GBTarmy
VIP
Interesting perspective from Mogadishu based journalist
The idea of comparative advantage also exists in politics. Puntland People have succefully managed to introduce law and order in their state for 23 years; People of Somaliland also performed well in 28 years, But why not in the south?
My theory is because of more rigid social hierarchy exists in these regions.
Again, another theory is because European colonizers did not involve these regions too much as they did in south where Italians systematically corrupted the elders with gifts and salaries.
The south which is more populated and cosmopolitan is the epicenter Of Somali anarchy.
What makes the south more prone to anarchy and social unrest has several theories. The first theory has emerged from a narrative created by Darood elites in Siyad Barre era which is that Hawiye- the main clan in the south is not good in ruling and governance.
This theory can be easily refuted because the Mareehan who happens to be in South could not manage to have political structure as they are second most prominant Daarood clan after Majeerteen in Somalia. So, the problem is not clan in nature but other variables.
The second theory is that People in south were trasitioning from clan social structures to more civic insitutions because Italians were pushing them for half century. Furthermore, other non- clan central authorities have dominated the south in late middle ages like AJuran Sultanate.
Therefore, People in South were caught in middle of transition.
My conclusion is that, Yes, perhaps because of the rigid social hierarchy or perhaps mere luck that people in Puntland and Somaliland managed to establish relative stability mechanisms. But the south is more close to political development counting the macro-psychology, ingredient of the population and the other civic attributes that is only available in the south.
Ahmed Abdihadi,
The idea of comparative advantage also exists in politics. Puntland People have succefully managed to introduce law and order in their state for 23 years; People of Somaliland also performed well in 28 years, But why not in the south?
My theory is because of more rigid social hierarchy exists in these regions.
Again, another theory is because European colonizers did not involve these regions too much as they did in south where Italians systematically corrupted the elders with gifts and salaries.
The south which is more populated and cosmopolitan is the epicenter Of Somali anarchy.
What makes the south more prone to anarchy and social unrest has several theories. The first theory has emerged from a narrative created by Darood elites in Siyad Barre era which is that Hawiye- the main clan in the south is not good in ruling and governance.
This theory can be easily refuted because the Mareehan who happens to be in South could not manage to have political structure as they are second most prominant Daarood clan after Majeerteen in Somalia. So, the problem is not clan in nature but other variables.
The second theory is that People in south were trasitioning from clan social structures to more civic insitutions because Italians were pushing them for half century. Furthermore, other non- clan central authorities have dominated the south in late middle ages like AJuran Sultanate.
Therefore, People in South were caught in middle of transition.
My conclusion is that, Yes, perhaps because of the rigid social hierarchy or perhaps mere luck that people in Puntland and Somaliland managed to establish relative stability mechanisms. But the south is more close to political development counting the macro-psychology, ingredient of the population and the other civic attributes that is only available in the south.
Ahmed Abdihadi,
