The no confidence vote
of the Federal Parliament of Somalia for incompetence in the Council of
Ministers (Cabinet) of Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdon “Saa’id” on December 3,
2013 has ended seven-month-long leaks and speculations about imminent dismissal
or reshuffle and expansion of the cluttered Cabinet of ten Ministries. The persistent leaks of Cabinet change and the
repeated allegations of corruption and sectarian politics from relentless critics
have contaminated the public optimism, fuelled perception of power abuses, forced
the abandoning of the six pillars policy and the national stabilization plan, and
prevented the direct international engagement with the internationally
recognized national government. In consideration of the monumental tasks
assigned to the national government, the walking away of the international
donors from direct engagement with the national government and shifting to direct
relations with local entities - Somaliland, Puntland, Jubbaland, Bayland, and
Mogadishuland- is a serious setback for statebuilding, peacebuilding, national
unity, economic recovery, and national election in 2016.
Without considering all
accusations trustworthy, it is likely that the allegations in the UN Monitoring
Group’s Report (S/2013/413)
of July 24, 2013, reiterated and amplified in the report
of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published in
August 2013, then personalized in the resignation
letter of the former Governor of the Central Bank of Somalia Yussur Abrar of
October 30, have contributed to the decision of the European Union (EU) not to channel
any money to the federal government. On November 27, 2013, in response to a
statement of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government
of Somalia, Fawzia Yusuf Aden that “Somalia
had received nothing from the European Union only promises” Andris
Piebalgs, the EU Commissioner for Development, said, “She is right we don’t channel any money to federal government but
that’s because in order to use that you need public finance management and an
accountability system and today that’s not the case.” The EU manages the
2.4 billion dollars aid pledged to the federal government of Somalia for
2014-2016.
The news of the clash between
President Hassan and Prime Minister Shirdon has shocked the public because it breached
the solemn commitment made jointly by the Somali top three leaders soon after
taking office that the past political infightings which paralyzed former
transitional governments will never happen among them. President Hassan did not
talk about the rift before the parliament delivered the no confidence vote. The
resolution of this political face-off which stirred friction in the parliament,
regional authorities, and the public, could offer an opportunity for recovery or
could just be a trap for more complications to come.
However, there is a
paradox that puzzles many observers. The paradox relates to how to reconcile the
repeated claims of major achievements of the federal government with the
charges of corruption and incompetence against the Council of Ministers
responsible for the formulation and implementation of the federal government
policies and programs. In addition, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary
General, Nicholas Key said in statement released after the no confidence vote
of the parliament, “Somalia’s
institutions are coming of age.
The UN is here to support their development, and looks forward to working
constructively with the new administration. Outgoing Prime Minister Shirdon had
worked hard to promote growth and progress and played an important part in
creating the New Deal Compact between international partners and Somalia.”
This kind of Machiavellian politics undercuts the public trust in government,
politics and international efforts.
The media and the public seem confused about
the scope of the no confidence vote of the Prime Minister for incompetence.
Article 97 (1,2) of the Constitution
stipulates that the Council of Ministers chaired by the Prime Minister collectively
exercises the executive power, which means it is collectively responsible and accountable
to the citizens, parliament, president,
and judiciary. That is why many ordinary citizens were surprised about
ministers lobbing for no confidence vote of the cabinet they were members.
Article 99 lists the nine functions of the Council of Ministers, while Article
100 specifies the Prime Minister’ powers which includes representing the
council of ministers and government programs before the federal parliament.
Article 102 states clearly that every minister is personally responsible for the functions of his [her] Ministry.
Therefore, the no confidence vote for incompetence applies to the Council of
Ministers.
During
the debate of the no confidence motion in the parliament, there were instances
of incomprehension. First, contrary to articles 65 (3), 66 (3), and 68 (1, 5) of
the provisional constitution, it appeared that the parliament did not have established procedures for its normal workings
like the neutral role of the speaker and his deputies, the duration of the
sessions, the time management, the required procedures that allow each member
of parliament full participation, the
absolute transparency of meetings and debates. Second, the rejection of Prime
Minister’s request to respond to the allegations in the no confidence motion in
parliament was an astonishing decision which breached the constitution. Third,
the attendance of the parliament leadership at a celebration party for ousting
the council of ministers was improper. As per articles 61 (1) and 70 (5), the parliamentarians
are supposed to be guided by the best interests of the nation as a whole
because they are paid directly from the national treasury.
The parliament has oversight
responsibility over the executive branch, a relationship that should avoid dispute
between the president and the council of ministers. The parliamentary scrutiny and
hearings on government’s performance for explanations, justifications and
corrections would help to create public confidence in government and avert unwarranted
no confidence motions.
Also, some commentators
have mistakenly attributed the source of the frequent clashes between Somali leaders
to the provisional constitution and to the parliamentary system of governance.
But I argue here that the constitution isn’t to blame for the Somali leaders falling-out.
Generally, the conflict arises from the deliberate unwillingness to adhere and
respect to the letter and spirit of the constitution in the execution of the
public services. The constitutional document which transforms and regulates the
individual and societal behavior has effect and meaning when the stakeholders/power
holders respect it faithfully. But if the power holders decide to twist the
constitution to their desires and interpretations and the society fails to
resist democratically and strenuously, then the constitution loses relevance
and raison d'être.
Clearly, the constitution
provides the necessary checks and balances needed in the political system of
Somalia. The powers and responsibilities of the four equal branches of the
government-Parliament, Presidency, council of Ministers and judiciary- are interlocked
and interdependent. Each institution must remain within the limits of its jurisdiction.
The president is not a ceremonial
leader. If the constitution guides, then the government works fine but if there
is no respect for the rule of law, then chaos, corruption, abuse of power, and
failures will be the norm. Articles 66 (4{a}), 64 (4), 85, 87 (1-a, b, c 2),
article 90 (a-q), list the responsibilities and powers of the president who
must consent all governmental activities through the application of the rule of
the law. The mixed parliamentary and presidential political system is good for
the Somali society on the condition that the Somali intellectuals, civil
society activists, and politicians put together the best processes and
practices for the implementation of the adopted system.
The defunct United
Nations Political Office for Somalia (UNPOS) and former leaders of the Transitional
Federal Government, particularly the minister for constitutional affairs, principal
actors in the constitution making process, have let down the Somali people by
not even proof reading the constitutional document. Nevertheless, with the exception of the deadlocked idea of clan based federalism
entrusted to the parliament for review, study, debate and legislation,
the provisional constitution provides reasonable guidelines on other important questions
related to the definition of the republic of Somalia, the supremacy of the
provisional constitution, the fundamental rights and duties of the citizens,
representation of the people, the functioning of the federal parliament, the
president, the executive branch, and the judiciary. The parliament responsible for
enacting the laws necessary for the elimination of the blatant inconsistencies
and contradictions in the constitution is in default and has to act quickly.
A caveat, one fundamental
political flaw which contributes to the dysfunction of the parliament and the
whole government is the disconnect between the composition of the federal
parliament and the limited operational area, responsibility, and influence of
the federal government. The people/territory under the vagaries of the federal
government is shortchanged. A quick action is needed to protect the interests
of these people.
Mr.
Mohamud M Uluso
mohamuduluso@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment