SomaliNet Forums

^Relax lol

I know Hargeisa, nor any other city in Somaliland will ever be the capital of Somalia as it's a different country, but the fact that our people let themselves be subject to total political domination by the inexperienced South in 1960 is baffling.

^Relax lol

I know Hargeisa, nor any other city in Somaliland will ever be the capital of Somalia as it's a different country, but the fact that our people let themselves be subject to total political domination by the inexperienced South in 1960 is baffling.

You're speaking through a post-69 Darood lens. Political domination is a Darood invention. Hargeisa was never subject to Adan Cadde's government and nor was he inexperienced. The idea that one clan or a people from a certain location deserve to be president or in political leadership is a corrupt one. A democratic union between the south and north would have been exactly that; democratic.

In fact, it's more revealing that you think people from a geographic location are 'inexperienced' whereas people from another aren't. It's actually a rather stupid and silly idea.

Be more definitive about what you're saying.

You would have to go back to the formalities of the 1960s. When Independence loomed, a delegation from Mogadishu went to Hargeisa and the Act of Union was discussed. Both sides agreed to Mogadishu being the capital. It was more modern, cosmopolitan and strategic. Hargeisa is too close to the Ethiopian Border and hence a hazard. Hargeisa was a military zone because during both wars against Ethiopia it was used to attack and also for retreat.

^Relax lol

I know Hargeisa, nor any other city in Somaliland will ever be the capital of Somalia as it's a different country, but the fact that our people let themselves be subject to total political domination by the inexperienced South in 1960 is baffling.

If you knew Hargeysa would never be the capital of Somalia why suggest it in the first place?

Somalia is none of your business, dadka ku nool iyagaa aayahooda ka tashaneya.

In fact, it's more revealing that you think people from a geographic location are 'inexperienced' whereas people from another aren't. It's actually a rather stupid and silly idea.

It's northern hearsay. Funny innit, considering Somalia's first government had little-to-none embezzlement of national assets. When Egal was PM, Somalia became an Aids bucket and corruption was rife. Its a crucial reason as to why there was a coup in the first place.

^Relax lol

I know Hargeisa, nor any other city in Somaliland will ever be the capital of Somalia as it's a different country, but the fact that our people let themselves be subject to total political domination by the inexperienced South in 1960 is baffling.

You're speaking through a post-69 Darood lens. Political domination is a Darood invention. Hargeisa was never subject to Adan Cadde's government and nor was he inexperienced. The idea that one clan or a people from a certain location deserve to be president or in political leadership is a corrupt one. A democratic union between the south and north would have been exactly that; democratic.

In fact, it's more revealing that you think people from a geographic location are 'inexperienced' whereas people from another aren't. It's actually a rather stupid and silly idea.

Be more definitive about what you're saying.

Correct if I'm wrong but it was documented that immediate government that assumed power after independence was riddled for clannish corruption and nepotism. The Wanlaweyn scandal, where a small town in Southern Somalia received more votes than Waqooyi Galbeed, comes to mind when I think of political domination of the South. There should have been a more fair distribution of power.

When I say the South is politically inexperienced, I speak of the control Somalis had during colonization. British Somaliland was a mere trading post for Aden, where the British allowed the clan elders to continue to rule the land and establish order. That's why Suldaans and the Guurti are thought of so highly in the North today. The Italians were more aggressive, and while they made Mogadishu very beautiful, Somalis there were given little control of their own affairs. That's what I mean by political inexperience

Marques: Fair enough, what were the terms set in terms of power sharing between North and South? Why did it end up being one-sided?

In fact, it's more revealing that you think people from a geographic location are 'inexperienced' whereas people from another aren't. It's actually a rather stupid and silly idea.

It's northern hearsay. Funny innit, considering Somalia's first government had little-to-none embezzlement of national assets. When Egal was PM, Somalia became an Aids bucket and corruption was rife. Its a crucial reason as to why there was a coup in the first place.

Yeah but this thread makes no sense, he's using 1980s+ emotions of his being bombed by the government to talk about the government of 60s as if they're identical and the same thing just because they were in the 'south'. I hate the term 'south' because it's a way to avoid blame for a certain clan and also to give unnecessary blame to another.

Hargaysa and Boorama are too close to the border. Berbera too hot. It wouldn't ever happened. Also count your blessings, because if Hargeysa somehow would have been the capital, you'd be in a civll war right now just like Xamar. Capitals always suffer more in the civil war.

Meth, that arguement is null and void considering the state framework was democracy. Egal made an opposition party and eventually became PM. The problem is, (this may be considered controversial) North-South divide is something only you deem acceptable. Northern Somalia was only 2 regions whereas Southern Somalia was 6. The North was simply a territory of Somalis carved up, just like Galbeed and NFD. If Galbeed became independent, does that mean power should be shared 3-way?

Meth, that arguement is null and void considering the state framework was democracy. Egal made an opposition party and eventually became PM. The problem is, (this may be considered controversial) North-South divide is something only you deem acceptable. Northern Somalia was only 2 regions whereas Southern Somalia was 6. The North was simply a territory of Somalis carved up, just like Galbeed and NFD. If Galbeed became independent, does that mean power should be shared 3-way?

Just because the North had fewer regions, doesn't mean it should have less representation. Yes, the state framework was a democracy, but in the framework it should have mentioned that the number of elected constituents from the North and from the South should be equal, anything more or less than that and it becomes open for manipulation as what was seen in the 1960s. If Galbeed was in the same position as British Somaliland, then yes why not make it a 3-way power sharing agreement.

Just because the North had fewer regions, doesn't mean it should have less representation.

It's right to have less representation. If Djibouti joined Somalia, would it be right to give Djiboutians an equal proportion of power sharing as Somaliland and Somalia?

In your Somaliland parliament today, why does Isaaq take 80% of power, more than the Harti/Dir/Fiqishini/minorities etc combined?

With that said, there was good Isaaq representation in the 60s despite what some think.

You're speaking through a post-69 Darood lens. Political domination is a Darood invention. Hargeisa was never subject to Adan Cadde's government and nor was he inexperienced. The idea that one clan or a people from a certain location deserve to be president or in political leadership is a corrupt one. A democratic union between the south and north would have been exactly that; democratic.

In fact, it's more revealing that you think people from a geographic location are 'inexperienced' whereas people from another aren't. It's actually a rather stupid and silly idea.

Be more definitive about what you're saying.

Just because the North had fewer regions, doesn't mean it should have less representation.

It's right to have less representation. If Djibouti joined Somalia, would it be right to give Djiboutians an equal proportion of power sharing as Somaliland and Somalia?

In your Somaliland parliament today, why does Isaaq take 80% of power, more than the Harti/Dir/Fiqishini/minorities etc combined?

With that said, there was good Isaaq representation in the 60s despite what some think.

In an ideal world, what you're saying makes sense. But with the hardheadedness of Somalis, an equal proportion has to be mandated to avoid corruption or any conflicts. Blame the colonial powers for dividing Somalis into three nations.

As for the Somaliland parliament issue, I'd want to see some stats before addressing that argument.

Meth, this is why Cumar Geele came up with 4.5 for power sharing which still upsets many clans but any other formula will cause a backlash from most. Truth be told, there is no way Somalia can be ruled accordingly as long as the clan factor is there.

Meth, this is why Cumar Geele came up with 4.5 for power sharing which still upsets many clans but any other formula will cause a backlash from most. Truth be told, there is no way Somalia can be ruled accordingly as long as the clan factor is there.

It'll take centuries to evolve Somalis to a one-man one-vote without tribal bias system that has fixed elected terms that are respected