‘Fate Worse than’ artificial borders is the insidious African elite politics: the Somali case

ABSTRACT

The debate centred on the artificial nature of colonial political bounders in Africa and their enduring legacy continues. What is not directly addressed by this literature is the parallel and, even more, destructive political-economic culture left behind by colonial rule, reified by factions of the political elite in Africa, and that appears to be on the march in several parts of the continent. This paper examines the long-term consequences of political ethnicity and corruption in inducing new boundaries within the nation and that is ominously undermining the vitality and further development of civic political culture in the continent. Somalia, arguably the most culturally homogenous nation-state in the continent, provides historical evidence to sustain the argument.

KEYWORDS:

• Artificial border
• political ethnicity
• African elite
• political economy
• Somali Republic

Acknowledgments

I am profoundly grateful to the suggestions of Prof. Maano Ramutsindela and the rest of the participants in the workshop held at the University of Cape Town on July 6-7 2017. Thanks also to Dr. Mark Lindberg who assisted me in drafting the maps used in the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. It appears that two factors may have played in the creation of these conflicts. First, one of the countries involved, such as Ethiopia, took part in the scramble for Africa and forcibly occupied territories of other communities. ‘While tracing the actual boundaries of my Empire, I shall endeavour, if God gives life and strength, to re-establish the ancient frontiers (tributaries) of Ethiopia up to Khartoum, and as far as Lake Nyanza with all the Gallas. Ethiopia has been for fourteen centuries a Christian island in a sea of Pagans. If Powers at a distance come forward to partition Africa between them, I do not intend to be an indifferent spectator’ (The Circular Letter of the Emperor Menelek to the Heads of European States, 10 April 1891). In addition, the new authority discriminated against the ‘natives’ of the newly conquered lands and in the process fostered resentment and resistance. Second, without taking part in the colonial scramble an African states’ oppressive rule might have targeted particular ethnic communities for ill treatment. Such misrule then led to the rise of conflict.

2. Ajala describes tradition African ‘border’ in the following ways. “Pre-colonial Africa adopted age-old systems of using zones or border marches as a buffer between kingdoms. Such zones were of varying width, and they fell into three distinct categories during the 19^th century. The first of these can be described as a frontier of contact and existed in situations where distinct cultural and political groups lived and operated side by side. … Frontier of separation is the second type of traditional frontier existing in Africa during the pre-colonial era. In such cases, communities were separated by a buffer zone over which neither side claimed or exercised any authority. Unhealthy forests and deserts usually provided such frontiers. … The third type of traditional frontiers existed in regions of considerable over-lapping of diverse groups where it was easy to talk more intelligible in terms of enclaves rather than of frontiers. However, a careful consideration of the migratory tendencies of the Masai, the Tuaregs and similar nomadic groups makes it difficult for one to classify any areas between them and their neighbours as frontiers. P. 178 − 179.

3. There was a great deal of intermarriage on the transitional zones with the Oromo for instance.

4. For a comparative case of African traditional chief who resisted colonial domination see Crowder (1988).

5. The calamitous civil war in South Sudan is the latest manifestation of the petty mindedness of such elite projects.

6. The phrase was the title of an article on the agrarian issue by Mamdani (1987). “Extreme but not Exceptional: Towards an Analysis of the Agrarian Question in Uganda,” Journal of Peasant Studies, 14, 2, London.