Primary reason Puntland Economic Development Council was created to interface with international bodies and donor nations incl. World Bank, IMF etc.
Is federalism 'treaty' good or bad for .So?
- Thread starter πππππππ
- Start date
This reminds of an old axiom befitting the spirit of the bogan crowd: 'Geela aan dhici doona, nirgaha uu dhali doono, caanaha aan ka maali doono, subagga aan lulan doono, ayaan nafaqa ii noqon doona'. Translation: The supposed ill-gotten loot, of source unknown, will endow me and mine, and if you do not tag along for the apparent peril, I shall share none of the spills. It is as if standing next to P McKenna for a cheap trick: magic!
An old mate, who just returned from .So, his first trip, reflected upon the system of government, as being practised in Xamar, and shared brilliant observations, one of which bears relevance to this conversation:
- The current team at villa Xamar have one plan: that of gutting, and diluting federalism in principle, and practice to the point of there being little left other than bare scaffolding only standing in name. His turn of phrase βNuts and bolts are being removed one at a time till there is none leftβ. I thought he was spot on, and reflective of what pamphleteers here have been parroting. The good news in his mind is: βthey lack the technical competence, means, and resources to beget grave damage in the time leftβ. Unlike him, I am less optimistic, and am of the view enough ruination shall have been visited upon state institutions, already weakened by lack of competent cadre. The heavier the blows the gate absorbs, the weaker its hinges, the greater the devastation!
bidenkulaha
GalYare
Take it from me I have some good contacts. What I have been saying over the years isnβt fantasy, sure it might not work out as planned but so far every step has been followed. Thereβs a couple big plans in the works that I canβt say genuinely as it even being out there in the open will cause major schisms, I think when itβs closer to happening and thereβs no potential opposition I might reveal them.
To that friend, why does he think a pro-federal President is going to be elected next term? biggest strides being made by this government when it comes to centralisation (ATMIS pull out, IMF debt relief, Baydhabo 2018 agreements, election models) were made by the last government. Current Villa are quite fortunate in that these things are far along.
Each FGS President will want to have more power and that is only truly accomplished by a strong centre. I doubt the next one will be any different
Centralism is the scourge of the State.
I was hoping centralists would present the case in its favour, but thus far, besides offing desires based upon perceived personal gains, they failed to come up with any meaningful defence. Let me offer the opposite.
For fragile States, with .So being the quintessential textbook definition, amongst other things, centralism is:
Postscript:
With the focus here being devolved government, or federalism, I shall revisit benefits of federalism, as time permits, but had to make the case against centralised government.
I was hoping centralists would present the case in its favour, but thus far, besides offing desires based upon perceived personal gains, they failed to come up with any meaningful defence. Let me offer the opposite.
For fragile States, with .So being the quintessential textbook definition, amongst other things, centralism is:
- With the collapse at the centre, the whole nation collapses with it whereas in devolved government, where States independently operate, damage from the centre could be contained rescuing the nation. Case in point, when Xamar fell in 1991, imagine if there had been 5 or 7 regions independently operating beyond Xamar, where displaced people could be received till the malady at the centre had been remediated.
- Centralised government tends to be highly expensive to operate, ineffective to manage local affairs from afar, and poorly dispenses services to the public on the periphery. For instance, apportioning infrastructure projects at the centre not only delays, but creates undue bureaucracy, which potentially leads to corruption. Conversely, the cost of building, and/or maintaining infrastructure at the State level is cheaper, is swallowed by the State, which in turn allows States to prioritise projects based upon local needs.
- Centralised government poorly manages, or provides services, be it health, education, infrastructure building or maintenance, or security. Alternatively, decentralised authority could better manage said services at the State level more effectively, and efficiently, and where one State mismanages, it impacts not other States whereas if the Central authority abuses, or mismanages, it affects the whole nation.
- With centralised government, there is negligence at the local level, where a government, say in 2,000 miles away, with limited resources, could not effectively respond to local disasters, natural or otherwise. Alternatively, local State apparatus could plan, and respond to local emergencies quicker, better, cost-effectively, and is better-positioned.
- Centralised governments are more likely than not to abuse power, prey on citizens, where civil unrest followed by wanton imprisonment, followed by perpetual conflict leading to a total collapse, becomes the norm. With devolved power, there are multiple checks and balances, where should the State authority seeks to overstep its boundaries, legal or otherwise, the possibility of stopping it, or minimising the resulting damage are far greater.
- With it too, technical and professional classes are marginalised, for centralised government seeks loyalty over competence. With States, technical cadre is needed at the local level, with their expertise being put to a better use at the local level.
- Internal migration is a matter of concern in centralised government, where academicians, professionals, aspiring young people, and potential talent would vacate States seeking employment or fortune at the centre.
- Corruption is rampant in centralised government, where nation's resources, meagre or otherwise, are confined within small circles, where nepotism reins, alienating educated, and technical classes.
- Case studies of nations, which struggle with stable political order are those with past heavily centralised systems of governance, where current leaders inherited, or even had been indoctrinated in extreme authority, where they could not imagine devolved power to the periphery. If one considers successive leaders of the current Fed. government, one could see a trend, where they tend to seek greater powers than afforded to them under the law, and are constantly at logger-heads with provisions of the Constitution, and in violation of laws of the land. Their contaminated brain is conditioned to the authoritarian rule, under which they had matured, clones of their sires in essence.
Postscript:
With the focus here being devolved government, or federalism, I shall revisit benefits of federalism, as time permits, but had to make the case against centralised government.
Last edited:
Exclusive vs Concurrent powers: Fed vs State
Exclusive powers are those powers defined, and reserved to the Fed. gov't, or to the States whereas Concurrent powers are powers shared between the Fed. gov't, and the States.
Land is a good example of Concurrent powers, where eminent domain, or Fed. land is established, and designated post negotiations, and with State policy & laws harmonised with Fed. laws. Till Fed. laws, land specific or otherwise, had been established, State land policy & laws are effectively applicable, with no jurisdiction over such matters for the Fed. gov't, unless under extreme circumstance justifying proportionate mitigations.
National defence is an Exclusive power to the Fed. gov't. Where, and when specific powers are shared or discharged, are subject to negotiations.
Elections, incl. Presidential elections, are Exclusive powers to the States.
In its current form [operative], Fed. gov't can not make laws to be applied to States, and in the event such laws are deemed necessary, some time in the future, deliberations must begin at the State level.
There are numerous case laws, where the Fed. gov't attempted to unjustifiably increase, or unlawfully overstep its powers, and rejected by States. We'll discuss those at a later time.
Exclusive powers are those powers defined, and reserved to the Fed. gov't, or to the States whereas Concurrent powers are powers shared between the Fed. gov't, and the States.
Land is a good example of Concurrent powers, where eminent domain, or Fed. land is established, and designated post negotiations, and with State policy & laws harmonised with Fed. laws. Till Fed. laws, land specific or otherwise, had been established, State land policy & laws are effectively applicable, with no jurisdiction over such matters for the Fed. gov't, unless under extreme circumstance justifying proportionate mitigations.
National defence is an Exclusive power to the Fed. gov't. Where, and when specific powers are shared or discharged, are subject to negotiations.
Elections, incl. Presidential elections, are Exclusive powers to the States.
In its current form [operative], Fed. gov't can not make laws to be applied to States, and in the event such laws are deemed necessary, some time in the future, deliberations must begin at the State level.
- States create the Fed. gov't, not the other way round.
- State laws form the bedrock of Fed. laws. and not the other way round.
- Power rests with the people in States, and not with the Fed. framework, which owes its powers to States ceding defined, limited powers to Fed. institutions.
- States make laws, and in turn, such laws make up the Fed. laws, and not the other round.
- The sole power base the Fed. gov't exercises its power and authority is in the nation's Capital of which governing rules & regulation must be established.
There are numerous case laws, where the Fed. gov't attempted to unjustifiably increase, or unlawfully overstep its powers, and rejected by States. We'll discuss those at a later time.
Last edited:
In its current standing, and state, .So is in nation state building phase, and whilst that is in due process, Fed. gov't has no say, nor jurisdiction over the affairs, internal or otherwise, of Fed. Member States.
Up until Fed. laws had been deliberated, negotiated, agreed upon, and established, in consultation, participation, and inclusion of FMSs, Fed. gov't has no powers to discharge, or exercise in the States.
Up until Fed. laws had been deliberated, negotiated, agreed upon, and established, in consultation, participation, and inclusion of FMSs, Fed. gov't has no powers to discharge, or exercise in the States.
- How could Federal Members States increase their revenues to operate and function independently?
- What is preventing them from increase their revenues?
In 2023, Annual budget for the Federal gov't was just under 1 billion USD, 283m+ of which was revenue generated with the rest being grants and cash injections from donor nations.
As it stands, SL and PL operate independently whereas other FMSs financially and politically dependent on the Fed. gov't.
FMS annual budgets in 2023 in millions USD:
- SL: 420m+
- PL: 370m+
- SW 46m+
- JL: 45m+
- GM: 33m+
- HS: 25m+
JLs budget is not dependent on the fed itβs dependent on Kismayo port and these budgets are not detailing aid.
0117
Reborn
You're disingenuous with your statement that PL isn't financially and politically independent.
The Federal Government of Somalia will flex its muscles and set the future of the nation, which will impact you directly, such as by taxing Bossaso port and collecting all other taxes. This is the direction the government will head to and erode the 68IQ Federal system in place that is holding Somalia back from becoming the functioning nation it once was in the early 70's. This will also happen to Somaliland soon as well.
https://mof.pl.so/pss-budget-approporation-act-2023/
I have not seen a breakdown or analyses of JL's annual budget, but from what I read, budget for JL's security forces are paid from the Fed. purse. Is that not so?
I am only taking into account actual revenues, and not grants and budgetary subsidiary funds from external sources channeled through the Fed. gov't. Is there actual revenue generated from Fed. gov't sources, which goes to PL?
If you could elaborate. Try applying thought, logic, and empirical data.
0117
Reborn
Your right and no money is dispersed to FMS from FGS Tax and what's transferred to Federal States is money from the International Community.
I'm just pointing out that FGS has the power and intention to stop all aid/development and etc that don't fall under its jurisdiction.
Unfortunately the IC are following this through and everyday the federal apparatus is being undermined and eroded.
How do you envision FGS to go back it's Federal foundations giving the current governments intentions to do the opposite?
With respect to other FMSs, they receive monthly budgetary supplements to pay their security forces, and for some to pay their civil servants.
Why?
So Banaadir generates about 300 million domestic revenue, Puntland around 100 million domestic revenue. How much domestic revenue does Somaliland generate annually?
Oops, pardon me, I quoted a wrong post.
Centerliusm will not coming again. You have to thanks Kacaan.
Any sightings of the pamphleteer in charge of political disinformation? It would have been timely to hear of his foolhardy council as to how best deal with the current crises.
How are these projects coming along:
- War on terror,
- Single tariff,
- Tearing apart the Federal Constitution to replace it with Unitary system,
- Forming single regional admins in its place.
Postscript:
Be warned. The dimwit in charge of Fed. gov't (from PM to Foreign to Defence to Planning to Janitorial) is planning to exploit current crises to sneak in sweeping Constitutional amendments.
Last edited:
Xamar alone gets more than 2 billion USD in aid annually, and you should be asking how its local gov't manages to collect ONLY 300m in dues.
And here, other FMSs are finally catching on to the realisation that centralism is the death of the nation. Clear violation of the Federal Constitution where the FGS is overstepping its boundaries, and abusing powers of the FMSs.
The Fed. Ministry of Health is wreaking havoc in the 4 FMSs aligned with the FGS. Examples as articulated by respective Minsters of FMSs:
The Fed. Ministry of Health is wreaking havoc in the 4 FMSs aligned with the FGS. Examples as articulated by respective Minsters of FMSs:
2. 25m for Damal projects by the World Bank to be returned back to the source,
3. No extension of previously planned 48m for Covid-* related projects,
4. Staff salaries for CCU project unpaid for a year,
5. Global Fund project put on hold for 9 months,
6. No cooperation between FGS-FMSs technical directors for health projects management for a year,
7. Disbanded employees for the CHASP project at FMSs replacing them with FGS-appointed staff,
8. FMSs excluded from all health-related decision-making engagements,
9. Halted medical supplies, assistance, and services for FMSs where agencies and partners had been instructed to have no dealings with FMSs,
10. Ministry of Health started a new service in regions and districts without consulting or the involvement of FMSs,
11. Delays in GAVI project for mother and babies vaccines.
These stupid old dogs think their siyad barre and a whole new generation needs to born in Mogadishu who need to realise a federal govt role is only what regional govts delegate to it, it's from bottom up like any federation. The federal govt should play an oversight role only and looking at different regions and their policies, governance, and implementation and how it's achieving the over all objective and targets set by the federal govt.
These sfg guys can't even differentiate themselves from regional govts and will harm it's status as a federal govt as they could lose that recognition internally and revert to being seen as a Banadir govt which will also flow from international community as they won't work with a govt claiming federal titles but has no federal partners.
Regional govt focus on their region that's their status and role and the federal govt cannot infringe on that. They need to rise above regional govt roles and stop being another regional govt and look at the nation and how well each region is doing in meeting it's obligation to its people.
Trending
-
-
-
Djibouti... an 'Arab' country?- Started by πππππππ πππππ
- Replies: 35
