Sectarian Navel-gazing Framework is Oxymoronic to Somali & African Ambitions: A Response to Ahmed’s ‘The Modagishu Blind Spot…’
In this rejoinder to a critical rebuttal published in this issue (927) of Pambazuka on Mogadishu’s blind spot, the author defends his position through eight facts necessary to consider. With close attention to the intellectual positions on the rebuttal’s sources, Samatar poses important questions, including the distinction of the AU, Africa’s positon against genocide, and Somaliland’s elites.
One of the common calamities that haunts Africa and other former colonies is when the liberated longs for the colony. A future that mimics the colonial past is the core argument of the critic of my essay. The author does not offer a theoretically and substantively grounded debate. In fact, the author fails to challenge the established scholarship pertaining to the tragic consequences of political tribalism in Africa in general and the old Somali Republic in particular. Nearly all but one of the citations (Rodney) in the critics piece are publications that have tried to reify the presumed cultural/political distinctions between the former Italian and British Somalilands. If the author’s proposition about the cultural/political uniqueness and authenticity of the so-called Somaliland was valid and correct, then he should have explicated eight major facts:
First, the critic needs to explain why the two regions in the east of Somaliland, namely, Sanaag and Sool seceded from Somaliland in 2024 after a calamitous civil war, if Somaliland politics was sanguine.
Second, if the critic’s argument held merit, then he should have been able to explain the deep and sometimes violent political-tribalistic tension between the political actors in the central region of Somaliland and those in the western province.
Third, the critic dismisses the framing of my piece as outdated. Such a claim would have been credible if the author conceptually and substantively produced a sound counter argument (and citations) that would contradict the enduring Africanist literature pertaining to the ill-effects of political tribalism. I wonder what the author would think about the literature exemplified by Mamdani’s most recent book on Uganda.[1] Astonishingly, most of the authors cited by the critic in support of his claims are what Talal Asad[2] dubbed as functional anthropology or its associates in the social sciences and humanities. In essence, all but one of the authors he cited are inspired by the colonial anthropologist, I. M. Lewis.
Fourth, one of the major points of my piece was to capture the deep impoverishment of the Somali people, whether they are in former British or Italian Somalilands. I argued that their plight was produced and currently sustained by the tribalist political elite’s ploys in both regions. The survivalist conditions most Somalis find themselves in are akin to the “prisoner’s dilemma.” The critic of my essay said nothing about this issue.
Fifth, my essay cited the absence of inspiring cultural, religious, or political leaders in all parts of the old republic. It appears that the critic did not contest this fact.
Sixth, the critic implicitly implies that the African Union is part of the postcolonial set up by lumping it together with the rest of the international community. It is one thing to criticize the ineptness of the AU; it is another matter altogether to label it as a neocolonial edifice.
Seven, it is curious that the critic has little to say about the leadership of Somaliland cozying up to Israel and Netanyahu at the height of the genocide in Palestine. This new relationship must reflect the kind of culturally grounded democracy that the critic finds worthy!
Finally, the critic’s description of my membership in the Somali Senate just shows poor judgement. If he followed my politics and actions in the senate, he would be more discerning. Here are the counter facts: (a) I am the first Somali member of parliament in history of the republic who uses his salary to pay the school fees of indigent Somali students from all the regions of the Republic (including all districts of Somaliland) and beyond; (b) I have been a lone voice in the senate who defends the right of pastoralists and livestock merchants in northern Somalia when the tribalist regime in Mogadishu was engaged in damaging and corrupt policies & practices; (c) I condemned the Somaliland president’s diplomatic agreement with genocidal Israel. Where is my critic's moral campus?
Conclusion
The core aim of the Pan Africanist project has been to scale up our combined effort in order to overcome the legacies of colonialism. In contrast, the neo-colonial and sectarian agenda for the continent and for countries has been to fragment our people into smaller tribalistic units which will diminish our strength as we demonize each other. The critic’s agenda is to deepen the wedge between Somalis and by implication Africans rather than bring us together for common cause. Needless to say, the choice for Somalis is not limited to corrupt and sectarian government in Mogadishu or Hargeisa. Thoughtful Somalis have higher horizons!
Finally, and most poignantly, need I say that the black South African administrators of the Bantustans agreed with the apartheid regime that the policy of tribal segregation was the natural way to govern South Africa. Such a sectarian agenda, and the bright future Africans and Somalis seek are oxymoronic!
Abdi Ismail Samatar is professor of geography at the University of Minnesota, extraordinary professor at the University of Pretoria, and a member of the Pan African Parliament.
Endnotes