To understand Somali politics, it's very rare or non-existent where a leader is truly loved 100% by all Clans. Even the civilian govt from 1960-1969, it's not a straight forward story. The only two who really managed to break that universal acceptance was aden adde(President of 1960) and abdirashid haji hussein(PM). Abdillahi Issa also was called a true patriot.
But some argue the nation was NEW and the local conditions were very united due to colonialism. How they would've fared in later conditions is different story. But Siyad was different case all together, the man actually left behind a legacy.
That's the great thing about leaders who do something, it can be evaluated if it's good and bad, where-as leaders who waste their time or god forbid remain idle only lead to regrets. The motto I live and die by is not only for leadership but general life. Making a decision whether it's good or bad is better then no decision. if it's good, u rejoice, if it's bad you learn, if it's nothing tho, it only lead to regrets. So no decision or make any moves is the worst outcome for any human being not bad decision makers at least they give you a lessons learned.
But back to Siyad. The guy honestly divides every clan family in the nation, down to even 'two brothers. I would witness in awe as clans within themselves would raise their voice at each other in FKD in support and against. I put it down too it's the magic of leaving a 'legacy' cause people can actually talk about it, unlike leaving behind nothing.
Then I saw the same effect with Farmajo, clans were either for or against, even tho the 'FOR' was much larger when you see public confidence in his rallies(it's not an igu sawir) that one. I witnessed also Somalis prefer personality/character of the leader rather then what his philosophy is. I rejected Farmajo on the grounds of his philososphy, i knew if he was in our camp and with his public confidence, it would be a wicked combination. But it was not to be.
But some argue the nation was NEW and the local conditions were very united due to colonialism. How they would've fared in later conditions is different story. But Siyad was different case all together, the man actually left behind a legacy.
That's the great thing about leaders who do something, it can be evaluated if it's good and bad, where-as leaders who waste their time or god forbid remain idle only lead to regrets. The motto I live and die by is not only for leadership but general life. Making a decision whether it's good or bad is better then no decision. if it's good, u rejoice, if it's bad you learn, if it's nothing tho, it only lead to regrets. So no decision or make any moves is the worst outcome for any human being not bad decision makers at least they give you a lessons learned.
But back to Siyad. The guy honestly divides every clan family in the nation, down to even 'two brothers. I would witness in awe as clans within themselves would raise their voice at each other in FKD in support and against. I put it down too it's the magic of leaving a 'legacy' cause people can actually talk about it, unlike leaving behind nothing.
Then I saw the same effect with Farmajo, clans were either for or against, even tho the 'FOR' was much larger when you see public confidence in his rallies(it's not an igu sawir) that one. I witnessed also Somalis prefer personality/character of the leader rather then what his philosophy is. I rejected Farmajo on the grounds of his philososphy, i knew if he was in our camp and with his public confidence, it would be a wicked combination. But it was not to be.
