3: POLITICAL TRANSITION IN SOMALILAND
Somaliland’s prolonged political transition has featured a number of critical milestones: the overthrow of Barre’s dictatorship in January 1991, the declaration of independence in May the same year, the national conferences at Boorame and Hargeysa in 1993 and 1997 respectively, and the ratification of a new constitution by referendum in 2001. This long and difficult process is expected to move forward in 2002-3, with the then holding of Somaliland’s local, parliamentary and Presidential elections. The main feature of the transitional period is the replacement of the beel (clan) system with a multi-party electoral system - a definitive step away from traditional leadership arrangements and towards a more modern form of participatory democracy.
Responsibility for managing the transition lies mainly with the three branches of government: the Executive (the President and his cabinet), the legislative (a two chamber parliament) and the judiciary. Independent commissions were assigned specific responsibility for the conduct of the May 2001 constitutional referendum and the electoral process.
While the leadership of the respective government organs has been widely credited for its contribution to Somaliland’s peace and stability, its democratic credentials have been the objects of criticism. For most of the transitional period, the Executive has dominated the machinery of the state, to the extent that both the legislature and the judiciary at times seems like little more than outgrowths of executive power. Latterly, however, the Parliament has become more assertive, discussing and resolving issues in an apparently independent manner. In one dramatic example, a motion to impeach the President on charges of high treason and violation of the Constitution was narrowly defeated in August 2001 by a vote of 37 in favour and 38 against.
In contrast with the Parliament, the judicial branch remains weak, and its contribution to the process of democratisation has been negligible. Whereas the Parliament and government Ministries have generally been refurbished and supplied with computers and other office equipment, the premises of the Judiciary department remain run-down and ill equipped. The post of Chief Justice, which wields the power to hand down constitutional rulings, has
been left unfilled for long periods. Lower court justices often lack training or experience, and many are holdovers from the previous regime, whose record in judicial matters was abysmal. The judiciary as a whole is widely perceived to be thoroughly corrupt. A purge of the judiciary in June 2002 by Presidential order was publicly welcomed, but in the absence of a dynamic legal establishment, there seemed to be little hope that a new crop of justice officials would be better equipped to serve than their predecessors.
Influence on the transitional process from beyond the sphere of government is essentially limited to nascent political organizations and loose political pressure groups. The emerging opposition parties have proven to be vocal and persistent in their determination to influence the process - mainly in counterbalancing the perceived domination of the transition by the incumbent administration. However, the scope for participation of opposition groups in the process has been limited, and in their formative period, they lack the type of organized, popular support base required to bring pressure to bear.
The clan affiliations represented by traditional leaders and clan elders are also important levers on public opinion. Well-organized religious circles also exert some influence on the political process.
Civic organizations have shown little enthusiasm for involvement in transitional politics. Somaliland’s civil society has generally become associated with foreign assistance programmes and developmental, rather than political agenda. With some notable exceptions, civic leaders have appeared reluctant to provide leadership in the democratisation process.
The media and political transition
The most vocal non-governmental actors on the political scene have been from the media. The Somaliland media enjoy an extraordinary degree of freedom in comparison with many other countries on the African continent. Newspapers, radio and television have each provided platforms for the expression of differing political views, for presentation and debate of critical issues, for engagement of public opinion, and for educative and informative purposes. In this context, participants in the research process unanimously described the media as an indispensable component of democratisation.
However, the role of the media in the political transition has not been without controversy. The contradictory forces that have historically shaped the contemporary media in Somaliland can largely explain this: dictatorship on the one hand and the liberation struggle on the other. Somaliland’s long experience of dictatorship has engendered public resentment of government control and deep-seated mistrust of “official” information and propaganda. The liberation struggle has served to establish freedom of expression as a fundamental right, beyond the prerogative of government to permit or deny. Together, these experiences have left competing legacies of propaganda, dictatorial control, manipulation of information, and self-censorship.
The values espoused by the SNM during the civil war have contributed directly to this legacy. Since its inception on 6 April 1981 in London, the SNM sought the establishment of a democratic regime and by-and-large respected democratic principles in the management of its internal affairs. The SNM leadership’s practice of collective decision-making and its dependence on popular participation in mobilizing the war effort paved the way for subsequent Somaliland administrations to govern by consent.
If self-reliance, internal democracy and resolution of problems through dialogue and compromise are the characteristics that today differentiate Somaliland from Somalia, it is because these qualities were learned and practiced by the SNM in the heat of the struggle for liberation (Samatar, 1997).
The SNM’s campaign against the Barre regime enlisted not only political and military means: poetry, songs and literary works banned by the government were applied as an effective and influential weapon in the battle for public opinion and popular support. Radio Halgan (Radio “Struggle”), which later became Radio SNM, provided an alternative version of events to that supplied by state propaganda, while promoting the SNM’s ultimate objective of democratic rule. Pro-SNM publications extended the information campaign both within liberated areas and beyond them, reaching Somalis in the diaspora as well as an international audience. The SNM enshrined the principle of the freedom of expression in both its Political Program and Constitution. The seeds of an independent media had been sown.
Since 1991, the value of the media enjoys growing recognition throughout Somaliland. Members of the public from all walks of life contributed to the reconstruction of Radio Hargeysa, furnishing labour, construction material, and money. Opinion columns in newspapers and call-in radio shows are among the most popular items, indicating a significant level of public engagement. Arrest and detention of journalists in recent years has met with widespread public condemnation, members of the Somaliland community in the diaspora have mobilized to put pressure on the authorities for the release of such prominent detainees such Xasan Siciid, the Chief Editor of Jamhuuriya and the late Maxamuud Cabdi Shide the proprietor of the National Printing Press. Since 1997-8, arbitrary detention of journalists had become less common, but was still occasionally practised in early 2002.
A free independent media has become the hallmark of Somaliland’s democratisation process, and an indispensable feature of the political landscape from which there appears to be no turning back. The question thus remains: how are the journalists of Somaliland exercising their hard-won freedoms and responsibilities?
Radio
Given the power of radio as a broadcast medium in Somali society, workshop participants agreed that radio in Somaliland is still seriously underdeveloped. Through controls on licensing of independent radio stations, the government has maintained an effective monopoly over radio broadcasting: there are no independent radios currently functioning. The Ministry of Information indicated in June 2002 that it intends to withhold licenses for all new radio stations until appropriate legislation is in place - a process of indeterminate duration.
Despite the progress towards physical rehabilitation of the radio and improvement of technical standards at the government’s own station, Radio Hargeysa, programming is limited and geographical coverage is poor. Workshop participants were particularly critical of the reception of radio Hargeysa, which is very poor except in Hargeysa and the immediate vicinity. In the opinion of one participant:
It is the media that should reach the public, while what is said in the mefrish is limited to those who attend. But you cannot easily tune in to Radio Hargeysa: you have to use a very long and highly elevated antenna. Since the radio was destroyed by the former regime our mass media has failed to meet the expectations of the people.
The Ministry of Information plans to install a new 25 kilowatt transmitter expected to resolve this problem if put into effect. But some workshop participants remain skeptical that the government is seriously committed to the development of the official media: “While we were struggling in the bush we had a radio,” argued one participant. “The government is capable of establishing a functioning radio but is unfortunately reluctant to realize such an important task”.
Workshop participants were less critical of Radio Hargeysa’s programming, whith many referring to it as their primary source of information. Many described Radio Hargeysa’s programmes as being relatively rich in content, and expressed the belief that it reaches a wide audience within the limitations of its geographical coverage. In the absence of scientific listener surveys, it is not possible to assess the radio audience with any real accuracy; but Radio Hargeysa staff claim to receive and respond to feedback from their listeners.
The most meaningful measure of the state of radio broadcasting in Somaliland is the continuing popularity of the BBC, which remains the most influential radio with the widest audience and coverage. According to workshop participants, the BBC’s popularity can be attributed to a number of factors:
• The long history of the Somali Service
• The BBC’s reputation for news, current affairs and feature programming in the Somali language is unrivalled by other radio stations
• Perceived accuracy, credibility and objectiveness in contrast with other Somali language radio stations
• Accessibility throughout Somaliland
Many participants noted that in recent years the credibility of the Somali Service has been in decline, and that its Somaliland audience is becoming disillusioned. But for lack of alternatives, it continues to attract by far the largest audience of listeners. The broadcasting gap is thus waiting to be filled, either by a credible government radio station, by responsible independent stations, or by a variety of public and private broadcasters.
The press
The evolution of the print media in Somaliland since 1991 has not been easy. Published criticism was unknown under military rule, and in early years, journalists were routinely threatened or beaten up by those who were angered by their stories. In 1992 nine journalists of the print media were imprisoned for one month; in subsequent years Jamhuuriya’s editor and other members of the staff were briefly detained on a number of occasions. Such practices were common in 1997 and 1998. Although such detentions were typicallyeffected
without due process, the government claimed - not entirely without foundation - that journalists routinely printed damaging rumours and falsehoods.
Since 2001, the relationship between the government and the independent press appears to have been on the mend. Nevertheless, the printed press in Somaliland continues to reflect a diversity of political opinion, several of them vocally anti-government. During the course of this study, discussions concentrated primarily on the government-sponsored Maandeeq, which is widely perceived as defending government interests, and the privately owned sister-papers Jamhuuriya and The Republican, which present opposition perspectives. The independents Haatuf and Himilo had not been in circulation long enough for them to be considered in depth.
Somewhat surprisingly, representatives of the newspapers stated that they do not agree with these labels. On the contrary, they consider themselves to be neutral and impartial, soliciting and publishing all opinions. Instead, they accuse the readership of perpetuating government and opposition stereotypes. Such assertions notwithstanding, there is no doubt that the papers differ significantly in their editorial policies. In 2001, for example, they diverged noticeably in their reporting on the new Constitution, the laws governing formation of the political parties, the existence and conduct of security committees, issues related to human rights, and the application of emergency laws.
Public perceptions of the press are probably more important than how the press perceivethemselves
. On this score, workshop participants generally agreed that independent newspapers enjoy greater credibility on the street than the government-sponsored press: a belief borne out by a comparison of circulation figures. Criticism of the government in the independent press is widely perceived as legitimate, while Maandeeq’s support for government policies is understood to be peddling propaganda. An editor of Maandeeq acknowledged and deplored these public perceptions:
A paper reflecting the views of a political party is seen [by the public] as objective and independent, while a paper owned by the government is seen as non-objective and not independent. The fact remains that every paper simply represents the interests of a certain group of people, no matter whether they constitute a political party or run by the government.
The independent press did not escape criticism. Some workshop participants found its criticism of government policies to be excessive. One participant particularly condemned the satirical weekly Jamhuuriya column Radio Ma-qalloocshe and the caustic, two-faced cartoon characterDhanxiir who
comments daily on current events. Jamhuuriya, however, is unlikely to abandon these items: according to its own readership surveys, 66% of its readers enjoy Dhanxiir and its circulation figures attest to the popularity of its editorial outlook.
Such arguments appear to indicate that bias in newspaper reporting is partly a function of market forces. Some workshop participants accused the print media as functioning like any other commodity, to be bought and sold in the market without a corresponding sense of social responsibility. Newspapers may therefore be tempted to print sensational stories with the assurance that they will find buyers, without necessarily checking the facts. Likewise, they may cater to political interests in some regions but not in others. “Jamhuuriya is not liable to be sold in east Burco because heavyweight politicians from east Burco are not on the front page,” affirmed one of the workshop participants. But other participants from Burco emphasized the importance of issues rather than personalities in determining whether the press will find a readership: “The papers neither cover our distress with government negligence, nor our priorities in the reconstruction and development of our region.”
Another source of bias in press reporting is the influence of individual journalists. Workshop participants noted that many are young, inexperienced and lacking proper training. It is tempting for them to add their opinions, feelings and enthusiasms to their stories, without fully understanding the consequences - the most pervasive of which is loss of public trust. Years of propaganda and partisan reporting have served to enhance public appreciation for impartial journalism that speaks for the general interest.
Control of the media
The most important source of bias in media perspectives is ownership, which tends to express itself through the political orientation of the various media actors. Radio Hargeysa is owned and run by the Ministry of Information. The government owns Maandeeq, its premises are situated within the compound of the government’s printing press, it is printed by the state printing press, and the government pays the salaries of the staff. Maandeeq’s management nevertheless claims that the newspaper exercises editorial independence. Some participants accused the government-owned media of lavishing exaggerated praise on the administration and reporting uncritically on its performance - a practice they attributed to legacies from the dictatorial regime. Despite Maandeeq’s protests, participants in the study generally credited Radio Hargeysa with a greater independence in its content than Maandeeq.
With the exception of Somaliland Television, the owners and managers of the private media tend to be associated with opposition political tendencies. Jamhuuriya, The Republican, Haatuf and Somaliland Times are critical of the government and dedicate considerable space to the activities and platforms of opposition leaders.
As a result, Somaliland’s media landscape is described by most participants in the research process as highly polarized, with no one holding the middle ground. This is perceived by some as a proof of independent thought and expression: cherished freedoms to be nurtured and valued in the aftermath of Siyaad Barre’s stifling dictatorship. In the words of one female participant:
[These days,] Somalis by nature prefer to be on the side of the opposition than being pro government. This does not mean that we abhor the establishment; it is simply a legacy of the former regime that still remains ingrained in the minds of the people.
Another participant defended press criticism of the government as an essential corrective mechanism in the process of democratisation:
If we all become conservative and pro-government then we will be lost, and incapable of putting the administration on the right track. Destructive criticism should be unwelcome; criticism should rather be constructive, and Jamhuuriya should aspire to that.
Other participants in the research process believe that polarization of the Somaliland media is evidence of its parochialism and failure to uphold the public interest. Ruun Xaddi, a pre-eminent female artist, accused the contemporary media as showing a “lack of responsibility,” a position supported by Faadumo Maxamed Cumar, an active member of a women’s social organisation inBurco :
“Sometimes the media becomes a source of conflict and chaos in disseminating contradictory news items and coverage… As consumers of the media we became victims of manipulation by the different newspapers.”
Many participants endorsed these views, observing that major national issues often being subordinated in the news to petty intrigues and feuds between the establishments who own the media. It is not uncommon for a political declaration drafted by an unknown or unimportant group of individuals to find itself on the front page of one newspaper or the other because of successful lobbying with like-minded editorial staff, while more pressing political and economic issues are assigned secondary importance.
Media representatives defended themselves from such allegations in various ways, often employing a degree of relativism. Truth, some argued, is in the eye of the beholder: “The more the government- owned media reflect government policies, the more the government sees them as being reliable and accurate” offered one participant. Likewise, criticism means different things to different people, with some reacting to the slightest sign of media disapproval as though it was a form of defamation or character assassination. Rooda Axmed Yuusuf, a nurse by profession and an active working group member argued that the behaviour of the media is simply a reflection of the broader society in which they live: “The way they handle their responsibilities reflects the way the community at large conducts itself.” Some media representatives lamented the futility of change, arguing that there is little point in striving for objectivity as long as most of the parties concerned have no desire to see accurate news.
A minority of participants felt that the media is performing well. “Our media is relatively truthful if that is not the case we would neither buy the papers nor tune to the radio. Yes, there is a degree of reliability, and a little bit of exaggeration which is just the flavour intended for marketing.” Overall, however, workshop participants urged the media to be more balanced, impartial and objective, and not to confine themselves to the partisan outlooks of the owners.
Content bias
While the media demonstrate different political biases, they were accused by workshop participants of sharing some common biases as well: namely their interest in politics, their focus on the trivial rather than the consequential, and their emphasis on the urban at the expense of the rural.
Media content reflects only a limited part of the population. Radio Hargeysa and Somaliland Television are confined to Hargeysa, though the radio can be sometimes heard in more distant places. The newspapers are the only sections of the media that reach different regions in Somaliland and beyond, but - like the radio and television - their stories tend to emphasize life in the major towns of Somaliland, where less than half of the population lives.
Some workshop participants, however, raised the example of the 1998 Saudi livestock ban on exports from Somaliland to demonstrate that the media’s neglect of the rural population was nothing more than a reflection of a broader public bias. When the ban was imposed there was great concern within Somaliland and a public outcry:
Petitions were dispatched to all the concerned authorities from the UN agencies to the governing authorities of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Delegations were sentto
many capitals of the world. Why all that energy and effort? Because of the possible financial losses [to major livestock traders and the government] the ban might cause. Nobody cared about the detrimental effect the ban would have on the lives of the rural population whose precarious livelihoods are sustained by the animals they bring to the market.
Likewise, participants criticized the media’s coverage of frivolous events or international news at the expense of local developments: “The results of a Brazilian soccer match are received here before we hear news about events taking place in the neighbouring village,” complained one traditional elder.
To a certain extent, workshop participants were prepared to accept that the media’s urban bias reflected prevailing values in the urban population. “I think the problem has its root causes in our political culture which denies the value of the rural people,” offered one participant. Others ascribed the bias to market forces, which militate against coverage not only of rural concerns, but also those of other social groups. Participants complainedthat women
, minorities, occupational groups, the handicapped, and youth are all marginalized by the media.
The media representatives challenged these allegations. Most of the media have a wide coverage on topics such as rural development, production, health, water sanitation and issues linked with the environment. Naturally they differ in their coverage. The papers tackle such issues more substantially while the radio and television are more superficial.
Others defended their content choices with reference to market forces: “We know the tastes and concerns of our readership. People are more interested in political issues than other issues. Are you telling us to maintain a balance that lowers our market share?” challenged one newspaper editor.
Most participants seemed prepared to accept that coverage of diverse social groups and issues is more an obligation of the government-owned media than of private enterprises, who are constrained by their financial calculus to give limited space to such issues.
0%
Author: Hargeysa, Somaliland
