Democracy is the worst thing for Somalia!

[jugjugwacwac]

Interesting. Btw, do you envision a civilian control of the military or a military dictatorship?

Neither. Civilian control of the military entails democratic governance by definition, because the military is guided by the policies of the cvilian government, in other words by the policies put in place by politicians elected by the people.

It wouldn't be a true military dictatorship either, because the military would not have direct say in day to day governance. The military would be an independent institution that represents and protects the nationalist interests of the people.If the government fails to put the people first by promoting these nationalist interests the military would be vested with the right and the duty to disband the government and convene the council to choose a new leader.

 

[jugjugwacwac]

Tell me, do you know of one Somali group, leader, or prominent person you entrust to carry out this system?

Me and my nigga Bahal

To answer you seriously I would choose Zakariya Xaaji Maxamuud (Laylkase guy in case ur wondering) to be the leader of such a system.

 

[merka]

So you guys want something similar to Turkey pre-Erdogan. I hope you know that they had coups every 10 years or so. Not a very good way to run a country I think.

Also what makes you think the military won't be free of corruption and only intervene when their interests are threatened?

 

[jugjugwacwac]

So you guys want something similar to Turkey pre-Erdogan. I hope you know that they had coups every 10 years or so. Not a very good way to run a country I think.

Also what makes you think the military won't be free of corruption and only intervene when their interests are threatened?

Sxb there will never ever be a perfect system, because political systems are creations of humans and humans are fundamentally flawed. As long as what i'm proposing is better than the status quo that's all that matters.

 

[jugjugwacwac]

I see that most people here who don't agree with my vision have reservations about handing absolute power to a leader or the military, What they fail to realize is that regardless of any political system we have there will always be a few who have absolute power, and it's never ever the people. In todays world it's the Yahuudi globalist bankers and the multi-national corporations who have all the say. So in reality democracy, or power for the people by the people, doesn't exist.

If that's the case, and the people aren't gonna have the power anyway, I'd rather hand that power to a nationalist government/military who can protect me and my people from Ethiopia, Kenya, NGO's, social-Marxism/feminism, wahhabism, predatory Yahuudi globalist bankers, multinational corporations and free-trade/neo-liberalism.

 

[Layth]

I see that most people here who don't agree with my vision have reservations about handing absolute power to a leader or the military, What they fail to realize is that regardless of any political system we have there will always be a few who have absolute power, and it's never ever the people. In todays world it's the Yahuudi globalist bankers and the multi-national corporations who have all the say. So in reality democracy, or power for the people by the people, doesn't exist.

If that's the case, and the people aren't gonna have the power anyway, I'd rather hand that power to a nationalist government/military who can protect me and my people from Ethiopia, Kenya, NGO's, social-Marxism/feminism, predatory Yahuudi globalist bankers, multinational corporations and free-trade/neo-liberalism.

Closely scruitnising the system that you espouse, it’s in fact VERY similar to the “khilafah” system, minus the disjunction between the government and military (which IMHO is a terrible idea). Since your system is neither civilian control of military nor military dictatorship, it appears to be between the two; a military control of the military, if you will (don’t you see the problem with this?). This is essentially similar to civilian control of military, except this time, it’s the military calling the shots (no difference tbh). There will be endless sedition within the military, there will be coups after coups; and both overt & covert corruption.

You want to make use of the council which is excellent; this appears to be identical to the concept of “shura” in Islamic law.

This is what I suggest; why not a council rule of military? The council decide who’s elected, they should also decide who’s toppled. This is because the members of the council are more trustworthy, educated and reliable than the military. This (control of the council over the military) will also encourage concord among the military since they no longer call shots.

Think about it.

 

[jugjugwacwac]

Closely scruitnising the system that you espouse, it’s in fact VERY similar to the “khilafah” system, minus the disjunction between the government and military (which IMHO is a terrible idea). Since your system is neither civilian control of military nor military dictatorship, it appears to be between the two; a military control of the military, if you will (don’t you see the problem with this?). This is essentially similar to civilian control of military, except this time, it’s the military calling the shots (no difference tbh). There will be endless sedition within the military, there will be coups after coups; and both overt & covert corruption.

You want to make use of the council which is excellent; this appears to be identical to the concept of “shura” in Islamic law.

This is what I suggest; why not a council rule of military? The council decide who’s elected, they should also decide who’s toppled. This is because the members of the council are more trustworthy, educated and reliable than the military. This (control of the council over the military) will also encourage concord among the military since they no longer call shots.

Think about it.

So you're saying give the council not only the power to select the leader, but also the power to command the military to topple him if he stands in dereliction of his duties. So both the leader and his government/ministers and the military would fall under the political will of this supreme council. This way we could avoid divisions and discord within the military and we could hold the leader and his government accountable. This is a very good idea wallahi.

There's only one issue left.....how do we deal with the possibility of corruption or divisions within the council?

 

[merka]

Sxb there will never ever be a perfect system, because political systems are creations of humans and humans are fundamentally flawed. As long as what i'm proposing is better than the status quo that's all that matters.

I agree. As long as there's mechanisms to prevent corruption and nepotism it doesn't matter what system you use.

 

[Layth]

So you're saying give the council not only the power to select the leader, but also the power to command the military to topple him if he stands in dereliction of his duties. So both the leader and his government/ministers and the military would fall under the political will of this supreme council. This way we could avoid divisions and discord within the military and we could hold the leader and his government accountable. This is a very good idea wallahi.

There's only one issue left.....how do we deal with the possibility of corruption or divisions within the council?

That's what I was thinking. What about having a spokesperson for the council, and if this spokesperson is even remotely suspected of betrayal, they will be dislodged by the other members of the council? The majority of the members of the council would have to vote in favor of, or against their spokesperson (to either dislodge them or keep them). Since both the military and civilians - who are both prone to being influenced by propaganda and other forms of corruption - are far more incompetent in this regard (issues concerning politics), this is the solution that will yield the best possible outcome (think Game theory). Either way, someone HAS to make decisions for the state, and this is the method to limit corruption and decisions being made based on cynical motives.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Have you heard of the tyranny of the majority? Also, what makes you think the majority know whats best for the nation? Half of the people on earth are by definition to the left of the IQ bell-curve, that in itself is the biggest reason to abandon democracy.

In the government I envision a council of educated nationalists of about 10-15 members would choose the leader. All the main clan families would be represented in the council.

You need to do your research because you're not the only one to see this problem nor has it never been addressed. The founding fathers established a representative democracy precisely because they feared a tyranny of the majority. That's the whole logic behind the electoral college. The delegates are not in anyway bound to vote as the people want because the founding fathers wanted the people to be mediated and put in place by a higher and more educated member of society who is more informed. Of course, this doesn't always work out but it prevailed for centuries now.

Also, there are bill of rights which ensure that the majority don't attempt to stumpede on the rights of the minorities. If the majority wanted to kill every minority person, the laws tells them to get lossed.

Moreover, imposing a dictatorship is by the most ludicrous thing you could ever imagine. Siad Barre was a staunch anti tribalist until his power was questioned and he chose to make an ally from his clan. Simply put, if you give ultimate power to just a few groups of people without being held accountable (sort of what an authoritative regime is), there will be no requirement upon those people to do right by the people. Essentially you're creating a system that benefits a few.

Somalia's issue isn't politics but qabyalad and trying to curtail that with full on authoritarianism is stupendous in my eyes.

 

[The_Cosmos]

To prevent corruption, you must hold the leaders accountable. Demanding an end to corruption and yet calling for authoritarianism is essentially adding fuel to the fire.

 

[jugjugwacwac]

You need to do your research because you're not the only one to see this problem nor has it never been addressed.

Just because someone has an opinion which diverges from your own doesn't mean they're ill-informed. We can exchange views and debate sxb, but no need for condescension.

 

[jugjugwacwac]

That's what I was thinking. What about having a spokesperson for the council, and if this spokesperson is even remotely suspected of betrayal, they will be dislodged by the other members of the council? The majority of the members of the council would have to vote in favor of, or against their spokesperson (to either dislodge them or keep them). Since both the military and civilians - who are both prone to being influenced by propaganda and other forms of corruption - are far more incompetent in this regard (issues concerning politics), this is the solution that will yield the best possible outcome (think Game theory). Either way, someone HAS to make decisions for the state, and this is the method to limit corruption and decisions being made based on cynical motives.

I see what your saying. It's a reasonable option, but I need to think about this more.

 

[The_Cosmos]

Just because someone has an opinion which diverges from your own doesn't mean they're ill-informed. We can exchange views and debate sxb, but no need for condescension.

Never meant to seem condescending. My apologies.

I was just addressing the point about the tyranny of the majority and I was commenting on how that has already been addressed by the democratic nations of the world. There is a reason why America has a representative democracy rather than a populist democracy (majority wins) and there's a reason why there are bill of rights rather than having the majority vote on everything. Democracy is about holding people to account but those people are not necessarily entitled to do as the people say. For example, the U.K. Parliament can reject the Brexit referendum because it isn't legally binding but they follow it as it was promised to be respected.

 

[jugjugwacwac]

Never meant to seem condescending. My apologies.

I was just addressing the point about the tyranny of the majority and I was commenting on how that has already been addressed by the democratic nations of the world. There is a reason why America has a representative democracy rather than a populist democracy (majority wins) and there's a reason why there are bill of rights rather than having the majority vote on everything. Democracy is about holding people to account but those people are not necessarily entitled to do as the people say. For example, the U.K. Parliament can reject the Brexit referendum because it isn't legally binding but they follow it as it was promised to be respected.

I understand that there are some checks and balances built into the democratic systems of Western nations that help to prevent the most egregious excesses of democracy. It works for them for the most part, precisely because they aren't divided into a dizzying numbers of clans like Somalis, but even they would be better served by doing away with liberal democracy in my opinion. As for Somalis and Somalia, democracy is like giving 10 Redbulls and Viagra to the clan monster, it'll kill and f*ck everything in its path.

 

[The_Cosmos]

I understand that there are some checks and balances built into the democratic systems of Western nations that help to prevent the most egregious excesses of democracy. It works for them for the most part, precisely because they aren't divided into a dizzying numbers of clans like Somalis, but even they would be better served by doing away with liberal democracy in my opinion. As for Somalis and Somalia, democracy is like giving 10 Redbulls and Viagra to the clan monster, it'll kill and f*ck everything in it's path.

There are different forms of democracy and Somalia can establish one that works best for it. Western nation differ greatly on the sort of system that they hold.

As for getting rid of liver democracy, it's pretty stupid to get rid of the system that has allowed the west to flourish all these years. If you look around the world, the democratisation of European nations has brought about an end of the devastating wars that ravages Europe. It is well establish that democracies tend not to go to war with each other.

I completely agree that the current system is highly messed up but democracy isn't to blame here. The 4.5 system needs to be abolished as it diminishes the soul concept of meritocracy.

Anyways, this very idea is why the civil began in the first place. I may be over simplifying but, one of the ways in which Siad Barre consolidated his power was by clan relations. Once you give power to a dictator, there is nothing that demands he gives it back.

 

[Inactive]

I agree with OP.

Somalis are not fair and reasonable people so having a democracy there makes absolutely no sense. What Somaliland has is not a democracy so let's not bring up that example. Lots of ballot stuffing and rigging. The police there end up shooting protestors the next day when they don't accept the results. The result is clan parties start to come up. There will be bloodshed whenever that "government" there decides to hold their phony elections. I think it's taking so long because they're still planning the logistics of rigging it.

What Somalis need is 50 years of American rule. It works very, very, very well.

Then in 50 years time, give them their democracy.

 

[Canuck]

Somalis are sick of gutless politicians getting fat from the public coffers, we're tired of so called politicians who are nothing but ethiopian and Kenyan prostitutes oo bac la'aan lagu waso, we're tired of vote buying and voting and the entire illegitimate political process itself for that matter, we're tired of suldaans/wadaads/ugaases who incite clan wars, we're tired of the Arabization of our culture and the disproportionate influence of these crazed Wahhabi wadaads foaming at the mouth, we're tired of no jobs, lack of infrastructure, we're tired of droughts.....we're fucking tired.

Waa lakala bixi doonaa, and Somalia will soon have its Brexit and Donald Trump moment. Woe to the current crop in power on that day.

Those traitors politicians are killing the hope in hearts of people

 

[jugjugwacwac]

There are different forms of democracy and Somalia can establish one that works best for it. Western nation differ greatly on the sort of system that they hold.

As for getting rid of liver democracy, it's pretty stupid to get rid of the system that has allowed the west to flourish all these years. If you look around the world, the democratisation of European nations has brought about an end of the devastating wars that ravages Europe. It is well establish that democracies tend not to go to war with each other.

I completely agree that the current system is highly messed up but democracy isn't to blame here. The 4.5 system needs to be abolished as it diminishes the soul concept of meritocracy.

Anyways, this very idea is why the civil began in the first place. I may be over simplifying but, one of the ways in which Siad Barre consolidated his power was by clan relations. Once you give power to a dictator, there is nothing that demands he gives it back.

1. Democratic governance and economic development (if thats what u mean by flourish) are independent of each other and have no causal link. Look at 1930's Germany or present day Singapore and China, non of which were/are democracies and yet had/have strong economies.

2. The democratization of Europe was not the reason for the end of the devastating wars that ravaged that continent. The whole eastern half of the continent and the USSR were not democratic, so your argument doesn't hold. The main reason for the end of European hostilities after world war 2 was the introduction of nuclear weapons and the guarantee of mutual destruction if liberal democratic Europe went to war with the communist countries behind the iron curtain.

3. Liberal democracies don't go to war with each other because they already have other enemies keeping them busy like, China, a resurgent Russia, Iran and nationalist dictators in the third world like Mugabe, Gaddafi (Aun), Saddam (Aun), Assad. They can't afford to fight and must remain allies. Also their prosperity allows them to cooperate. If shit hits the fan in this world, you think America won't invade Canada for it's natural resources and fresh water?

4. Siyaad Barre resorted to clannism after the Majeerteen and Isaaq formed rebel groups to topple his regime. The man wasn't a clannist, but just used clan to remain in power when others tried to use clan to take him out.

5. As for making sure the dictator is removed from office if he is deemed unfit to lead, me and others in this thread have already spent a great deal of time devising a system to do just that.

 

[Bahal]

You cannot simply transplant what has worked in America and Europe to a destitute African nation divided into dozens of competing subclans for no other reason than a severe lack of resources and a fear of domination by a so called rival clan.

Democracy is fundamentally incompatible with this scenario, and will only lead to more conflict, vote buying, and unprecedented corruption. At

The East has shown the world a far more feasible mode of development. If anything, countries like China and Singapore should be our blueprint until such time as our culture has evolved enough to implement a social democracy i.e. until we destroy the institution of qabiil once and for all.