Somalia’s pursuit of lasting peace and national unity faces the gravest danger yet. The near complete concentration of power under President Hassan Sheikh, ongoing growing tensions over constitutional amendments and electoral arrangements as well as the deteriorating relations with Federal Member States all raise a fundamental question: is the Federal Government strengthening federalism or is it risking a return to the centralized politics that contributed to the country’s collapse?
- Federalism: Unity Through Democracy, Not Strongman Rule
Since gaining independence in 1960, Somalia has always struggled to reconcile national unity with the fair distribution of political power. The highly centralized state concentrated all authority in Mogadishu, while many outlying communities and regions felt politically marginalized. Repression, exclusion, and unresolved grievances of all kinds contributed to armed opposition and the eventual collapse of the central government in 1991.
Somalia’s subsequent state-building efforts recognized that elusive unity could not be restored through concentrated power alone. Following the adoption of the 2004 Transitional Federal Charter, Somalia embraced federalism as a negotiated political settlement intended to preserve national unity through clan-based power-sharing, decentralization, and the inclusion of diverse political and regional interests.
Federalism reflected the political realities of modern Somalia. It requires mutual cooperation between the Federal Government and Federal Member States, prioritizing political consensus and partnership over unilateral decisions by a single, unchecked leader. Somalia’s experience demonstrates that lasting peace cannot be built by concentrating power in the hands of a few while excluding the vast majority from key decisions that shape the country’s future.
- Hassan Sheikh’s Centralizing Approach: A Gamble with National Unity
President Hassan Sheikh’s pursuit of greater central authority risks nothing but undermining Somalia’s federal settlement by weakening Federal Member States, challenging their constitutional powers, and wanton interfering in their internal affairs. Over the past four years, constitutional and electoral changes that the president has pursued, without broad political consensus I must add, have deepened mistrust and raised serious concerns about the future of inclusive federal governance.
His unilateral constitutional amendments, undertaken without meaningful consultation with Federal Member States and other key stakeholders, have intensified the resulting constitutional uncertainty. The dispute over presidential tenure further illustrates this crisis: the Provisional Federal Constitution under which he was elected under provides for a 4-year term, while the revised constitutional framework is invoked to justify a 5-year mandate. These competing interpretations risk undermining constitutional legitimacy and deepening divisions between Mogadishu and the regions.
Federal Member States are not administrative extensions of the central government, they are essential partners in Somalia’s political settlement. Weakening their autonomy and treating regional leaders like obstacles to presidential authority rather than partners in national governance risks reviving age-old historical grievances, destabilizing federal institutions, and threatening national unity long beyond Hassan Sheikh’s presidency.
Political tensions in Galmudug and Hirshabelle, alongside the ongoing crisis in South West State, illustrate the broader dangers of sustained political confrontation and contested authority. The Federal Government’s unilateral political arrangements and exclusion of key actor’s risk weakening institutions, polarizing communities, and turning political disagreements into wider conflicts.
The ongoing armed conflict in South West State demonstrates how sidelining political stakeholders and disregarding the need for consensus can deepen instability rather than strengthen national governance. Hassan Sheikh cannot strengthen national unity by weakening the political compact on which that very unity depends. Somalia’s unity depends on the overarching respect of constitutional limits, regional autonomy, political consensus, and constructive cooperation between federal and state governments.
- Unilateral Elections: Centralization, Legitimacy, and National Security
The ambition to introduce one-person-one-vote elections represents an important, much-needed democratic milestone for Somalia. However, pursuing this goal through unilateral processes without broad political consensus risks already deepening the country’s recurrent political crisis. Genuine electoral reform requires an agreed-upon constitutional framework, credible implementation, and meaningful participation by Federal Member States and major political stakeholders, including Puntland, Jubaland state, as well as the members of Somali future council.
President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s refusal to negotiate an inclusive electoral roadmap raises serious concerns that he is only prioritizing an election model that guarantees his return to office over national stability. An electoral process imposed without broad agreement risks uncertainty, fractures national institutions, and triggers a legitimacy crisis. More dangerously, political confrontation could weaken security coordination, creating opportunities for Al-Shabaab to reclaim territories liberated at great cost by the Somali National Army and international partners.
Continued political exclusion could also cripple the country’s economic recovery and democratic achievements. While domestic opposition does not automatically strip a state of international recognition, competing electoral processes and the emergence of rival governments would directly challenge the credibility and authority of the Federal Government in Mogadishu. A government that loses the trust and acceptance of significant segments of its population inevitably weakens its own political legitimacy and standing with international partners. Somalia cannot afford to sacrifice its fragile progress to the pursuit of consolidated personal power.
A president’s determination to control the electoral process and its outcomes must not come at the expense of national unity and constitutional legitimacy. Without genuine dialogue and political consensus, an ambition intended to advance democracy could instead, produce prolonged instability, and undermine the foundations of inclusive governance.
- Recommendations: Choose Consensus Over Ego
- President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud must abandon this unrealistic quest for unilateral political control and return to the widely accepted Provisional Federal Constitution as the basis for resolving the current constitutional ambiguity. He must sit down with the leadership of Puntland, Jubaland, and other key Oppositions Figures to agree on a consensus-based electoral model, one that is genuinely realistic in terms of both timeline and financial cost.
- It is time for him to recognize the political reality that Somalia’s unity can only be preserved through a genuinely federal and democratic system that commands the acceptance of the country’s political stakeholders. It is also time for him to acknowledge that the era of the authoritarian strongman is long gone, and that the concentration of power cannot deliver national unity.
- Somalia’s future depends on responsible leadership that recognizes the limits of central authority and respects the constitutional role of Federal Member States. Electoral reform must be a collective national undertaking, not a political project from above imposed by one man.
- The Federal Government must recognize that political consensus is not a sign of weakness or an obstacle to progress. It is the foundation upon which a legitimate, stable, and inclusive state can be built. Choosing consensus over ego is not merely a political option, it is a national responsibility.
Conclusion
Somalia’s greatest achievement since 1991 has been rebuilding a legitimate government capable of gaining the recognition and acceptance of people and political elites. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s unilateral constitutional amendments and pursuit of national elections without broad political consensus risk recklessly undermining this achievement, deepening the legitimacy crisis, jeopardizing national unity, reigniting civil conflict, and giving Al-Shabaab greater opportunities to capture major cities. Somalia adopted federalism because its history demonstrated that concentrated power and political exclusion cannot sustain lasting peace or national unity. The country’s future depends on whether its leaders uphold this lesson or repeat the mistakes of the past. The ongoing crisis in South West State and wider federal tensions should serve as serious warnings that sidelining political stakeholders can endanger the achievements built through years of reconciliation.
Somalia does not need another experiment in strongman politics, it needs responsible leadership and a government built on consensus not ego, partnership not domination and national unity, not the concentration of power in Mogadishu.
Mustafa Awale Ahmed is a researcher and political and security analyst focused on the Horn of Africa and the Middle East. Hold a Master’s degree in Peace and Security Studies.
