The point I am trying to drive home is they are tribal based, and so are most of Europe's, if you think about it, with the exception of Slavics.
Is federalism 'treaty' good or bad for .So?
- Thread starter πππππππ
- Start date
Well the English and Scots are two different ethnic groups so I don't see how "tribal" they are
Barring the forceful injection of Anglo Sexan blood into the peasants of the Shires, by way of invasion and occupation, original English, and Gaels (Scots and Ires) are of the same ethnicity.
To be of the same ethnic community you first should have be able to speak in the same language and 2nd have similar customs and traditions and I don't see any relations between the ancient Anglo Saxons and the Celtics of british isles
You might have overlooked where I pointed out English ethnic people of the Shires pre Anglo Sexan invasion. Re-consider.
They have been assimilated to the larger dominating group which is common in human civilization
Of course, now back to my original question: with the British Isles being configured along tribal lines, do you not see tribe (English, Scot, Welsh, Irish) is not quite the problem, but regressive tribalism?
That system that exists now and being pushed in the country is a regressive tribalism as we see how politicians and the figures coming from those federal states act and talk.
Is it the framework (desired federalism), which is flawed, or the actors (politicians) debasing and abusing it, or the methods to arrive at the framework at fault?
If/when a post AS Somalia happens this federal system and 4.5 will just get torn up. It's just entirely unworkable that someone driving from Ras Kambooni to Saylac would get taxed at 5 different borders in a country as poor as Somalia. The whole thing is a bad joke.
I am pro decentralization in a unitary model, similar to Indonesia or Senegal. If there is no interest in that, then independence for all and try to create a unitary model in a more tribally homogenous setting, I don't see the point of anything inbetween.
I am pro decentralization in a unitary model, similar to Indonesia or Senegal. If there is no interest in that, then independence for all and try to create a unitary model in a more tribally homogenous setting, I don't see the point of anything inbetween.
The method with its actors as I'm not against federalism or decentralisation
How did you arrive at that conclusion? What 5 different borders? And why taxed at 5 borders? I drove from Florida to Minnesota by way of Carolinas & Pennsylvania, and from Illinios to Washington State by way of Wyoming & Idaho; how many borders do you think I have been taxed at?
More relevantly, I drove from Galkacyo to Borama by way of Bosaso; how many borders do you think I have been taxed at?
I think my mistake is I am presuming most of you are somewhat familiar with how federalism actually works, but it is if most have no clue.
Then, we are reading from the same hymn sheet.
I'm referring to traders transporting goods
Florida and California are not resource poor failed states on the periphery of Africa. Somalia's lack of resources means that the only real reliable way to raise funds will be through heavy taxation. When these federal states gain effective control of their territories, it'll be a regular thing.
The problem with Somalis is they want to have their cake and eat it. They want to pay lip service to a Somalia but will freak out at the idea of sharing a country/city with other Somalis. I don't see the point in lying to ourselves, just split the country up or take a huge leap of faith into creating a unitary state that is the most economically viable decision. Let Somalia go the way of Yugoslavia or an Indonesia, have a referendum on it
Within the US? There are none. Perhaps between the US and Canada, or Mexico, but not within the same country, granted there are certain regulations, as some States do not have sales tax, good example being N Dakota, amongst others, where fags and alcohol are concerned. I buy construction material from, and across States, and no restrictions, nor limitations.
Last edited:
This is done through taxation by the States, and counties, just like how poor States like Mississippi, Alabama etc. operate?
And by the way, there is no need for heavy taxation, for that adversely influences, if depresses the local economy.
Postscript:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Last edited:
bidenkulaha
GalYare
I wouldnβt worry. Weβll soon have single tariff rate and national tax from Galkayo to Kismayo.
Our future is a weak federalism. Thereβll just be gobol administrations. A strong FGS with most of the important parts of the state.
GaradShabeel
VIP
Why is the choice limited between a unitary state or independence? Federalism was never the intentions when the major rebels were fightings MSB's gov't. However, the failure to establish a transitional gov't following the ousting of MSB and in particular the decades following those events proved why centralism have been rendered a failure and unlikely to be resurrected again in today's Somalia.
The closest to centralism that can be established is a centralized federalism, but even then I don't think it will happen due to major opposition in many parts of the country.
I can see the logic of having 5-6 independent clan states aimed at preserving tribal homogeneity & I can see the logic of a unitary state aimed at pooling resources for larger national projects, economic and miltary maximization vis a vis our neighbour's, etc
With the current system you're ending up with a dysfunctional mess that will eventually break apart just on a more protracted timescale, while strongly minimizing the potential military & economic gains that a unitary state would bring, and still getting taken advantage of by Kenya/Ethiopia
Can't see why anyone would willingly choose something else tbh, seems half hearted to me
Last edited:
Observation:
On the home front, there are three groups of interest:
a) People from regions where there has been less stability, political coherence, security, and less government are in favour of heavily centralised model of governance.
c) The third groups, whilst originally aligned with group (b), and one could argue is the largest, lost interest, convinced itself there are no private gains in either, whilst absolving itself of the public good, and has adopted a position of neutrality potentially aligning itself with either said groups.
With respect to governance, group (b) is naturally light years ahead of group (a), which explains as to the diverging rationale. Group (c) sees itself as the sacrificial lamb caught in the midst of boisterous bulls on charging course, and could only envisage its private gains in the demise of said other groups.
Boggles the mind.
On the diaspora front however, what is difficult to compute is the rationality of those born and bred in English speaking nations, say in the US or UK, where heavily decentralised systems of governance are in motion, who still advocate for heavily centralised system, some even advocating for a tyrannical rule so long as perceived private gains are to be had.
Badgers the mind.
On the home front, there are three groups of interest:
a) People from regions where there has been less stability, political coherence, security, and less government are in favour of heavily centralised model of governance.
- i) This group happens to be in regions, where the civil unrest, and armed rebellion reached at a much later years, closer to the centre, sees private gains in a centralised system, and could be argued have some catching up to do; one must not try to frogmarch them to the present, and allow them walk at own stride. This group, whilst speaking in code, fails to openly articulate as to the perceived gains for the public good.
- i) These regions are where the civil struggle started much earlier paying the heaviest both in human and material loss; their earlier gains, experiences, and exposure influence their desire for federalism, and see greater public good in staying away from the centre. This group, whilst succeeded in advancing the federalist model to have been adopted in principle, it failed thus far, in practice, to convince groups (a), and (c) to tag along.
c) The third groups, whilst originally aligned with group (b), and one could argue is the largest, lost interest, convinced itself there are no private gains in either, whilst absolving itself of the public good, and has adopted a position of neutrality potentially aligning itself with either said groups.
With respect to governance, group (b) is naturally light years ahead of group (a), which explains as to the diverging rationale. Group (c) sees itself as the sacrificial lamb caught in the midst of boisterous bulls on charging course, and could only envisage its private gains in the demise of said other groups.
Boggles the mind.
On the diaspora front however, what is difficult to compute is the rationality of those born and bred in English speaking nations, say in the US or UK, where heavily decentralised systems of governance are in motion, who still advocate for heavily centralised system, some even advocating for a tyrannical rule so long as perceived private gains are to be had.
Badgers the mind.
