In an article entitled “Is Somaliland Defying the Odds, or Are the Odds Based mostly on a Flawed Premise?” Jamal Abdi makes an attempt a brand new interpretation of Somaliland’s gestation. On the one hand, he distances himself from colonial anthropology, represented by the work of Ioan M. Lewis, which means that the principle explanatory issue for Somali politics is clan (as a shorthand for all types of types of collective belonging outlined by patrilineal descent). Alternatively, Jamal Abdi tries to save lots of a little bit of the basic account of Somali society by Lewis, who offered his preliminary account of Somali kinship, the function of elders and customary regulation primarily based on ethnographic analysis within the north (at present’s Somaliland) by stating that certainly, some cultural traits of Somalis have been preserved within the area, which lay the inspiration for peace constructing there within the early Nineties. Furthermore, Jamal Abdi suggests that there’s some type of perennial democratic custom amongst northerners which explains the modern democratic success in Somaliland.
To develop these factors, Jamal Abdi first lashes out on Lewis (as is widespread amongst a youthful era of Somali research students), and writes:
Because the publication of his 1961 ethnographic research A Pastoral democracy, British anthropologist I.M. Lewis has profoundly formed the skin world’s understanding of Somali society, tradition, and historical past. All through his lengthy profession, Lewis maintained that Somali society is finest understood via the lens of the segmentary clan system, during which company teams battle, resulting in endemic violence. This interpretation construes Somalis as a essentially warlike individuals, with loyalty to their clan taking priority over all else. In line with the Lewisian interpretation, this finally explains the basis causes of the civil struggle and the following disintegration of the central state in 1991. Though anthropologists have lengthy argued that cultures, customs, and traditions continuously evolve and alter, Lewis stubbornly denied the likelihood that colonialism negatively impacted Somali tradition and society.
It’s appropriate that the outdated Lewis stubbornly caught to the logics of the anthropological mannequin of “segmentary lineage society” and certainly defined the Somali civil struggle simplistically via the lens of clan. But, the younger Lewis was extra nuanced, as already Lidwien Kapteijns (2010) present in her seminal critique of Lewis’ clan-paradigm. If one reads the early works of IM Lewis, particularly his “A Pastoral Democracy” (1961), fastidiously, one can see that he conceptualizes Somali society as extra complicated, and “clan” is barely one facet of kinship, in addition to uterine and affinal ties. Furthermore, clan is inherently dynamic and relative. Listed here are just a few quotes from “A pastoral democracy” underlining this level. Lewis noticed that “[r]eal or putative uterine alliances are thus as a lot a characteristic of the Somali lineage system as is agnatic segmentation”(Lewis 1961: 156). Lewis (1961: 159) argues: “In precept, throughout the clan diya-paying teams oppose diya-paying teams, and throughout the clan-family clans oppose clans. However the easy mannequin of agnatic segmentation with equipoised models at each stage is distorted by the popularity of irregular progress and by the significance given to the uneven distribution of man-power and combating potential.” Lewis additionally stresses that “the system of models which we now have distinguished as clan-families, clans, major lineage-groups and dia-paying teams suggests a extra steady hierarchy of segmentation than truly exists” (Lewis 1961: 133). He continues: “What’s most attribute of the Somali system is its relativity and its flexibility” (ibid.).
So: relativity and suppleness characterize the Somali segmentary lineage society, in response to the younger Lewis (and people phrases – “relativity” and “flexibility” – can nonetheless be productively utilized in analyses of Somali politics at present). However Jamal Abdi, and earlier than him, critiques of (the later) Lewis like Catherine Besteman, Abdi Ismail Samatar, Lidwien Kapteijns and others are appropriate within the sense that Lewis didn’t actually contemplate colonialism and structural modifications in Somali society launched via it. It is a blind spot, and it was replicated in later accounts of his. Moreover, his later accounts certainly lowered Somali society usually to clan, which stays unconvincing.
Jamal Abdi continues by stating:
Even a cursory examination reveals that the existence of Somaliland, a centralized democratic state, is at odds with the principal assumptions of the Lewisian interpretation. In line with the latter, an inclusive and democratic Somali state shouldn’t be doable as it might inevitably be corrupted by the pervasive and enduring clan system. Regardless of the current native battle in Somaliland’s japanese Sool area, it’s widely known that Somaliland’s peace and state making course of concerned the voluntary participation of all communities. Self-led peace and state formation, achieved via voluntary cooperation between teams that had fought on opposing sides of a bloody civil struggle, is essentially irreconcilable with Lewis and his followers’ interpretations and characterizations of Somali society and tradition.
This assertion have to be separated in two components. Allow us to begin with the second half: “…that Somaliland’s peace and state making course of concerned the voluntary participation of all communities. Self-led peace and state formation, achieved via voluntary cooperation between teams that had fought on opposing sides of a bloody civil struggle, is essentially irreconcilable with Lewis and his followers’ interpretations and characterizations of Somali society and tradition.” Certainly, peacebuilding in Somaliland within the Nineties was extremely profitable. Who had been the principle actors concerned? Largely: Conventional leaders, army officers of the Somali Nationwide Motion (SNM) and different militias, some former politicians, businessmen and diaspora activists. But, what sort of construction linked all these various actors? It was belonging to explicit patrilineal descent teams (e.g., as members of sure clans or lineages). The entire peace-building course of in Somaliland was constructed on clan-belonging. Elder, officers, businessmen, diaspora activists and so forth. all acted on behalf of their respective patrilineal descent group first, and solely second and third in different capacities (e.g., as former schoolmates, as members of sure non secular congregations inside Sunni Islam and so forth.). The peace-building was solely efficient as a result of clan elders who additionally had some sway over clan militias and abnormal individuals supporting militias with meals and shelter agreed, within the title of their teams, to finish hostilities. This was carried out via customary authorized agreements (Somali: xeer) entered into by conventional leaders on behalf of their patrilineal descent teams.
Conventional leaders turned a very powerful political actors in nascent Somaliland, particularly through the early Nineties. By way of their work, inter-clan consensus was cast which offered the idea for the additional political developments in Somaliland. All that is nicely documented within the established literature on that interval in current Somaliland historical past, beginning with publications by the Academy for Peace and Improvement (APD) in Hargeysa based within the late Nineties, which did large work led by Somali students manifesting itself as an illustration within the quantity (edited by Wartorn Societries Venture) entitled “Rebuilding Somaliland: Points and Prospects” (Lawrenceville NJ and Asmara: 2005)” and quite a lot of later publications edited by interpeace together with one detailed report (2008) taking inventory of “Peace in Somaliland”. In fact additionally Mark Bradbury, Marleen Renders, Michael Partitions, Igbal Jhazbhay and others who wrote on Somaliland’s gestation within the Nineties have extensively referred to the function of clan elders and customary regulation administered by them, which implies: they centered “clan” relating to peace-making within the area.
Thus, in distinction to Abdi’s opinion that “self-led peace and state formation, achieved via voluntary cooperation between teams that had fought on opposing sides of a bloody civil struggle, is essentially irreconcilable with Lewis […] interpretations and characterizations of Somali society and tradition”. Truly all accounts I’d know of in a single kind or the opposite recur to the significance of patrilineal descent (Somali: tol) and elders and customary regulation on this course of, which is what Lewis highlighted already (in addition to uterine and affinal ties) in “A pastoral democracy” (1961). One might even say: the bottom-up reconciliation within the north within the Nineties actually illustrated the pertinent validity to a few of Lewis’ early insights.
I keep in mind the primary time I used to be in Hargeysa, in July 2002, and my host, a really educated urbanite, was concerned in a battle with a person from one other lineage. Throughout my keep in his home, his lineage elders and elders from the opposite aspect met a number of occasions discussing the case. The sample of small-scale conflict-settlement between these events in Hargeysa in 2002 adopted precisely the structural logic of battle settlement outlined by Lewis 4 a long time in the past. The identical will be mentioned concerning the large-scale settlements in Somaliland within the Nineties. The truth that army and diaspora actors, educated elites and others had been concerned, and that US {dollars} as a substitute of livestock had been generally used for compensation, didn’t make a distinction from a structural perspective.
Allow us to now take a look at the primary a part of the Jamal Abdi’s assertion above, that “even a cursory examination reveals that the existence of Somaliland, a centralized democratic state, is at odds with the principal assumptions of the Lewisian interpretation. In line with the latter, an inclusive and democratic Somali state shouldn’t be doable as it might inevitably be corrupted by the pervasive and enduring clan system.” Is Somaliland a centralized democratic state not primarily based on clan-belonging/on patrilineal descent as precept of political group? First, Somaliland was the opposite of a centralized state for the primary third of its fashionable existence. Between 1991 and 1995, Somaliland was fragmented and war-torn and its authorities hardly managed the middle. Till the early 2000s, what was known as Somaliland solely existed between Hargeysa, Berbera and Buro, with (from the mid-Nineties onward) some illustration in Boroma. This implies: for the primary a long time, Somaliland was extra an thought of a state than an empirically grounded actuality; this concept was prevalent primarily within the territory inhabited by the members of the Isaaq clan-family.
Second, within the early 2000s, with the introduction of a brand new structure offering for a multi-party system, a brand new dynamic unfolded. Political events had been purported to have a illustration in all areas of Somaliland. This provision was supposed to ensure that not one clan/patrilineal descent group would set up its personal social gathering. Initially, certainly, all nationwide events (the structure limits their quantity to 3!) had been to some extent cross-clan. Nonetheless, provided that Isaaq are the demographic majority in Somaliland, and provided that voters primarily assist their patrilineal family since there are anyway no actual ideological variations between the events, Isaaq candidates at all times received, no matter which social gathering they belonged to. This marginalized non-Issaq and facilitated what I’d name the “Isaaqification” of Somaliland politics below the guise of multi-party politics.
Third, Somaliland’s stability was undermined by the long-standing battle between these full-heartedly supporting the unilateral secession from Somalia in 1991 and people rejecting it. This battle escalated most visibly within the east, within the lands inhabited by members of the Dhulbahante and Warsangeli clans between Buuhoodle, Lasanod and Badhan, overlaying roughly one third of what’s claimed by the federal government in Hargeysa as Somaliland state-territory. With the “Isaaqification” of the politics within the middle, those that early on rejected the secession (however initially agreed to it for the sake of peace) turned more and more pissed off and finally mounted armed opposition in opposition to Somaliland. This began in 2009 with the formation of the Sool, Sanaag and Cayn (SSC) motion and culminated within the struggle over Lasanod in 2023 during which native militias finally drove the Somaliland military out of all Dhulbahante lands on 25 August 2023. Warsangeli earlier had dropped out of Somaliland nationwide politics by not collaborating within the parliamentary elections in 2021.
The important thing issue working via all these occasions, from multi-party politics to the battle within the japanese areas (solely cursory talked about by Jamal Abdi, however elementary to the soundness of Somaliland) is: patrilineal belonging and political tensions usually expressed via narratives shared amongst agnatic family. Certainly, one can argue that the entire story of Somaliland at present prevalent in Hargeysa, the political middle, and unfold via a number of channels together with social media worldwide, is essentially an “Isaaq story”. The way in which how colonial and post-colonial historical past is interpreted by supporters of Somaliland is most often intrinsically associated to experiences of Isaaq as a gaggle. These experiences aren’t shared by most non-Isaaq within the area. Thus, Somaliland is a clan-state primarily based on an Isaaq narrative and primarily based on – by now – a multi-party system that facilitates sharing of energy between totally different Isaaq clans. To state, as Jamal Abdi does, that Somaliland is a “a centralized democratic state” and that its politics are “at odds with the principal assumptions of the Lewisian interpretation” is an expression of the writer’s lack of analytical distance from the item of research.
Lastly, Jamal Abdi mentions that:
In a forthcoming article, I recommend a 3rd interpretation which pragmatically bridges the competing views in Somali research. In doing so, the article rejects the concept that Somaliland remained impervious to almost eight a long time of oblique British rule, whereas it additionally harbors reservations to the competition that colonization led to a whole breakdown of the ethos of pre-colonial tradition, given the well-documented utility of culture-specific practices in Somaliland’s peacebuilding trajectory. Following this line of reasoning, peacebuilders in Somaliland benefitted from the remnants of the culture-specific elements which have traditionally induced pro-sociality.
I’d recommend that Jamal Abdi takes current literature on Somali colonial and post-colonial historical past extra significantly. There have been a number of important accounts making an attempt to seize the multifaceted dynamics between the late 19th and early 21st century, together with these by Abdi Ismail Samatar on financial transformations and Lidwien Kapteijns on gender relations and urbanization. An account of breaches and continuities regarding northern Somali historical past (from colonial to post-colonial time) will be present in my PhD defended in 2011. There I wrote a number of pages on the query of the colonial heritage on Somali society and politics, coming to the next conclusion:
Colonialism had lasting results on the Somalis within the Horn of Africa. First, it launched statehood in what was then a stateless setting. Second, it partitioned Somalis into 5 totally different colonial territories which, significantly within the north, brought on issues for the pastoral nomads. Somalis turned conscious of the adverse sides of partition slowly, however as soon as that they had skilled unity below the British Army Administration within the Forties, their feeling of belonging collectively was awoken. Colonialism turned Somali cultural nationalism in political nationalism. Third, the interferences of the colonial powers into the normal relations of authority and battle behaviour modified and partly undermined vital political establishments inside Somali society. Lastly, the lack of the British to return to phrases with the Dervish rebellion wreaked havoc on each individuals and the surroundings within the north. As a consequence of lack of funds and expertise on the aspect of the British the revolt of Maxamed Cabdille Xasan escalated right into a full-blown civil struggle. Its results might be felt for many years. This contradicts Lewis’s (1977: 229) discovering that the Protectorate of Somaliland ‘was dominated with a light-weight hand and a sympathetic contact befitting its scenario as a territory with no European inhabitants’ (cited in Geshekter 1985: 18). The contact of direct administrative measures within the protectorate could have been comparatively ‘gentle’, however the penalties of British (and different) colonial politics on the entire with regard to Somalis within the Horn constituted a heavy burden for the way forward for impartial Somalia (Hoehne 2011: 138).
In sum, Jamal Abdi’s article strikes me as a contradictory try to ascertain Somaliland’s exceptionalism whereas on the identical time shunning a colonial anthropological custom that, nevertheless, underpins a lot of what we perceive of the northern Somali society till at present. Worse even, Jamal Abdi tries to cover his personal clannish lens behind a terminological façade referring to “centralized state”, “democracy” and Lewis-bashing, however missing empirical substance and analytical sharpness. On this manner Jamal Abdi ostensibly provides new insights by claiming a post-colonial stance whereas arguably perpetuating hidden colonial lenses primarily based not solely on clan (Somali: qabiil) however on clannism (Somali: qabiyalaad).
Additional Studying on E-Worldwide Relations
