Dangers of Decentralization

[Abdalla]

Almost every country that comes out of a brutal war opts for federalism: Germany, USA, Ethiopia, Bosnia and Iraq. There are plans for Libya to become a federal country.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/28/libya-federalism-regions-revolution

 

[Lord Flacko]

As if the centralised countries aren't light years ahead of Somalia. Dumb argument.

Yes and they got there by being centralised. That's the point.

The decentralized countries that are light years ahead of Somalia got there by being centralised then transitioning. You cannot build proper institutions while decentralized.

Take the Tunisian example that was in the document.

 

[Lord Flacko]

The World Bank is a neoliberal mouthpiece for the US deep state. They aren't always correct.

Well then read the document and tell me where they are incorrect or deceiving instead of spouting of without even having read some of it.

 

[Abdalla]

Yes and they got there by being centralised. That's the point.

The decentralized countries that are light years ahead of Somalia got there by being centralised then transitioning. You cannot build proper institutions while decentralized.

Take the Tunisian example that was in the document. View attachment 26116

The chronology in almost every country is: Heavily centralised -> war-> mistrust-> federalism. Very similar to our timeline.

 

[Canuck]

The Federal will stay in Somalia for next 10 years only, after that we will be back to one vote system and one central country and 18 counties like Tanzania and Kenya.

 

[Apollo]

The Federal will stay in Somalia for next 10 years only, after that we will be back to one vote system and one central country and 18 counties like Tanzania and Kenya.

Somaliland will not re-join under a centralized system. Or are you planning to invade and force them back in? :siilaanyolaugh:

 

[Lord Flacko]

The chronology in almost every country is: Heavily centralised -> war-> mistrust-> federalism. Very similar to our timeline.

They're really not.

Belgium f.ex was an absolute Monarchy that transitioned into a Federal Government with the Monarchy still intact. They didn't have any civil wars. Before this they had a very long history with a centralised government ruling.

Switzerland only survived because they never had any civil wars nor did they participate in the World Wars. They never went trough war or mistrust.

But instead of me debunking you, why don't you find me a current successful decentralized nation that follows what you prescribed? Because saying "in almost every country" is a cop out, not to mention heavily inaccurate.

 

[Apollo]

Belgium f.ex was an absolute Monarchy that transitioned into a Federal Government with the Monarchy still intact. They didn't have any civil wars. Before this they had a very long history with a centralised government ruling.

Switzerland only survived because they never had any civil wars nor did they participate in the World Wars. They never went trough war or mistrust.

You overlooked the mistrust part in those two countries. The Dutch Belgians do not trust the French Belgians. Likewise in Switzerland with the French/German/Italian divide.

 

[Abdalla]

They're really not.

Belgium f.ex was an absolute Monarchy that transitioned into a Federal Government with the Monarchy still intact. They didn't have any civil wars. Before this they had a very long history with a centralised government ruling.

Switzerland only survived because they never had any civil wars nor did they participate in the World Wars. They never went trough war or mistrust.

But instead of me debunking you, why don't you find me a current successful decentralized nation that follows what you prescribed? Because saying "in almost every country" is a cop out, not to mention heavily inaccurate.

There's no blue print country that will fit Somalia's portfolio. But let me give you an example, as you requested. Bosnia. Brutal civil war in the 1990s and now a federal republic that is a candidate for EU membership.

 

[Agent 47]

Finally brothers in REASON at last



The most hawkish of all danger is that amongst those is in future militarised states, imagine tutuHG militarised state after Arms embargo lifted, War started in Mudug and will always be the war that continues until it stops.

Futur Galmudug hutHGView attachment 26111

 

[Lord Flacko]

There's no blue print country that will fit Somalia's portfolio. But let me give you an example, as you requested. Bosnia. Brutal civil war in the 1990s and now a federal republic that is a candidate for EU membership.

They aren't comparable to Somalia. They succeeded from Yugoslavia and managed to go through the whole ordeal much cleaner and faster than Somalia. They had elections 1991 and declared independence in 1992. The Bosnian war ended in 1995, while Somalia is still unstable without proper elections. There are dozens of other important distinctions too.



They are actually much more comparable to Somaliland than Somalia.

 

[Abdalla]

They aren't comparable to Somalia. They succeeded from Yugoslavia and managed to go through the whole ordeal much cleaner and faster than Somalia. They had elections 1991 and declared independence in 1992. The Bosnian war ended in 1995, while Somalia is still unstable without proper elections. There are dozens of other important distinctions too.



They are actually much more comparable to Somaliland than Somalia.

So if a 4 year brutal civil war made them decide to be a federal country, why shouldn't we after 26 years of fighting?

 

[DR OSMAN]

Somalis have nomadic values, there is no way a Somali is going to allow another clan take sole control of it's affairs. It was the problem that was inherited from colonialism. You simply cant all of a sudden take a group of people who lived separately and ruled themselves and dump them in one city and say agree on a system. The only way this system will work is you will need to seek external enemies(colonialist, ethiopians, kenyans, americans, russians) you will forever need an external enemy to keep them united. Like Genghis Khan did for the mongols, he knew the only way he could unite his people was to focus their energies on other 'nations' but guess what? eventually what happens if you conquer all your enemies and have no enemies to focus on and your the remaining power? you turn on each other. We tried that route of uniting ourselves on external enemies and we know external enemies won't exist forever. It will lead to three outcomes. 1. You beat them and if you do that then you have no enemy to unite you..2. They beat you and you are finished. 3. Be in a stalemate like ethiopia-eritrea and have your stability rely on that. Not the greatest insurance for centralism.

Federalism is definitely the way forward, I can just point to how our clans live federally to support that claim. To say you want to go against that and create the 1960 utopia(which it really wasn't). You dont need to point to other countries but just go back into Somali history and you can clearly see they were federal, I say federal cause they shared a system (xeer), if they didn't have a xeer that would make them completely separate countries. Their xeer didn't stipulate all power, wealth, influence is going to be located in one place for all tribes. They lived autonomously but had a shared legal structure, land structure, water structure. You could say the only thing that was shared among them was legal things and infrastructure(resources). There was absolutely nothing else that was shared and in-fact I think nothing else should be shared.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Somalis just hate federalism because they see other foreign countries taking advantage of it and using it as a door to get into regions. They can easily do that thru centralism by backing a party that is in their interest to take power, by manipulating the parliament to force the govt to change, by getting external countries to pressure the central authority. There is holes in centralism just like federalism. But the holes are not because of the system, it's because you dont trust each other and have no real trust mechanism which stipulates consequences. If you don't want to sign up for consequences be prepared for a helluva lot of proxies wars regardless if we take federal or central, it's back to square one. I won't trust someone if they aren't prepared to sacrifice what is dear to them.

Everyone will take advantage of a country that doesnt trust each other regardless what system you adopt. Fix the trust levels if you want to see no more foreign meddling. The reason foreigners meddles is because a somali is not happy or doesnt feel secure with the government!!!

 

[Lord Flacko]

So if a 4 year brutal civil war made them decide to be a federal country, why shouldn't we after 26 years of fighting?

In Bosnia, they are comprised of two political entities who combined have ten cantons (gobols shoutout to @LarryThePuntite ) whom have something local rule.

They were made to be a federal country but they are still much different to the pseudo federal system Somalia has in virtually every way. They are a federal nation with institutions are a proper Government. What Somalia did was take federalism and bastardize it. Like they said in the document "- or decentralization can occur at the behest of local politicians wanting power that the national politicans agree to concede" (paraphrasing)

As I said, Bosnia didn't choose to be federal and they still have many problems. But they had to after the Washington Agreement as the Serbs and Croats feared that the Bosniaks would concilidate power for themselves. They are held back by ethnic groups who don't trust eachother. Somalis are held back by politicans using qabiil to further their own interests. Getting rid of qabyalaad is much more easier than fixing inter-ethnic and inter-religious tensions. Especially with a centralised government that creates independent and strong institutions to sort out all the petty disputes in Somalia.

Example is Japan. They have clans with founders just like us but they long since sorted out any problems. And they transitioned from absolute Monarchy to a centralised government (with the Monarchy still in tact but largely ceremonial).

 

[DR OSMAN]

Prince Hobyo do u really think you would be building a road to hobyo and a port if you relied on Mogadishu?. The fact the development that is occuring around somalia is enough proof that federalism works. We see tangible results. We seen centralism results 1991-2004. If that isn't enough for u. Then I question if you want to see somalia at peace or not.

If Somalia goes back to centralism, this country should disintegrate totally. It's heading back to 15 failed conferences since 91 till 2004, I would urge PL to declare secession then because it is absolutely pointless then remaining in a country that wants to go back 'failed' processes.

 

[Thegoodshepherd]

@Amun btw if I were in charge in Puntland I would not spend a dime outside of Bosaso. I would not even build schools outside of Bosaso, let alone roads. I am very pro centralization in Puntland.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Thegoodsheperd, that's childish. All Somali national infrastructure was given in the name of somalia not in the name of bosaso. That port-airport-road is owned by all somalis equally it was our name it was built on not your clan or regional name!!! Resources are going to be shared people, the question really is how!!! I honestly am pro 4.5 I cannot see a better system.

 

[Abdalla]

In Bosnia, they are comprised of two political entities who combined have ten cantons (gobols shoutout to @LarryThePuntite ) whom have something local rule.

They were made to be a federal country but they are still much different to the pseudo federal system Somalia has in virtually every way. They are a federal nation with institutions are a proper Government. What Somalia did was take federalism and bastardize it. Like they said in the document "- or decentralization can occur at the behest of local politicians wanting power that the national politicans agree to concede" (paraphrasing)

As I said, Bosnia didn't choose to be federal and they still have many problems. But they had to after the Washington Agreement as the Serbs and Croats feared that the Bosniaks would concilidate power for themselves. They are held back by ethnic groups who don't trust eachother. Somalis are held back by politicans using qabiil to further their own interests. Getting rid of qabyalaad is much more easier than fixing inter-ethnic and inter-religious tensions. Especially with a centralised government that creates independent and strong institutions to sort out all the petty disputes in Somalia.

Example is Japan. They have clans with founders just like us but they long since sorted out any problems. And they transitioned from absolute Monarchy to a centralised government (with the Monarchy still in tact but largely ceremonial).

LOL this dude just googled Bosnian politics. Washington agreement kulaha kkkkkk. Anyways, The common denominator is mistrust. I will fight tooth and nail to prevent that my fate and the fate of my family is decided in Xamar.

@Amun btw if I were in charge in Puntland I would not spend a dime outside of Bosaso. I would not even build schools outside of Bosaso, let alone roads. I am very pro centralization in Puntland.

For a champion of federalism, Puntland is highly centralised. Which is unfortunate.

 

[DR OSMAN]

Abda

LOL this dude just googled Bosnian politics. Washington agreement kulaha kkkkkk. Anyways, The common denominator is mistrust. I will fight tooth and nail to prevent that my fate and the fate of my family is decided in Xamar.



For a champion of federalism, Puntland is highly centralised. Which is unfortunate.

I agree and it's totally wrong. PL should be federalized because bosaso wouldnt be where it is if it wasnt for the infrastructure investment which was taken in 'somali' name. Infact that kid in hamar, las anod, hargeisa should get a cut out of it if we are talking real talk!!! I have no problems with resources being shared because it is in our cultural xeer to share water wells, land, pasture, etc. We don't keep resources to ourselves, but what we do keep to ourself is our 'self rule' and I will die defending that against the centralist anarchists.