I have lived in the U.K and ever since the Labor party came into power in 1997, the case of reforming and modernizing the House of Lords has become a major political issue. Unlike the previous decades, where the issue was confined to the corridors of Westminster, today think tanks, academic institutions and even the public are involved in this debate. My position on this debate is on the reform side, not because as some, I get pleasure in seeing the ending of some of the last privileges of the old English aristocracy, but because I have found the arguments of the reformers more convincing and compelling. Asked where I stand on the case of the Somaliland Guurti, you would think I am firmly on the democratic camp, but in fact I am opposed to the current calls to democratize this chamber.

In Somaliland’s republican system of government, the Guurti stands out as the only institution that is currently unelected and critics of the Guurti are quick to point out this flaw, without analyzing the challenges of democratization and the Guurti’s contribution to Somaliland’s stability. In Somaliland’s drive to democratize itself, there is a misguided believe that undemocratic institutions are only impediment to stability and progress.

In Somaliland, the Guurti has a unique and a necessary role to play: namely the management of the democratization process in Somaliland. Contrary to the idea that democratization brings about stability and peace, research carried out by Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder of Columbia University found strong statistical evidence that democratizing states are less stable compared to mature democracies and stable autocracies and are more likely to be involved in political upheavals. This phenomenon is best explained in democratizing states by the lack of social capital: the degree to which a community or society collaborates and cooperates to achieve mutual benefits.

Now why is democratization good for the House of Lords, but not good for the Somaliland Guurti? This is because in an advanced democracy like the U.K, it is illogical to defend an unelected chamber, particularly when that chamber makes no difference to the process of democracy and when its role can be performed by democratically elected representatives. However, this is not the case in Somaliland. Somaliland’s institutions are not only relatively new, but they are also weak. Furthermore there is no strong history of democracy, democratic political culture or social capital. Open democratic competition under these circumstances will only produce representatives who lack political acumen and thus can not deal with the challenges of democratization in a responsible manner.

The Guurti in this situation has a unique role to play. It not only currently has prerogatives in certain areas, but it can also become a conciliatory and a mediatory body by convention on issues outside its sphere of responsibility. Whilst the supreme or constitutional court is the body charged with the settlement of political disputes, the weakness of the judiciary means that it is neither respected nor trusted by politicians to settle political disputes. This inability to settle political disputes will mean that without a Guurti that is above politics, settlement will be based on might.

Now what role will a democratized Guurti play in a serious political standoff? Well certainly not a mediatory or conciliatory role. This is because the Guurti members as elected representatives will not be above politics and will therefore side with their party.

On the contentious issue of tenure and appointment, I do not believe that neither a clanized nor a democratically elected body is capable of managing the challenges of democratization in Somaliland. Instead, the Guurti members should be appointed by a commission of eminent persons for a fixed single term of eight years.

In conclusion, I do not believe the Guurti should be democratized, because given Somaliland’s lack of social capital and the tendency of the political system to produce a “gridlock government” and political standoffs, it is necessary to keep the Guurti, as a body above politics, to maintain peace and stability. It is not a perfect body, but it is the only institution that has a proven track record of reconciliation and peace-building.

By Said <said23@gmail.com>