reaction. What an attention-seeking !

Nin-Yaanban, It is a good document, and a good starting point. It is up to the people to amend as seen fit. I have not seen yet, 'major' articles which could be regarded wrong or worrisome. And remember we have come a long way as long as we are talking about the constitution and politics, and not waging wars.

NORF, You are quite right, and here is where I'd like you to further develop that point. Think of the constitution as a legal framework (or an architectural blueprint for a house) of agreed principles by all parties providing the foundation upon which to build nation state institutions, which further provides guidelines in its interpretation in the 'how' the government should operate (RR), and 'what' the government can or cannot do, but not an all encompassing or addressing all possible issues or concerns. That being the case, and its being a legal document, it is open to interpretations where each side, or generation, would attempt to fit its political arguments within its statutes and along its articles and sub sections, whether expressed or implied. And here is where politics comes into play - how its provisions are being construed. Now, legal scholars can and must debate those provisions making the necessary amendments as and when discrepancies arise, but the average person should not waste time trying to argue in favour or against legal matters beyond one's grasp. Discuss the political implications of the law, yes of course, but limit discussion points to what is known, and can be understood. Otherwise, it becomes pointless exercise. Digression: The Magna Carta, arguably the source of modern constitutions, was derived from the Bible, or to be more accurate from the Old Testament, and is architectured around principles found in organised religions including Islam where the skeleton is provided with the rest left for humans to fill in, as seen fit and necessary. The principal difference being constitutions, which are found to contain errs, are subject to amendments whereas religion, Islam in our case, is not. To be continued ...

Baashi, Shocking ,eh? How could these politicians not draw some lesson-learned from the past? Traditionally ancient Somalis were known to have squabbled and pickered among themselves, but the minute external forces came to the scene, they used to forge a united front. What happened to that? Xiin - you raised valid points, and I will come back to them as time permits.

For clarity, let me define what I mean by: - Somalia: The republic of Somalia as of July 1, 1960. - Modern trusteeship: Different from post-colonial trusteeship, and meaning a failed state which can only operate with the help of the IC to resurrect its institutions up to a point where it can choose and decide for itself, and for its people.

Valid points tho' I was actually setting that aside 'cos it is subjective with greater latitude, and it is more difficult to convince passionate protagonists of the gov't otherwise until the legal questions had been settled, and then we could move on to the political dialogue which is where the 'misconduct' and the issue of Juba itself could be discussed. For now, antagonists of the Juba initiative are engaging in an unwinnable debate.

Somalia is a modern trusteeship of which affairs are being managed by the international community where its leaders, project manager to be more accurate, have neither the authority nor the capacity to oversee its affairs. Are its citizens aware of that? I wish to come back to develop the argument another day.

Excellent point Baashi, And I would agree the document is complex demanding legal expertise, due dilegence and calm composure in its understannding, which is the reason I was putting the questions to Carafaat, the loudest member in the opposing camp.

Again, you are misreading or perhaps intentionally misquoting the constitution. Article 48, sub section 2 provides: (2) No single region can stand alone. Until such time as a region merges with another region(s) to form a new Federal Member State, a region shall be directly administered by the Federal Government for a maximum period of two years. Notice the prerequisite - if there is a region by itself, which cannot join other regions, then yes, the federal gov't can appoint a gov'or, but where there are 3 regions forming a federal member state, the gov't has no business in trying to stymie its progress or impede its formation. Actually by doing what the federal leadership has done in Juba, it risks losing its legitimacy. As for the 'clan conference' you seem to be tossing about as if the end-all, well I will let others from Somaliland, Puntland, Khatumo, Galmudug or even the federal gov't itself respond to that. And a reminder for your benefit, in case it skipped you mind, the federal gov't you are so passionate about was founded by and in a clan conference. Carafaat;934071 wrote: The constitution says Goverment is repsonsible for first two years. Now where in the constitution does it state that a clan conference can establish a State from 3 Somali regions who are still occubied by AL Shabaab .

Carafaat, You do not know that, so let us toss the speculations aside. Ilyria, I have read the constitution way before you started shopping in it. I actually did not ignore any of the sections of the Article, which is the reason I provided the Article in its entirety, but let us move on. You have ignored article 49.1 to 49.5, and are only justifying your little cause here by article 49.6((6) Based on a voluntary decision, two or more regions may merge to form a Federal Member State.) Let us not pontificate, but instead consider the provisions of the Article. a) Without the commission as in sub section 3, b) Without the Federal Member States as in sub section 4, c) Without the federal parliament determining the number and boundaries as in sub section 2, And I will set sub sections 5 and 6 to aside for now. Without these, the federal gov’t is toothless, lacks the needed political clout, and its role is up in the air to be interpreted as non-existence. You would not be suggesting citizens should stay frozen in time and await MPs sitting in Mogadishu to determine their future, do you? If you are, then there are bigger issues than Juba. Nowhere does it state federal member states could not be formed, or have to wait until the government has put its act together. Juba leaders are actually helping the gov’t in doing what they gov’t could not do. As I said, this is not a constitutional argument, but a political and procedural one, and it is for the federal leadership to lead, or get out of the way. Also, existing and emerging Federal Member states have a role, as in sub section 4, and in other Articles where the federal gov’t must consult with member state in all major decision-making and engagements (this is a point not being discussed), but will prove thorny in time. More importantly, the constitution awards the final say to the citizens of the country via the federal parliament (MPs must do what the citizens want), and not political leaders in the executive, which is where I think your argument, tho’ well meaning, loses its marbles. Further, the formation of Federal Member states is up to the citizens as in Article 46, sub section 1, and not up to the gov’t as and when its institutions have been completed and it’d gotten its act together. Now, I must note that the federal gov't has a role and responsibilities none of which had been assumed, and I hope it will in time, but for now it has not, which is a fact we cannot change. It is a gov't which only exists in name, but has no authority over its territories and citizens. As and when it had extended its authority and assumed its role, then we can have that conversation, but for now, it is futile. Now, Juba initiative started under the rein of president Shariif and ahead of the current gov't, and its legitimacy and mandate rests with its citizens. And one more time, as I said, this is a political issue - citizens have won, and the gov't missed a chance to lead. Let me ask you a question: what is your understanding of sub section 4 of Article 49? (4) The number and the boundaries of the districts in a Federal Member State shall be determined by a law enacted by the parliament of the Federal Member State, which must be approved by the House of the People of the Federal Parliament.

Come to think of it, the other thread is more relevant and makes an inetersting reading. I'll put my comments there, and will see there then.

Carafaat, a) I am not Xiin, b) My questions were to you, and not him, c) Just 'cos Xiin and I agree on the principal points on Juba does not mean we are coming from the same angle, or agree on all things politics, d) What is with the grin? Now, give me all you have got in a grown-up sort of way. And do not disappoint. And I will read the thread shortly.

That is what would have been expected from mature, intelligent leaders, but unfortunately this is not so with the current federal leadership in Mogadishu. Eventually tho' they will come around, and then it is up to the Juba leaders to take the lead in bringing the federal institutions to the side.

This was the unfortunate part. opponents of Jubbaland initiative were found inadequately equipped with any valid constitutional arguments, or even able to table an alternative (plausible) political route to the one under way. Empty slogans, and subtle impeachment of the integrity of the leaders of the initiative was all they could come up with.

I was trying to guide you away from the false arguments (constitutionality of the Juba initiative) and to the real points of contention (political configuration of the future federal gov't - centralised federalism vs decentralised federalism), but you come across less interested in those issues engaging in synchronised firefighting bouts. Or is this a case of 'sal fudaydkii lagu xaman jiray reer Waqooyi'. Here is the Article, sections and sub sections, which concern the formation of federal member states. Can you read them ALL at once and calmly, and then let us have a grown-up conversation. if no, good luck with the fire-fighting exercise. Article 49. The Number and Boundaries of the Federal Member States and Districts (1) The number and boundaries of the Federal Member States shall be determined by the House of the People of the Federal Parliament. (2) The House of the People of the Federal Parliament, before determining the number and boundaries of the Federal Member States, shall nominate a national commission which shall study the issue, and submit a report of its findings with recommendations to the House of the People of the Federal Parliament. (3) The nomination of the commission referred to in Clause two shall be preceded by the enactment of a law by the House of the People of the Federal Parliament, which shall define: (a) The responsibilities and powers of the commission; (b) The parameters and conditions it shall use for the establishment of the Federal Member States; © The number of the commissioners, requirements of membership, nomination methods, office tenure, and their remuneration. (4) The number and the boundaries of the districts in a Federal Member State shall be determined by a law enacted by the parliament of the Federal Member State, which must be approved by the House of the People of the Federal Parliament. (5) Federal Member State boundaries shall be based on the boundaries of the administrative regions as they existed before 1991. (6) Based on a voluntary decision, two or more regions may merge to form a Federal Member State. Carafaat;934071 wrote: The constitution says Goverment is repsonsible for first two years. Now where in the constitution does it state that a clan conference can establish a State from 3 Somali regions who are still occubied by AL Shabaab .

More to the point, the debate about the Juba initiave is about the type of federalism Somalia will have: central favoured by the current gov't and its allies vs decentralised embraced by federal member states. The dialogue should have been of a political nature - shape, process and procedure - instead of a constitutional, 'cos the thorny issues are around the political configuraiton of the federal member states, their relationship with the federal gov't, and the influence the federal gov't has over and with the FM states. Unfortunatley it has taken a detour 'cos the federal leaders are amatuers new to the game whereas those heading the Juba initiative (not the visible actors but those pulling the strings from behind the curtain) are heavy weights with much better comprehension of the Somali politics.

There is no problem in expressing reservations if you feel there is something wrong with the process or question the procedure. What I do not understand however is the 'you will soon find out' as if you have received 'waxyi' from heaven. WEhat are your reservations based on?

Well, if he were right I would have, but in this case he is not, therefore I will not take his words for it. instead I will consult the constitution and use my brain. May I suggest then you do not just repeat what others say without much thought into their validity or veracity?

Are you serious? I am raising he question 'cos the PM did not reference the articles which rendered the Juba initiative unconstitutional and we cannot take his word for it unless of course he or anyone on that side of the argument brings forth the relevant articles to have been breached. I have read the document and disagree with his conclusion. So it seems your whole argument against the Juba initiative and its being unconstitutional hings on 'cos the PM said so. You are much worse than I thought.