Somalia rethinks federalism in light of experience and reality

Friday April 17, 2026

A hard look at how political engineering, donor influence, and institutional frailty are shaping the future of the Somali state

By Dr. Ali Said Faqi

Two decades on, federalism in Somalia remains less a finished settlement than a work in progress — one whose contradictions now appear to threaten the stability it was meant to protect.

Somalia officially embraced federalism in 2004 as a political arrangement designed to help rebuild a country shattered by collapse and civil war. It was widely viewed as a practical compromise: a way to balance clan rivalries, disperse authority, and re-establish governance in a deeply fractured society.

The formation of federal member states accelerated beginning in 2014. By 2016, alongside Puntland State, the country had established Galmudug, Hirshabelle, Southwest State, and Jubaland. In practice, however, the criteria for state formation reflected political realities more than institutional design. Most states developed with clan-focused structures and advantageous access to sea. While this approach made rapid state formation possible, it also embedded structural weaknesses into the federal system from the outset.

Having served as a legislator in a federal member state, this analysis is grounded not only in theory but also in lived institutional experience. It reflects both the intended promise of federalism and the realities of its implementation on the ground.

This op-ed examines the current state of federalism in Somalia through a SWOT analysis, assessing its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats while highlighting its societal impact, economic burden, and institutional challenges.

Strengths

At its best, federalism has helped Somalia avoid deeper disorder by giving regions some degree of local governance where none existed before. It has enabled administrations to take shape, deliver limited basic services, and offer communities that long felt sidelined a measure of political inclusion. By shifting some authority away from Mogadishu, decentralization has also given federal member states room to handle local matters on their own. In a fragile setting, that dispersion of responsibility has helped prevent complete state failure.

In addition, federalism has attracted international support. Donors and partners often prefer decentralized systems that allow targeted interventions at regional levels, particularly in humanitarian and development programs.

Weaknesses

Despite its original purpose, federalism in Somalia has generated serious structural and social problems.

First, the model has reinforced clan-based politics instead of helping the country move beyond them. Because state formation has been organized around dominant clans, federalism has institutionalized division rather than encouraging national cohesion. Political competition is increasingly framed by clan identity instead of policy, vision, or performance.

Second, the system has imposed a heavy financial burden. Somalia now maintains several layers of government — federal, state, and local — each with its own administration, security structure, and bureaucracy. For a country with limited domestic revenue, this duplication is expensive and inefficient.

More troubling still, this sprawling bureaucracy has in many cases opened the door to corruption at every level. The growth of administrative bodies without matching accountability systems has created room for rent seeking, misuse of public resources, and institutional waste.

Third, there is a serious shortage of qualified technocratic leadership across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Institutions that should be guided by expertise, long-term planning, and coherent policy are often weakened by the absence of professionals able to anticipate and manage complex governance challenges.

Compounding this is the persistent reliance on patronage-based appointments. Personnel are frequently selected based on personal connections, loyalty, or clan considerations. If someone meets the 4.5 power-sharing criteria, professional qualifications and merit are frequently ignored. This undermines institutional credibility, weakens performance, and erodes public trust.

Another serious and deeply concerning weakness is the erosion of equal citizenship rights across federal member states. In practice, people living in a state where their clan is not dominant, or not regarded as native to that area, often face exclusion from political participation, public employment, and access to services. This informal system of entitlement undermines the very idea of national citizenship and replaces it with localized, clan-based belonging.

These dynamics create internal barriers within the country, where Somalis are not treated equally across regions. They discourage mobility, weaken social cohesion, and fuel grievances among communities who feel marginalized in the states where they live and contribute economically. Over time, this risks hardening a fragmented national identity in which rights and opportunities are determined not by citizenship, but by clan affiliation and geographic alignment.

Finally, constitutional ambiguities continue to weaken the system. Key questions involving resource sharing, security control, and electoral arrangements remain unresolved, setting off repeated political crises.

Opportunities

If reformed properly, federalism still offers a route to lasting stability and development.

One of the biggest opportunities lies in moving away from clan-based structures and toward functional governance units. Building institutions around service delivery, economic viability, and administrative efficiency could help transform the system into something more modern and sustainable.

There is also room to streamline government. Cutting duplication, defining responsibilities more clearly, and investing in institutional capacity can sharply improve efficiency and lower costs, allowing scarce national resources to be used more strategically.

A critical opportunity exists in strengthening revenue institutions and audit systems. Creating credible and transparent revenue bureaus at both federal and state levels would help Somalia gradually reduce its dependence on external funding. At the same time, more effective audit institutions and financial oversight mechanisms would improve accountability, curb corruption, and ensure public money is used properly.

Economically, federalism can provide a platform for focused, high-impact development, especially in sectors where Somalia has clear natural advantages. Strategic investment in agriculture, livestock, and fisheries can support inclusive growth, generate jobs, and strengthen food security.

It also offers a chance to align federal and state priorities around productive sectors, shifting the political contest from power struggles to performance. States that deliver visible economic results can become benchmarks within the federal arrangement.

Finally, a well-functioning federal system can improve accountability by bringing governance closer to citizens. With stronger institutions and transparent financial management, federalism can evolve into a model that delivers both stability and prosperity.

Threats

The current path of federalism in Somalia carries significant and growing dangers.

The most immediate threat is political fragmentation. Continued dependence on clan-based structures risks deepening divisions and weakening national identity.

There is also the threat of institutional conflict. Disputes between the federal government and member states have become frequent and, at times, confrontational. Without clear constitutional resolution, these tensions could endure for years.

Another increasingly serious threat is the widening gap in power and trust between the Federal Government of Somalia and the Federal Member States. At times, the central government behaves as though it has authority beyond what a federal constitution allows, creating perceptions of overreach and weakening the autonomy of member states. In response, some Federal Member States refuse to cooperate, even on routine governance issues, whenever disputes emerge.

This pattern of overassertion on one side and withdrawal on the other undermines the foundations of federalism. Rather than operating as a coordinated system of shared governance, the relationship becomes increasingly adversarial. Even small disagreements can escalate into broad political standoffs, slowing decisions, disrupting service delivery, and weakening national cohesion. Over time, this risks normalizing dysfunction and eroding the trust that any federal system needs to function.

Another major threat is economic unsustainability. Maintaining several layers of government with limited domestic revenue is not viable in the long run.

A further and increasingly critical threat is the repeated abuse of the constitution by both the federal government and the federal member states. In the absence of a functioning constitutional court, there is no credible body to interpret the constitution or settle disputes. That gap makes it extremely difficult to resolve conflicts within the system and raises the risk of political crises.

Another deeply rooted threat lies in the unequal distribution of power among clans. Historically, only a limited number of clans have benefited from statehood, while many others have remained on the margins. That pattern continues to shape political access and resource allocation, reinforcing exclusion and weakening national cohesion.

External financing adds another layer of risk. Donor support has been essential, but when it is not matched by strong accountability, it can distort incentives. Political positions may then be pursued not for public service but for access to resources, encouraging the rise of inexperienced actors.

Because oversight is weak and institutions remain underdeveloped, federalism has drifted into a system in which leaders mainly compete for resources rather than focus on good governance.

Conclusion

Federalism in Somalia was born out of necessity, not careful design. It offered a framework for rebuilding a broken nation, but its implementation has revealed deep structural imbalances that now cast doubt on its sustainability.

What was meant to promote inclusion has often deepened division. What was supposed to strengthen governance has, in some cases, enlarged inefficiency and weakened institutions. The weakening of equal citizenship and the lack of effective constitutional oversight have further complicated the model.

At the same time, the interaction between external financing and domestic political structures has created incentives that do not always serve long-term stability.

The question now is not whether federalism should remain, but how it must be changed.

Somalia needs strong, accountable institutions that defend the constitution and serve the public. Without meaningful reform, federalism risks becoming part of the problem it was intended to solve.

My recommendation is that states choosing to remain in the federal system should be supported to make it work better, including by building stronger institutions and improving cooperation among the different levels of government. At the same time, those who argue that federalism is not the right fit for Somalia should move beyond criticism and offer a practical alternative. Any new model must confront the same challenges: rogue authority, unequal power sharing, weak institutions, and recurring political conflict.

In the end, the issue is not the name of the system, but whether it can deliver stability, fairness, and effective governance for the country. The way forward is clear. The real question is whether there is enough political will to change course and repair the system before it unravels.