By Ismail Warsame
None of the two are democratic and remotely fair. Both are arbitrary and extremely unjust. In elders’ selection the abuse could be widespread within the society and harmful to the cherished traditional values of fair arbitration by clan elders. In the other, it could be one man’s abuse of power. At least that goes into his political and leadership CV, if he would be held accountable at appropriate timeframe. In the case of elders, there is no mechanism for removal or impeachment. The decisions of the elders in the selection process that contradict their traditional roles could have far reaching societal damages.
If you are asking me the question which option is better than the other?, I recall a question of a graduate student asking his his professor “what is the difference between totalitarian and authoritarian regimes”? The professor responded, “you are asking me how to choose bad from worst”?
However, I would say this: None of the above selections is desirable. I hate to say that critics of what is happening in this indirection election or selection aren’t concerned with the core issue of this political crisis: Reluctance of all to recognize the urgent need for general elections on the basis of 1P1V. If you don’t want to fight for your civic rights through national suffrage, then your criticism against implementing the political understanding reached at National Consultative Summit in September 17, 2020 is disingenuous.
Until Somalis are ready to go to the national polling stations and press their political establishment to conduct general elections in a free and fair fashion, election injustice will continue to prevail. When you rely only on the sense of justice and goodwill of a politician, then you don’t understand how politics works. Blame only yourself, not the leader of the day.