Somalia’s troubles are in the news again, as Erik Prince of Blackwater fame is reportedly backing a private military company’s bid to work for the embattled Somali government.
With the varied meanings of the word, it’s easy to write off Somalia’s issues as merely the fruit of “anarchy.” But Somalia’s problems were created by rulers and aspiring rulers, not by any anarchists advocating no rulers. Somalia does not have anarchy, nor does its situation serve as evidence that anarchism is unlikely to work.
Since the brutal dictatorship of Mohammed Siad Barre fell in 1991, Somalia has faced varying intensities of civil war between aspiring governments, not an overall defeat of government.
Many foreign observers do not understand the social foundations of Somalia on which a state is attempting to impose itself. The overwhelming majority of violence in the country is suffered in national government centers in the south. In these struggles as well as in piracy, foreign states exacerbate conflict.
The basis of Somali society is generally clan allegiance. Somali customary law, called Xeer, allows judgments to be rendered in ad hoc courts by anyone able to muster sufficient respect for his relevant abilities. This system of traditional authority, which has a tendency to devalue women and exhibit suspicion toward — or take advantage of — people outside the clan, should not be idealized. However, where traditional law operates without state interference it has generally caused less conflict than the state, and Xeer could provide a useful framework for social progress.
Within the borders internationally regarded as defining Somalia, there exist several states whose claims of independence or autonomy go unrecognized by the “international community.” Apparently it is in the best interest of international elites to promote one Somalia under centralized rule instead of a confederation of several smaller states. But a cynic might wonder if the conflict which hinders the development of civil society and creates a power vacuum that can be taken advantage of, is strategically advantageous for international powers to perpetuate.
Violence is done in trying to force a centralized government on a county with decentralized power, and in forcing a modern state onto conflicting customary law. But proponents of central government are unable to accept that forcing everyone to obey whoever has government power might not be the best way to promote harmony among different interests and allegiances.
International activity in Somalia, whether to plant the flag, recover debt from defaulted loans to dictators, or rub out blowback from other empire-building projects, has persisted well beyond the famine relief missions of the early 1990s. Prince’s new venture is only the latest foreign intervention in the violent struggle to establish and maintain a central government. The United Nations, United States, and Ethiopia have attempted to influence the situation using military force. It might be impolite, but not implausible, to suggest parallels between these interventions and the establishment of colonies and protectorates in Africa during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The hand of foreign exploitation is seen clearly in the piracy issue once the observer looks beyond the superficial explanation that boils down to “more force needs to be deployed to keep poor black people from committing crimes.” The long coastline of Somalia had traditionally been fished by locals operating small boats (who should thereby have a usufruct claim). But foreign ships over-fished the waters and dumped toxic waste from wealthier nations. Somalis turned to piracy either to defend their shores or to make money in one of the few lucrative options left to them. When some “volunteer coast guard” operators engage in extortion against people who are not responsible for harming the Somali coast, they are only imitating government by levying taxes or demanding bribes.
But does the Somali case of authoritarians exploiting a fallen state mean that an anarchic area would necessarily be helpless against invaders? No. One must take note of the impoverishment of Somalia versus the prosperity of neo-colonial powers. Little was left in the hands of the Somali people when the looting state collapsed in 1991. They started with little yet were able to get somewhere.
In “Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse,” Peter T. Leeson shows that life for Somalis has on average improved relative to life under the Barre regime. Leeson examined a series of developmental indicators including life expectancy, access to medical care, and access to communication technology. With more progress toward anarchy — by dissolving the authority of central government, regional government, and traditional inequality — more improvement could be made.
Anarchy didn’t establish dictatorships, make International Monetary Fund agreements, or deploy foreign militaries to Mogadishu. The problems in Somalia have been, and continue to be, caused by authoritarians and looters in government, business, and banking.
Citations to this article:
- Darian Worden, Somalia: New players, same problems, Dhaka, Bangladesh New Nation, 02/11
- Darian Worden, Somalia: New players, same problems, Dhaka, Bangladesh New Age, 02/01/11
- Darian Worden, Somalia: New Players, Same Problems, Sagittarius News & Style Magazine, 01/25/11
- Darian Worden, Somalia: New players, same problems, Seoul, Republic of Korea JoonAng Ilbo, 01/27/11
- Darian Worden, Somalia: New players, same problems, Woodstock, Ontario Sentinel-Review, 01/27/11
- Darian Worden, New players, same problems, Louisiana Tech University Tech Talk, 01/26/11
Some background reading (Hat tip to Jim Davidson): http://www.mbali.info/doc39.htm
Darian, thank you for this essay. I think you do a good job with it. It states the carefully nuanced position that Somali traditional clan culture has some things to offer in contemplating a future stateless society.
It would certainly be a mistake to suppose that all aspects of a particular Xeer (plural would be xeerai) could be grafted onto a Western culture without difficulty. On the contrary, there are a great many features of Somali traditional culture that are entirely anathema to, say, Americans. Degradation of women, treatment of women and children as chattels, religious fundamentalism, and an often-intense xenophobia are some of the more obvious issues to mention.
On the other hand, the very idea that an ad hoc court may come into existence, review an incident of crime or tort, and then pass out of existence is one that is not only extant in Somali culture but apparently was quite typical of clan cultures across Europe. David Friedman writes about competitive justice providers in Iceland during their 300 year period of statelessness – a system that fell apart due to church tithes.
In his seminal book on the topic, _The Law of the Somalis_, my late friend Michael van Notten reviews the history of clan culture in Europe, the codification of Roman law, and the alternatives in clerical and merchant law that co-existed with statutory law for long periods. I think Michael's conclusions about how a free port and free trade zone might operate in the midst of Somali traditional culture are very well stated. His book, available from Red Sea Press and various retailers, would be a good next place to go if one found this article interesting.
My recent post Look at this!!!
> But does the Somali case of authoritarians exploiting a fallen state mean that an anarchic area would
> necessarily be helpless against invaders? No.
Necessarily? Well sure, no. Maybe they're the only example of a fallen state getting so exploited. Maybe if we look around we'll find plenty of examples of fallen states that acted only as a seed for the subsequent stateless and successful societies.
So we look, and try to find any examples of sustained modern stateless civilization. Are there any?
Assuming not — although correct me if I'm wrong — then why not? You've got to start to wonder if it's not actually inevitable. And would that be a surprise?
Isn't it the case that force-based collectivism has shown itself uniquely good at developing powerful and aggressive military forces? And isn't the most effective force-based collectivism to date state collectivism? So isn't it Just Life that any wannabe an-archists are going to get the cr*p beat out of them by the big mass of centrally-managed (by force) "archists". I don't like it any more than I'm guessing you do, but I don't like backache either, and I have to put up with that.
Sure, anarchy would work if everyone agreed to let it work. But it looks like the only way to get them all to agree is with a big, very unarchistic stick.
So, overwhelming force negates a system of governance. Good to know, as many nation-states have been toppled by overwhelming force. Game over for your position.
Also, there are several examples of stateless societies, and a simple reading of other comments will lead you on the path to learn about it. You sound like someone who's never confronted a different view in their entire life.
If everyone agreed to let it work?
I'm not sure how many people it would take, but it would be a lot fewer than everyone.
Statism has had a huge advantage in ideological and military power. We're taking care of the former, and it's not at all decided that centralized states have a necessary advantage in the latter.
@Jordan,
I don't follow you at all, but I'm not sure you followed me either. Let me try again.
I find the anarchist position one that allows for the most … "ethical" or "moral" perhaps at the risk of overstating it, way in which we humans can live on the same chunk of rock. I wish it could be how we lived. But I just don't see in practice how it can work. Note the words: "I don't see…" — emphasis is on "I". It's not a criticism of your position — it's my problem. I'm trying to u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d. Let me explain why I don't, and then maybe you can help me out.
The reason I don't see it is because there are nasty people about — people who do not share my desire for peaceful, free-choice-based interaction. Those are people who are willing to use force and aggression to attack what I guess I'd say are basic natural rights — such as liberty and some property.
So I start by imagining a world where we have stable anarchy over the majority if not all of the planet. But sprinkled among the individuals are a few who are, chimp-like-as-opposed-to-bonobo-like, willing to apply force (unreasonably, as opposed in mere reasonable self defence) to have their way. So those individuals coerce a few others, and you have some crews. The crews draw in others, and you have gangs. Gangs becomes … I dunno, militia? Militia, …. states. States grow and grow, absorbing more and more of the diminishing non-state areas until they bump into each other.
Fast forward … to today. Haven't I just described the history of civilization?
Now clearly I have never confronted a different view in my entire life. My early membership of a socialist political party, followed by a change in my late 20's to a European "republican"-style party, my departure from all "parties", and my exploration of Marx, Hayek, Thatcher, Clinton, Dobbs, Friedman, etc have kept me confined all these 46 years to a single viewpoint. So on my own — child-like fool that I am — I am unable to analyze the anarchy-to-statism narrative I just described. Clearly, just because it *did* happen like that doesn't mean it *had* to happen like that. Clearly although the planet *is* dominated by states doesn't mean that is inevitable.
So tell me. Why *is* the planet dominated by states? Exactly what *is* stopping anarchy from being the norm? If it were up to me (ah, but see .. it can't just be up to me) it *would* be the norm.
> But does the Somali case of authoritarians exploiting a fallen state mean that an anarchic area would
[…] latest commentary, Somalia: New Players, Same Problems, was published at Center for a Stateless Society. The troubles of Somalia are in the news again, as […]
[…] Year Deals Oח Used Cars Wһеrе Tο Look | Bаԁ Florida DriversSomalia: Nеw Players, Same ProblemsMotorworldHype – @CECWheels Hype Event: Private Lexus Announcement …2011 Brabus Tesla […]