Suchergebnisse

Can 'traditional' leaders and institutions help to build more legitimate, accountable and effective governments in polities or 'states' under (re)construction? This book investigates the fascinating case of "Somaliland", the 20-year old non-recognized state which emerged from Somalia's conflict and state collapse.

"Can informal 'traditional' institutions help to build more legitimate, accountable and efficient states and governance? This article aims to contribute to that emerging discussion by unraveling the story of 'Somaliland', a self-declared independent republic which seceded from civil war-ridden Somalia in 1991. The Somaliland secession seems to have been instigated by 'traditional' clan leaders. The clan leaders were also responsible for several instances of political reconciliation between groups competing for power and resources in the region. The political weight of these clan leaders in the new polity had important repercussions for its institutional make-up. Somaliland started out as a clan-based politico-institutional arrangement, with an important role for 'traditional' clan leaders, albeit in a 'modern' framework: a 'state'. The article examines the dynamic between these 'modern' and 'traditional' components and the evolution it underwent from Somaliland's declaration of independence in 1991 to 2007. It will discuss ways and means in which 'modern' and 'traditional' institutions and personnel co-exist, overlap and become reinvented in the context of political competition in the newly founded 'state'." (author's abstract)

ABSTRACTThis article investigates the negotiation of statehood in Somaliland, a non‐recognized de facto state which emerged from Somalia's conflict and state collapse. The negotiation process centres on the continuing transformation of a hybrid political order, involving 'formal' as well as 'informal' spheres, both in existing institutions (as 'rules of the game') and in the bodies or agents enforcing these rules. The negotiation processes considered take place at the national and local level respectively, as well as between the two. These negotiations are heterogeneous, non‐linear and ongoing. The article demonstrates how the polity's tolerance for heterogeneous negotiations and different forms of statehood allowed local political actors to establish peace in their own local settings first. Although it did not produce uniform statehood, it provided the basis for communities to explore the scope for common statehood. On the national level, hybrid elements initially allowed for a healthy adaptation of statehood to local needs, and for legitimate, productive instruments of negotiation. This responsiveness was not maintained, and current hybrid elements threaten to undermine the polity's stability.