By Michael A. Weinstein, 4 March 2013
opinion
On March 2, Mohamed Abdi Mohamed posted on Hiiraanonline
and other Somali websites his "Commentary on Prof. Michael Weinstein's
Article 'S.F.G.'s Strategy of Political Conflict dated February 23,
2013.'" As the writer who is the subject of Abdi Mohamed's commentary, I
have decided to write a commentary on his commentary in order to try to clear
up serious misunderstandings that appear in it. I approach my response not as a
polemical attack, but as an opportunity to explain what I conceive my analyses
of Somali politics to be, including the article that Abdi Mohamed addresses,
which was posted on Garoweonline..
Before moving to a substantive discussion, it is
necessary for me to address some observations that Abdi Mohamed makes that
pertain to me personally and to my relationship with Garoweonline. Abdi Mohamed
did not have to make those observations; they are completely independent of the
substantive points that he makes and can only be intended to discredit the
objectivity of my analyses. Reluctant as I am to do so, I believe that I should
defend myself, because if I did not do so readers might believe that I have no
adequate answer to Abdi Mohamed's effort to discredit my work.
The Personal Attack
At the outset of his commentary, Abdi Mohamed writes:
"I would have thought that the Professor [Weinstein] would have found it
appropriate to express an objective analysis of the Constitutional challenges
facing Somalia and not allow himself to be a victim of misinformation and
propaganda."
It is obvious that there are two ways of attacking an
analyst personally; one can claim that he is willfully biased or one can say
that he is an unknowing dupe, which is just what Abdi Mohamed says about me.
Each of those personal attacks is devastating to the prime virtue of a
political analyst: his objectivity. Perhaps Abdi Mohamed thinks that by calling
me a dupe rather than a stealthy partisan, he is doing me a favor. Such, of
course, is not the case; he is being patronizing and condescending, treating me
as a child.
The answer that I have for Abdi Mohamed is: Read my
writings on Somalia and understand that they are based on a methodology that
requires me to read dozens of articles each day on Somalia, the Horn of Africa,
and the international actors involved in Somalia; take notes on those articles
and put those notes into sequential grids that generate timelines of events;
and review those grids to discern the power configuration among the conjuncture
of actors at a particular time. That basic methodology, which I have practiced
regularly for seven years, is supplemented by a wide correspondence with Somali
and non-Somali sources who provide me with information that is not available in
open sources, and call attention to any inaccuracies or misinterpretations that
appear in my analyses, making the methodology self-corrective.
Have grasped the methodology that I use, Abdi Mohamed is
free to continue saying that I am a "victim of misinformation and
propaganda." I think that his personal attack is ludicrous. I am not a
"victim" of anything; Abdi Mohamed and I simply disagree and, in
addition, he seems to misunderstand entirely what I am trying to do.
Not satisfied with attempting to cast me as a dupe, Abdi
Mohamed proceeds to write: "It is, in my view, not coincidental that this
article was published on the Garoweonline website which is owned and operated
by relatives of the President of Puntland. It is also not a coincidence that
the article seems to establish clear divides between Puntland and the Somali
Federal Government (SFG)."
While I find it offensive to be cast as a dupe by Abdi
Mohamed, I find it deplorable that he attempts to sully my relationship with
Garoweonline, a relationship for which I am grateful and of which I am proud. I
post on Garoweonline because it has extended a hand of friendship to me with no
strings attached, and has always treated me with perfect respect and has given
me complete freedom of expression without ever even suggesting what positions I
should take, much less asking that I take a position. One could not wish for
better editors.
Again the word "ludicrous" comes to mind. Those
people who have read my analyses over the seven years that I have been writing
them know that I give readings of the power distribution among political actors
and make short-term predictions based on them. Sometimes one of the actors'
perspectives coincides with one of my analyses, whereas the next analysis
coincides with the perspective of another actor. That happens because I am
trying to follow the power distribution rather than pursuing any particular
political interest. My readers, including my editors at Garoweonline, are well
aware of the many times that my analyses have not coincided with the positions
of Puntland's government.
How does Abdi Mohamed get the idea that it is "not a
coincidence" that the article that he addresses was posted on Garoweonline
and that it "seems to establish clear divides" between Puntland and
the S.F.G.? Would he say the same about the series of analyses I wrote about
the possibility that Somalia would become balkanized? I establish divides to
which my research directs me and I try to make them plain so that all the
actors can see them and adjust their own positions accordingly, if they find my
analysis to be cogent. My aim is for all the actors in the conjuncture to
understand where they are positioned in relation to the others. Practically
that kind of analysis should help prevent gross miscalculations by one actor or
another. In the analysis that Abdi Mohamed has addressed, I was giving what I
called an "early warning" of an impending conflict between the S.F.G.
and Puntland unless genuine processes of reconciliation were undertaken.
Abdi Mohamed can back the S.F.G. against Puntland if that
is what he wants to do; by doing so his statements become data for me to feed
into a conflict analysis. Abdi Mohamed can dismiss Puntland if that is what he
wants to do. I am simply warning Abdi Mohamed and the others who take his
position that Puntland is not going to dismiss itself and that it is serious
about its model of decentralized federalism. Does that mean that I am a
propagandist for Puntland? If there is one rule that guides political analysis
it is to take the position, interests, and power-resources of each actor
seriously, and never to dismiss an actor. My bottom line to Abdi Mohamed is: Get
real.
The Substantive Issues
Abdi Mohamed launches his personal attack at the very
beginning of his commentary and then, thankfully, engages important substantive
issues. The second half of his commentary is directed to policy recommendations
for the S.F.G. Those will not concern me here; I am an analyst and I stay away
from policy. I have no interest in telling Somalis, or anyone else, what to do
- to repeat, I try to give the most accurate description of the power
configuration that characterizes the current political situation in and around
Somalia. Most of the first half of Abdi Mohamed's commentary, however, is
relevant to political analysis and I will address it on those terms following
in the order he examines the first three "core issues" that he
defines: The Somali Identity, Federalism, and The role of the S.F.G.
On Somali identity, Abdi Mohamed and I are in full
agreement that "Somalis share a common identity." "Wherever one
goes on this planet, a Somali recognizes another Somali," says Abdi Mohamed.
There is no doubt about that; the question is: What are the political
implications of that fact?
I would simply say that the Somali identity that Abdi
Mohamed puts forward is a social identity with no political implications that
logically follow from it. The Somali people could be (and are) divided among
different political entities and still remain Somalis. "The central issue
is how to shape a nation 'e pluribus unum',"says Abdi Mohamed. Does he
include the Ogaden region of Ethiopia, Djibouti, the Northeast Province of
Kenya, and Somaliland? It is a serious conceptual mistake to confuse social
identity with political identity. Social identity tends towards being a
condition in which people find and acknowledge themselves and each other;
political identity tends towards being a willed project and is subject to power
and interest fluctuations.
I would say to Abdi Mohamed: The central issue is not how
to shape a nation 'e pluribus unum,' but whether Somalis want such a nation
and, if enough of them do, what political form it would take and to what extent
it could be achieved in present circumstances.
It would be disingenuous of me to say that I do not have
a position on the question of Somali political identity; it is the only
value-commitment I have with regard to Somalia and Somalis: I would like the
Somali people to be able to stand up and defend their interests with strength
in the world at large. That is my "bias;" I am aware of it; I try not
to let it affect my analyses, but it guides my selection of the topics that I
address. If enough Somalis do not want to be strong in the world at large, if
they want other things more, I will record that situation.
Having defined his basic aim of a unified Somali
political community (nation), Abdi Mohamed moves to what I consider to be the
fundamental issue of contemporary Somali politics: the form of federalism that
Somalia will/might adopt. Abdi Mohamed says: "It would also appear that
[Weinstein's] article seeks to publicize some potential disadvantages to Puntland
if they embrace the centralized model supported by the Somali Federal
Government."
Here again, Abdi Mohamed has fallen into a serious
misunderstanding. Does he really mean that Puntland needs me to tell it that it
will be disadvantaged if it embraces centralized federalism? Where does he
think that I came up with the concepts of decentralized and centralized
federalism if not from trying to find accurate terms with which to describe,
respectively, Puntland's established and explicit position, and the S.F.G.'s
emerging position? Puntland perceives that its vital interests are bound up
with implementation of the decentralized federalist model. Abdi Mohamed cannot
wish that away by blaming the analyst. Or does he think I have read Puntland's
perceived and articulated interests incorrectly? Get real.
Then Abdi Mohamed challenges my thesis that the S.F.G. is
seeking to establish dominance and control over the south-central regions,
saying that I "fail to mention" what evidence I have to support my
assertions. What response can I make? Half of the analysis that he addresses is
evidence for my thesis. I go through the S.F.G.'s maneuvers in the south, the
southwest, the east-central and central regions. What other evidence does he
want? My point is that the S.F.G. does not have the military and financial
power to defeat its rivals or buy them off, so it is using a divide-and-rule
strategy. I say that the S.F.G.'s strategy is "intelligible" given
the constraints (mainly due to the Western "donor"-powers) on it.
Then, turning to the role of the S.F.G., Abdi Mohamed
plunges into his gravest misunderstanding when he writes: "While
[Weinstein's] article seems to decry the motives of the S.F.G., it is
remarkably silent on offering any constructive advice to the SFG."
-------
Here Abdi Mohamed shows that he does not have the
slightest clue as to what political analysis does. First off, I do not in the
slightest "decry" the S.F.G.; I simply try to describe and explain
its strategy, showing that it is "intelligible." Indeed, one could
make a case that I am sympathetic towards the S.F.G., because I am trying to
understand why it has adopted a strategy of political conflict as the only path
open to it for asserting political control. In examining that strategy, I note
that it is high risk and could lead to confrontation with Puntland. That is not
decrying anything; it is trying to assess the conjuncture of actors as a whole
rather from the position and perspective of one of them (as Abdi Mohamed
relentlessly does). Secondly, of course I do not offer advice to the S.F.G. or
to Puntland or to any actor. What is so remarkable about that? An analyst
produces analyses, not policy recommendations.
For the rest of his commentary, Abdi Mohamed fills the
gap that he believes I have left by offering his recommendations for improving
the S.F.G. I leave it to others to agree with him or dispute him, or offer
their own recommendations. Policy is an essential and integral part of
politics; there is no politics without it. I honor it and I do not partake of
it.
Simply put, I am a diagnostician and not a therapist. It
appears that Abdi Mohamed does not understand the distinction. Does he
understand its analogue in his professional capacity as fraud examiner? When he
uncovers fraud, does he also spend the second half of his report proposing
reforms in the laws defining fraud or in accountancy? No doubt he might have
ideas about how to improve fraud detection and punishment, but those ideas
would not go into his report uncovering fraudsters; they would go elsewhere. I
think Abdi Mohamed understands the distinction perfectly, so why won't he
extend the same courtesy to me as a political analyst?
Envoi
Abdi Mohamed begins his commentary with the metaphor of
the "two-edged blade that can be used to cut an intended object but also
cut the user if he or she is not careful." I reply: It is fruitless to try
to cut a stone with a butter knife.
Report Drafted By: Dr. Michael A. Weinstein, Professor of
Political Science, Purdue University in Chicago
weinstem@purdue.edu
