Professor
Samatar and The Politics of the Spleen
By Abdirizak A. Hassan. Ottawa, Canada
email:ceaser24@hotmail.com
We finally did hear from him. Like many other Somali
academics teaching at various great seats of learning, the geography
professor A. I. Samatar, was disappointingly less vocal and indifferent
about the mammoth calamity that has be fallen upon Somalia. It
is well over a dozen of years now and the plight of Somalia appears
to have taken most of its toll but still lingers in a more diffused
and obstinate form. In the face of it, many of us took solace
in one last hope. Since the dynamics of our culture and our contemporary
politicians could not cope with the complex nature of our problems,
it only follows that we turn to our scholars to show the way out
of the dark tunnel. We expected a lot from them, and we regarded
their long silence as a conscious honorable choice by them in
an effort to remain above the fry of partisan politics and factionalism.
We attached to them the embodiment of much of the wisdom that
eluded Somalia for so long. Only a wise person, we reasoned, could
have had the strength and foresight necessary to resist against
the powerful temptations of siding with any of the factions of
Somalia's civil war. Understandably, we attached a meaning of
our own to their mysterious enigma and temperance. They will rise
to the occasion, we fancied, when the appropriate conditions present
themselves. There are indications that these days of Somalia are
very encouraging in bringing about a condition in which the seizure
of the national political initiative is possible, in principle.
Ideally, this is when the Somali intellectual elites should assemble
a solid national forum that would speak with one transcendal voice
and promote the national cause. As a moral obligation and as dues
they owe, the educated minds of Somalia should be duty-bound in
seizing this opportunity. Of late, however, we have heard from
some of them, and to our dismay, they have an unpleasant surprise
for us.
If the examples of professor Galleydh and Samatar are useful cues
to go by, and thus indicative of what to expect from the remaining
Somali educators abroad, chances are Somalia will not reverse
its current gloomy period anytime soon. This could mean that the
political turmoil of Somalia spared no minds untainted by the
politics of segmentation which is based on the radical localization
of politics and heightened phony grudges. In other words, this
is when the spleens are allowed to inform and shape the minds
of the people. Unfortunately in this context, the minds in question
are supposedly the best minds of the nation. Disregard Galley[dh]
as a politician as opposed to an intellectual, who pursues a personal
political interest in most peculiar ways. But the case of professor
Samatar is very unfortunate. Let me walk you through what the
man had to say in occasional yelps of spleen venting.
Professor Samatar's critique on the piece by I. M. Lewis The UN's
Paper Clips for Somalia, is perhaps an excellent starting point
in unraveling what may constitute his political resentments towards
some parts of Somalia. Professor Lewis argued in his article that
the UN's representative to Somalia, David Stevens, is clearly
mistaken in throwing his weight behind the so called Transitional
Government in Mogadishu, headed by Abdiqassim Salad Hassan. This
new faction contrived by Mr.Stevens and Djibouti is not even representative
of Mogadishu, let alone the rest of the country. In this modern
world, Lewis's argument states, the old colonial ways of imposing
foreign conceived solutions to local peoples can no longer be
justified, as they are outdated and would not work on the ground.
Instead, local achievements of both the governments of Somaliland
and Puntland should be supported as early birds of a future federal
restructuring of Somalia. This approach is a local initiative
and a national desire which is both fair and doable. Contrary
to Mr.Steven's claims, the Emeritus professor says, the good news
about somalia these days is not the formation of the Arta group,
but the emergence of Somaliland and Puntland as effective governments
that secured the peace in their local areas. In contrast, the
Arta faction could not provide security for themselves as they
are holed up in several hotels in Mogadishu. In addition, many
characters in the Transitional Government, including Abdiqassim
himself, were members of the old hated regime of Barre. Not only
their credibility is in question but they are involved in alleged
crimes against humanity.
Professor Samatar took the liberty to take on Lewis. In all irony,
he opted to argue not against the merits of the article but against
professor Lewis as a person. He is more concerned on the messenger
than the message itself. Samatar reacted rather mysteriously in
the defense of those who are accused of crimes against humanity
in the days of Barre. If individuals can be guilty by association,
he teaches, then Lewis can be found guilty of crimes against humanity
by the virtue of his association with atrocities committed by
the British Colonial Foot Soldiers in Somalia. But Samatar failed
to cite the nature of those atrocities and the role, if any, of
Lewis's involvement in them. Evidently, the only link that Samatar
is alluding to is the fact that Professor Lewis is from Great
Britain; the country that colonized Somalia. This is an argument
so typical of what happens to the mind when reason and rationality
depart. If being a policy maker; a cabinet member; and a beloved
long-time minister of a brutal regime (as in the case of Abdiqassim),
could be termed as a mere association with the regime, then professor
Samatar's feel of the domain of International Law is rather curious.
A fresh review of the culpability criteria in Crimes Against Humanity
by a State would be helpful for the geographer. More over, the
word 'association' was not in Lewis's argument. Samatar concocted
it as a notorious spinning to introduce an alleged criminality
of Lewis in his coming to Somalia in the days of British involvement
in Somalia. He labels Lewis as an anthropologist brimming with
colonial attitudes, despite professor Lewis's advise to the UN
against the colonial ways of nation-building in this modern era
of indigenous grass-root approach to statehood. One can not help
but wonder whether professor Samatar actually read and grasped
the thrust of Lewis's argument. It all appears as though he wanted
to defame Lewis in the eyes of gullible Somalis by 'associating'
him with the dreadful past: the colonial era. Nice try, but it
really was a crude attempt and a slight of a hand by somebody
with the stature of a professor.
If there is a colonial mentality, there always goes a colonized
mentality with it. Even if the colonial mind wants to alter its
ways and abandon the past as shameful and abhorable, it can not
do so as the colonized mind wants to grow and nourish the past
to keep it alive. A typical colonized mind is that of professor
Samatar. First, he seldom voiced an outrage about the Somali plight.
In the last 12 years, what Somalis did to other Somalis far outweigh
the excesses of the colonial powers. In addition, while colonialism
could have taken place in his younger tender age, the current
crisis of Somalia are taking place in his mature learned living.
The two events can never be equally pressing to him by any rational
standards. It is ironic why it is of a prime responsibility to
professor Samatar in responding to the good intentions of Lewis
and never to the atrocities of Aideed and his likes. Second, he
seems to attach increased relevance in the words of professor
Lewis. To him, whatever Somalis say or do to each other are meaningless.
Real speech - and therefore, wisdom and meaning - are communicated
only when a whiteman talks. It is very clear that what Lewis said
is his piece is not just another point of view to the mind of
Samatar. To him, something tangible, novel and relevant is happening.
Apparently, he regards professor Lewis as an old hand and an authority
whose ideas are capable of giving direction. Perhaps he feels
that once Lewis had spoken his take on things would be respected
and considered in international circles and in Somalia. Federalism
was not a meaningful debate for Samatar as long as it was being
argued among Somali regions and politicians. Once professor Lewis
spoke about it, however, Samatar seems to have taken it seriously.
It must be an occasion for him to take on the old Britt. To my
mind that is the only thing that could have happened and I can
not rationalize it without accusing professor Samatar of a subdued
colonized mentality, who despite arguing for the opposite, still
admire and harbor what the 'master' says to heart. To a liberal
mind, Lewis would be seen as another esteemed professor, whose
views and arguments are among many other ones out there. No one
can not read into his article more than what he had to say in
it.
One wonders what made the professor so exposed and sparky like
a Chinese fire cracker. Perhaps, there is something in Lewis's
article that affected him intimately and made him angry and snappy
as to blow up in blinding rages and meaningless mumbles. Lewis
is the author of many works about Somalia, it is people and culture.
Here is a man who knew Somalia since colonialism. Arguably, the
best book ever written about Somalia, The History of Modern Somalia,
is by I. M. Lewis. In this article above, Lewis says that the
good news about Somalia these days is the emergence of Puntland
and Somaliland. In stark contrast, Samatar calls both places as
the "Balaayolands". Evidently then, here is where the
problem lies. Samatar politically opposes the noisy rhetoric of
Somaliland as a new breakaway republic from the rest of Somalia.
In addition, he is under the misconception that the emergence
of Puntland further weakens the Somali unity and inversely helps
the injudicious cause of Somaliland. He could not grasp the counter-intuitive
role of Puntland and mistakenly paints both Somaliland and Puntland
with the same brush. As a result, both entities are to his mind,
pioneers of evil deeds "Blaayolands". As mentioned in
his article, Samatar is from Somaliland and he is against it.
He is doing that out of his Somali nationalism right? Wrong! The
professor is playing here a classical example of the politics
of segmentation. This politics does not view Somalia as a nation
but as a collection of competing clans for power and dominance.
Under this light, Somaliland would be seen as an Isaaq dominated
outfit and none-Isaaqs should not be expected to readily embrace
it. Professor Samatar opposes the notion of Somaliland statehood
because he is too wary of possible Isaaq dominance over his clan.
By praising Somaliland, Lewis's article was in effect endorsing
that dominance and that is what prompted Samatar's whole fiasco
and tantrum.
Two basic streaks of his attitude are very troubling. First, he
is in the view that geography is a better discipline in developing
a high sense of political acumen than anthropology. While geography
can help you locate Borame on a topographical map, anthropology
documents human evolution, polity and culture. Second, he seems
to argue that he knows what is good for Somaliland and Puntland;
more so than the people of both places. Claiming to know what
is
good for others more than they know of, is one of the attributes
of a fascist thinking
Things came to a head when someone asked the professor about the
existence of a university in Bosaso, the commercial port city
of Puntland. Samatar said without blushing and with straight face,
"no, there is no university in Bosaso, err...well....I sense
there is some jealousy on their part, ever since Amoud University
was established, but nothing more than that." Here is a man
who denies the existence of Puntland let alone a university inside
Puntland. Here is a man who
rejects Somaliland. Here is a man who finds something meaningful
in what Mogadishu warlords are doing. Samater denies any crimes
against humanity that may have taken place during Barre's rule
in Somalia. It reminds me of Mohamed Al-Sahaf, Iraq's Minister
of Information, in his defiance of accepting reality by vehemently
rejecting the presence of American military forces in Baghdad.
I personally think there is a university of some kind in Bosaso,
however it is debatable whether it is as big and well established
as that of Amoud. But even if he is correct and there is no any
trace of a university in Puntland, why would the professor introduce
the word "jealousy" into the discourse? Is the professor
tacitly saying "we the people of Amoud are the only clan
capable of establishing a university"?
This abundantly documents that the politics of the professor stem
from his radical local (clan) views and not from an elevated national
view of Somalia. His views are understandably full of resentments
and underdog activism that mould his being. However well educated
one is, one can not surmount over his being as it is a given cast
and all too overbearing. If your ideological super-structure is
the clan, the local and the immediate, be prepared to lead a slave
life. That means every rational person, every free soul, every
master and every piece of aesthetics will make you resentful.
It is the faculty of the free being to be reasonable and less
fearsome. In this regard, an old wisdom says that God has given
the world to the industrious and the rational and not to the contentious
and the quarrelsome. In the absence of reason and rationality,
one thinks within the confines of his worst fears and not within
the boundlessness of his best hopes. That is why the politics
of Samatar are not different in kind than that of the warlords.
He shares their irrationality, their quarrel and contentions.
One asks, what is the difference between the Qanyarite low cunnings
in Mogadishu and Samatar's spleen-venting slanders in Minnesota?
By any stretch of imagination, if the professor has the habit
of talking about Somali politics only when he is drunk; my apologies,
I didn't know that. Otherwise, he is better off in his golden
silence.
By
Abdirizak A. Hassan. Ottawa, Canada
email: ceaser24@hotmail.com
