Could you go and play while I talk to the grown ups? Xaaji Xunjuf;941188 wrote: How can HAG be played when they have the Presidency and Capital on lock, they cant be played they have it all under control:D

Try it again and this time see if you could put that organ up your head to a good use. NGONGE;941187 wrote: ^^ So secessionists are bad and HAG are puppets? Ya hadhay marka?

There is trend I observe in this forum. it is entertaining to watch how loud the secessionists from the trio Habro's triangle (Hargeysa-Berbera-Burco) are against federalism and federal states in Somalia. A good example is their daily bombardment of the forum with negative progranda against Puntland, Jubaland, Southwest, Khaatumo, Awdal, Galmudug, Ximan & Xeeb or whatever state emerges. It makes perfect sense 'cos for their dream project to succeed, they have to create smoke and vilify federalism, and go against all efforts against the formation of federal states in Somalia. All negative propaganda is seen as positive contributing to their end goal. Even their fake unionists are on the campaign. They are always seeking, and sometimes fabricate negative news about one of the federal states or an emerging state or upcoming regions. It is also commical and sometimes laughable to read their commentary to realise how clueless they are, but for them, it is pure gold. For them history began yesterday, but horaa loo yiri Dhallaan Qayladi, Waa Qaboonada. What is however troubling is how HAG fans, who are supposedly unionists are on the same bandwagon without realising the game being played. I understand they are a bit slow when it comes to politics, but will it be too late by the time they wake up to realise the game? Genuine pro-unionists, whether in favour of federalism or not should be on the lookout, and beware of the trap being laid.

Good point.

A_Khadar, it is pointless trying to reason with the clan secessionist boys. Surprising though Mr Carafaat who claims to be a unionist, and opposes federalism, yet embraces clan secession. Only in SOL.

I know. I flew from it many times to the moon. that was my way of doing what the jack a*rses do.

And this is Hargeysa International Airport. how is it any different from Garowe?

I wonder where the the minister got the idea that in Somaliland the task-force team counted houses whereas in Puntland they counted families. Here is the methodologies used by the task-foce teams in both areas. Methodology The survey will use a typical census-questionnaire that covers gender, age, marital status and other basic socio-demographic and economic characteristics of the population: maternal mortality, births and deaths, migration, literacy, labor force participation/ occupation; access to water, energy, and housing characteristics. Separate questionnaires are also prepared for the nomadic population that seeks to capture the unique variables experienced by nomadic populations between rainy and dry seasons. And if the teams used Satellite and GIS expertice assisted by relevant technologies like Earth-Google imagery in rural areas, why did the minister invoke Google as a supporting evidence to dispute the results? Just asking. Satellite Imagery and GIS support For smaller towns, especially in Puntland and Somaliland, Earth-Google imagery was extensively used to prepare town section photographs that were highly useful to avoid the need for less precise and tedious sketch mapping.

Baashi, The trick is finding a polical solution, and a common ground which satisfies all stakeholders. It would not matter what configuration or shape it takes. Any thing short of that is 'dhicis'. I could see 5 federal member states: Somaliland - W. Galbeed, Togdheer (excluding Buuhoodle), and Sanaag (excluding Makhir) Puntland - Bari, Nugaal and Mudug (excluding south Mudug) Central State - Sh. Dhexe, Hiiraan, and the old South Mudug (Galgaduud and south Mudug) Jubaland - J. Hoose, Dhexe, and Gedo Southwest - Bay, Bakool, and Sh. Hoose. Let Khatumites, Awdalites, and Makhirites decide for themsleves without coercion. Xamar would serve as a federal territory. But neither Somaliland not HAG would be happy with that set up. Puntland or Jubaland would not be happy with South-North confederacy. So we are on hold.

Zack, I agree. either both Uganda and Kenya are here for the benefit of Somalia, or they are both against it. you cannot pick one as the saviour, and the other as the devil. silly thinking.

I was referring to required understanding of inter and intra dependencies of the provisions of Article 49, and not taking a single one as if stand-alone without considering its sub sections.

Baashi, You raised valid points, but unless the federal parliament gets its act together, creates the required federal commission, and unless the Federal member States House [upper house] has been created (which could not without the formation of federal member state which shall be members of that Upper house - prerequisite), it can hardly get involved in the process, and anything the federal MPs do, short of supporting the process, will lack legitimacy, and cause further confusion. Baashi;937102 wrote: If the Parlaiment takes up the motion regarding to Juba Federal State (JFS) then the approval will follow its normal parlaimentary procedure course. Simple majority will decide if creation of federal member state of JFS is in accordance with the constitution .

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;934890 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.

Thanks for the update. Good stuff.

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 ...