Centralist argue the following;
1. China is unitary state. It's 1 billion. 1 government policy, 1 delivery service. They waste less in cost of too many administrations and eliminate conflict between governments. It's smooth 1 power state. How can Somalia who is 10 million be federalism? what about the waste of cost having duplicate ministries, parliaments, security services? A bloated government means less public services as they need to pay for expenses to keep running such bloated government branches.
This is the only point I have heard from 'pure centralists' they are not many this type, infact very few exist. Most Somalis fall into this category of centralism.
Central headquarter and regional arms controlled by 1 government, 1 city, 1 security. This was the type of centralist we have they are 'quasi federalists'. They argue for a 'big bloated central government' and 'smaller branches of government' in the regions who have no 'political say' and just deal with 'delivery' of services. Remember government has two branches. Siyasad branch where you create the 'amar' and 'orders' and the 'fulin' branch the people who carry out those orders. So Somalis envision federal regions who are submissive to the central authorities and basically have their 'policy' side removed and they still to being told what to do and how to do it(fulin side)
Federalist have two types also.
1. Centralist federalist, this is what our constitution says. Military/Currency which are the engines of an economy and security is managed by federal authorities. It's not a 'shared' duty either, it's completely given to the federal authorities. So this means you should not have a say in who is named the SFG official named in your region who handles the 'security' side. Similar to the FBI in a way.
They want FBI type of officers in our state who handle federal matters such as border security, checkpoints around Ethiopia or Kenya, they want the port and airport security to come under an SFG official since their deemed entry points of the whole nation not just the state. They also argue for immigration officers and departments in the regions who are policy driven by the Mogadishu guys and only report to the federal administration. They don't take any command from the state government.
Foreign affairs is solely the federal role in terms of 'policy' and state role is nothing, this includes any function deemed 'foreign affairs' like embassies, consulates, foreign policy towards a nation externally. The only shared 'matter' might foreign investment, since it's 'foreign' but the states can argue it's about their 'state' development function and development is a state role. So this will be shared role foreign investment between regions/feds. Ports/Airport management if it includes a 'foreign' nation, the feds must be asked for permission since it's a shared role as it covers 'development' which is a state's right but since it's foreign it's a federal matter also.
So the only shared matters between the state government and federal is around 'development' areas nothing else. Foreign development/Foreign investment will definitely be shared by the states and federal authority. But foreign policy will never be shared, no regional government can speak on any matter politically around the world, nor attend any political function around the world outside of 'development' with 'approval' from the federal authority since it's a foreign function lol. This even covers 'scholarships' since it's education matter but includes foreign elements like going to another country. So the federal government will not tanasul on any of it's deemed roles and anyone calling for such thing is asking for dawlad la'an.
The states must not tanasul on any 'development' function within their states either be it locally or foreign since it's a state matter development but if it has 'foreign' component you need approval from the federal authority. Immigration matters is solely a federal matter and not a state matter unless it concerns 'development' like you need immigrant workers to be 'farmers' yes the federal regions can say this is a shared role now since a component of development is involved.
Hadi sharciga la raci laha there would be no conflict, some people are just not happy with the constitution I think. Forget currency unless it touches on policing, development, education, health, or businss investment maba ka hadli karan dawladaha mamulada. I am speaking legally from the constitutional point. We would need a constitutional court with vested powers to make rulings on thse matters so we can file it and remind politicians the last schmuck tried what ur doing and the constitutional matter delivered a verdict and ARREST HIM.
1. China is unitary state. It's 1 billion. 1 government policy, 1 delivery service. They waste less in cost of too many administrations and eliminate conflict between governments. It's smooth 1 power state. How can Somalia who is 10 million be federalism? what about the waste of cost having duplicate ministries, parliaments, security services? A bloated government means less public services as they need to pay for expenses to keep running such bloated government branches.
This is the only point I have heard from 'pure centralists' they are not many this type, infact very few exist. Most Somalis fall into this category of centralism.
Central headquarter and regional arms controlled by 1 government, 1 city, 1 security. This was the type of centralist we have they are 'quasi federalists'. They argue for a 'big bloated central government' and 'smaller branches of government' in the regions who have no 'political say' and just deal with 'delivery' of services. Remember government has two branches. Siyasad branch where you create the 'amar' and 'orders' and the 'fulin' branch the people who carry out those orders. So Somalis envision federal regions who are submissive to the central authorities and basically have their 'policy' side removed and they still to being told what to do and how to do it(fulin side)
Federalist have two types also.
1. Centralist federalist, this is what our constitution says. Military/Currency which are the engines of an economy and security is managed by federal authorities. It's not a 'shared' duty either, it's completely given to the federal authorities. So this means you should not have a say in who is named the SFG official named in your region who handles the 'security' side. Similar to the FBI in a way.
They want FBI type of officers in our state who handle federal matters such as border security, checkpoints around Ethiopia or Kenya, they want the port and airport security to come under an SFG official since their deemed entry points of the whole nation not just the state. They also argue for immigration officers and departments in the regions who are policy driven by the Mogadishu guys and only report to the federal administration. They don't take any command from the state government.
Foreign affairs is solely the federal role in terms of 'policy' and state role is nothing, this includes any function deemed 'foreign affairs' like embassies, consulates, foreign policy towards a nation externally. The only shared 'matter' might foreign investment, since it's 'foreign' but the states can argue it's about their 'state' development function and development is a state role. So this will be shared role foreign investment between regions/feds. Ports/Airport management if it includes a 'foreign' nation, the feds must be asked for permission since it's a shared role as it covers 'development' which is a state's right but since it's foreign it's a federal matter also.
So the only shared matters between the state government and federal is around 'development' areas nothing else. Foreign development/Foreign investment will definitely be shared by the states and federal authority. But foreign policy will never be shared, no regional government can speak on any matter politically around the world, nor attend any political function around the world outside of 'development' with 'approval' from the federal authority since it's a foreign function lol. This even covers 'scholarships' since it's education matter but includes foreign elements like going to another country. So the federal government will not tanasul on any of it's deemed roles and anyone calling for such thing is asking for dawlad la'an.
The states must not tanasul on any 'development' function within their states either be it locally or foreign since it's a state matter development but if it has 'foreign' component you need approval from the federal authority. Immigration matters is solely a federal matter and not a state matter unless it concerns 'development' like you need immigrant workers to be 'farmers' yes the federal regions can say this is a shared role now since a component of development is involved.
Hadi sharciga la raci laha there would be no conflict, some people are just not happy with the constitution I think. Forget currency unless it touches on policing, development, education, health, or businss investment maba ka hadli karan dawladaha mamulada. I am speaking legally from the constitutional point. We would need a constitutional court with vested powers to make rulings on thse matters so we can file it and remind politicians the last schmuck tried what ur doing and the constitutional matter delivered a verdict and ARREST HIM.
