Bismillah…

Federal vs Unitary State

Beneath Somalia’s electoral dispute lies a deeper and more fundamental disagreement: 

What does federalism truly mean for Somalia’s political future?

The Federal Government maintains that national institutions must be sufficiently strong to govern the country, administer national elections, and provide security. 

Federal Member States and opposition leaders, particularly in Puntland and Jubaland, argue, however, that Somalia’s federal system cannot function effectively if the Federal Government continually extends its authority into areas they consider constitutionally reserved for the states. This is far more than a minor administrative disagreement. 

Federalism was adopted, in part, in recognition of Somalia’s political history and the dangers associated with excessive concentration of power in Mogadishu. A strong national government and a meaningful federal system are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, a functioning federation requires both. The real challenge is to establish clear constitutional boundaries between the respective levels of government and ensure that those boundaries are respected in both principle and practice.

If the Federal Government is too weak to fulfil its constitutional responsibilities, Somalia risks institutional paralysis and further fragmentation. If, however, it accumulates excessive power at the expense of the Federal Member States, federalism risks becoming little more than a label for what is, in practice, a centralised system of governance.

Both former President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo and incumbent President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud assumed office under a federal constitutional framework and pledged to uphold the Constitution. Nevertheless, both administrations have faced criticism over actions perceived to favour a more centralised model of governance, with authority and resources increasingly concentrated at the federal level and, ultimately, within the presidency. Such an approach risks undermining the principles of power-sharing and decentralisation that federalism was intended to safeguard.

However, the problem is not confined to Mogadishu. Leaders of Federal Member States have also faced criticism for concentrating political authority and control over resources within their respective state capitals, sometimes at the expense of political inclusion, local autonomy, and accountable governance. Federalism cannot succeed if centralisation at the national level is merely reproduced at the state level. Genuine federalism must guard against the excessive concentration of power at every level of government.

Somalia’s current political crisis therefore represents a fundamental test of its commitment to building a genuine and functional federal system. Such a system requires clearly defined constitutional responsibilities, an appropriate distribution of authority, and meaningful devolution of powers to the Federal Member States and local governments. 

These institutions should complement and reinforce one another through cooperation, accountability, and mutual respect rather than engage in persistent struggles for power that undermine national cohesion.

Ultimately, federalism can provide Somalia with a viable framework for political stability, inclusive governance, and national unity. Its success, however, depends not merely on constitutional provisions or political rhetoric, but on their consistent implementation. 

This demands that political leaders at every level honour their constitutional obligations, respect institutional boundaries, and place the national interest above narrow political calculations. It also requires citizens to hold their leaders accountable and insist that federalism be implemented in substance, not merely invoked as a political slogan. Somalia does not have to choose between a strong national government and a genuine federal system. It must build both.

Bismillah…

Transition Without Institutional Certainty

Somalia's political history since 1991 has been marked by repeated transitional arrangements, delayed elections and last-minute political bargains.

The country has often approached the end of a presidential or parliamentary mandate without having completed agreement on the electoral system that will replace it. 

Political actors then negotiate under enormous pressure, frequently after trust has already deteriorated.

The problem is that Somalia still lacks sufficiently strong and trusted institutions capable of resolving fundamental disputes before they become political crises. 

When the rules of succession are disputed, the question of legitimacy becomes unavoidable and when legitimacy is disputed, the temptation to rely on political alliances, security forces, regional authorities or external partners increases. 

And when the political competition becomes intertwined with security, the possibility of violence becomes imminent.

The International community urged Somali political actors in May 2026 to return to inclusive dialogue, compromise and negotiations between the Federal Government and the Somali Future Council ended without agreement.

The lesson from previous crises is clear: 

When Somalia's political actors fail to agree on the rules of transition, the consequences extend well beyond politics.

Bismillah…

Thirty-five years after the collapse of the Somali state in 1991, Somalia remains politically fragile, institutionally incomplete, and deeply polarised.

Although the country has made important strides in rebuilding national institutions, restoring international relations, and establishing a federal political system, one fundamental question remains unresolved: How should political power be transferred legitimately, constitutionally, and peacefully?

Somalia is once again facing a familiar but potentially dangerous transition crisis, raising three critical questions:

1. Who has the authority to determine the rules governing political succession?

2. Which institutions are constitutionally empowered to interpret, oversee, and enforce those rules?

3. What happens when the government and its political opponents fundamentally disagree over the legitimacy of the transition itself?

The dispute surrounding President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s mandate and the 2026 electoral process is therefore far more consequential than a disagreement over whether Somalia should adopt a one-person, one-vote electoral system.

At its core, this is a struggle over constitutional legitimacy, federalism, electoral authority, political inclusion, the sequencing of democratic reforms, and, ultimately, the future character of the Somali state.

In March 2026, Somalia’s Parliament approved a revised Constitution, which was subsequently signed into law. The federal government regards the new constitutional framework as the legal foundation for the current political order.

The opposition, however, contests the legitimacy and application of these constitutional changes, particularly where they affect the incumbent president’s mandate, the electoral framework, and the timetable for the political transition.

The result is a deepening political crisis in which the rules of the transition themselves have become a source of political contention.

Somalia is once again confronting a dangerous pattern:

— Competing interpretations of the Constitution.

— Competing claims to political and constitutional legitimacy.

— Disputes over electoral authority and the distribution of political power.

— Growing tensions that threaten national cohesion, federal relations, security, and political stability.

The central question is no longer simply which electoral model Somalia should adopt. It is whether the country can establish a mutually accepted constitutional and political framework through which power is contested, transferred, and exercised peacefully.

Without political consensus, credible institutions, and a transition process accepted as legitimate by the principal stakeholders, even well-intentioned democratic reforms risk becoming a source of instability rather than a foundation for democratic consolidation.

This is the deeper crisis confronting Somalia—and the questions that must be addressed if the country is to avoid another destabilising political crisis.

More to come in this thread.

Bismillah….. 

There are growing concerns surrounding the process leading to the selection and coronation of the next Speaker of Somalia's Parliament.   

A position that should symbolize constitutional integrity, independence, and national unity must never become the product of a political pressure, coercion, or the systematic elimination of alternative candidates.  

Reports suggest that several potential contenders have withdrawn under questionable circumstances, with allegations of political pressure, financial inducements, and other forms of influence.   

If true, such developments would undermine the credibility of the parliamentary process and further erode public confidence in Somalia's democratic institutions.  

Equally concerning are the questions raised regarding the candidacy of Minister Jama to the Speakership.   

Many Somalis are seriously concerned about his perceived association to foreign governments, particularly Turkey, and his questionable background and quick accention to power. This could lead to  new conflicts between internal/external interests and possibly erode Somalia's sovereign national priorities.   

Whether these concerns are justified deserves transparent public scrutiny and dialogue rather than careless denial or outright dismissal.  Somalia's Parliament must remain accountable only to the Somali people—not to political elites, external actors, or those seeking to consolidate power through institutions that are meant to remain independent.   The Speakership is a national trust, not a political reward by an individual or institution.   

The future of our public institutions depends on a transparent, competitive, and credible electoral process where every qualified candidate can participate freely without intimidation or undue influence.   

Somalia deserves institutions built on legitimacy, accountability, and the rule of law—not outcomes shaped by fear, manipulation, or foreign influence.  

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud who swore to uphold the constitution must resist bulldozing this process through parliament while simultaneously crossing this national sovereignty redline!