- [SW Country] (Michael
van Notten )
FROM NATION-STATE TO STATELESS NATION: THE SOMALI EXPERIENCE.:Posted on 16
FROM NATION-STATE TO STATELESS NATION: THE SOMALI EXPERIENCE.
Michael van Notten
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
3.4. Somali intellectuals are writing books and articles in which they
present tribal government as archaic and propose to re-establish
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
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
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.
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 ********* in Bosaaso and the Samaron in Awdal.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
To Be Learned
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
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
It is heartening to see that in Europe and the USA there are an
increasing number of private companies that offer the judicial and
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.
BE NICE TO PEOPLE - ALL PEOPLE - EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE.
EVERYBODY IS IMPORTANT.