The journey of Somaliland toward sovereign statehood is dividing observers of Horn Africa's regional politics into two camps. The debate is mostly framed from the perspective of the political interest of the countries or the politicians involved. For the dreamers of a "Greater Somalia," this is bad news; for the citizens and friends of Somaliland, however, it is a celebration.
Somaliland has managed to lead a stable country for nearly three decades. Its leaders have been voted in and out of office, peacefully. Unlike the rest of the region, they have been peaceful. Therefore, sovereignty would merely be a certificate for the world to accept them as sovereign; it adds little to their own daily lives, as they have already secured their peace.
The struggle of Somaliland politicians for the formation of a republic is a "process" that has proven itself by establishing stable political system. In contrast, Eritrean politicians waged a 30-year war to secede from Ethiopia. South Sudanese political leaders fought for nearly sixty years. The sad reality is that whether South Sudanese or Eritreans, they achieved sovereignty but failed to establish a peaceful and a stable political system. On the days of their official sovereignty, both celebrated the freedom; some could probably have said, "The long war was worth it."
Political philosophers have argued at length regarding the Means and Ends.
The first group are those who say, "The end justifies the means." These are the proponents of Consequentialism, including figures like Niccolò Machiavelli and Leon Trotsky. They argue that an action should be weighed by its outcome, not by the path taken to achieve it. Therefore, they contend that deceit, killing, or massacres are of no concern as long as they bring about the desired result. They risk too much suffering for unpredictable outcome.
To their contrast stood the likes of Immanuel Kant and Mahatma Gandhi. These believe "The means justifies the end." These proponents of Deontology argue that separating the means from the end is misleading. They hold the position that one cannot arrive at a destination of prosperity by following a road of destruction.
Back to the question of sovereign statehood, we ask: "Is a sovereign country a means or an end?"
If we view a country as a "goal/end," we consider waging war a proper "means" to achieve that goal. But if we think of a country as a "means/tool" created for human safety and well-being, it makes no sense to destroy the beneficiary, the human being, in war just to craft the tool.
Personally, I align with the second group. I wish we would pause and think when politicians tell us to wage war "for the sake of our country" or "to become a separate sovereign country."
Statehood is a very short-lived phenomenon relative to the age of the human race. Most of the generations of humans had passed without having so called countries. Humans can exist without a country; a country, however, cannot exist without humans. The state is one of the institutions humans created as they became civilized. Yes, countries became essential for peace, stability, economic growth, and the general positive cooperation of mankind. The world "prospered" only after humans created their countries.
But as generations passed and were replaced, people forgot that countries were created for the sake of a better life for humans. The Country became an "Idol," and the Human became the "Sacrifice." This is why wars that wipe out populations are justified in the name of creating a sovereign country or protecting sovereignty. Even now, Somalia may wage war against Somaliland. But peaceful neighboring countries are more indebted to the human race than a Somalia unity maintained by war.
We would have been luckier as a human race if the sovereignty of a country or disintegration of it into smaller sovereign pieces were based on their benefit to their inhabitants. The Horn of Africa is a region that is reproducing new States separating from others, unlike any other region on our continent. But neither the mother countries nor the separatists have been able to give peace and stability to their citizens so far. This is because their "Means" was all the same, war and oppression. Unlike Somaliland, none have proven themselves by refining the "Means" to establish social stability led by popular consent.
Good luck to Somaliland!
No comments:
Post a Comment