 |
The recent interview between Somaliland politician Abdulqaadir Jirde and Abdijaliil—a known advocate for the Somalia-Weyn narrative—was more than just a political exchange. It offered a revealing glimpse into a persistent ideological current: a nostalgic vision of Somali unity rooted in the legacy of the Kacaan regime. Spanning over an hour, the conversation was framed as an open dialogue, yet in substance, it unfolded as a revisionist account of a political experiment long regarded as untenable.
Rather than offering critical self-reflection, Jirde’s remarks demonstrated the enduring influence of a narrative forged during a time of centralized authoritarianism and ideological conformity. His interview served less as a platform for political clarity and more as a reaffirmation of a discredited ideal.
Early Indoctrination and Unquestioned Loyalties
Jirde openly reflects on being raised within the ideological framework of the Kacaan regime. In a telling metaphor, he likens his exposure to the Somalia-Weyn ideal to receiving it “like breast milk”—a phrase that underscores how deeply embedded and emotionally internalized the narrative became during his formative years.
The proverb, ”العلم في الصغر كالنقش على الحجر“ (“Knowledge acquired in youth is like engraving on stone”), captures the essence of his political formation—not as the result of inquiry, but of early and lasting imprint. The danger, however, lies in mistaking ideological familiarity for historical truth. Jirde’s commentary reveals a political worldview shaped not by critical evaluation of the past but by inherited loyalty to a vision that no longer holds empirical or moral coherence.
The Ogaden War: Between National Myth and Historical Record
A striking moment in the interview arises when Jirde defends Siyad Barre’s 1977 invasion of Ethiopia. He presents the conflict as a principled decision to reject a federation proposed in Yemen and instead defend Somali territorial integrity. This narrative, however, selectively omits critical context and evidence.
Major General Mohamed Nur Galaal, a senior commander during the conflict, has provided a markedly different account. In his detailed interviews on Xasuus Reeb (HCTV, Vol. 2, 3 & 4), Galaal describes how the war was engineered under Soviet influence following the USSR’s expulsion from Egypt. He further alleges that Barre had acted as an informant for Ethiopian intelligence prior to taking power.
Of particular concern is Galaal’s claim that Isaaq soldiers were disproportionately deployed and used as de facto human shields. Their units—and in some cases, even their personal vehicles—were sent to the front lines, suffering disproportionately high casualties. These accounts challenge the idea of a unified national struggle and instead point to a war shaped by ethnic stratification and Cold War geopolitics. Jirde’s failure to address this context—despite his awareness of such testimony—reflects a selective historical memory that serves political nostalgia more than factual accuracy.
Structural Imbalances and Symbolic Inclusion
Jirde briefly concedes that during the Somali Republic era, power and resources were heavily centralized in Mogadishu. Northerners, particularly those from present-day Somaliland, were often placed in visible but secondary roles—what could be termed symbolic inclusion rather than substantive representation.
Yet even this acknowledgment is presented without critical interrogation. Jirde offers no meaningful reflection on how such structural imbalances contributed to the collapse of the union or the sense of alienation felt in Somaliland. Instead, he maintains a romantic attachment to the idea of unity, even as he admits the union functioned on unequal terms. This contradiction speaks to the depth of ideological conditioning and the reluctance among some former elites to fully reckon with the past.
Silencing Critical Inquiry: A Fragile Narrative
At one point in the interview, Jirde begins to question whether Somali unity ever truly existed in any functional or inclusive form. Before he can expand on this thought, the interviewer abruptly changes the subject. Whether intentional or not, this editorial redirection reflects an underlying fragility: the Somalia-Weyn narrative cannot withstand sustained scrutiny.
The brief historical clarity offered—where Jirde acknowledges Somaliland’s distinct colonial experience and independent statehood in 1960—is quickly overshadowed by a return to the unexamined ideal of unity. This evasiveness not only undermines the credibility of the interview but also illustrates the lengths to which some narratives rely on omission and selective framing to preserve ideological coherence.
Political Rhetoric and the Youth: A Crisis of Critical Engagement
Perhaps the most concerning dimension of Jirde’s public role is the influence he continues to exert on Somaliland’s youth. During the most recent election cycle, he appeared on MM Somali TV and claimed that Somaliland is inherently tribal, asserting that no single clan could “rule” over others. On its surface, this might appear to promote inclusivity. However, in context, it read more as a warning: if political outcomes do not align with specific interests, their legitimacy will be challenged.
This form of rhetoric does not foster democratic engagement—it encourages political brinkmanship. It reinforces a worldview in which clan loyalty trumps civic responsibility and in which historical accountability is subordinated to factional loyalty.
That such views continue to resonate among segments of the youth reflects a larger failure in political education. It suggests a need for alternative intellectual leadership—voices that prioritize evidence-based reasoning, democratic values, and historical integrity over recycled ideologies and partisan mythmaking.
The Cost of Unexamined Nostalgia
Abdulqaadir Jirde’s continued advocacy for Somalia-Weyn is not merely a personal conviction; it is symptomatic of a broader intellectual inertia among political elites who have not come to terms with the structural and historical failures of the past. To equate the unrealized vision of Somalia-Weyn—and to assert its inevitable resurgence—with historically grounded political formations such as the Ottoman Empire is not only analytically unsound, but also historically indefensible.
The repeated invocation of Somalia-Weyn as an enduring ideal does more than ignore reality—it actively undermines Somaliland’s sovereign identity, its political development, and its post-conflict reconciliation efforts. Nostalgia, in this context, becomes not just unproductive but obstructive.
The lesson here extends beyond Jirde as an individual. It speaks to the importance of cultivating a political culture that values historical truth, critical inquiry, and democratic accountability. Somaliland’s youth—and indeed its future—deserve leadership grounded in reality, not in the sentimental retelling of failed projects.
Author’s Note: This article is intended to encourage informed and respectful dialogue about the legacy of political ideologies in the Somali context. It does not seek to vilify individuals but to promote a critical re-engagement with historical narratives as Somaliland continues its path toward sustainable sovereignty and democratic maturity.
About the Author
Nasir Xuseen is a Somaliland activist and analyst with a background in accounting, finance, and international relations. A member of the UK Somaliland Alliance, he focuses on sovereignty, post-conflict governance, and political analysis of the Horn of Africa.
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints of the Somaliland Chronicle, and its staff.
Notice: This article by Somaliland Chronicle is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Under this license, all reprints and non-commercial distribution of this work is permitted.