Villa Somalia’s contested, lopsided elections imperil Somalia’s stability and nation-building

Opinion | A Looming Disaster: Villa Somalia’s One-Sided Election Risks Unraveling Somalia’s Fragile State-Building

Somalia’s promised “one person, one vote” has become the centerpiece of a contentious election push out of Mogadishu. But the model advancing under Villa Somalia’s direction, far from cementing democratic progress, is being carried out in ways that are constitutionally shaky, institutionally partisan and geographically exclusionary. If pursued as is, the process could deepen mistrust between the federal center and the regions and destabilize the very state-building project the country has fought to revive.

At the heart of the dispute is a simple contradiction: an election cannot credibly be called “one person, one vote” when the electorate is unverified, registration is marred by irregularity or coercion, and most citizens are effectively excluded from participating. By confining voting to Mogadishu under a process dominated by the ruling party and a widely questioned electoral commission, the Federal Government risks transforming a democratic promise into a mechanism for entrenching power.

What makes this process untenable

Several core flaws undermine the government’s “one person, one vote” claim and explain the rising resistance among Federal Member States, opposition groups and civil society:

• An unknown, unprotected electorate. Reports of registration under intimidation, bribery and heavy-handed security methods call into question whether eligible voters are freely opting into the process. Democracy requires that participation be voluntary, transparent and verifiable. Shaping the voter roll through coercion is not electoral inclusion—it is outcome engineering.
• Geographic exclusion. A genuine “one person, one vote” election is national by definition. Restricting participation to Mogadishu sidelines millions of citizens and revives long-standing fears of central domination in a fragile federal system. A process that leaves out the majority cannot credibly confer national legitimacy.
• A partisan electoral commission. The body overseeing the vote is widely seen as an extension of the ruling party rather than a neutral guarantor. In any democracy, an independent commission safeguards fairness and equal access; a partisan commission undermines public trust and tilts the playing field before ballots are cast.
• Security claims that don’t add up. The government argues that several regions are secure enough for an election. Yet opposition figures and critical voices have been prevented from organizing or campaigning in those same areas. If conditions are safe for voting but not for political competition, the inconsistency reveals a political calculus rather than a security assessment.

The stakes for Somalia’s stability

Somalia’s history—marked by conflict, institutional collapse and painstaking reconstruction—makes a disputed election especially dangerous. The risks are neither abstract nor remote:

• Deeper political fragmentation. Federal Member States already feel sidelined by a Mogadishu-centered process. Proceeding unilaterally could trigger boycotts, parallel tracks or a breakdown in federal-regional relations, putting the federal architecture under severe strain.
• A crisis of legitimacy. A government elected through an exclusionary and contested process will struggle to command domestic confidence or international recognition. Without legitimacy, security forces fracture along political lines, institutions lose authority and disputes shift from legal forums to the streets.
• Rising security risks. Across fragile states, disputed polls have often led to unrest. If large segments of the public see the vote as rigged or imposed, tensions in Mogadishu and beyond could escalate quickly, inviting protests, clashes and clan-based mobilization that unravel years of hard-won gains.
• Eroding international trust. Partners who have supported Somalia’s recovery expect elections that are constitutional, inclusive and transparent. A flawed process imperils that trust and threatens cooperation on debt relief, security transition and development.
• Institutional backsliding. Somalia’s judiciary, parliament and oversight bodies remain vulnerable. A contested election would invite legal weaponization, delegitimize commissions and risk a parliamentary split over constitutional authority—damage that could take years to repair.

The constitutional path forward

Somalia does not lack options; it lacks a shared, constitutional roadmap. The way out begins with genuine national consensus and a commitment to rules that bind winners and losers alike. That requires:

• A broad national dialogue. Convene Federal Member States, former presidents and prime ministers at federal and state levels, leading political actors, candidates and civil society to define a credible, inclusive path.
• A clear legal framework. Establish mutually agreed, constitutional rules for elections that apply nationwide, not a city-limited experiment presented as a national vote.
• A neutral electoral commission. Reconstitute the commission to ensure independence, representativeness and public confidence, with transparent appointment processes and oversight safeguards.
• Nationwide voter registration. Build a transparent, verifiable registry that protects participation rights and prevents coercion or manipulation.
• Guaranteed political rights across regions. Ensure all parties can organize, campaign and access media freely, with security protections that apply to competitors, not just incumbents.
• A realistic timeline. Set a phased, nationally owned schedule to implement a true “one person, one vote” system—sequencing legal reforms, security benchmarks and administrative capacity rather than rushing a politically expedient vote.

The bottom line

Somalia has come too far to gamble its future on a one-sided process. An election that excludes most citizens, relies on an opaque registry and is overseen by a partisan commission will not unify the country or legitimize its leaders. It will fracture a fragile consensus, inflame center–periphery tensions and risk dragging state institutions into another cycle of crisis.

The choice is stark but manageable: proceed unilaterally and court instability, or embrace constitutionalism and consensus to build an election that all Somalis can own. A credible, inclusive roadmap—rooted in law, anchored in national dialogue and implemented nationwide—is the only path that safeguards Somalia’s stability and preserves the federal project.

Anything less is a step backward.

By Ali Musa

Axadle Times international–Monitoring.