The current political situation in Somalia is a complex tapestry, woven with threads of negotiation, power struggles, and the ongoing effort to balance federal authority with local autonomy. Recently, Somalia’s federal government has been embroiled in mounting political tensions with its member states. In March, a decisive step was taken by the federal parliament to amend the governance model, opting for a presidential system. However, this decision has not been universally welcomed. Northeastern State, often seen as one of Somalia’s more stable regions, stood in defiance against this shift, severing ties with Mogadishu and casting a heavy accusation of unilateralism towards the federal government.
As national leaders vocalize the importance of federalism and constitutional reform, a concerning trend reveals itself beneath the surface. A recent report sheds light on how these national efforts are being systematically eroded by localized power dynamics. In regions like Galmudug, district councils emerge not through democratic elections but via clan-based negotiations. As district boundaries morph to mirror local political agreements instead of adhering to legal or administrative guidelines, unsettling questions arise: Are we witnessing an erosion of fair representation as we edge closer to national elections?
Hirshabelle, a state born in 2016, illustrates even more profound governance struggles. Here, clan disputes, armed groups, and scarce resources effectively cripple the state. A staggering number of its districts are operating either autonomously or under the shadow of Al Shabaab control. Although a local government law was introduced in 2018 with the aim to rejuvenate district councils, very few have managed to take root effectively.
The report further delves into the federal government’s and member states’ recurring circumvention of legal norms to manipulate district official selections. Often, this involves enlisting the help of traditional leaders, who, as community gatekeepers, reciprocate by securing public positions for their factions. This cyclical process perpetuates a pattern of transactional politics and fragile institutions. “State and federal officials intervene in local governance not to build institutions, but to secure alliances,” the report incisively points out. This practice erodes the independence and trustworthiness of local councils.
As we reflect on the decision Somalia made back in 2012 to adopt its Provisional Constitution—a document birthed from over a decade of arduous negotiation—the intention was clear: a transitional phase towards stability. Yet, to date, it remains incomplete, having never been put to a national referendum for ratification. The National Consultative Council, which brings together federal and regional leaders, has reached a consensus on pivotal matters like power-sharing and security frameworks. Yet, the path to finalizing the constitution remains fraught with political discord.
Officially, Somalia’s governance model prescribes two tiers: the federal government and the federal member states. However, local governments should naturally fall under the federal member states’ purview. Despite frameworks such as the 2013 Local Government Law and the subsequent Wadajir Plan, aimed at standardizing district governance concerning taxation, council formation, and service delivery, application remains spotty. In reality, clan leaders, sharia courts, and community-based power arrangements still wield significant influence in conflict resolution, resource allocation, and political appointments, predominantly in rural and semi-urban locales.
The lack of definitive boundaries or administrative capacity in newly minted districts in regions like Galmudug and Hirshabelle is stark. Rather than enabling elections, local councils are chosen by clan elders or state ministries based on informal quotas. This practice inevitably leads to disputes over representation and power, stalling governance progress and eroding public trust. The report aptly notes, “These clan-based settlements offer flexibility but also breed instability. Without a strong legal foundation and broader civic inclusion, local councils remain vulnerable to elite manipulation.”
Strikingly, the report advocates for Somali authorities to engage more meaningfully with traditional governance systems rather than adopting a replacement strategy. It emphasizes the necessity for a grassroots approach to constitutional reform, acknowledging the resilience and pivotal role of customary and religious authorities while simultaneously expanding service accessibility and promoting accountability. Additionally, it calls for a more inclusive governance model, urging the inclusion of women and youth, while also highlighting the critical need for clearer revenue-sharing mechanisms between federal and regional entities. Currently, many district administrations struggle with limited funds and vague legal frameworks, hindering effective operations.
Somalia has undeniably made significant strides over the last two decades—the establishment of five federal member states and a parliamentary system stand as testament to this progress. However, the report warns that unless the constitution-building process is attuned to the nuanced realities of sub-state governance, the nation risks further political fragmentation. The report poignantly concludes, “Somalia’s constitution must be built not just in Mogadishu, but in the districts and villages where governance is lived.”
Edited By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
