Toward A New Country in East Africa

[VisiT]

Toward A New Country in East Africa

 

by Graham Green

 

Somewhere in East Africa there lies a green valley that is often referred to as Nomansland. It received this name for two reasons. First, almost nobody has lived there during the past two centuries. Second, for a long time the surrounding states, those of Ethiopia, British Somaliland and French Somaliland, showed little interest. It was only in 1954 that this nomansland, until then a white spot on the political map of the United Nations, received its color. It was then that the UN divided it among two sovereigns, the larger part going to Ethiopia, the smaller to British Somaliland.

 

When I visited this beautiful valley for the first time, I instantly saw its potential as a new country. Like Galt's Gulch, it is surrounded by mountains, which gives it privacy. It has a pleasant, temperate climate due to its elevation of 1500 metres (4900 ft). Its size of 6500 km 2 (2400 square miles) makes it slightly larger than Jamaica and six times larger than Hong Kong. With modern cultivating techniques it could easily feed a million people. My big question was, why are there almost no villages in this valley? The answer soon came. The British had reserved it for nomads, i.e. suppliers of meat to their ships going through the Red Sea to Asia.

 

When I asked the nomads of this valley whether they were interested in becoming an independent country, they answered positively. They said that their tribe, like any other Somali tribe, is sovereign, taking no orders from another tribe, or from a state. Just the same, they offered to discuss my suggestion with the Republic of Somaliland, established in 1991, which professes to welcome foreign investors.

 

The African continent has the reputation of being in a perpetual mess. But who created that image? The proponents of state order, for sure, who regret that the Africans reject that order. Indeed, since its decolonisation, Africa has been faced with a choice between two different political systems: state government, which is authoritarian, and tribal government, which is libertarian.

 

A country is libertarian when its inhabitants are free to exercise the economic activity of their choice, including that of establishing a police force or court of justice; it is authoritarian when its policemen monopolise their services. In a libertarian society there are several independent police forces and, as a result, several (competing) systems of law; in an authoritarian society there is only one system of law, called state law. When a police force monopolises its trade, we call that force 'a state'. A libertarian society is therefore known as a stateless society.

 

Many people believe that being an authoritarian is just as honorable a position as being a libertarian. But the right to establish a police force or a judiciary is a human right, grounded in natural law. That law consists of the rights and obligations inherent in human nature. The authoritarian option, therefore, infringes upon natural law. In fact, all authoritarian political systems, democracy included, can rightly be said to be of a criminal nature.

 

Most experts on tribal government hold that a society is stateless when its governments lacks permanent offices, lacks a bureaucracy, lacks a hierarchy and lacks full-time professionals performing the functions of government. They agree that at least a dozen African tribes fit into that category. But if one defines statelessness as the libertarians are doing, then there are almost 2.000 tribes that are stateless. Indeed, there are some 400 million rural Africans who still live with tribal government. Therefore, one can say without exaggeration that there are 400 million stateless people in Africa, 400 million libertarians.

 

It has been said that the Africans lack the skills for establishing a state and that, therefore, there is no virtue in their libertarianism. But this hypothesis has never been substantiated. On the contrary, George Ayittey from Ghana, as well as several other eminent scholars, has shown that statelessness in Africa is there by design, not by accident. He points to three facts: (1) several African tribes succeeded in regulating the lives of their subjects in frightening detail; (2) in most other tribes there exists a legend of a dictator whose reign was so oppressive that the tribe foreswore dictatorship forever; (3) almost all African tribes organise their government in such a way that no politician can ever hope to accumulate any power over his fellow tribesmen. Let's analyze these three points in more detail.

 

Prior to the colonial period, about half a dozen of Africa's 2,000-odd tribes had organised themselves as into states. The State of Dahomey, for instance, lasted for more than 200 years, until the end of the 19th century. It had a powerful army and an efficient bureaucracy. Says one scholar (A.A. Boahen, Topics in West African History, New York, Longman 1986): "The farmers in each village were counted by officials of the ministry of agriculture and the tax paid in kind by each was fixed according to the assessment made of the villages' total production. Livestock was also counted and taxed. The kings of Dahomey regularly conducted a population census to get an accurate estimate of the number of people to be taxed... or conscripted." Two other writers (G.T. Stride and C. Ifeka, Peoples and Empires of West Africa, Lagos, Thomas Nelson, 1971) have this to say about the State of Dahomey: "The entire administrative machine was ruthlessly efficient. Headed by rulers of rare political talent and backed by people of great military skill and courage, it was a dynamic political organism."

 

As for legends, listen to this one. Once upon a time, the Habar Ghidir Sa'aad clan (central Somalia) decided to have a ruler. No sooner had he been appointed than he issued a decree that he would eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner nothing but the marrow of goats, so as to secure eternal youth. He called for 25 goats to be slaughtered in the morning, another 25 at mid-day and yet another 25 in the evening. After the first day of his reign, the elders of the clan came together. Not because they feared for their leader's stomach, but because they had calculated that it would take only a short time for the clan's wealth to be consumed. So, collectively, they killed their new ruler, vowing never to have a dictator again.

 

As for structure, Africa's tribal governments are organised as follows. In each village one finds a chief. Always, he is accompanied by three men who are both his advisors and his guardians. The role of the chief is to execute the decisions of the Council of Elders, who, in turn, must seek the consensus of the village assembly. In quite a number of tribes, a dictator is instituted during times of war, but such ruler is stripped of his powers as soon as peace returns. During peace time, chiefs are carefully watched by the Council of Elders. Many an African chief lost his chieftaincy by stepping outside the lines drawn by his Council. The tribe which owns the green valley that caught my attention offers a good example. During the 1930's it deposed its king because he had signed a pact with the State of Ethiopia without a mandate to that effect from the Council of Elders.

 

Another time-tested device to prevent the creation of a state is secession. Each African family is free to leave its community when it disagrees with the decisions of its leaders. Of the chief that has so mismanaged that his villagers have all deserted, it is said that he is 'chief of the pumpkins'.

 

Some observers of tribal government point to the existence of kings among the Somalis. True, but they have no power. During political deliberations a king keeps his mouth shut. In some tribes he pulls a blanket over his head during the meetings of the Council. When the Elders have taken their decision, the king is requested to speak up. He then removes his blanket and says:"and so it has been decided". Indeed, a Somali king is little more than a rubber stamp and an archive.

 

Given this almost obsessive fear of the Africans that a state may emerge in their midst, one wonders why the Europeans and Americans are so much at ease with monopolised government. The French historian Bertrand de Jouvenel wrote superbly on this in his On Power, The Natural History of its Growth, republished in 1993 by the Liberty Fund in Indianapolis. He writes: "From the twelfth to the eighteenth century, governmental authority (in Europe) grew continuously. The process was understood by all who saw it happening; it stirred them to incessant protest and to violent reaction. In later times its growth has continued at an accelerated pace... And now we no longer understand the process, we no longer protest, we no longer react. This quiescence of ours is a new thing, for which the State has to thank the smoke-screen in which it has wrapped itself."

 

De Jouvenel points to the state's cunning in hiding its profoundly criminal character. One way of doing this is by making people believe that there is no alternative to the state. The states achieve this in many ways, including sabotaging efforts to bring stateless governments to life, for instance, by sending their secret agents to create havoc. Therefore, experiments with statelessness are best conducted in places with a large percentage of libertarians. Given the large number of sub- Saharan states that face hostile, libertarian populations, Africa will be a fine testing ground. In some of its countries the power of the state doesn't reach much farther than the capital city and the main airport and seaport. Attempts at levying taxes beyond those limits often fail. Some of these states have an annual budget of less than ten million US dollars, and will do anything to live another year.

 

The most libertarian of all African nations is surely that of the Somalis. They are the only nation, thus far, which abolished statehood after gaining its independence, which returned to its indigenous political tradition. It is true that quite a few jobless politicians in Somalia try to revive the state, often plotting with foreign states, including the USA. But when the US and the UN tried to impose statehood on the Somalis in 1993, they successfully defended their newly won freedom. Thus, the Somalis bore out a pet libertarian theory that free nations need not fear foreign armies unless their soldiers are ready to wipe out the entire population.

 

Tribal government in Somalia is eminently suitable for a rather static, pastoral way of life. Up till now, it had only little exposure to the dynamics of the world market. Without this exposure, these tribal governments will not be able to serve the needs of the rapidly expanding Somali business community. Unfortunately, the Somali politicians have not yet given up their efforts to replace tribal government by a state. Obviously, they are unaware that this is tantamount to erecting a big wall between the population and the world market, a wall that will slow down the development of the Somali nation. These politicians are unaware that a nation can connect almost instantly with the world market provided it remains stateless. But is no use telling them that. No Somali politician will listen to, or act upon, such advice. In fact, the only way of letting the Somalis travel the way to peace and prosperity is by establishing a small model country in their midst, populated with dynamic foreign businessmen who base themselves on the fundamentals of Somali society. Such a model country would show in practice how a nation can function without having a state. Very quickly such a mini country would start to prosper. Indeed, it would accumulate wealth several times faster than if it would have been organised as a nation- state. Such a country would be both a model and a training ground. Any Somali would be welcome to settle there in order to engage in entrepreneurial, educational and scientific activities. In this way, this mini-country would quickly become the gateway through which the Somalis would enter the world market.

 

In their efforts to develop their politics and economics, the Somalis have sought help from all sorts of foreign agencies, both governmental and non-governmental. But the help offered was always contingent on the pre-condition that the Somalis part with their own political culture, that they institute a state. These agencies hold that the Somali culture forms an obstacle to economic development. Yet, many a development economist knows from bitter experience that nations develop only when they cherish their own culture. Up till recently, there was no way in which the Somalis could get around these opponents of their culture. But recently, several associations of international businessmen have been founded who respect statelessness and are both willing and able to create, anywhere in the world, a haven for free enterprise.

 

The existence of these associations spells a bright future for the Somalis. Finally they can team up with their likes abroad. No longer need they be subservient to their politically-minded fellow tribesmen who boast of their expertise in begging for foreign aid. Henceforth the Somalis can develop their country free of politics, free of a state, yet skilfully, profitably and proudly engaged in world-wide trade.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Gabbal]

The author is subvert anarchist. I would flick all the rubish with the flick of my hand, if I could.

 

This cracked me up for a while

 

But when the US and the UN tried to impose statehood on the Somalis in 1993, they successfully defended their newly won freedom

[Macalin]

Who the HELL is this DUDE?

[Saxardiid]

i think this guy doesn't know anything about somalia so he needs to learn more about the country, its people and its long history before writing this insulting load of rubbish.

[Paragon]

Walaahi, this is a very interesting article. I don't remember the last time I read an article sensible as this. Although the guy isn't Somali himself, he has touched on something thats worth considering or pondering about. All of you guys above me seem to have jumped to a conclusion. I think you should read the article once again and see the potential solution hidden in it

 

If you nomads refute the fact in this article due to its preaching of statelessness, then, since when was centralised power a common factor in our Somali Xeer? Think about it very carefully. The Xeer is our own circumstancial law tailored to deal with complex issues that may come our way. So, how on earth can one favour Statism(which is a foreign concept and law) our our own custom tailored semi-natural law? Or must we insist on the notion that without a state no peace will prevail?

 

Running away from what we are doesn't solve any societal problem. So lets embrace it instead. Xeer as our Law, Dhaqan/Hido as our culture and tradition. We need strong foundations before we can build mansions and palaces on our lands. Our own tradition/culture should be a strengthened foundation for us. And only then could our society be good at following other types of laws and political theories or even religious belief.

[Saxardiid]

Jamaal-11

To start with, Xeer and Law are different in terms of how to inforce them. Xeer is inforced by ones own beel or tribe and if they are unwilling to do so then revenge starts. whereas Law is enforced by law institutions and and so on. When somalia became a nation state then law overrided all xeers except where a provission is made to coxistant each other. As far as this artical is concerned it ignores somalia as a State and put us back in pre-colonial era. We need peace but more importantly what state offers, things we are enjoying in this countries we are living now. Somalia is experiencing difficults that other country also experienced once in their existance. We know what anarchy is so we don't want anyone who is promoting it.

[Sophist]

On a matter of fact; every custom is Law though every Law is not a custom. All the laws that are not divine have thier basis in customs. You just have to go back to the earliest semi-modern codified laws in Rome. The 12 tables were based upon the xeers of the tribs of Rome. This was the first codified secural Law in the history of mankid-- so far as history permits us to know.

 

On the matter at hand, I think the article is loaded with anarchic sentiments of which I don't subscribe to it with greatest respect (when a Sophist says With Greatest Respect he means I give no tosh about it) though it was quite interesting to read someone's bizzare views trying to find a place to implement it-- Somalia seems to a vertile land to sew lots of variant idiologies, some good others weird say the least.

[wind talker]

I heard the story of a Russian man who wrote a book on Somali maah-maahs (proverbs). Supposedly this man was an "expert" on the Somali language and their ancient maah-maahs. So one day, the people decided to test him. Him and a boy were both asked the same question at the same time: "Cagaha wax ka day (loosely)." The boy ran. The Russian took it literally and checked his feet.

 

Bottom line: if you ain't Somali then YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND our problems/issues. Not in the past, not in the present, and certainly not in the future. So quit posting White man's views. White people are parasites. The same man who wrote the above article will tomorrow preach about Puntland's greatness for the right amount of money.

 

So I dismiss 'em. My problems, My solutions. Period.

[Paragon]

^^^^

So I dismiss 'em.

The author of the article doesn't suggest democracy or communism, its your Xeer he seems to suggest.

 

My problems,

Solve'em with your Xeer.

 

My solutions.

Again they should come from you, meaning your Xeer!

 

Originally by Sophist:

I think the article is loaded with anarchic sentiments of which I don't subscribe to...

Well, there is nothing wrong with the opposite of anarchy. You can call me an Anarchist. I have always been so.

[BiLaaL]

I tend to agree with J11 that this article is indeed interesting, to say the least.

 

"Given this almost obsessive fear of the Africans that a state may emerge in their midst, one wonders why the Europeans and Americans are so much at ease with monopolised government".

 

The above quote embodies an immeasureable amount of truth. Personally i would answer to the above by saying, that, the only thing that keeps Europeans and Americans at ease with monopolised govermemt is because of their materialistic tendencies, which i am proud to say most Africans do not possess. Perhaps it would be more correct to say that materialism has not been inculcated in Africans as much their western counterparts.

 

Basically, westerners are willing to for-go their dignity and basic human rights in exchange for everlasting economic prosperity. Whereas Africans, more specifically Africans of Islamic faith, would rather keep their dignity and god-given rights intact, rather than choose the 'seemingly' more prosperous path(wests).

[AYOUB]

Jamaal I partly agree with your reasoning saxiib. Traditional law should not be discarded by the state but I don't think it should be THE LAW of the land. I know I'm going to accused of 'finger pointing' by some but the firstpost colonial government was convinced (to be polite) that 'white man's law' to be the only way.

 

If the traditional law is to be used positively them I for one i'm for it, after all even the Prophet used to sit in the Qureish gatherings and did accept the protection they offered.

 

Originally posted by Lakkad:

Who the HELL is this DUDE?

Welcome back mate.