Opinion: The End of Somalia’s Predatory State, 2022–2026

OPINION: The end of the Predatory State of Somalia (2022–2026)

Somalia is approaching a political reckoning, and the debate over how power has been exercised under President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has sharpened as the mandate nears its end. To understand the criticism now surrounding the government, it helps to start with the idea of a “predatory state.” In political terms, that describes a system in which rulers use the institutions, assets, and authority of the state to serve themselves rather than the public. Corruption, embezzlement, nepotism, abuse of office, and the elevation of elite interests over ordinary citizens are among its hallmarks.

In such a system, the ruling class grows richer while the machinery of government is hollowed out and repurposed for coercion and patronage. The result is usually familiar: entrenched cronyism, widening inequality, persistent poverty, weakened institutions, little or no accountability, and the steady erosion of constitutional safeguards.

By the account of many critics, Somalia under President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HSM) increasingly fits that description. They say public resources have been handled as instruments of political and personal gain while everyday Somalis continue to face insecurity, hardship, and neglect.

Those critics also argue that the administration has tightened its grip through clan-based patronage networks, leaving the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) weakened and, in their view, functionally hollow. Political exclusion, the sidelining of rival camps, and the misuse of national assets, they contend, have become central to the way power is exercised, reinforced by corruption and loyalty-driven politics.

As the government’s mandate approaches expiry, Somalia is entering a period of rising political strain. The absence of a clear and widely accepted electoral roadmap has fueled anxiety, as has the prospect of a constitutional vacuum if a timely transition does not take place. Opposition leaders accuse the president of resisting an orderly handover and disregarding the constitutional principles that govern democratic succession.

That uncertainty over the electoral process has deepened public unease. Analysts caution that the continuing lack of agreement among political actors could make an already fragile situation even more unstable.

Fresh controversy over the reported seizure and auction of public and private property has only intensified the pressure. Critics say the administration is rushing to dispose of national assets before its term ends, a claim government loyalists firmly deny. Reports linking these disputes to displacement and violence have further heightened tensions in Mogadishu, where the atmosphere remains volatile.

Many observers point out that Somalia’s earlier political transitions, despite their own difficulties, did not unfold under such intense constitutional uncertainty. The lack of consensus on either elections or transition planning has left the country facing one of its most serious political deadlocks in recent years.

Opposition figures and political analysts have also accused the administration of leaning more heavily on clan-aligned security formations and patronage networks to preserve control. They warn that turning political disputes into security confrontations could carry grave consequences for national cohesion and state stability.

The crisis has also brought renewed criticism of Somalia’s senior leadership. Detractors describe the country’s political class as divided, ineffective, and unable to provide the authority needed to steer the nation through a period of profound uncertainty. In their view, years of confrontation, constitutional wrangling, and governance failures have pushed federal institutions close to paralysis.

Accusations of corruption remain at the center of the case against the administration. Opponents say senior officials have misappropriated state resources and donor funds while vulnerable communities continue to endure drought, displacement, and economic decline. Those allegations remain politically contested, but they have strongly shaped public discussion of the government’s record.

Critics maintain that the presidency has gone beyond political and constitutional limits in ways not previously seen in Somalia’s recent history. Public office, they argue, should advance the national interest, not function as a tool for private enrichment or factional dominance.

Some commentators have gone further, comparing Somalia’s political direction with authoritarian systems elsewhere in Africa. They point to familiar warning signs: concentrated power, corruption, and weakened institutions. The comparisons are contentious, but they reflect mounting frustration in parts of the Somali public and political establishment.

For many Somalis, the consequences of the current crisis extend well beyond the political arena. Sovereignty, national unity, institutional survival, and the country’s international standing are all at stake. The concern among observers is that continued deadlock could further destabilize Somalia and undercut the fragile gains it has made over the past decades.

Failing to confront the crisis, critics warn, will come at a heavy price. The pressing question now is how the legal and political disputes at the center of the standoff will be settled.

With negotiations among the main political stakeholders becoming more strained, some analysts fear Somalia could be headed toward a prolonged period without a fully legitimate and broadly accepted government, a scenario that would only deepen uncertainty in the years ahead.

Dr. Ahmed Artan Mohamed

Dr. Artan is a Senior Veterinarian and Former Deputy Minister of Livestock and Animal Husbandry in Puntland State

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Axadle’s editorial policy.