Research Purpose

2.3.1 Governance and Failed States: Problems with Paradigms

The interest that gave rise to this thesis is a fascination on the part of the author as to how groups of people go about the process of organising themselves to work together to make deci- sions on the governance of their collective resources. This pursuit could take a number of forms and could be undertaken at any of several levels, and indeed different options were considered for research. In fact, the framework discussed above can usefully be employed in explaining this question and a response to it: at the broadest level, decisions on the governance of resources occur at every level at which collective choices are made. In this sense, governance can be de- fined as “... setting goals and making decisions for an entire collectivity, including individuals or groups who have not explicitly agreed to them” (Jachtenfuchs and Kohler-Koch, 2004: 100). However, after much consideration, the interest lay primarily at the meta-constitutional and con- stitutional levels, and therefore in relation to larger societies. Again, there are undoubtedly dif- ferent types of ‘societies’, but in the contemporary context, an obvious approach is to consider society in the context of the nation-state. It is within this notion of the physically bounded polity that the meta-constitutional and constitutional rules that guide contemporary societies are over- whelmingly decided. To that extent, this research project is interested in a form of governance that is more specific than that defined above; one which comes closer to the World Bank preoc- cupation with governance as "... the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country's economic and social resources for development" (World Bank, 1991: 1). Adrian Leftwich’s definition is even more apposite:

Governance denotes ... the structures of political and, crucially, economic relationships and rules by which the productive and distributive life of a society is governed. In short, it refers to a system of political and socioeconomic relations or, more loosely, a regime. (Leftwich, 1993: 611, italics in original)

While Leftwich’s focus on governance as a system or ‘regime’ usefully suggests an area for analysis, it nevertheless still provides insufficient focus for a research project. The review of the- oretical literature above tackles the subject to a large degree: there is much written about socio- political governance where a state has been established, but much less about the process of the ‘emergence’ of that state in the first place. Much of the contemporary literature that does deal with the issue views it through the lens of the reconstruction of failed states, or else em- ploys historical hindsight to promote the merits of one system or to bemoan the frailties of an- other. However, a key point raised in the introduction above is that the failed state perspective tends to ‘problemetise’ a process that must, logically, have occurred in every instance in which a state has become established. In the words of Shahar Hameiri, “... the label ‘failed state’ is it- self problematic because of its propensity to stifle efforts to contextualise and better understand what are in essence very complex social phenomena” (2007: 123). The hindsight of history, on the other hand, is obviously rooted in examination of what has come before, and struggles to shed light on those cases where the social contract is still being renegotiated for implementation

in a nation-state context. Sadly, this tends to diminish the possibility of learning from real pro- cesses of indigenous state-building, with the emphasis instead being placed on the application of some predefined and ‘time-tested’ model or approach to state-building.

2.3.2 Deduction, Induction and Abduction

Given the concern with examining the process of emergence of a system of nation-state gov- ernance, with the dual aim of applying a synthesis of existing theories, as well as learning ways in which that theory might be adjusted in the light of reality, it was clearly necessary to select a theoretical framework that was suitable, both in its preoccupation with the emergence of a sys- tem or regime, and in its flexibility in accommodating adjustments reflective of experience. Equally, this requires selection of a case study that displays as many as possible of the features of an emergent system of state.

This two-way relationship between theory and case study analysis employs elements of both in- ductive and deductive reasoning in a form that is similar to that described by Charles Sanders Peirce as ‘abductive’ or ‘retroductive’. For Peirce, deduction involves “constructing an image or diagram in accordance with a [wholly abstracted] general precept” (Peirce, 1958: 167), while in- duction is “the operation that induces an assent ... to a proposition already put forward” (Peirce, 1934: 414). Induction, reliant as it is on ‘propositions already put forward’ is incapable of gener- ating new theory or significant theoretical modification; while deduction can do no more than employ ‘idealised’ theory to suggest “a promiscuous variety of consequences” that might arise from the performance of given acts (Peirce, 1958: 168). Abduction, or “reasoning from con- sequent to antecedent” (Peirce, 1935: 321) is capable of producing new ideas, “but there is no force to the reasoning” (Peirce, 1958: 167). In order to bring the required ‘force to reasoning’, Peirce argues that abduction offers a starting point, but must be followed by a process of testing through deduction and, finally, induction, thereby permitting the robust formulation or adjustment of theory (Blaikie, 1993: 164-165; Schlüter, 2007).

Peirce’s interest in abduction was sparked by his observation that ‘acts of infallible insight’ which come to us ‘like a flash’ are required in order for a process of reason to advance beyond its immediate confines (Peirce, 1934: 113-114). For Peirce, the catalysts of such insights are frequently “some surprising phenomenon, some experience which either disappoints an expect- ation, or breaks in upon some habit of expectation ...” (Peirce, 1935: 320). In the case of this re- search, the ‘surprising phenomenon’ that motivates the project can be viewed both in abstract terms and specifically in relation to the case study selected. At a theoretical level, much of the literature on the institutions of social and political organisation, or more generally on ‘gov- ernance’, holds that humans will not tend to organise themselves into complex groups where the benefits of collective action do not clearly pertain to the individuals immediately involved. Yet, it is readily apparent that in many situations humans (and indeed other creatures; even or- ganisms) do in fact partake in acts of collective action for such goals even where no apparent individual benefit accrues. This apparent anomaly has been reviewed above at some length, so is merely restated here. At the level of the case study, a practical manifestation of this situation

can be seen in the way in which different parts of the same (Somali) region have experienced such different outcomes over an extended period. The areas and communities on which the greatest external attentions have been lavished have tended to support the view that self-organ- isation is extremely difficult, yet the case study area has largely achieved just such an objective. This case study level will be dealt with more thoroughly in the discussion below on methodology and then in the analysis itself. At this stage, the general point is that the catalyst for the research lies in the apparently anomalous observation that complex political organisation can occur, and on occasion has occurred, in a manner that can largely be described as endogenous. The aim of this project is to gain an understanding of a specific case in which this has occurred; to em- ploy a body of theory (outlined above) in an attempt to deduce causes of the phenomenon; to apply that theoretically supported hypothesis to a set of qualitative case study data derived both from field work and from desk research; and finally to examine the original theory with a view to testing its validity in the context of the case study.

2.3.3 Social Constructivism vs Participatory Action Research

Peirce is considered to be one of the most eloquent codifiers of the pragmatic paradigm, himself citing the likes of Ferdinand Canning Scott Schiller, William James and John Dewey as loosely affiliated to his pragmatism (or ‘pragmaticism’) (Peirce, 1958: 165). Indeed, pragmatism, with it’s lack of commitment to a single unifying ontology or research methodology and its acknowledge- ment that research occurs within social, historical and political contexts (Creswell, 2009: 10-11) does offer some attraction for a research project such as this one. However, the concern here with understanding the role of the collective or social in constructing an existent political system, defined as far as possible through the subjective voices of participants, places it firmly in a so- cial constructivist tradition (Creswell, 2007: 20-21).

By drawing Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls and discursive or deliberative theory in to the con- ceptual framework, some comment on the research project and participatory advocacy in re- search seems warranted. Many, drawing on the work of Habermas, Marx, Adorno and others in pursuit of an ‘emancipatory’ approach to research, have argued that social constructivism fails to extend the agenda far enough in advocating an empowering agenda (Creswell, 2009: 9). However, the research involved in this project does not employ a Participatory Action Research methodology or similar, and does not adopt an explicit advocacy or participatory paradigm as a basis. Indeed, the author explicitly prefers Rawls’ political constructivism to Habermas’s more broadly normative approach. It is nevertheless by no means coincidental that the work of the author in tandem with this research approach has extended to active involvement in Somalil- and’s political sphere. These endeavours include a chairing role with three Somali civil society organisations (the Anglo-Somali Society, Somaliland Focus UK and Kayd Somali Arts and Cul- ture), as well as roles as a coordinator of international election observers for the scheduled 2010 presidential elections, and as administrative secretary for the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Somaliland in the UK Parliament. These formal titles do not define the extent of the work involved, but are suggestive of it. All the associated activities are intended to contribute

constructively to the continued development of Somaliland’s political institutions, with an explicit commitment to the belief that that process must be led by Somalilanders themselves, but also that outsiders can play a significant role in supporting the process. In essence, that is very much in line with an advocacy agenda: a commitment to “... replace an extractive, imperial model of social research with one in which the benefits of research accrue more directly to the communit- ies involved” (Kindon et al., 2007: 1).

The pertinent point with regard to this research is that, while it adopts an immediate approach that fits securely within the domain of social constructivism, it is effectively a component in a wider agenda on the part of the author which extends very much into what Creswell terms an advocacy paradigm (2009: 9).

2.3.4 Statement of Purpose

Given the theoretical and practical concerns outlined to this point, it is appropriate to state the purpose of this research project as succinctly as possible. The aim of the endeavour is:

To understand a contemporary Somali approach to socio-political organisation through ex- amination of a case study that focuses on the Somali experience of negotiation and agree- ment on the cessation of conflict and the establishment of foundations for a system of na- tional governance, in the territory of Somaliland. This will require review and analysis of both the historic context in which state formation has taken place in Somali areas, plus primary research on the process that occurred in Somaliland itself between 1990 and 1997. Through use of semi-structured interviews with key informants, augmented with a review of archival sources covering the context and events that occurred in the study period and before, the research examines a case that has received relatively little prior academic attention, using a lens synthesised through a combination of elements of discursive democracy and institu- tional analysis, to gain a deeper understanding of the collective and individual processes in- volved, while emphasising participants’ own recollections of events and motivations.

The next step in the process must be to further specify the parameters of that research by elab- orating a set of research questions.