By Wilo Abdulle Osman
There are two political ideologies that come to my mind and can be connected to the concepts of Gobonimo and Gunnimo. Gobonimo is associated with values such as autonomy, dignity, honor, self-respect, and freedom. This ideology aligns with libertarianism, which emphasizes individual freedom and self-governance, as well as anarchism, which advocates for a society free from oppressive authority. In contrast, Gunnimo is characterized by subjugation and servitude, even in the presence of wealth. This ideology corresponds with authoritarianism, which prioritizes state control and obedience, and totalitarianism, which seeks to control all aspects of citizens’ lives while suppressing individual freedom. While these connections are not absolute, they illustrate how Gobonimo and Gunnimo relate to broader political ideologies.
When analyzing the prevailing political systems in Somalia, the clan system appears in two different ways with connotations with raw capitalism ideology. Some groups believe that not all people are equal and that they do not have the same value. They divide people into two groups: Gun and Gob ideologies. Their value foundations rest on the mindset of “Gobonimo clan-based leadership.” They assert that clans with honor and conscience mindset of gobonimo are Gob and have the right to lead the people and the country, as they possess honor and “Gobonimo leadership.” They believe that leadership should be based on honor, humanity, justice and morality.
This article endeavors to capture the essence of the discussions surrounding the Gun and Gob ideologies, as well as the Gunnimo and Gobonimo leadership models, with true stories that illustrate their impact. It explores their intricate relationship with the underlying causes of state conflict in Somalia, focusing on key elements such as clan dynamics, power struggles, and clan identity. Through this examination, the article aims to provide a deeper understanding of the complexities that contribute to ongoing conflicts within the region.
Gobonimo and Gunnimo: Leadership Styles and Social Hierarchies
The concepts of “Gobonimo” (freedom, honor, and self-determination) and “Gunnimo” (servitude, subjugation) are central to present Somali leadership styles. Leaders who embody “Gobonimo” prioritize the welfare of their people and collective goals, while “Gunnimo” leadership is characterized by authoritarianism and self-interest. These distinctions are not just theoretical but are deeply embedded in the clan system and have been reinforced by both colonial and post-colonial governance.
This power dynamic reinforces inequality and can lead to conflicts, as those deemed to lack honor and dignity are often marginalized and excluded from political, economic and social processes. It creates a situation where power and influence are concentrated in certain clans/groups, which can lead to social tensions and clan-based wars from those who feel excluded[1].
The Gobonimo group believes that there are other clans that lack honor, who are Gun and therefore should not lead the country or the people. They argue that these clans, which they consider to lack honor and morality, seize power and do not allow other people to have autonomy over their lives and participatory rights, but they are allowed to live and accept the laws. This perspective creates a hierarchy where certain clans are regarded as more valuable and legitimate leaders, while others are seen as inferior and without the right to participate in leadership.
Clan Systems: Historical Roots and Political Structures
The Somali clan system is a deeply rooted social structure that has significantly influenced the political landscape of Somalia. Clans in Somalia are not merely social groups but are integral to the identity, social organization, and political dynamics of the country. The clan system is based on patrilineal lineages, with major clans such as Darod, Hawiye, Dir, Isaaq, and Rahanweyn (Digil & Mirifle) playing pivotal roles in Somali society[2].
Historically, the clan system provided a framework for social organization, security, and identity, essential for managing resources and conflict resolution through traditional elders and customary law[3]. During the colonial period, European powers manipulated clan divisions to entrench their control, laying the groundwork for future political fragmentation[4]. After independence, in 1960s, the detachment of ruling elites from clan-based structures contributed to the collapse of the state in 1991, leading to civil war and the weaponization of clan identities.
The 4.5 power-sharing formula, introduced in 2000, allocated political representation based on clan affiliations, aiming for stability but often reinforcing colonial divisions and hindering national unity.
Wilo Abdulle Osman
Email: Wilo.abdulle@gmail.com
Nairobi, Kenya
Leave a Reply