Author: Marven Andey
In Somalia there was no clear vision of how reconciliation should proceed. The United States initially saw its mission as short and limited to opening supply lines so would not have to become involved in Somali politics. Nor did the United Nations have a clear road map for reconciliation. The short-range objectives of the U.S. involvement meant that it was very difficult to take many credible steps to promote reconciliation. The expectation was that the combatants, after years of fighting a civil war, could somehow resolve their differences in a few months. Given such circumstances, it was inevitable that groups without large stocks of weaponry would be leery of collaborating openly and quickly with the United Nations to rebuild local government institutions. Three lessons can be drawn from the Somalia experience. First, future interveners must understand that there is no such thing as a humanitarian surgical strike. Defining a failed state is a second area that needs work. There is understandable reluctance to proclaim trusteeships, given the term’s association with colonialism Third, the proper intervention forces must be developed. There has been much talk about the formation of a U.N. army that could intervene in troubled areas, but little action. The purpose of this study to understand the limitations of good administration and get possible solution to generate political recovery and eliminate failed state in Somalia. To reduce poor administration and enhance justice, accountability, public sector management in order to prevent any possible risk that damages the capacity of good governance.
Keywords: Challenges Facing Public Administration