The Role of Culture in Local Peacebuilding

The Case of Somaliland & Puntland

Soon after the collapse of the Somali central government in 1991, Somalia descended into a prolonged period of statelessness and conflict. But the breakout of the direct violence in Somalia in the late 1980s was not an accident, but the final stage of longstanding structural violence planted by the colonial state and aggravated by the successor neo-colonial state in Somalia.


Since the beginning of independence, the failure of the post-colonial “Weberian State” in Somalia was not a question of if, but when. This is because the major cause of the state failure in Somalia from the perspective of the Somali people is that the “Weberian state” which was imposed on the Somalis by the Europeans was both alien and inherently violent to the traditional Somaliland society. The reason is that the centralization of political power and the monopolization of authority and resources by a particular group of people styled as “government” under an artificial territory, which defines the “Weberian State”, was incompatible with the pastoralist Somali society.


A Somaliland poet by the name of Mohamed Ismail Diiriye aka Qaasim expressed his deep discontent with the “Neo-colonial State” by uttering the following scathing poem in 1964, just four years after the independence;

“Nothing changed with the white man I rejected, and with those who replaced him.

In appearance Somalis, black in color, they seem

But they bring misery to the heart, being the progeny of Carroll”.


Therefore, the fact that the first two armed rebel groups (SSDF & SNM) appeared in the north and northeast respectively was not coincidental. Also, the rise of the hybrid autonomous states in these areas soon after the fall of the “Weberian State” in 1991, didn’t happen by chance. Rather, it was an inevitability. After the fall of the central government, the northern people got a chance for the first time since the colonial and the neo-colonial times, to establish a form of governance for them, by them, and for them, instead of the imported incompatible forms of governance.


The type of traditional governance of the Somaliland people is radically different from the western-style governance. I. M Lewis, in his 1961 book “A Pastoral Democracy: a study of pastoralism and politics among the northern Somali of the Horn of Africa”, described the pre-colonial northern Somali society in the following way;

“The Somali have no indigenous centralized government. And this lack of formal government and of instituted authority is strongly reflected in their extreme independence and individualism. Few writers have failed to notice the formidable pride of the Somali nomad, his extraordinary sense of superiority as an individual, and his firm conviction that he is sole master of his actions and subject to no authority except that of God. …Few societies can so conspicuously lack those judicial, administrative, and political procedures which lie at the heart of the western conception of government. The traditional northern Somali political system has no chiefs to run it and no formal judiciary to control it. Men are divided amongst political units without any administrative hierarchy of officials and with no instituted positions of leadership to direct their affairs. Yet, although they thus lack to a remarkable degree all the machinery of centralized government, they are not without government or political institutions.” (p.1)

As I. M Lewis explained in detail, the traditional governance of the pre-colonial Somaliland society is characterized by;

  1. Egalitarianism,

  2. Mechanical solidarity (Kinship),

  3. Contractual customary law

  4. And religion.


These traditional institutions are deeply rooted in the social structure of Somaliland and are fundamental to their structural peace. The disturbance of one of these traditional institutions will inevitably destabilize the society and will lead to conflict and violence. For example, Lewis in his book “A Pastoral Democracy”, argued;

“In Somali lineage politics the assumption that might is right has overwhelming authority and personal rights, rights in livestock, and rights of access to grazing and water, even if they are not always obtained by force, can only be defended against usurpation by force of arms. Political status is thus maintained by feud and war, and self-help—the resort of groups to the test of superior military power— is the ultimate arbiter in political relations. With this political philosophy it is not surprising that fighting in northern Somaliland is a political institution of every-day life.” (Lewis, 1962, P.3)

But this is only true when the contractual customary law (heer) is absent, or when the mechanical solidarity (Kinship) is shifted below the level at which the conflict is active, or when the egalitarianism is destabilized by the imposition of the “Modern State”, leading to inequality and deprivation. Lewis describes the nature of the traditional governance of the Somaliland in the following way;

“The key to the understanding of the political constitution of Somali society lies in kinship. The second basic principle and one that is complementary to kinship is a form of social contract. All lineages which act corporately do so first because of their agnatic basis, and secondly through an explicit treaty defining the terms of their collective unity. In a formal sense, contract operates structurally as at once a unifying and dividing principle within the various spheres of extended agnation. Genealogies generally represent the widest range of possible political unity by dividing and uniting groups of kinsmen according to the ancestors from whom they stem. Contract galvanizes the diffuse and manifold bonds of kinship at any point and through any ancestor, giving rise to opposed political units.

I do not claim that Somali political contract (heer) corresponds in all respects to any one of the many doctrines of the Social Contract of the political philosophers. But I do hold that it includes essentially contractual elements having closest affinities with those political theories which saw the origins of political union in an egalitarian social contract. From what has been said it will be clear that the northern pastoral Somali belong to that class of egalitarian societies, with little social stratification and no centralized government.” (Lewis, 1962, P.3)

Between 27th April and May 18th, 1991, the Grand Conference of the Northern Clans took place in Burao city. Traditional elders who were representatives of the northern clans gathered to reach a contractual agreement and establish a system of governance that would replace the previous system. The result was a peace treaty reached through the (heer) process which is the process of creating a contractual customary law in the traditional way. The treaty consisted of six articles;

  1. The northern country is autonomous from the south of Somalia

  2. Islamic law shall be adopted

  3. Security shall be restored in the north

  4. A government shall be created as soon as possible in the north

  5. All constituent clans in the north shall be equitably represented in the new government

  6. A special committee shall be formed to handle the security of the Sanaag region


This is the treaty by which the state of Somaliland was formed. The peacebuilding process by which the local people followed in Somaliland perfectly corresponds to the traditional process of forming heer or customary law through social contract.


If you closely inspect the underlying values embedded in the six articles of the treaty by the northern clans (Somaliland), you can see how the first and fifth articles affirm the traditional value of egalitarianism as the declaration of independence from the south is a rejection to the previous domination of the northerners by the southerners, while the fifth article affirms the value of equality. The second article affirms the traditional value of respecting the religious authority as an arbiter during conflicts. The third, fourth, and sixth articles affirm the value of customary law.


A similar process took place in northeastern Somalia and led to the creation of the semi-autonomous state of Puntland. In both Somaliland and Puntland, the traditional form of governance which is a mixture of heer or customary law, religion, kinship, and egalitarianism are institutionalized into the skeleton of the modern state, forming a “hybrid” form of governance. This system although yet underdeveloped is quite successful and has led to relative peace in these areas.

How to Preserve and Promote Peace in Somaliland and Puntland?

The traditional institutions of kinship, customary law, egalitarianism, and Islamic values should be strengthened. For example, local peacebuilders can be empowered to research, raise awareness, mediate and mobilize local communities to promote kinship (mechanical solidarity) between opposing clans through poetry, music, and social media.


The local peacebuilders can be empowered to mobilize local communities to agree on peaceful conflict resolution methods through the use of heer or customary law.


The Institution of Guurti in Somaliland and Puntland should be decentralized and every village should have a local guurti council to resolve local communal conflicts peacefully.

The institution of Guurti in Somaliland shouldn’t be modernized and liberalized as some politicians and intellectuals are arguing. They shouldn’t be elected through the multi-party electoral system, but each clan should be allowed to conduct a grand conference every 5 years, candidates from the clan should compete for the chair of representing the clan community and the clan members should elect the best candidate based on their merit.


Clan families should be represented equally in the national Guurti council. Equality regardless of whether one community is more or less than the other community in terms of population, territory, or whatever.


Somaliland and Puntland should be advised and assisted to change their constitutions from the centralized presidential system to a decentralized parliamentary system. This is because in the parliamentary system, it's easier to resolve political conflicts between clans through coalitions and the power-sharing is more effective.


The authority and the centralization of the government should be reduced to a minimum and the decentralization and the authority within the clans should be maximized.