Michael van Notten
FROM NATION-STATE TO
STATELESS NATION: THE SOMALI EXPERIENCE
Almost ten years ago, the Somali
nation abolished its central government and thus became a stateless nation. As
a result, the Somali people are now
more peaceful and also becoming more prosperous than before. This unique
event in the political history of the world deserves all our attention. This is
particularly true now that everywhere people are asking for an alternative to
democracy. That system became popular because it promised less taxation and
more freedom than existed under monarchy. But it failed to deliver on that
promise; taxation now takes on average half of every-body's wealth without
rendering much in exchange. And its regulations severely limit the freedom and
productivity of the citizens. It is estimated that people would create 4 - 8
times more wealth without these democratic regulations.
Let me first give you a bit of
political history of the Somali people, an
East African nation which probably numbers some 15 million people at
present. This nation inhabits a large semi-arid territory that has the same
size as France. It measures approximately 360.000 square miles or one million
km2. Shortly after the Suez Canal was dug in 1869, the Somali territory was invaded
and occupied by four colonial powers: Britain, Italy, France and Ethiopia. When
the colonial period came to an end, each of these four parts was given a
central government, to be managed by local politicians. These politicians had
been trained by the respective colonial powers. In January 1991, the joint
central government of former British and Italian Somaliland collapsed and was
dismantled. At the same time, each of the odd sixty Somali tribes reaffirmed
its political independance. Their tribal chiefs assumed the responsibility for
maintaining law and order.
This 'law and order' has nothing in
common with democracy. It is best described as 'a free market for the supply,
adjudication and enforcement of law'.
The Somali law consists of customary laws. These laws exist in many countries,
but only in Somalia are these laws the supreme law. As one can imagine,
customary laws come in two kinds, those that oppress the people and those that
recognise their right to life, liberty and property. In Somalia, most customary
laws are of the latter type. Except for a few rules, the Somali laws recognise
everybody's right to private property, which includes the principle of free
trade. In so doing, the Somali custo-mary law comes quite close to natural law.
That is why, for a good under- standing of Somali law, it helps to have some
knowledge of natural law.
Natural Law
Before defining 'natural law' we
will enquire what is meant by the term 'law'. Most lawyers think that the
etymological root of this term is the Roman word lex, which means 'to conscript', 'to
impose'. But the true origin of the term 'law' is the
Germanic word laeg, which
means 'order', 'peace', as well as 'friendly relations'. Its opposite 'orlaeg' survives up till today in the
Dutch language, in the word oorlog
which means 'war', 'unfriendly relations'. So, 'law'
denotes a particular condition of life which we could describe as one of peace
and friendly relations between individuals. Indeed, originally, 'law' did not
have the meaning which it has today, i.e. a command, a rule, a norm or other
directive statement. Rather it denoted a condition of life that people may, and
in fact still do, value.
Now, the term 'natural law' denotes
this ancient meaning of the term 'law'. In fact, 'natural law' refers to a
value that people have known since time immemorial without however identifying
its exact nature and the precise reason people should respect it. I will try to
deal with these two questions by
summarising the teachings of Frank van Dun, who teaches philosophy of law at
the Universities of Gent and Maastricht.
The concept of natural law was
developed over a period of 2500 years by scholars who observed the great
variety of political systems. Which one could be called mankind's natural
order, they asked ? In their search they imagined an order that would be ideal.
One in which no person would be able to hide for long his responsibility for
what he said, did or brought about. Consequently, there would be no confusion
as to who owes a debt to whom, who was and who wasn't a participant in some
particular undertaking, who participated voluntarily and who was forced or
tricked to participate, etc., etc. In addition, these scholars imagined that in
such an order people would not suffer
injurious actions of others, and be
able to live their lives and enjoy
their property in an environment of peaceful, friendly relations. And that
people would honour their contracts and provide full restitution or
compensation when they would disrespect this order and cause harm to others.
Such a set of characteristics surely
constitutes an order - even an
attractive one - but is it also mankind's natural order ? We can answer
in the affirmative only when the distinctions that constitute this order are
facts of nature, i.e. objectively ascertainable categories.
Facts Of Nature
Except for Siamese twins, human
beings are distinct, indeed separate beings. This 'separateness' surely is a
fact of nature. Whatever the differences between people - in age, length,
talent or other characteristics 'given' to them by nature - they are all alike
inasmuch they are genetically endowed with the capacity for action, speech,
thought and rational communication. Also that capacity is a fact of nature.
People need to exercise this capacity for their existence and survival as a
human being. This exercise is just as constitutive of one's place in the world
of human beings as one's physical being. This place, which consist of the space
that coincides with one's physical being, one's activities and the fruit of
one's labour, therefore naturally belongs to people. Hence its name of 'natural
right'. Philosophers have asked themselves if this natural right really exists.
They argued that because of their capacity for independent action, speech and
thought, human beings can, and indeed must, think, speak and act. Then they
asked whether one can deny the existence of the right to engage in these
activities. But one can do so only while thinking, speaking, acting. Therefore,
they argued, this right cannot be denied and therefore it exists. Other names
for this place or space are 'freedom' and 'property', which are therefore
synonyms of the term 'natural right'.
A person can add to his natural
right by exercising his capacity for action, speech, thought and communication
but only insofar as he respects the natural right of all other people. Whatever
a person adds to his place in the world while disrespecting the place of other
people is not called property but plunder or loot. In order to find the exact
limits to one's natural right, we must return to the right to think, speak,
judge, choose and act. One cannot engage in these activities without having the
exclusive control of one's own body. Therefore, this control is part of our
natural right. Also, when we appropriate objects not belonging to others we do
not interfere with someone else's right. The same is true when we conclude
mutually agreeable contracts with consenting others. These two activities are
therefore also part of one's natural right. And last, one has of course the
right to defend these rights. These five rights are a human being's fundamental
rights, from which all other natural rights derive. No natural rights can exist
outside of this framework.
The order which respects natural
rights is usually called 'the natural order of human beings'. That is an
appropriate name because natural rights respect the facts of nature. People who
value this order may be inspired to formulate certain principles and even rules
of conduct for establishing and maintaining such an order. One could call these
rules 'natural laws'. One should be aware, however, that such rules can have no other
finality than to define the concept of natural rights and their concomitant
obligations. Natural laws are never commands.
In the light of the above, it should
be clear that one can in principle give an objective answer to questions about
the extent of any person's natural right simply by referring to objective facts
of nature, i.e. someone's body, work and achievements. And the same is true for
the question whether or not a person's sayings or doings infringe upon another
person's natural right.
Respect For Law
Having defined the concepts of
natural law and natural rights, we can
now turn to the question why any human being should respect this law,
these rights. This question typically arises in the context of human interaction,
where one person faces another. The answer becomes evident when one argues that
one need not respect these rights, because that would involve one in a dialectical
contradiction. For the argument will run like this: "I respect you
as a human being, therefore I am going to appeal to your reason and knowledge
to argue that I ought not respect you as a person." This contradiction
shows that there is no way in which the proposition that people should respect
each other can be defeated in a rational argument between them. And if it
cannot be defeated, the argument that people should respect each other must be
true. And that respect is precisely what natural law is all about. Natural law
is the order in which people are prepared to enter into rational argument with
each other and carry out the commitments they made to each other.
Consequently, if we take ourselves
seriously, we cannot escape the conclusion that we are obliged to respect one
another. That means that we are bound to respect others as long as they respect
us, and that we have the right to be respected by others as long as we respect
them. And if someone stops respecting others, he makes himself an outlaw and
can be forced to respect their rights.
Human Rights
We have just seen that the concept
of natural right comprises two values, one's part of the natural world (body
and property) and one's activities in that world provided one respects the
natural order (liberty). John Locke's famous formula 'life, liberty and
property' is a useful summation of that right. Natural rights should not be
confused with the so-called 'human rights' of the United Nations' Universal
Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. That declaration approves of any
democratic government that arranges everybody's life, liberty and property
according to its own estimation of what is feasible and appropriate "in
accordance with the organisation and resources of each state". This
empowerment of democratic governments hinges on the false belief that human
beings have an enforceable 'right' to
have their needs and desires satisfied at the expense of others. That belief
amounts to saying that human beings have the 'right' not to respect others. We
have already seen that, from a philosophical point of view, that belief is
absurd.
Kritarchy
It should be clear by now that
'natural law' in the sense of 'the natural order of human beings' is not a
question of idle speculation, but of natural facts. This leads to the question
whether there exists a political system
that respects these facts. Indeed there is such a system. It differs
from democracy and similar systems in that its government has no special
powers. It is denied any powers, privileges and immunities that are also denied
to human beings. That means that a kritarchy's police forces cannot lawfully
use their weapons and coercive powers except for maintaining natural rights. In
contrast with their counterparts in a democracy, the courts and the policemen
of a kritarchy are not part of a coercive monopoly. In a kritarchy, every
person is entitled to offer judicial and police services to willing others; no
person can be forced to become a client of any court of law or police force
against his will.
A kritarchy does not have subjects
and rulers. It lacks a government in the modern sense of the word, that is an
organisation with coercive powers that claims a right to obedience of those who inhabit its realm. Governing and
taxing people are not functions of the political system of kritarchy. People
are left free to govern their own affairs, either individually or in
association with others. Indeed, freedom is the basic law of a kritarchy.
The term 'kritarchy', mentioned in several
well-known dictionaries, is compounded from the Greek words kriteis
(judge) or krito (to judge) and archeh (principle, cause). It was coined
in 1844 by the English author Robert
Southy. In its construction kritarchy resembles terms like monarchy, oligarchy
and hierarchy. According to its etymological roots, kritarchy is the political
system in which judges, or their judgements,
are the ruling principle. Similarly, a monarchy is a system in which one
person is the ruling principle or first cause of every legal action. In an
oligarchy, a few persons, acting in concert but without a fixed hierarchy among
them, are the source of all human actions. This olicharchy is what we have in a
modern democracy. The members of a democratic parliament have equal standing
and their joint decisions are supposed to bind all citizens.
Unlike monarchies and oligarchies,
kritarchies do not establish political rule. The judges of a kritarchy do not
legislate but find ways and means to settle conflicts and disputes in a manner
that is consistent with the natural order of human beings. That order is
understood to be objectively given (it consists of people who respect each
other's space) and not something that answers to whatever desires or ideals the
judges may have.
In contrast to other political
systems, the judges in a kritarchy have no subjects; They do not have
prosecutors who drag people before their benches. They cannot 'pick' their
subjects. Instead, they are 'picked' themselves by people desiring to have their
conflicts and disputes resolved by their judicial judgements.
The distinctive characteristic of a
kritarchy is therefore that it is a political system without political rule.
Its judges enjoy no privileges or special powers. They do not rule the people.
Their only concern is to protect the voluntary, natural order of human beings.
There are many historical and even
recent examples of kritarchy or near-kritarchy. Also there have been attempts
to use constitutions (such as the Magna Charta and the Bills of Rights in
England, the original constitutional amendments in North America and the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen) to introduce elements of
kritarchy as checks on the powers of oppressive governments. At the end of the second millennium before Christ, the Jews
lived in a system described in the biblical book of the Judges. Their 'judges'
were not judges in the technical sense of the modern legal systems but rather
respected men who provided leadership and counsel without having the power to
coerce or tax. Similar kritarchies existed among the Celtic and Germanic
peoples both before and during their confrontation with Roman imperialism.
Kritarchy was firmly established in medieval Iceland, Ireland and Frisia. In
the first half of the nineteenth century, the European settlers in the Mid-West
and Far-West in North America developed their own brand of kritarchy. In Africa
and Asia, tribal societies have continued to the present day to adhere to some
form of kritarchy if they have not been submerged in the governmental
structures imposed by the colonial powers or by the indigenous politicians who
took over from them.
While these historical examples may
suggest that kritarchy is a primitive political system, it should be borne in
mind that most kritarchies fell victim to military lords. Often, these lords
turned ostensibly temporary structures for the mobilisation of men and
resources in times of war into a permanent apparatus of political rule. They
organised this rule in such a way that their subjects are not given
opportunities for its abolition. They can only choose between various types of
political rule. Kritarchists have always been aware of the artificial and
destructive character of alternative political systems. The fact that a given
kritarchy lost out to a destructive system doesn't make kritarchy primitive. It
may well be that a given economy progresses despite a particular political
system rather than because of it. Economic progress may well coincide with
political regress.
Defects Of Democracy
Increasingly, people complain about
the results of democracy. The problem is that many think that democracy is in
itself a lawful system and that the
results will improve once its defects have been remedied. However, its main
defect is that it enables some people to govern all others regardsless of their
consent. There is no authority in a democracy which will listen to people whose
natural rights have been violated. Democratic governments monopolise the police
and the judiciary precisely because they want to prevent that natural rights
are invoked against democratic rule.
In a democracy, government officials
are thus invested with powers which the people who empowered them are not
allowed to exercise. In a natural world, that is not possible. Democracy tries
to 'justify' its monopoly by creating a fiction, by creating artificial people
called 'citizens' and artificial rights called 'human rights'. Democracy holds
that these 'rights' are of a conflicting nature. This, one can read in Article
29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And because of this
conflicting nature, democratic governments give themselves special powers to
curtail these 'rights'. It is thus that democratic governments bypass and deny
natural law: by introducing a different concept of law, one that makes
democracy seem lawful.
A Look At Somalia
The Somali political system does not
impose political rule upon the Somalis. Therefore, it looks like a kritarchy.
However, the Somali law system shows several deviations from the natural law.
Therefore, the present order of the Somalis is best qualified as a
near-kritarchy. Several questions arise: How it was brought about, what
troubles occurred, what problems arose, what solutions exist and what has been
achieved thus far.
1. The decision
Let's first look at the decision of
the Somalis to abolish the central government. By whom was it taken ? Not by
that government of course. Particularly not by a parliament or by way of a
referendum. Rather, it just happened, and it could happen because there was a
popular consensus. This consensus was formed in 1978, when the Somali central
government had waged, and lost, a war against its neighbour Ethiopia. Ever
since, the population was ready to return to its previous political system,
that of kritarchy. The opportunity for this return arose 13 years later, when
the population had chased away its dictator. By a mere stroke of luck, neither
of the two candidates to succeed him was willing to give in to the other. It was a deadlock similar to the one that
arose in the same year between Yeltshin and Gorbatchov in Moscow.
As a result of this limbo in
Somalia, the employees of the Somali government were no longer paid. These were
anyway seen as criminals by the
population and chased away, just as their dictator. After these employees had
gone back to their village of origin, the population dismantled all government
buildings, including the factories. This was partly done out of banditism,
partly in a conscious effort to prevent the politicians from reviving the
central government.
2. Troubles
Not all results of this
change-over to a new political system were positive. Like in the Soviet Union,
the change-over offered bandits an opportunity to commit crimes with impunity.
Also, former generals and colonels lined up with former politicians and soldiers
in an effort to establish monopoly governments on a town-by-town basis. They
imposed taxes and some of them even established quasi diplomatic relations with
foreign governments.
3. Problems
Meanwhile, the leaders of
Somalia's new political system were faced with a number of tough problems:
3.1. In the
urban areas, where most modern business is conducted, the customary laws had
been replaced by statutory laws. Consequently, the customary laws, which had
continued to exist in the rural environment, have not been developing in tune
with the requirements of the global economy. And the tribes, which prior to
independence were mainly vehicles to protect the customary law, had now also
become political pressure groups.
3.2. Many
Somalis had opted out of the customary law system during the heydays of the
Republic of Somalia and were now unwilling to submit themselves again to the
customary laws and institutions.
3.3. Foreign
reporters are filling the newspapers with horror stories in order to illustrate
their personal view that without a monopoly government nation is doomed. These
horror stories discourage foreigners from investing their time, money,
knowledge and skills into the Somali economy.
3.4. Somali
intellectuals are writing books and articles in which they present tribal
government as archaic and propose to re-establish monopoly government.
3.5. Somali
Muslim fundamentalists promote the idea of replacing the tribal system by a
theocracy. Their militants occasionally wage small wars against what they
conceive as obstacles on the road towards such rule.
3.6. The
United Nations invaded Somalia with a multi-national army of 30.000 to
re-establish a democracy. In addition, it launched a diplomatic campaign to
enlist all former politicians in its effort to re-establish a nation-wide
monopoly government. Also, it has trained thousands of Somalis for jobs in such
government and it is setting up discussion centers in the villages to direct
the local people towards democracy.
3.7 And last, there are the many locations where
the politicians had confiscated land from the tribes and given to their loyal
supporters. The tribes were now repossessing those lands.
4. Solutions
People in the Western world
typically think in terms of 'problems and solutions'. They ask what the Somalis
should now do. We will try to satisfy this curiosity while remaining conscious
of the fact that the largest political unit, i.e. the unit which could implement
any 'solutions' is the jilib, the extended family. One also has to be aware
that there will always be opponents to the natural order of human society. And
that these opponents often are not interested in rational arguments. Therefore,
our answer will concentrate on the possibilities for strengthening the
proponents of the present order rather than for weakening its opponents.
The best way to strengthen the
present system of law and order of the Somalis is to fully expose it the
hustle-bustle of daily life. Their law system has a built-in method for
adapting itself to changing circum-stances. The more people engage in trade, the
quicker the law will adapt itself to the requirements of a modern, free market
society. This adaptation of the law can be accelerated in two ways. One is to
publish books about the Somali law and to establish documentation centres for
jurisprudence. In this way, the laws of the odd sixty Somali tribes will
gradually merge into one single body of rules for all Somalis. The other way is
to establish free ports among the Somalis that will particularly welcome
foreign investors. That will increase the interaction between local and foreign
business people and bring about a cross-fertilisation of different ethics,
business methods and laws. Two tribes have already set the first step towards
creating such free ports, the Majerteen in Bosaaso and the Samaron in Awdal.
5. Positive Results
Almost ten years have passed since
the Somalis changed their political system. Peace has been established in most
of the country and prosperity is slowly but surely increasing. This peace has
been achieved by upholding the Somali customary law. Therefore, it is of
interest to analyse this law in some detail.
The five main characteristics of the
Somali law are:
* No punishment for crimes, only
restitution or compensation.
* No public prosecutors, no
victimless crimes.
* Fines are limited and must be paid
to the victim or to his family.
* Every person is insured for his
liabilities under the law.
* Judges are appointed by the
litigants, not by 'society'.
The following comments should be
given on each of these features.
5.1 Restitution And Compensation Instead Of Punishment.
The Somalis know that
punishment does not work. They are aware that democracies imposing fines and
imprisonment on their criminals. But that does not negate the original violence
perperated against victim. It simply contributes to the total violence
committed in the world. Secondly, such punishments rarely deters people from
committing crimes. If it would, we would have a crime-free world today.
Thirdly, it is generally accepted that prisons are a place were people learn
how to commit crimes. And the huge cost of maintaining prisons is borne by the
tax payers, not by the criminals themselves. Therefore, it makes sense that the
Somali law requires little more from criminals than that they restitute the
rights they violated. If restitution is impossible, the criminals must offer
compensation.
5.2 Defining Crime.
In a democracy, almost any conduct
can be declared a crime. Thus, it can be a crime to smoke something more
flavoursome than Marlboro, to read
something more spicy than Playboy, to
criticise the government, to use a monetary unit that it has not approved, to
evade the military draft, etc. etc. Democracies 'justify' this plethora of
prohibitions by calling them 'crimes against society' even though there are no
real victims. On the other hand, there are democracies which close their eyes
when women are raped or beaten, or when policemen the police detains and
tortures innocents. All these
prohibitions and immunities are authorised by a legislature. Therefore, it
makes sense that the Somalis have no use for legislators and public prosecutors.
Under Somali law, only the victim of violence, or his family, can start a
criminal procedure. Indeed, the Somalis hold that there is no crime when
nobody's natural rights have been violated.
5.3 Fines To The Victim.
In a democracy, the government can
impose almost any type and level of fines, and stipulate that these are due to
the government. Thus, it generates considerable revenue for itself. This in
turn constitutes an incentive to promulgate ever more crimes and to increase
the fines as much as possible. Therefore, it makes sense that the Somali law
stipulates that fines -imposed for intentional violation of someone's rights -
shall be limited to the value of that which has been destroyed and that they
must be paid to the victim, rather than to the court of law or the tribe as a
whole.
5.4 Insurance.
In a democracy, there is
no obligation to insure oneself. Thus, there is a large number of people that
have nothing to loose by committing a crime, except the possibility that they
will have to spend some time in a prison.
This situation surely constitutes an
incentive to commit crimes. Therefore, it makes sense that the Somalis require
that every person must be insured and that he permanently retains a
representative, i.e. someone who will act on his behalf if he has committed a
crime or has become a victim of one.
5.5 Judges.
In a democracy, the
courts of justice are established by the government and the judges are in the
pay of the government. This is done to assure that those courts will not accept
any complaint or defence that is based on natural rights. As a result, the
government can promulgate almost any rule that infringes upon these rights.
Therefore, it makes sense that the Somali law stipulates that the courts of law
must apply only those rules which the population has voluntarily accepted as a
custom. In addition, the Somali law recognises the right of every person to
ignore a court of law that does not have his personal representative on the
bench. This assures that only those judges will be asked to sit on a bench who
respect the law.
***
As mentioned above, this system of
law has produced peace among the Somalis and set the stage for a return to
prosperity. But that is not all. It has done so at almost no cost to the nation
as a whole, and without taxation. The judges and policemen of the Somalis do
their job on a part-time basis, and without remuneration. It is considered to
be a great honour to be a judge. Indeed, in a kritarchy, the best people tend
to get to the top of 'the system', whereas in a democracy...
Another virtue of the Somali system is, that it is
fairly immune against political manipulation. Hence, no laws exist that serve
primarily the interest of a particular political pressure group. Also, the
Somali law tends to be in tune with the values held by the entire population
because it has a built-in system for
adapting itself to those values.
There are several features of the
Somali law which are not in tune with natural law. We will not specify these
features, however. Our focus is on how the Somalis managed to bring about - in
a relatively short time - a complete change their system of governance. The
answer is that their new system is in fact their old system. Indeed, in the
rural areas, which is probably 90 percent of the country, the Somali customary
law has always continued to command respect and the customary courts of law
have never ceased to be operational there. In this respect, the situation in
Somalia resembles that of North America in 1776. The American Revolution never
was a revolution. Rather, it was an effort of the colonists to preserve the
freedom they had enjoyed during the preceeding 150 years. Likewise, the main
concern of the Somalis since the demise of the dictatorship was not to
innovate, but to preserve their indigenous system of governance.
The Somali experience shows us that
there exists a political system that
is better than democracy. It is called kritarchy, appears to be viable
and promises to have universal application. The Somalis have shown how to effectuate
the changeover to this new system despite the massive efforts of the UN to re-establish democracy in
Somalia.
The main lesson to be learned is
probably that democracies will never give in to pressures to abandon that
system. Rather, they will resist until their system collapses. It is common
knowledge that when a dictator emerges in a democracy and doesn't try to
conquer other countries, the democracies of the world will be patient. They
will simply wait for the day that the citizens of that country have mustered
enough powers to revert to democracy. But if a nation wishes to try out
kritarchy, it looks as if no cost is too high to re-establish democracy.
Thus, the people who wish to
changeover to kritarchy in their country should prepare themselves for the day
that democracy will have run out of both popular support and money. At that
moment, politics will develop in the direction of either dictatorship or
kritarchy. It is that moment that the Somali experience can offer us some
guidance. As we have seen, the Somalis were able to change to kritarchy because
of three things. They had a consensus throughout their country to abolish the
system of central government. Secondly, the operators of kritarchy were on the
spot and ready to put their system into practise. And the democratic
governments of the world were badly organised for a joint effort to overrun
Somalia.
For kritarchy to prevail, it is
indeed necessary that its 'operatives' assume their responsibilities and form
the country's new supra-structure. Who are these operatives ? Not only the private judges and policemen,
but also, and even primarily, the insurance companies. In a kritarchy,
everybody is insured for his liabilities under
the law. Those who are not insured will find it almost impossible to do
business or find employment; they will be treated as outlaws. In a kritarchy, a
violation of the law may entail higher insurance premiums for the perpetrator. That constitutes a
strong incentive for respecting the natural rights of other people. The
insurance companies themselves also have an important stake preventing crimes
and torts from being committed. The less crimes and torts, the less they will
have to pay to their customers.
It is heartening to see that in
Europe and the USA there are an increasing number of private companies that
offer the judicial and police services.
In addition, the insurance companies
are increasingly covering comprehensive liabilities under the law. Given the
growing dissatisfaction with democracy, it is indeed no exaggeration to say
that the trend towards kritarchy has already started. The Somali experience
shows how important it is that these operatives are ready. If there had not
been the traditional laws and institutions ready to take over from the state,
the Somali nation might have fallen into chaos. And the UN would surely have
succeeded in its plans to re-establish a democracy among the Somalis.
In addition to judges, policemen and
insurance companies, a viable kritarchy depends on entrepreneurs skilled in
supplying infrastructure such as roads,
transport, communication, education, etc. These entrepreneurs, one can already
find them in droves with the companies and universities that already now supply
these services on a free market basis. The faster these companies and
universities will grow and spread, the easier the changeover to kritarchy will
be. And last, there is the question of a consensus among the population in
favour of kritarchy. To some
extent, such a consensus will depend on the presence of articulate opinion
makers. But the Somali experience shows that it will be particularly helpful
that the democratic government makes one or two big mistakes. For many people
will choose kritarchy not so much for its many virtues, but rather because they
think it will have less vices than the current political systems. Through
bitter experience, they know all about the endless seesaw between democracy and
dictatorship.
Amsterdam,
April 24, 2000
APPENDIX
Attached
are the contents of a book I am writing.
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Methodology And Terminology
3. The Somali Mind Set
4. The Somali System Of Law
5. The Basic Rules Of Conduct
6. Judges And The Police
7. Judicial Procedures
8. Politics
9. Economics
10. Foreign Systems
11. Strengths And Weaknesses
12. Opportunities And Threats
13. Conclusion
Appendix
I: Some Trouble Cases
Appendix
II: Natural Law
Appendix
III: Freeport-Law
Appendix
IV: Kritarchy
Appendix
V: Bibliography