Introduction
In his recent address to the joint session of the Federal Parliament of Somalia, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud claimed that his administration has made significant strides in strengthening the operational capacity of security forces to combat terrorism, fostering economic growth and debt relief, and preparing the country for democratic reforms including free and fair elections. However, a deeper examination of his administration’s policies shows that this rhetoric could not be further from reality, as evident in a series of actions that not only undermine these stated objectives but also weaken overall stability.
Weakening the Forces from Within
In the security domain, the president has emphasized his commitment to strengthening national security. However, this contradicts his decision to disband a well-trained military contingent from Eritrea, which included a highly specialized naval unit. Specialized units are crucial to any military strategy, particularly for a country facing persistent security threats. Disbanding such units does not demonstrate a commitment to strengthening national defense but rather suggests a systematic dismantling of key security structures.
Moreover, his claims of combating terrorism reflect either hypocrisy or, at best, a troubling level of naivety. A rational mind struggles to comprehend how the eviction of frontline soldiers’ families in Mogadishu aligns with this professed commitment. A soldier’s morale is inextricably linked to the well-being and stability of their family. When their loved ones are uprooted and left vulnerable, their sense of purpose and dedication to duty inevitably waver, diminishing their effectiveness on the battlefield. This raises broader concerns about the government’s ability to sustain a credible defense against terrorism.
An equally devastating aspect of the president’s security policies is his cultivation of nepotism and favoritism within the armed forces. He bases military promotions on kinship and personal loyalty rather than merit, undermining the confidence and cohesion of the security forces. Additionally, he provides better arms and supplies to forces from his own sub-subclan, creating deep divisions and suspicions within the military. A national security force cannot function effectively when resources are unfairly distributed, and favoritism breeds resentment among soldiers who risk their lives on the front lines.
Furthermore, the president has commercialized the war machine by granting defense contracts to a network of close associates. Such commercialization weakens the state’s ability to maintain a robust and independent security apparatus, as resources are diverted for personal enrichment rather than being used to enhance national security capabilities.
The president’s half-hearted support for Puntland’s security forces further exposes the inconsistencies in his approach to national security. While he commended Puntland’s security forces for their success against terrorist groups, his recognition came too little too late. His prior silence on Puntland’s anti-terror operations suggests that his administration did not anticipate their success. Once the operations gained public recognition and opposition groups began criticizing his administration’s neglect of Puntland’s security efforts, the president shifted his stance, attempting to take credit for the achievements.
His pledge to establish a commission for raising funds for Puntland’s security forces is therefore problematic. Rather than providing genuine assistance, the president appears to be leveraging the security forces’ success as a political tool to generate funds for embezzlement. In other words, given his administration’s track record of mismanaging public funds, there is a strong likelihood that any funds raised in Puntland’s name will be diverted into corrupt networks rather than being used to support efforts on the ground.
Illusions of Economic Performance
Regarding the economy, the president’s claim that Somalia will no longer seek loans from international financial institutions projects an image of fiscal discipline. However, this assertion is misleading. Somalia’s inability to borrow is not a voluntary decision but a restriction imposed by international lenders as part of the country’s debt relief process. By failing to acknowledge this reality, the president misrepresents the true nature of Somalia’s financial standing, giving the public a false impression of economic independence.
The president has also positioned oil extraction as a cornerstone of economic growth but has refused to disclose the terms of agreements signed with foreign companies. This lack of transparency raises serious concerns about governance and accountability. If these deals were truly in Somalia’s best interest, the logical course of action would be to make them public. Instead, Parliament, senior government officials in relevant sectors, and the Somali people remain in the dark about the exploitation of their own natural resources.
This secrecy suggests that private interests, rather than national priorities, are driving these agreements. In many resource-rich but poorly governed countries, opaque oil deals have historically led to elite enrichment and widespread corruption. Under President Mohamud, Somalia risks following this pattern, where natural wealth benefits a small ruling class while the broader population sees little to no improvement. Without transparency and public oversight, there is no assurance that oil revenues will contribute to infrastructure, social services, or sustainable economic growth.
The president has also highlighted the establishment of a department for the blue economy, with a particular focus on the fisheries sector. In theory, this initiative should promote sustainable economic development, given Somalia’s vast maritime resources. In practice, however, the fisheries industry remains riddled with corruption. Fishing licenses are granted to a select few politically connected individuals, who then sub-license access to foreign firms. These foreign entities exploit Somalia’s marine resources with minimal taxation, regulation, or oversight.
As a result, revenues from Somalia’s fisheries benefit a small network of elites rather than contributing to the national economy. The president’s rhetoric on developing the blue economy therefore stands in stark contrast to his administration’s failure to curb these corrupt practices. A genuine commitment to leveraging marine resources for national development would require robust regulatory frameworks and the reinvestment of fishing revenues into the economy.
Similarly, the president’s encouragement of Somali businesses to invest domestically is contradicted by his administration’s role in facilitating capital flight. While urging the Somali business community to contribute to local economic growth, the government simultaneously enables politically connected individuals to transfer illicitly acquired wealth abroad. If domestic investment were truly prioritized, the administration would take meaningful steps to curb these practices, which reinforce economic stagnation and undermine opportunities for local businesses.
Democratic Reform or Power Consolidation?
On democratic reforms, the president’s speech has underscored the importance of completing Somalia’s constitution. While constitutional reform is indeed necessary for long-term political stability, such a process requires broad consensus among political leaders, regional administrations, and key societal stakeholders. Instead of fostering inclusivity, however, the government has pursued a unilateral approach, pushing for changes that appear to serve the president’s political interests rather than ensuring a balanced and representative system.
Without genuine buy-in from major stakeholders, any changes or amendments introduced in this manner are unlikely to succeed or gain legitimacy. If the true objective were national unity and democratic progress, the government would prioritize dialogue and compromise rather than unilateral decision-making.
The president has also emphasized the transition from indirect elections to a universal suffrage system. In principle, this shift could represent a significant step toward democratic governance. However, instead of ensuring a transparent and well-structured transition, the government has moved hastily, disregarding the need for a broad-based agreement on electoral reforms.
The establishment of electoral commissions based on only four amended chapters of the constitution underscores the administration’s prioritization of speed over legitimacy. Electoral frameworks require careful planning and solid legal foundations. Rushing the process without securing consensus raises doubts about whether the government is genuinely committed to democratization or merely maneuvering to consolidate power.
An election, much like a football game, requires clear rules and mutual agreement among all participants. Just as teams must accept the authority of referees and adhere to predetermined regulations, political actors must operate within an agreed framework to ensure a fair and credible electoral process. Without consensus on the rules and an impartial body to oversee them, the legitimacy of the election is compromised.
The president has announced that elections will be conducted digitally, yet the source of funding for this project remains unclear, as it is not reflected in the national budget. If a digital voting system is to be implemented, it must be established through a transparent and accountable process that ensures neutrality. Without such guarantees, there is a significant risk that the system is designed to serve the interests of a select few rather than delivering a credible and transparent election.
The government’s framing of the expected low voter turnout also raises serious concerns. The president has justified potential low participation rates by citing examples from other countries, including authoritarian regimes such as Ethiopia. Rather than acknowledging the real reasons for possible low turnout – such as insecurity and limited government control over large parts of the country – this justification suggests that the administration is preparing to manipulate or exploit the situation to its advantage.
This approach implies that the government is more focused on consolidating control over a limited number of regions rather than expanding democratic participation nationwide. A truly democratic administration would work to address security concerns, improve voter accessibility, and ensure widespread participation. By preemptively downplaying concerns about voter turnout, the government appears to be setting the stage for an election that lacks broad legitimacy.
Furthermore, despite claims that elections will be free and fair, the government has actively restricted opposition activities. Authorities have issued directives preventing hotels in Mogadishu from hosting opposition meetings, effectively curbing political engagement and suppressing democratic discourse. Journalists have also been intimidated and discouraged from covering opposition gatherings. Efforts to restrict media freedom and pressure hotel owners into denying meeting spaces for political gatherings are clear attempts to suppress political participation.
Additionally, obstructing the movement of Members of Parliament hampers their ability to engage in the electoral process freely. Such tactics not only undermine democratic principles but also create an environment of fear and coercion, making it difficult to achieve a genuinely free and fair election.
A government that truly supports democracy would encourage open debate, public participation, and political pluralism. Instead, the administration’s suppression of opposition activities contradicts its stated commitment to electoral reforms. This pattern of repression suggests that the government is not interested in fair competition but rather in controlling the electoral process to secure predetermined outcomes.
Conclusion
Despite the rhetoric of progress, the reality is different. For Somalia to achieve meaningful advancement, its leadership must bridge the gap between lofty declarations and concrete policy execution. Strengthening national security requires more than public statements – it demands equitable resource distribution, professionalized military leadership, and institutional integrity. Economic development must be driven by transparency and accountability rather than secrecy and elite capture. Similarly, democratic reforms should be pursued with inclusivity and legitimacy, not as instruments for consolidating power.
In essence, Somalia’s path forward depends on leadership rooted in consistency, integrity, and a genuine commitment to national interests over personal or partisan gain. Only through such an approach can the country move beyond rhetoric and lay the foundations for sustainable progress.
