SomaliNet Forums

A rooted dictatorship is a sure sign of coming chaos and anarchy. Opposition will naturally take place. The point is to prevent any form of tyrannical and authoritarian rule from the beginning, if not poverty, destruction, and war is inevitable. Cause and effect is at play here.

Let's not be simple minded about the matter and uselessly bring about the argument "Dictatorship is better than anarchy". We all quite frankly know that to be true, but anarchy is the bastard child of dictatorship.

Yes, because Ethiopia after Mengistu was overthrown, Uganda after Idi Amin was overthrown, CAR after Bokassa was deposed, Nigeria after Abacha, Rwanda after Habyarimana was overthrown etc. turned into Somalia.

The "opposition's" inability to stop the killings and govern the nation after overthrowing the government is the sole reason Somalia is in the position it is today. While Meles Zenewi and Aideed overthrew their respective governments within months of each other in 1991, one was PM of a relatively powerful African state until his death 21 years later, and the other died in a sub-sub-sub clan firefight in 1996 while the country was carved up by roving bands of clan militias,gangs and terrorists.

And waste logical debate on you? No thank you.

Says the one who has Nigger unchained as his profile picture.

History is for school kids.....

Where is Emperior when you need him. Somebody put those multiple pictures of Somaliland up.

You guys are actually comparing the SYL to Siyad Barre the dictator and what came after him?


Aden stepped down, Shermarke was assissinated, and Shiekh Mukhtar the interim president was deposed by Siyad Barre. Siyad as a dictator ruled Somalia over/about 20 yrs. He ruled a decade more than those three men combined.

A dictator is a dictator is a dictator. I'm sure some Iraqis are still idolizing Saddam Hussein and some Libyans still grieving the death of Gaddafi. Move on people...move on.....

According to the UN this was the period of the 1960s "wonderful" government

By the late 1960s, the Somali democracy that had gotten off to such an enthusiastic start just ten years prior, was beginning to crumble. In the 1967 election, due to a complicated web of clan loyalties, the winner was not properly recognized and instead a new secret vote was taken by already elected National Assemblymen (senators).

1969 was a tumultuous year for Somali politics with even more party defections, collusions, betrayals and collaborations than normal. In a major upset the SYL and its various closely allied supporting parties, which had previously enjoyed a near monopoly of 120 out of 123 seats in the Assembly, saw their power slashed to only 46 seats. This resulted in angry accusations of election fraud from the displaced SYLers, and their remaining members still had the clout to do something about it.

according to the UN this is the period of Siyad Barre

To increase production and control over the nomads, the government resettled 140,000 nomadic pastoralists in farming communities and in coastal towns, where the erstwhile herders were encouraged to engage in agriculture and fishing.

Somalia's literacy rate was estimated at only 5 percent in 1972. After adopting the new script, the SRC launched a "cultural revolution" aimed at making the entire population literate in two years. The first part of the massive literacy campaign was carried out in a series of three-month sessions in urban and rural sedentary areas and reportedly resulted in several hundred thousand people learning to read and write. As many as 8,000 teachers were recruited, mostly among government employees and members of the armed forces, to conduct the program.

The campaign in settled areas was followed by preparations for a major effort among the nomads that got underway in August 1974. The program in the countryside was carried out by more than 20,000 teachers, half of whom were secondary school students whose classes were suspended for the duration of the school year. The rural program also compelled a privileged class of urban youth to share the hardships of the nomadic pastoralists.

and the period after Siyad Barre

Order in Somalia still has not been restored

http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/soma ... e/pid/3238

You guys are actually comparing the SYL to Siyad Barre

are you daft, you brought up that government, you couldn't have forgotten that already, it gets really boring when discussing serious topics with feeble minded bimbos such as yourself, why don't you just make yourself scarce.

A rooted dictatorship is a sure sign of coming chaos and anarchy. Opposition will naturally take place. The point is to prevent any form of tyrannical and authoritarian rule from the beginning, if not poverty, destruction, and war is inevitable. Cause and effect is at play here.

Let's not be simple minded about the matter and uselessly bring about the argument "Dictatorship is better than anarchy". We all quite frankly know that to be true, but anarchy is the bastard child of dictatorship.

Yes, because Ethiopia after Mengistu was overthrown, Uganda after Idi Amin was overthrown, CAR after Bokassa was deposed, Nigeria after Abacha, Rwanda after Habyarimana was overthrown etc. turned into Somalia.

The "opposition's" inability to stop the killings and govern the nation after overthrowing the government is the sole reason Somalia is in the position it is today. While Meles Zenewi and Aideed overthrew their respective governments within months of each other in 1991, one was PM of a relatively powerful African state until his death 21 years later, and the other died in a sub-sub-sub clan firefight in 1996 while the country was carved up by roving bands of clan militias,gangs and terrorists.

Ethiopia - meles filled the power vacuum and continued began a new era of tigre dictatorship (slightly different to mengistu's amhara dictatorship)
Uganda - after a period of power struggles ex rebel strongman Museveni has held uganda under his iron fist (and somalia too)
Rwanda - somali lookalike kagame has kept his beel in leadership for 13 years and counting

almost all those countries you named went from one dictator to another whereas somalia the people didn't accept another strongman which led to 20+ years of anarchy.

Yes, because Ethiopia after Mengistu was overthrown, Uganda after Idi Amin was overthrown, CAR after Bokassa was deposed, Nigeria after Abacha, Rwanda after Habyarimana was overthrown etc. turned into Somalia.

The "opposition's" inability to stop the killings and govern the nation after overthrowing the government is the sole reason Somalia is in the position it is today. While Meles Zenewi and Aideed overthrew their respective governments within months of each other in 1991, one was PM of a relatively powerful African state until his death 21 years later, and the other died in a sub-sub-sub clan firefight in 1996 while the country was carved up by roving bands of clan militias,gangs and terrorists.

Mengistu was ousted by another dictator, not democracy. As for Idi Amin, he was succeeded by an interim president which was excellent, but the new President Binaisa was himself removed by military powers. Again far removed from Democracy. CAR mainly had military rule after Bokassa, and now they are ruled by the same guy for the past 10yrs. Democracy? Abacha died in office, that didn't happen to Siyad Barre. After Habyarimana, the rulers that came after him where either assassinated, fled, or resigned. All these countries except for Nigeria where the Abacha died, faced political upheaval of one sort or another. No two countries are politically identical, but African countries tend to be politically corrupt and incompetent.

There is no "sole" reason as to why Somalia is how it's today. One thing is for certain, Siyad Barre didn't help at all. So stop trying to glorify the man, as far as I'm concerned he is in the same boat as the rest of the idiots who came after him.

You guys are actually comparing the SYL to Siyad Barre

are you daft, you brought up that government, you couldn't have forgotten that already, it gets really boring when discussing serious topics with feeble minded bimbos such as yourself, why don't you just make yourself scarce.

All that anger on behalf of a dead dictator.

The rebels are turning on each other one week after Siyad has left power

[White] But Ali Mahdi Mohamed, the new president has said that he is willing to talk to you about anything you want to talk about now. Are you going to talk to him, negotiate with him, or what will you do?

[Silanyo] Well, a president is appointed by organizations or elected by the people of the country. So, SNM has not been consulted on that, how could they possibly accept it?

[White] So, are you refusing to recognize the new presi­dent, the prime minister?

[White] Many people outside Somalia will find it pretty hard to believe that now you have got rid of Siyaad Barre and already you are quarreling amongst yourselves.

Senior SNM Member Comments

London BBC World Service in English

1709 GMT 30 Jan 1991

[From the "Focus on Africa" program]


http://www.biyokulule.com/Jan_%201991_%206.htm

The opposition's inability to consolidate power, establish legitimacy, and fill the power vacuum left by the most poorly thought out coup of all time had more to do with the lack of planning and cooperation by the groups than by the "People". The rebel groups had no agenda save for overthrowing MSB and engaging in revenge motivated military engagements. For an example of this bizarre strategy, despite being nominally allied with the SSDF and SPM, the USC began its terror campaign by attempting to ethnically cleanse Mogadishu of Daroods, then attacked Galkacyo and massacred thousands. A short while later, the USC turned on itself and turned Mogadishu into a wasteland, killing thousands of Hawiyes on both sides. A bit later, a USC faction turned on its Xawadle allies and occupied Hiiraan. Then, they turned on their Rahanweyn allies and occupied them well into the mid 90's, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands from starvation.

Had Siyaad Barre been unable to consolidate power which ushered in an era of anarchy after he overthrew the democratic government in 1969, would we blame the SYL? Had Meles been unable to effectively establish himself as leader of a united Ethiopia following Mengistu's ouster, would we blame Mengistu? When the "freedom fighters" begin to ethnically cleanse entire cities, loot anything that even looks like it has any value (down to the copper wiring in houses), rape thousands of women, and turn your country into the world's first and foremost failed state, a dictatorship looks rosy in comparison.

the key points to note in kacaan thread are:

- how events unfolded to those wearing kacaan-tinted glasses i.e. faqashta/ubaxii kacaanka (based, tanker etc)
- how events unfolded to those not wearing kacaan-tinted glasses i.e. everybody else

/close thread

Mengistu was ousted by another dictator, not democracy. As for Idi Amin, he was succeeded by an interim president which was excellent, but the new President Binaisa was himself removed by military powers. Again far removed from Democracy. CAR mainly had military rule after Bokassa, and now they are ruled by the same guy for the past 10yrs. Democracy? Abacha died in office, that didn't happen to Siyad Barre. After Habyarimana, the rulers that came after him where either assassinated, fled, or resigned. All these countries except for Nigeria where the Abacha died, faced political upheaval of one sort or another. No two countries are politically identical, but African countries tend to be politically corrupt and incompetent.

There is no "sole" reason as to why Somalia is how it's today. One thing is for certain, Siyad Barre didn't help at all. So stop trying to glorify the man, as far as I'm concerned he is in the same boat as the rest of the idiots who came after him.

I don't recall mentioning democracy, so forgive me if I assume this is a straw man. My argument was quite simple; Somalia is the world's first and only failed state as a direct result of the opposition's inability and apparent unwillingness to stop killing each other. Any attempt to lay the blame of ushering in anarchy at the feet of a leader who was overthrown by an opposition that claimed to be fighting to restore justice is a laughable attempt at deflecting blame when you look at the dozens of fully functioning states that overthrew dictators far, far worse than MSB within roughly the same time period, while Somalia has become the quintessential failed state.

The opposition's inability to consolidate power, establish legitimacy, and fill the power vacuum left by the most poorly thought out coup of all time had more to do with the lack of planning and cooperation by the groups than by the "People". The rebel groups had no agenda save for overthrowing MSB and engaging in revenge motivated military engagements. For an example of this bizarre strategy, despite being nominally allied with the SSDF and SPM, the USC began its terror campaign by attempting to ethnically cleanse Mogadishu of Daroods, then attacked Galkacyo and massacred thousands. A short while later, the USC turned on itself and turned Mogadishu into a wasteland, killing thousands of Hawiyes on both sides. A bit later, a USC faction turned on its Xawadle allies and occupied Hiiraan. Then, they turned on their Rahanweyn allies and occupied them well into the mid 90's, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands from starvation.

Had Siyaad Barre been unable to consolidate power which ushered in an era of anarchy after he overthrew the democratic government in 1969, would we blame the SYL? Had Meles been unable to effectively establish himself as leader of a united Ethiopia following Mengistu's ouster, would we blame Mengistu? When the "freedom fighters" begin to ethnically cleanse entire cities, loot anything that even looks like it has any value (down to the copper wiring in houses), rape thousands of women, and turn your country into the world's first and foremost failed state, a dictatorship looks rosy in comparison.

No one is arguing for the rebels. They are a bunch of power-hungry individuals that resemble/d the old regime (Siyad Barre) when it came to suppression, oppression, and violence. Siyad used our national air-force to carpet bomb entire towns in the North, so why point your bloody finger at the violent ethnic cleansing rebels that succeeded him?

The SYL presidents were not dictators. Aden ruled from 60 to 67'. Sharmarke from 67 to Oct 69 before he was assassinated. And Shiekh Mukhtar only from Oct 15 69- 21 oct 69 before he was placed in house arrest and deposed by Siyad Barre.

Siyad Barre ruled from Oct 1969 to Jan 1991 before he himself was ousted. So why in God's Green Earth are you arguing on behalf of a Dictator that eerily resembles the equally power hungry hyenas that came after him?

Horta one thing you will notice with the tactics employed by the apologist of Barres dictatorship is the always always deflect attention away by focusing on things Barre himself engineered. Now this could be the distrust between all Somali tribes due to Barres years of playing one tribe against another, or it could be tribes having the power after the dictator has been over thrown of being able to settle old scores. These and many other factors are the reason why Somalia post Barre could not stay as a single country. The late Afwyenes policies for Somalia were destructive and never long term. The children who benefited from Boli qaran have a right to be angry for losing their priviledged lifestyle, however what they dont have a right for is insulting our inteligence with their mum and dads bedtime storys. The truth is kids your mother and father milked the Somali state which was being fed poor inocent people. You need to deal with that part of your history in your own time.