BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Anarchy in Somalia: cultural difference, democracy and libertarianism.

  
 
grant
15:50 / 02.05.03

A lot of people, when discussing the concept of anarchy as a real social alternative, dismiss it as impossible, impractical, and as never having worked.

Here, I found this article that might rebut that: Alan Bock's Is Somalia a Model?

Yeah, the Black Hawk Down place. Apparently, now that the disorder has subsided, the "reversion to tribalism" is working pretty darn well... without a centralized government.

Bock's main source is another article, written by a Dutchman named Michael van Notten, who married into a Somali family.

Van Notten writes: While Boosaaso is a dramatic example, its experience is more the rule than the exception throughout Somalia. Somalis are thriving and prospering without a central government. Exports in 1998 were estimated to be five times greater than they had been under the Republic.

Bock's interest though seems to be in applying the Somalian model - which involves tribal law as opposed to constitutional/democratic law -- to the current "nation-building" in Iraq (and the past nation building experiments that made the Middle East what it is today).

Democracy presupposes independent political parties and an electorate willing to debate issues and vote accordingly. In a society comprised of close-knit kinship, ethnic, or religious divisions whose members would find it unthinkable to vote otherwise than by group affiliation, the group with the largest number ends up controlling the truly awesome powers of government. Its own ethic then dictates that it direct those powers to the benefit of its own members.

...The turmoil in Somalia following the demise of the central government consisted of groups attempting to position themselves to control the government they assumed would soon be re-established. In this case the mere expectation of a centralized power structure was sufficient cause for conflict.... The conflict has only abated as the probability of a central government being established has receded.

...While Iraqis might benefit from a close study of Somalia (allowing for large differences in the two societies) I very much fear what will be set up will be the kind of powerful centralized structure likely to lead to conflict and, eventually, to a relatively despotic kind of rule – perhaps with more persuasive democratic "cover" than Saddam could muster....

The whole article's worth a read, especially if you're interested in the practicalities of libertarianism, or if you were involved in the whole "guilt/shame culture" discussion.
 
 
*
03:49 / 05.05.03
I'm reading the Van Notten as well, which is much longer but also very informative. Thank you for the link. I have ambivalent feelings towards the libertarian platform, but I find myself agreeing with T.H. White: I am an anarchist, like any sensible person.

More after I've done more thinking on the subject.
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
06:02 / 06.05.03
Ah, I was wondering what happened to Somalia as an example of anarchy...I remember hearing about this quite a while ago and then nothing.

I remember that more than once it was stated that, having no government, Somalia was therefore a true example of Capitalism and it worked - everyone was making tons of money, except they had to spend a bit to hire bodyguards or whatever.

I was wondering about this in the Capitalismo thread...I always assume to associate Capitalism with Democracy, but it has occurred to me that the reason we have a mix of both in the US is that, of course, people voted for more control (or our representatives did, guess we're a bit more Republic than Democracy, but whatever). If you always give the majority a chance to vote for themselves, will they always vote in social security and wellfare and whatever? Really seems to highlight the difference between Majority Rule and true Freedom, which you don't always get a feel for in our schools and etc.
 
 
*
02:46 / 07.05.03
We have had people caring for the elderly and disabled before there is proof that we had language, little say coercive government. Even selfish people will institute methods for caring for the elderly and disabled, as long as they see that it is probable that they'll need at least one of these safety nets themselves at some point. Anarchy has never meant antisociality to me, or even utter disorganization; only lack of coercive power.

Van Notten says there are some problems with the kritarchy system in Somalia that he doesn't want to discuss. Naturally he doesn't go into any details. Well, I do want to discuss them, but I'm not well informed. Any thoughts, further research?

Also, presumably the Somalis have some form of coercion to make sure fines are paid when necessary. Any idea what this is?
 
 
grant
14:51 / 07.05.03
Men with guns, maybe? Local militia/constabulatory? Not sure.
 
 
Salamander
01:09 / 09.05.03
Has anyone reading this read Ursala K LeGuins Disspossesed? Tribal law I feel is more democratic than representative democracy in that its foundation is freedom of association. In a tribe, if you have a serious problem with how things are going, you can feel free to leave. In a rep. democracy it is much harder to leave, and there arn't that many better places to go. It is also better because the laws are not formalized, being a function of tribal custom instead of imposed values and laws that may hav no bearing or an opressive bearing down on a local populace. The situation in Somalia may be the outcropping of a new way of life. That is if they don't get invaded by a tyrrant, and how often does that happen?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
10:40 / 09.05.03
The Somalian model seems great for African, Middle Eastern and South American countries where there is a tribalism that has been subliminated by western colonialism. How exactly could this apply to the 'Northern' world?
 
 
*
17:22 / 09.05.03
It seems like in order for anything like this to apply to the Western industrial complex, massive societal restructuring would be in order. It is commonly held that Western society (I use the term only because I can't think of one better) is focused on the individual, individual achievement, and individual choice, to a greater extent than most tribal societies. To me as I write this it sounds like a paradox. Tribal societies (a gross generalization to begin with) hold that individual freedoms are valuable only so long as they contribute to the well-being of the family, clan, tribe, and people. The base unit of society is not the individual but the family, or at minimum any two people engaged in social interaction.

To apply this to the Western industrial society, we would have to instill some framework for small-scale societal groupings, and a sense of interdependence. It might work to go to a town-meeting model, dispersing the powers and responsibilities of a centralized government to the control of small towns. In large cities, each neighborhood would have to function as a town, and problems of large-scale infrastructure would be negotiated between the communities, on a smaller scale something like the individual states of the EU getting together to work on a unified train system.

I'm more worried about how to apply it to the corporate structure. I don't think that would ever work for massive corporations, which to me is a huge point in favor of adopting it immediately but others won't feel the same.

Another approach might be to play upon the "urban tribal" trend. A group could coopt this trend, turn it from its rapidly-commercializing present direction, and shape it into a movement for social change. Disadvantages to this approach are that it only works for certain groups of people who are already socially marginalized. A combination of the two approaches above might work quite well in America, incorporating the conservatives, with their idealization of small-town life, as well as certain fringe elements who idealize tribal societies.
 
 
Salamander
04:17 / 10.05.03
As far as it applys to corporate structure, how about this, The employees own controling stock in the company, they buy in when hired, and sell off when leaving. The management is hired by annual contract, and employees share net profit, dividends.
 
 
*
15:31 / 10.05.03
Sounds great, but I doubt those who control corporations would go for it. And a start-up built on that model might not be able to compete. I don't know enough about business to be able to predict that, though.
 
 
Outlaw
21:35 / 10.05.03
Government of any type is an illusion. Be it theocracy, tribalism, democracy or a dictatorship a government exixts at the whim of the governed When a significat protion decided it is no longer to be governed in a certain way, it will change. The ultimate dictatorship, the bad old Soviet Union, even fell when the people no longer supported it.

The formula may be differant for differant places, and depending on what level of popular support the government has may vary the level of effor the opposition must use to change it, but in every case, even the most despotic of regimes there has been a majority of popular support, perhaps not electoraly, but in passive support.

For instance, in the Holy Methodist Empire of America we have 70% of the population that does not bother to vote. Quite a large number, but they are the passive supporters. They support drug tyrany, gun tyrany, medical tyrany, etc... by virtue of their non-voting. Its the 30% that do vote who get to decide which side directs the empire.

In Iraq, the old regime enjoyed a reasonable level of active support and an enormous level of passive support. As nasty as it was, most would say "I suppose Abdul deserved to have his hands cut off and be tortured for seven weeks, after all, he did conspire with the enemy... whoever that is..."

Now what am I getting at... I am not sure, I woke up a bit ago after an afternoon nap and am a bit groggy still...

Oh, yeah.. now I remember.

It doesn't matter what government the American Empire imposes upon Iraq, no matter the method of getting a government in power, it will abuse the minority, patronize the majority and grant extra liberties to the wealthy who can afford the extra freedoms any government can grant. In the end you just need to fool some of the people, some of the time and government can thrive and survive.

Outlaw
 
 
Salamander
06:09 / 11.05.03
Hey outlaw, you might want to know that the American public were never given the chance to vote on drug legality, and that the scheduling of drugs is done by the DEA, not by our elected officials, and some of us prefer not to go to jail for our quarter bags.
 
 
Outlaw
12:06 / 11.05.03
> Hey outlaw, you might want to know that the American public were never given the chance to vote on drug legality, and that the scheduling of drugs is done by the DEA, not by our elected officials, and some of us prefer not to go to jail for our quarter bags.

I unfortunately have to disagree. FDR was elected by a majority of voters (at the time I think that was some 60%-70% of those who could vote) and he started it. Those in the Senate and the House who voted for the "Marijuana Stamp Act" which was the first volley over the bow were all elected by the people in their respecive states. Thus the "people" voted. Never mind that the whole deal was sold as with racist propoganda, the people spoke through their reps, as we do in this country.

The DEA was created by those same representatives, and is kept in existance by the representatives elected today. They are not some sort of black bag off budget agency like the MIB or Majestic 12. They could be cut off by a congress or president with balls and a pro-legalization standing, but no such people get elected to do the deed.

In the 70's Nixon was elected, again by a majority, and he ramped up the law to make it worse, this time it was a twisted sort of patriotism, he wanted a way to smack down the war protestors, but that pesky 1st amendment got in the way. So he busted their heads for what they smoked. Again, the elected reps of the people didn't do a damned thing except support his new war.

Through the regimes, er.. administrations following Nixon, the drug prohibition has gotten worse, tactics that Saddam whould have found wonderful have been used, but the majority of voters continue to elect pro-drug prohibition candidates to office and since the non-voters dont get up and elect the anti-prohibition candidates we continiue in this country to have drug prohibition.

I hate to say it, but the people have spoken, and the majority says "stick the stinky hippies in prison". Unfortunately the 70% of the people who dont vote are supporting whatever regime 16% of the voters put in office (or 14% in the case of the current regime...) Now if you think the 70% are opposed to drug prohibition, you need to get them off their butts to vote for the anti-prohibition candidates so this thing can be turned around, unfortunately when they dont vote they are basicly saying they support whatever regime is put in power over them.

Government is not something imposed upon us by aliens, it is something we have created and we continue to manitain. We can change it, if we can get enough people to vote for pro-legalization candidates. However, until that time, the "majority" rules.

Outlaw
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:05 / 11.05.03
I'm sorry, but I'm failing to see the relevance here to alternatives to nation-building in the wake of government collapse. Are you arguing that democracy is a compromised system because it fails to take into account the views of those who did not vote (of course, it could be said that it also can fail to take into account the views of those who did). If so, thenb perhaps a system based on constant tribal administration would be more inclusive, but I'm not sure how one might feed it back into the less clearly demarcated tribes of the Western world. Another recent poster has argued for the devolution of almost all decisions to local leaders, with "direct democracy" (presumably through technological enablement) for the rare matters of state. This theory of government has some flaws (ahem), but could it or something similar be used as a more involved or involving model for a more participatory modelof government?
 
 
Salamander
14:02 / 11.05.03
no relevance just thread rot, ya got me there outlaw, most people in this country aren't intelligent enough to make the connection between elected official/policy stance. They're still on the, Republican/Democrat good,
Democrat/Republican bad,
descision making process, so perhaps your right, a sad state of affairs all around, still I'm just going to do whatever.
I feel that tribalism would be a more inclusive alternitave, it is a basic primate drive to have leaders, and will be an instinct in us for a long time. We now have the technology to live in a more tribal fashion of self sufficient community without having to give up that technology. But that way of life probably wouldn't assert itself with westerners until we begin to colonize space.
 
 
Outlaw
19:03 / 11.05.03
The point I was working toward is no matter what "government" is put in power, be it tribal or democratic, it is always a tyrany of the majority. The rights of the individual will be trampled unless the majority is made to feel guilty for that trampleing.

The issue of the drug war is a good one. the majority does not respect a "right to intoxicate" so thus some drugs are illegal. The majority is not made to feel guilty over the injustices so the persecution fo those involved in the drug trade continues.

Under a tribal government if the tribe says "pot bad" then those who smoke pot get beaten up. If they say "pot good" those who dont smoke get beaten up.

Life sucks, then you die.

Outlaw
 
 
Salamander
21:08 / 11.05.03
Indeed, but we are social animals, and in the end, our DNA didn't design us for happiness, it designed us for maxproliferation. The individual, even though vital to the survival of the whole, will always have it tuff, but thats the curse and the glory baby, curse and the glory.
 
 
*
00:21 / 12.05.03
Outlaw, I think that may be why the foundation of Somali customary law, according to the articles grant cited, is compensatory. There is no crime where there is no victim. Those who break customary law are not punished, they are compelled to recompense the victim. Customary law doesn't say "Pot bad" or "Not smoking pot bad" because smoking or not smoking pot does not infringe on anyone else's natural rights. Therefore the tribal law sees no crime.

Sure, this could cause problems. If we tried to go to that system in the usa, we couldn't give people drunk driving tickets unless someone got hurt, and that's not very preventative. But I'm willing to bet it works for Somalia because there's less traffic.

When is prosecution for "crime against society" (i.e. victimless crime) useful and when isn't it?
 
 
Outlaw
02:09 / 12.05.03
Hermes, I am not sure what you are saying in relation to what I said. Not ignoring you, just confused.

Entitything, I agree that it seems like the law (tribal) is compensitory, which makes a lot of sense. Personaly I think we could survive if we stopped preventative enforcement. After all, one mans drunk might be another mans buzz so a certain level of BAC shouldn't be the measure of criminal action. The level of harm, or level of eminant harm, should be the measure of the crime (or required compensation). Until the driver is a definate endangerment, or causes harm, we shouldn't let govt get involved. But I digest...

What I was refering to was the tribal method will still lead to minorities being "oppressed" in some way. Perhaps not in a "you must smoke pot" way, but mandated religion is as oppresive as mandated drug use, perhaps more. The majority always oppresses the minority in some way. That is human nature it seems, tribalism will not insulate the minority any better than democracy or outright tyranny.

The only time when personal liberty is at a maximum is in pioneer situations. When the western United States was the fronteir, those who went west found liberty. Things got more repressive in the east as things got more settled. As the west became filled with settlers it became more repressive. Settlers like to meddle with their neighbors, pioneers are happy to survive the next day and tend to leave the neighbors alone.

So how to bring "freedom" to Iraq? Give up. Bush wont let it happen anyhow, he doesnt want freedom in America, much less in Iraq. The people dont want it, they are getting a big old freedom sammich now, and they think it sucks. Face it, the majority of humans dont want to be free, they just want to chose the master. Thats why Saddam stayed in power for so long, the people were happy with the master, they felt "free" enough and thus he got the support of the majority. The minority got the short end of the stick (often in very uncomfortable places) and the majroity didn't give a shit.

Sommolia was in chaos because of the desire to pick the master. Once they got over the idea of having one master for the whole country, thhey chose local masters and all were happy, well most were happy. The minority will still get the shaft.

Will the Tribal model work in Iraq? Probably not. First off, regional polotics will not allow it, the worlds second largest oil reserves are under that sand. If there is not a strong central force protecting them, Iran, Syria, Saudi, etc.. will take over by force. Sommolia works because they dont have anything worth taking... Secondly the people dont want it. There is a distinct "Iraqi" identitity, tribalism is not viable in that environment. Thirdly the alies wont stand for it, Turkey will invade if a separate Kurdistan rises from the ashes, as a tribal system would allow. Bush cant allow that so he wont let this idea come to pass.

Sheesh, diharea of the keyboard going on here... better shut up.

So, in closing. Is tribalism a better way? Not realy, just pipe dreams of intelectuals who dont deal with real people. Is tribalism workable in Iraq? Not realy, politics of the region and national identity will make it impractical. Do people suck? Damn strait, meddling whiners abound.

Outlaw
 
 
Salamander
04:19 / 12.05.03
What I'm saying is that a primate society taken as a unit can be considered one organism, as individuals we are cells in this organism, and perform different functions. But as primates, we maintain a balance between individual autonomy and social integration, the extremes of this are communism and social dissolution. I avoid the term anarchy because I see government as an artificial introduction that disrupts the function of the human organism. Human beings naturally will follow an alpha, but in tribal society, an alpha who lies too much, (or yes, gets caught too much, hehe), looses respect and simply isn't followed anymore. The problem with formal archisms is that they tend to slide toward the extreme of communism, or for lack of advanced social theory, (but communism isn't that advanced), feudalism. Tribal society in it's original form is the most fairest, (if fairness actually exists), because the tribe most often respects individual rights, there commonly aren't any victimless crimes, but entity thing, there are social taboos that, while victimless, are punished either mildly or severely, depending on the local custom. But outlaw, you seem to take human behaviour as somehow reprehensible, but you must remember, most people are just dumb animals, they can't help wanting to be told what to do, it is written into their DNA, they have no choice. It seems to me that you think free will exists within everyone when they are born, and this simply isn't so, the facts you quote and the points you make point this out. It is very rare that a human being developes individual conciousness beyond what is needed in the social organism. So to return to that analogy, the individual functions as a source of new and/or different info, new ideas ect. Often the individual gets crucified for it, but like I said, not happiness, maxproliferation. So most people don't want to be free, you can either sulk about it or do your best not to let western society lead us down the road to social hell, a la 1984/brave new world. People like us are miserable because the only frontier, (were their ever is any real freedom), is inaccesable to us, it will be someday, perhaps after we're dead, perhaps not, but until then we have cyberspace, which will have to do. Do I seem like an intellectual now?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
09:19 / 13.05.03
I'm really struggling with this idea that Saddam Hussein ruled with general popular support. I would go so far as to say that the assumption that the Iraqis are terribly unhappy to be free is patronising and slightly dim. Unhappy to be starving, yes. Unhappy to be in need of clean water, also yes. Unhappy to have US companies circling to pick off the profits from their oil reserves for the next decade, fair dos.

But happy with Saddam and unhappy no longer to have him? That seems counter to everything so far seen. Unless you are arguing that the failure to overthrow a ruler is proof of universal tacit support...
 
 
Outlaw
12:33 / 13.05.03
All governments in power enjoy popular support. Even a dictator cannot remain in power if the majority of the populace opposes his rule. The level of support required varies on the culture, but to paint all cultures that do not enjoy democracy as "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" is deluded.

Take China for instance. A dictatorship by all accounts, laws regulating all aspects of life, thugs doing the bidding of the Great Leader (tm), brutal crushing of any disent, etc... However the majority of Chinese people support that regime and many concider themselves "patriotic". They dont want change, and in fact would oppose an attempt to westernize thier culture and democratize their government.

Why wouldnt the Iraqis be differant? Certainly there are those who honestly cheer the arival of a new regime, any new regime. What percentage of the population falls into that category though? Then you have the butt lickers who cheer whoever is in power. They went to the pro-Saddam rallies before the invasion and when it looked like the Coalition forces would win they dug out little American flags and jumped sides. Of those cheering throngs, how many are this type? The largest group is the "I dont give a shit" who dont cheer, dont rebel, dont care whose in charge. This is the group that is the backbone of any good tyrant. Tell them that evil is happening, they frown, nod, say its bad, and go on with their day. They are the same in every country. Finaly you have the party loyalists who will die for the cause. A minority but a vital one. Thse will need to be uncovered and either jailed or killed.

People suck, they support corupt tyranical regimes because the food keeps coming, the water and electricity keep flowing and they get just enough happiness to keep from feeling truely oppressed. Until a culture feels pain they wont get off their butts and look for new leadership. So what if Saddam ordered the torture and murder of "millions" how many people do we have in prison for selling pot or other "crimes against the state"? Do we see rebelion, or even electoral rebelion? Nope. People will support their govt as long as they are not the one in the death camp.

Outlaw
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:24 / 13.05.03
OK - the idea that being busted for selling pot and being tortured to death are of approximately equal unpleasantness is pretty insulting, and the idea that the Iraqi people were supporting Saddam's regime because they were not feeling pain, much less that they were doing so because the food kept coming apparently ill-informed (you may want to check reports on the effects of sanctions on Iraq, particularly in terms of medical supplies) but to be honest this is sufficiently off-topic that I suggest we let it go. The topic is alternatives to nation-building, wrt to the tribal model in Somalia, not why governments stand because people are sheep, or indeed why pot should be legal. If you want to talk more about your views on pot, might I suggest starting a thread on it, either in the Head Shop for the ethics or the Switchboard for the politics? Either would probably be fairly wide-ranging.

Now, on the idea of tribes - it's been mentioned that one problem of "reverse engineering" the tribal system for a Western democracy, or one without a tribal system in place. This puts me in mind of the Solonic creations of the Athenian democracy. They had three "areas" - the city, the coast and the interior - and ten tribes artificially created, with, IIRC, the members of that tribe divided between the three areas. The idea being that that way everyone would feel they had "brothers" in the traditionally separate areas of the country, with their different interests. The membership of the boule (council chamber) was then made up of 50 memebrs of each tribe, elected by lot for a year, and each month the complement of one of the tribes - 50 people - would act as a sort of upper house. So, you had a constant rotation of power between the tribes, and a constant representation of an equal number of members of each tribe in the administrative bodies of the democracy.

Now, I'm not so sold on the idea of randomly selecting magistrates (mind you....), but one thing we frequently hear is that technology woudl enable us to develop a more direct and representative democracy. Could we leverage this by artificially creating a tribal system, or are the numbers too great and the positions too entrenched. And if we did, would there be any advantages?
 
 
Salamander
19:36 / 13.05.03
The questions interesting, but I think the numbers would swamp any utility you could get out of a full democratic system. In ideal conditions it would be best to break all super power nations into smaller states, with leagues for defense and large scale construction projects, common currency, open borders ect. This would eliminate a small minority from a certain area dominating political discourse and judicial policy, while retaining ability for large scale technological infrastructure, i.e. the internet. Thats about the only way I can see western culture even wandering into the area of tribal like government. Occidental mentality has always been more suited to the feudal democracy, celtic kings used to be elected for instance. Outlaw, really, your attempting to moralize instinct, and so far the only thing I can see your achieving is contempt for the many that helps no one. Perhaps you'd care to post solutions instead of complaints?
 
 
Outlaw
21:16 / 13.05.03
Sorry I slid off topic a bit there.

Was going to say more, but to hell with it.

Outlaw
 
  
Add Your Reply