2/19/2025
Today from Hiiraan Online:  _
advertisements
Order and Progress: The vital role of institutions in Somalia's future

Sunday February 2, 2025
By Ali Osman



The annals of history teach us that no society, regardless of its cultural distinctiveness or historical trajectory, can endure the forces of chaos without institutions. Institutions, after all, are humanity’s response to the universal need for order, direction, and shared purpose. They are the sinews that bind the social contract, channeling individual energy into collective progress.

The Somali experience, however, has been marked by an enduring skepticism toward institutional frameworks, borne out of historical grievances, external meddling, and an unyielding faith in tribal structures. This has given rise to a paradoxical state of affairs: a society that venerates the autonomy of the individual and the primacy of the clan while enduring the perils of anarchy. It mirrors the dystopian vision of Atlas Shrugged, where unbridled self-interest operates in the absence of a unifying structure. Such a vision, while romanticized in theory, is untenable in practice.

The necessity of institutions stems from a fundamental reality: the world is a mosaic of complexity and unpredictability. Humans, by nature, are ill-equipped to navigate such a landscape alone. Institutions—governments, schools, religious organizations, and legal systems—serve as stabilizers, translating chaos into coherence. They reduce the uncertainty of life by establishing rules, fostering cooperation, and creating pathways for progress.

In the Somali context, this absence of robust institutions has led to an over-reliance on tribal instincts. While these networks have provided resilience and solidarity, they are inherently limited in scope. A clan may offer refuge in times of crisis, but it cannot build the infrastructure required for economic development or enact policies that ensure equitable governance. The nation-state, on the other hand, embodies the promise of scale and permanence—a mechanism through which disparate interests can be reconciled under a common framework.

The historical record underscores this truth. The Westphalian model of state sovereignty emerged as a response to the anarchic feudalism of 17th-century Europe. The United States rose to prominence by cultivating institutions that balanced individual liberties with collective responsibilities. Even the fragile peace brokered in post-colonial societies relied on the creation of institutions capable of absorbing tensions and charting paths toward shared prosperity.

Somalia’s challenge is not unique but is rendered acute by its historical and geopolitical context. Its past as a colonial pawn and the subsequent collapse of centralized governance have bred a skepticism toward authority. Yet, this skepticism must not devolve into cynicism. History is replete with examples of nations rising from the ashes of disarray by embracing the discipline of institution-building. The Marshall Plan restored war-ravaged Europe through the reconstruction of governance and industry. Singapore transformed from a fragmented city-state into a global hub by embedding meritocracy and pragmatism into its institutional DNA.

Institutions, however, are not mere edifices of bureaucracy; they are living systems. Their legitimacy rests on their ability to adapt to the needs of the people they serve. In Somalia, this means creating institutions that resonate with cultural values while transcending the limitations of tribalism. It requires governance frameworks that prioritize inclusivity, transparency, and accountability. The fusion of traditional mechanisms, such as elders’ councils, with modern administrative practices could offer a path forward—one that honors the past while preparing for the future.

The task is daunting but not insurmountable. It demands visionary leadership willing to prioritize long-term stability over short-term gains. It requires the patient cultivation of trust, both within Somalia and between Somalia and the international community. Most importantly, it necessitates a collective reimagining of what it means to be Somali—not as members of fragmented clans but as citizens of a unified nation.
In the end, the case for institutions is not merely about governance; it is about survival. Without them, Somalia risks remaining mired in a cycle of fragmentation and underdevelopment. With them, it can chart a course toward resilience, prosperity, and dignity. The choice, as always, rests in the hands of its people and leaders.




 





Click here