Somalia: The Advice Micheal Mariano Gave Somali National Movement or SNM

Michael Mariano made a compelling plea for the preservation of Somalia's unity. He argued that the country's fragmentation could threaten the general potential of the northern regions.

In the mid-1980s, Somalia was a country grappling with overwhelming internal strife, as various factions vied for power after years of authoritarian rule under President Siad Barre. The Somali National Movement (SNM), representing the northern regions of Somalia, was at a crossroads in 1985, faced with the temptation of rebellion against Barre's government. However, pioneering voices like Michel Mariano, a former Minister of Planning in the 1960s, cautioned the SNM against pursuing secession and armed conflict. Mariano understood the complex dynamics at play and offered a vision that prioritized national unity over fragmentation.

Michel Mariano had wielded considerable influence during Somalia's early years of independence, when the desire for collective identity and unity was paramount. By 1985, however, the socio-political landscape had changed dramatically. The SNM emerged primarily from somber local grievances, advocating for the autonomy of the northern regions, which included areas like Somaliland. These regions, having a distinct historical, cultural, and economic fabric, were increasingly disenchanted with Barre's oppressive regime, which was notorious for clamping down on dissent and undermining local governance.

In his advice to the SNM, Mariano underscored a critical concern: the disunity and fragmentation of Somalia would not only be detrimental to the aspirations of the northern population but would also contribute to an unraveling of the broader national identity. He argued that the implications of rebellion were far-reaching and could plunge the country into further chaos. His experience as an early state planner made him acutely aware of the potential that Somalia had for sustainable development if it could maintain coherence and synergy among its diverse regions.

Mariano also noted the economic advantages that the north, although semi-deserted, possessed. Within its boundaries lay Berbera, Somalia's primary port, pivotal for trade and commerce not only for the northern territories but for the country as a whole. The business acumen of local entrepreneurs, he pointed out, could be harnessed to revitalize the economy without resorting to violent upheaval. By maintaining ties with the central government and working towards reforms from within, the northern territories could potentially benefit from the collective wealth of the nation rather than constructing economic barriers through secession.

His plea was a pragmatic one: Somalia’s fragmentation would not only jeopardize the north’s economic prospects but would also hinder the country's ability to heal from colonial scars and foster a cohesive national identity. Mariano believed there was much to gain from advocating for regional rights within the existing structure, promoting a future predicated on dialogue rather than division.

However, the counsels of Michel Mariano fell on deaf ears. The disenchantment with Barre's government, coupled with the stark realities of security and political representation, encouraged a revolutionary ethos within the SNM. The rebellion that followed exacerbated a cycle of violence and disintegration that reverberated throughout the region into the next decades.

In retrospect, Mariano's insights encapsulated the intricate balance between local aspirations and national unity. As Somalia navigated through layers of civil conflicts, the lessons from this critical juncture in 1985 underscore the importance of dialogue, economic collaboration, and the devastating consequences that arise from disunity. His vision for a unified Somalia persists as a poignant reminder of the enduring complexities of nation-building in a fragmented society.