What Does the Effort to Oust the Deputy Prime Minister from the Upper House Unveil About Governance in Somalia?

In any nation embracing a federal structure, splitting power among branches isn’t just a formality—it’s the backbone of savvy governance. Each branch—executive, legislative, and judicial—operates in isolation, with its own unique responsibilities. This division stops any one branch from hogging all that tasty authority and encourages checks and balances, which keeps everyone accountable. In a federal institution like Somalia, where regional bodies hold serious sway, a clear-cut division of power is critical for maintaining stability and halting an overzealous central government from overstepping its bounds.

Yet, since Somalia’s federal government came to be, these ideals have been consistently undermined. The mixture of constitutional framework and decisions from various Somali regimes has muddled the once-clear line separating the executive and legislative branches, leading to a circus of political chaos and conflicting interests. A couple of notable incidents—the attempted ousting of the deputy prime minister from the upper house and the legislative fiasco during Farmaajo’s leadership—perfectly demonstrate the mess that happens when power division is ignored. At heart, it’s Somalia’s neglect to embrace its federalist roots and reliance on a parliamentary setup that stirs this pandemonium with extensive governance impacts.

Somalia’s Constitution and the Power Split

Crafted with the intent of forging a federal framework, Somalia’s Provisional Constitution ardently advocates for splitting powers. Just give Article 3 a read and you’ll find lots of talk about maintaining distinct and independent governance branches. This plan was to whip up a system that fosters good governance, accountability, and democracy. By pledging to federalism, the constitution aims to spread power across various tiers of government, thwarting any autocratic tendencies from taking root.

Despite singing hymns of federalism, the constitution still holds traces of parliamentary systems, especially when hashing out the executive-legislative relationship. A glaring point is Article 59, which gives a wink and a nod to MPs doubling as ministers. This loophole kicks federalism ideals to the curb and allows folks to dip into both legislative and executive pots, breeding conflicts of interest, and waving goodbye to separation principles outlined in Article 3.

In parliamentary havens like the UK, the ruling bunch comes from parliament’s majority party. Here, the prime minister, sitting atop the executive, is also an MP. While this creates a symbiotic vibe between branches that works there due to time-tested norms and controls, Somalia’s federal scene insists on erecting firm walls between executive and legislative roles to maintain harmony. Federalism champions branch independence to stave off power concentration, especially in regions with sprawling clan and territorial divisions like Somalia.

Federalism vs. Parliamentarianism: Why Division Matters

The 4.5 power-sharing rule that doles out roles based on clan representation underscores Somalia’s acute sensitivity to any power grab. Spawned from an urge to prevent any one group from seizing the steering wheel, federalism’s love for decentralization and regional autonomy fits hand-in-glove with Somalia’s quest for evenhanded governance. On the flip side, parliamentary systems, where a ruling party can steer both the executive and legislative ships, risk political control by a singular faction, sabotaging checks and balances that federalism is built to safeguard against.

Take Belgium—it’s a mishmash of federalism and parliamentarianism where ministers have to ditch their parliamentary gigs upon taking the reins to retain power division. This legal firewall keeps ministers from casting undue legislative shadow. Even though parliament picks the head honcho, keeping those powers apart safeguards federal dignity.

But, Somalia’s blueprint, and specifically Article 59, skips out on such safety nets. It lets MPs hang on to their seats even when donning ministerial hats, creating a circus of double allegiances. This goes against Article 3’s founding principles that elevate federalism and power separation. The blindness to reconcile this quirk sabotages Somalia’s federal makeup, sapping the checks and balances essential for solid governance.

Plus, Article 132 of the interim constitution puts a padlock on amendments to Article 3, underscored as the fort of federalism minus any nod to a parliamentary governance. This points to federalism, in no uncertain terms, as Somalia’s constitutional linchpin. Article 59’s dual role permissiveness needs to be viewed through this foundational lens—putting federal values before any executive-legislative mesh.

The Deputy Prime Minister’s Attempted Ouster: An Unbolted Case Study

The attempted booting of Somalia’s deputy prime minister shines a spotlight on the constitutional quagmires born from neglecting power division. Absence from four parliamentary gatherings drew the boot-squad’s wrath, though the ‘law of the land’ stipulates two missed sessions could do the trick. The DPM, juggling executive duties, was promptly sacked, underscoring politically charged application—or absence thereof—of constitutional provisions. This highlighted the stickiness of dual roles and a larger issue in Somalia’s governance plot.

His removal underscores conflicts dropped in by senior executive members playing roles in legislative circles. Swift resolution without court drama screams of political machination outpacing constitutional fidelity. A blurry executive-legislative separation gave political maestros the opening to warp the system, eroding Somalia’s governance pillar from within.

The Farmaajo Election Law Drama

The election law debacle during Farmaajo’s tenure between 2020 and 2021 illustrates the plight of allowing MPs to double as ministers. When ministers backed a voting system overhaul, parliamentary dons—donning minister hats—swung the veto pen. This shindig showcases how fuzzy power lines morph into legislative chaos and gridlock. The flexibility for members to sail on two vessels lets executive folks throttle policies they ought to enact. This dual-deckery not only crippled efforts to dust off Somalia’s election maneuvers but also laid bare deep-seated governance cracks.

Time for Change: Championing Federalism’s Victory Lap

For Somalia’s federal framework to truly shine, it needs to champion power division like an Olympic torch. Parliamentarians wearing minister hats trigger interest clashes, water down legislative checks, and blunt governance efficacy. Somalia’s priority should be structural reforms stamping out these hiccups to align with federalism dreams etched in the constitution.

Rolling in experience from federal setups like Belgium, requiring ministers to quit their parliamentary seats can stop power concentration and conflicts, bolstering accountability. While South Africa ain’t federal, it sticks to a similar script by cementing clear-cut executive-legislative roles.

Threading parallel reforms into Somalia would restore power equilibrium and breathe life into federalism ideals. Having ministers step down from parliamentary roosts would halt conflicts and fortify branch autonomy. Moreover, beefing up judicial oversight over the two branches could further sprinkle accountability and good governance.

Wrapping It Up

Despite solid federal tenets, Somalia’s system has consistently let parliamentarians pull double shifts in executive corridors, creating mall of conflicts, squashing branch independence, and destabilizing its federal core. Scenarios like the deputy prime minister’s attempted expulsion and the electoral crisis under Farmaajo spotlight the governance woes tethered to this lack of division.

For a steady federal boat, Somalia must put constitutional cuts making power division a law writing rule. Demanding ministers drop parliamentary duties upon taking the crown while amplifying judiciary oversight would brew a system charged with checks and balances, nurturing accountability, transparency, and good governance. These fixes are non-negotiable for protecting Somalia’s federal fabric, ensuring a more stable and democratic future.

[1] The author is a Somali American lawyer based in Nairobi, Kenya. Reach out at [email protected]. Check LinkedIn

[2] See Somalia’s Government Must Adhere to the Constitutional Structure, /op4/2022/july/186939/somalia_s_government_must_adhere_to_the_constitutional_structure.aspx on how the federal setup stomps over its own constitution.

[3]Peek at Afyare Elmi’s take in The Politics of Electoral Systems in Somalia: An Assessment, here.

[4]Article 50 of Belgium’s Constitution requires new ministers to boot themselves from parliament, stating, “A member appointed by the King ceases to sit… resuming seat upon Government end.”

Edited by: Ali Musa

alimusa@axadletimes.com

Axadle international–Monitoring