Somalia’s push for direct vote exposes fault lines between Mogadishu and the regions
When Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre insists Somalia is moving away from “lawmakers appointed by clan elders or regional administrations” toward a system in which “representatives [are] elected directly by the Somali people,” he is sketching a future that is both aspirational and deeply contested. The proposal — to replace a decades-old, clan-based indirect model with universal suffrage and to shift governance toward a presidential system — has reopened old debates about power, identity and who actually controls the country beyond Mogadishu’s boulevard-lined avenues.
- Advertisement -
What the government is trying to sell
Mogadishu’s logic is straightforward. The narrow, elder-driven selection process that for years determined who sat in parliament and, indirectly, who became president is often portrayed by reformers as opaque, corrupt and exclusionary. The prime minister says this new architecture will let ordinary Somalis pick their MPs and, eventually, their head of state. He told reporters the country has registered 54 political parties preparing to contest the vote — a sign, officials say, of burgeoning political competition after years of closed-door deals.
There is also a constitutional tweak on the table: a move from a parliamentary system to a presidential one, concentrating executive authority in a directly elected head of state. For proponents, that is meant to create clearer lines of accountability; for opponents, it is a path to overcentralization.
Why the regions are resisting
The proposals have rattled Somalia’s federal states. Leaders in Puntland State and Jubaland — two of the most politically autonomous regions — have refused to endorse the plan, warning it could extend current officeholders’ terms and run afoul of the 2012 provisional constitution. Their objections are not merely procedural. Federalism in Somalia grew out of years of conflict and a recognition that the central government in Mogadishu has limited reach outside the capital. Power was deliberately decentralized to accommodate clan dynamics and regional authority.
For state leaders, the stakes are existential. A shift to direct national elections and a more powerful presidency risks diluting regional influence and could be read as an attempt by Mogadishu to redraw the balance of power without sufficient buy-in. When trust between the centre and the periphery is low, changes to the rules of the game are always political tinder.
Logistics, security and legitimacy
Even setting aside the constitutional quarrel, the move to universal suffrage poses daunting practical challenges. Somalia remains a fragmented country: Mogadishu’s government exerts limited control across vast swaths of territory, and Al-Shabaab retains the ability to disrupt civic life and block access to whole districts. Conducting a credible, nationwide vote would mean securing polling stations in remote towns, forging consensus with regional administrations, and ensuring that voters — including women and internally displaced people — can participate safely.
Those tasks require money, coordination and a degree of political calm that has proved elusive. International partners have historically underwritten Somali electoral processes and provided technical support; whether they will be willing to bankroll and legitimize a transition in which the rules are hotly contested is an open question.
Global echoes: constitutional change and concentration of power
Somalia’s dilemma is not unique. Across Africa and beyond, proposals to alter electoral systems or constitutions have frequently coincided with leaders seeking to broaden their authority. Such changes are sometimes advanced in the name of efficiency or modernization; they also risk concentrating power and sidelining rivals. The international community watches these moves warily, balancing an interest in stability with concerns about democratic backsliding.
At the same time, demands for more inclusive, direct elections are real and resonant. Young Somalis, many of them in the diaspora, chafe at what they view as an elite bargain that excludes them from political life. The government’s argument that direct voting will unlock participation has traction among those who long for an electoral system that reflects a modern notion of citizenship rather than clan affiliation.
Questions that will define the next year
- Can Mogadishu build the technical and security capacity to conduct free and fair nationwide elections while convincing federal states that the process will not be used to entrench sitting leaders?
- Will Somali political parties and civil society be given space to organize, and will the more than 50 registered parties translate into meaningful competition rather than a proliferation of nominal groupings?
- How will international donors and neighbouring countries react if the constitutional changes go ahead without broad consensus? Legitimacy in Somalia hinges as much on internal agreement as on external endorsement.
These questions underscore a deeper tension at the heart of Somalia’s post-conflict transition: the trade-off between building a unitary, accountable state and preserving the delicate power-sharing mechanisms that have kept the country from greater fragmentation. Reformers argue that the old model entrenches elites and stunts democratic development. Skeptics worry that sweeping, rapid change could collapse fragile bargains that prevent renewed conflict.
Prime Minister Hamza’s insistence that direct elections are both desirable and popular is a bold framing for a government that controls a relatively small footprint outside the capital. The political success of his plan will depend as much on patient negotiation with regional leaders and clan constituencies as on campaign rallies in Mogadishu. It will also depend on whether Somalis believe the transition is about expanding their voice — or consolidating the power of a new political class.
As Somalia edges toward a new electoral frontier, the broader question is whether change can be inclusive enough to be stable. Can a country still wrestling with insurgency, displacement and fragile institutions both overhaul its electoral architecture and preserve the pluralism that has kept it standing? The answer will shape Somalia’s politics for a generation.
By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
