Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

20th July 2015

We tend to look through the political settlements lens only at places experiencing either conflict or deep poverty – or both. Yet we would know much more about how useful the lens is if we examined more successes with it. Areas of stability and calm, especially in regions where near neighbours seem to be struggling to resolve strife, might teach us something about how historical experiences do or don’t chime with contemporary donor practices.

Oman and Somaliland are dramatically different empirical cases, but both have promising developmental trajectories that make them positive outliers in regions where stable state formation seems to have been particularly difficult. Asking what aspects of their respective political settlements have helped them forge a path out of conflict offers a useful comparative case study.

At the time of the 1970 coup in the Sultanate of Oman, its ruler was locked in violent conflict with a secessionist rebellion in Dhofar. The country had almost no formal bureaucratic institutions, just one hospital, and was beset by grinding poverty. In the popular press, Oman was described – alongside its next-door neighbour Yemen – as ‘rushing headlong into the fifteenth century’. By 1997, however, the World Health Organisation ranked Oman first out of 191 countries in ‘health care system performance and outcome,’ and by 2010 the UNDP judged Oman to be ‘most improved nation’ since 1970 – putting it ahead of China.

Somaliland declared itself independent of the rest of Somalia in 1991 and, after a period of civil war, emerged from violent conflict in 1996. Now internationally recognised as an autonomous region of Somalia (and not an independent state), Somaliland is an example of peace and relative order being upheld despite the absence of a government with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. It has a functioning government, the basis of an elementary taxation system, a reasonable level of internal security, and some rudimentary public services. Somaliland holds regular elections for three tiers of government, and has seen two peaceful presidential transitions, including one to the opposition.

Political settlements clearly emerged during both of these remarkable transitions. What can a comparison of these settlements tell us? Jennifer Hunt and I argue in a forthcoming paper that there are three important points of crossover between the two cases.

‘Critical to the shape of both settlements was the nature of each country’s relationship with external actors … neither is consistent with contemporary donor practices in developing states.’

First, critical to the shape of both settlements was the nature of each country’s relationship with external actors and global power hierarchies. However, neither relationship is consistent with contemporary donor practices in developing states, which suggests that developing states almost always need outside assistance – though not too much of it. Here Oman and Somaliland are at opposite ends of the spectrum: Somaliland was unusually isolated from global political and economic structures in the early days of its ‘independence’, while Oman was unusually enmeshed in them at the time of its coup.

Throughout Somaliland’s formational period, foreign support of any kind was negligible. No external power attempted to end (or prolong) its civil wars, and this dramatically limited access to external revenue for those groups that wanted to carry on fighting. Somaliland, therefore, is a case in which the domestic drivers of peace and development come to the fore since aid and other forms of international intervention were not significant variables. This meant that Somaliland’s elites were also unusually dependent upon one another for their survival.

The experience of Somaliland challenges the prevalent notion that some form of external assistance is usually necessary to end large-scale violence. Instead it demonstrates that less intervention can create greater space for local agents to forge locally legitimate solutions.
 
The experience of Oman contrasts sharply with this. The seizure of power by Oman’s Sultan Qaboos in 1970 was both ordained and performed by the British government as it prepared to end its colonial presence in the country. Although the British had officially gone, Sultan Qaboos received an extraordinary level of military and development assistance from the British government through the SAS and its intelligence agencies.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that the colonial model is an appropriate basis for development assistance – but it shows the degree to which Oman’s development deviated from the orthodox ‘theory of change’ held by most contemporary development organisations.

For both cases, therefore, there was no external push to impose an inclusive political agenda – indeed, in Oman the British were highly supportive of Sultan Qaboos’ efforts to concentrate power into his own hands.

‘Exclusive settlements may be more likely to augur political stability, at least in the short to medium term, than widely inclusive ones.’

This leads to the second point of comparison: exclusion. One of the most important insights from the political settlements literature – and one that hits up against the instrumental aims that tend to accompany the use of a political settlements framework – is the uncomfortable finding that exclusive settlements may be more likely to augur political stability, at least in the short to medium term, than widely inclusive ones. In Somaliland, the exclusion was predominantly economic and in Oman it was predominantly political. 

The final point of comparison is that both countries had a pre-existing class of reasonably well-educated locals (at a secondary level) from which political elites could staff a nascent bureaucracy and who could perform some technical roles when the ground shifted to create greater space for change. Neither country needed (or was expected) to rely on outsourced international “technical assistance” or “technical expertise”, as is the usual practice in donor-funded state-building programs.

The political settlements lens, in both these cases, reveals a degree of deviation from the orthodox models of development. It uncovers important underlying power dynamics in the processes of political change. However, both also highlight how integral the external context is to domestic change, and this angle is seldom explicitly examined within a political settlements framework. For a political settlements framework to be a useful component of development actors’ work, its analytical scope must include the broader relationship between recipient states and global power structures. Without this, the international complexities and inequalities that may be helping to fuel poverty, conflict, and instability in recipient states will – again – be written out of the picture.


See more posts on political settlements by researchers, policy-makers and practitioners.

Image: Muttrah, Oman (Photo: Andrea Moroni, Flickr)

0 Comments

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.

Author

Sarah Phillips

Sarah Phillips

Sarah Phillips is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney. Her work focuses on politics, development and security in the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, particularly Yemen and Somalia/Somaliland, and on the politics of state-building.

Read more

Related items

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015

What's in a name? Leadership as more than the 'big men' and 'big women' of history

Looking beyond 'The Leader' for a deeper understanding of how change happens

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver11th February 2014

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say?

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

How can Pacific democracies deliver for their citizens?

Opinion by Julien Barbara8th July 2016

Welcome to DLP's blog

Welcome to DLP's new blog on politics, power, policy and developmental leadership

Opinion by Heather Marquette10th December 2013
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

Shuffling the decks: quick fixes versus long-term stability

Guest post for Development Progress on 'post-conflict' DRC

Opinion by Suda Perera22nd January 2015

Taking the Results agenda to the next level?

On new book The Politics of Evidence and Results in International Development

Opinion by Chris Roche15th July 2015

Developmental leaders, 'dirty hands', and the dark side of collaboration

The ambiguities of supporting 'developmental leadership'

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi11th December 2013

Gender - the power relationship that Political Economy Analysis forgot?

Why more questions about gender relations could help

Opinion by Evie Browne13th February 2014

Developmental leadership: putting inclusiveness first

Inclusiveness should be the first step towards building more robust states.

Opinion by Seth D. Kaplan24th September 2015

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014

The inclusiveness test: making change work

Guest post for openDemocracy

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal4th November 2015

Somaliland's route to peace

What can we learn from Somaliland's approach to peacebuilding? 

Opinion by Sarah Phillips12th December 2013

The seeds and roots of change

Guest post on leadership networks for Governance for Development

Opinion by Heather Lyne de Ver1st December 2014

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014
Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016

Adding gender and power to the TWP agenda

Why bring gender into Thinking and Working Politically?

Opinion by Sally Moyle6th August 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

Pacific power: new femininities and women's leadership in the Pacific

The educated, internationally connected women who are changing the way 'development' is done

Opinion by Ceridwen Spark24th June 2014

What is transformative leadership?

Guest post in University World News

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2016

Inequality – the politics behind the policies

Discussion starter for the #polinequality conference

Opinion by David Hudson11th February 2015

Indonesia and the political settlements trap

The challenges of 'resettling the settlement'

Opinion by Graham Teskey17th July 2015

Education, development, and the problem with consensus

Why rethink the international consensus on 'quality basic education for development'?

Opinion by Michele Schweisfurth7th April 2014

The politics of redistribution: we need you

Which are the key country cases? Help us shape new research.

Opinion by David Hudson16th October 2014

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

Climate change and adaptation in the Pacific Islands: watering down women's security?

How women leaders are challenging a narrow adaptation agenda.

Opinion by Nicole George7th March 2014

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015