Somalia’s Political Stalemate: Constitutional Disputes, Electoral Uncertainty, and the Cost of Political Division!
Author
By Anwar Abdifatah Bashir : Executive Director, East African Institute for Peace and Governance
Somalia is once again confronting a critical test of its fragile democratic transition. The ongoing political stalemate over constitutional amendments, presidential and parliamentary term extensions, and the future of the national electoral system has deepened divisions between the Federal Government, opposition leaders, and federal member states. At a time when the country urgently needs political cohesion to address insecurity, humanitarian challenges, and institutional fragility, the struggle over constitutional authority risks undermining the progress Somalia has made toward rebuilding its state.
At the heart of the crisis is not simply a disagreement over the length of political terms or the technical design of an electoral system. It is a deeper contest over constitutional legitimacy, political trust, and the rules governing the transfer of power. Unless these issues are addressed through inclusive dialogue and a credible political settlement, Somalia risks allowing competition for power to overshadow the national interest.
Constitutional Amendments and the Question of Legitimacy
The constitutional amendments adopted in March 2026, which extended the presidential and parliamentary terms from four to five years, have become a central source of political controversy. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud signed the changes into law, shifting the scheduled end of his presidential term from May 15, 2026, to May 15, 2027.
Supporters of the amendments may argue that extending the terms provides additional time to complete institutional reforms and advance the transition toward direct elections. However, constitutional reform cannot be judged solely by its stated objectives. Equally important are the procedures through which amendments are adopted, the inclusiveness of the process, and the degree of political consensus surrounding their implementation.
In a country where constitutional arrangements remain closely connected to negotiations over federalism and power-sharing, major constitutional changes require more than parliamentary approval. They require broad political legitimacy and public confidence.
The opposition alliance, which includes former President Sharif Sheikh Ahmed and political figures associated with Puntland and Jubbaland, has rejected the amendments, arguing that the changes were imposed without sufficient consultation and could consolidate executive power. These objections should not be dismissed as ordinary political resistance. They raise fundamental questions about constitutional procedure, institutional accountability, and the principle that political leaders must operate within mutually accepted rules.
At the same time, opposition leaders must demonstrate that their objections are grounded in constitutional principles and a constructive commitment to democratic governance. Rejecting government decisions without presenting a viable alternative will not resolve the crisis. Both sides have a responsibility to defend constitutional order rather than treat it as an instrument of political advantage.
The Electoral Model: Reform Requires Consensus
The disagreement over Somalia’s electoral system reflects another dimension of the political impasse. The Federal Government advocates a transition to a direct one-person, one-vote system, presenting it as a step toward strengthening democratic participation and ending the country’s prolonged reliance on indirect electoral arrangements.
The principle of universal suffrage is important. Citizens should ultimately have the opportunity to choose their representatives directly through credible, competitive, and transparent elections. A transition toward this model could strengthen public accountability, broaden political participation, and improve the legitimacy of elected institutions.
However, the desirability of direct elections does not eliminate the practical and political challenges of implementing them. Somalia continues to face security threats, institutional capacity constraints, disputes over federal authority, and disagreements about electoral administration. These realities require a carefully negotiated transition rather than an approach that deepens political confrontation.
Opposition figures, meanwhile, favor consensus-based indirect arrangements involving traditional elders, political stakeholders, and regional selection mechanisms. Although indirect elections have significant limitations, including restricted public participation and the potential for elite bargaining, they have also played a role in Somalia’s post-conflict political settlements.
The central question, therefore, should not be whether direct elections are desirable in principle, but how Somalia can move toward them through a legitimate, inclusive, and practical process.
A credible electoral roadmap should establish clear timelines, agreed institutional responsibilities, transparent voter registration procedures, security arrangements, and mechanisms for resolving disputes. Most importantly, the roadmap should be negotiated among the Federal Government, federal member states, opposition groups, and other relevant stakeholders.
Electoral reform imposed without sufficient political agreement risks producing the opposite of its intended outcome: rather than strengthening democracy, it may deepen mistrust and undermine the legitimacy of the institutions it seeks to reform.
Federalism Under Pressure
Somalia’s political crisis also exposes the continuing weaknesses of its federal system. Disagreements over regional and local elections, including disputes involving how the government managed the elections in Southwest State, Galmudug, and Banadir/Mogadishu, have further strained relations between federal authorities and regional political actors.
Federalism was intended to provide a framework for sharing political authority, accommodating regional interests, and rebuilding trust after decades of conflict. Yet persistent disagreements over constitutional powers, electoral administration, resource distribution, and political appointments continue to challenge this objective.
The relationship between Mogadishu and the federal member states has frequently been shaped by competing political calculations rather than stable, clearly understood institutional rules. When political disputes are handled through unilateral decisions or competing claims of authority, federal institutions become arenas of confrontation instead of mechanisms for resolving disagreements.
The Federal Government must recognize that national leadership requires consultation with federal member states, particularly on matters that affect the constitutional balance of power. Regional leaders, in turn, must exercise their authority responsibly and avoid using federal disputes to entrench their own political positions.
A sustainable federal settlement requires clearly defined constitutional responsibilities, regular intergovernmental dialogue, predictable electoral procedures, and impartial mechanisms for resolving disputes. Without these safeguards, disagreements over elections and constitutional amendments will continue to generate recurring political crises.
Political Confrontation and the Risks to National Security
The political stalemate has consequences beyond the corridors of government. Reports of tensions involving security forces and opposition figures, including confrontations associated with disputed political gatherings in Mogadishu, illustrate how political disagreements can become security challenges.
Such developments are particularly concerning in a country still engaged in a difficult struggle against Al-Shabaab. Somalia’s security institutions require sustained coordination, political support, and public confidence. When political actors become locked in confrontation, security resources and institutional attention may be diverted from the protection of citizens and the stabilization of vulnerable areas.
Political disagreements must never become a justification for the excessive use of force, arbitrary restrictions on peaceful assembly, or intimidation of political opponents. Equally, opposition groups should pursue their objectives through peaceful and lawful means.
The right to peaceful political participation, freedom of expression, and the protection of civilians are essential elements of democratic governance. Security institutions should remain professional and operate within the law rather than become instruments of political competition.
The broader danger is that prolonged political conflict could create opportunities for Al-Shabaab to exploit divisions among national leaders and weaken public confidence in the state. At a time when Somalia needs unity of purpose to address insecurity, political polarization is an avoidable strategic vulnerability.
Mediation Has Yet to Deliver a Breakthrough
International partners, including the United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM), have supported political engagement and dialogue intended to bridge differences between Somali political stakeholders. Nevertheless, repeated discussions have struggled to produce a durable settlement.
The persistence of the stalemate suggests that meetings alone are insufficient. Dialogue must be supported by political willingness to compromise, a clearly defined negotiating agenda, and an agreed mechanism for implementing decisions.
International partners can facilitate communication, provide technical assistance, and encourage respect for constitutional principles. However, they cannot substitute for Somali political ownership. A settlement imposed or sustained primarily through external pressure is unlikely to resolve the underlying crisis if domestic actors remain unwilling to accept its terms.
The immediate priority should be to establish an inclusive political dialogue with a limited number of clearly defined objectives: resolving the dispute over constitutional amendments and term extensions, agreeing on an electoral roadmap, clarifying the roles of federal and regional institutions, and establishing guarantees against unilateral changes to the rules of political competition.
Any agreement should be documented, made publicly accessible, and accompanied by a practical implementation timetable. Independent monitoring and regular consultations could help build confidence that commitments will be respected.
The government and opposition must also recognize that compromise is not equivalent to surrender. In a fragile political system, negotiated concessions can be essential to preserving institutions and preventing a manageable disagreement from becoming a broader national crisis.
The Human Cost of Political Distraction
Perhaps the most troubling consequence of Somalia’s political stalemate is the attention it diverts from the country’s pressing social and economic challenges.
Somalia continues to confront the threat posed by Al-Shabaab, recurring climate shocks, displacement, food insecurity, unemployment, and limited access to essential public services. These challenges demand sustained political attention, effective public administration, and cooperation among federal and regional authorities.
Civil society organizations, religious leaders, traditional elders, professional associations, and independent media have an important role to play in encouraging dialogue and holding political leaders accountable. Their engagement should promote peaceful solutions, constitutional responsibility, and a public debate focused on the long-term interests of the Somali people.
The crisis also presents an opportunity to strengthen civic participation. Constitutional reform and electoral arrangements should not remain the exclusive concern of political elites. Citizens deserve accessible information about proposed changes and meaningful opportunities to express their views through legitimate public consultation.
A Way Forward: From Political Rivalry to Constitutional Settlement
Somalia cannot resolve its current crisis through competing declarations of legitimacy or repeated rounds of inconclusive negotiations. It requires a credible political settlement that addresses both the immediate dispute and the institutional weaknesses that have allowed the confrontation to escalate.
First, the Federal Government and opposition leaders should agree to an inclusive dialogue aimed at resolving the constitutional dispute. The process should examine the legal basis, procedures, and political legitimacy of the amendments rather than assume that either side’s position is beyond scrutiny.
Second, all major political stakeholders should negotiate a transparent electoral roadmap. The objective should be to establish an achievable transition toward direct elections while agreeing on interim arrangements where necessary. Such arrangements must be time-bound, clearly defined, and accepted by the principal political stakeholders.
Third, the federal government and member states should strengthen intergovernmental consultation. Regular meetings, agreed dispute-resolution mechanisms, and clearer divisions of responsibility could reduce the likelihood that regional electoral disagreements develop into national political confrontations.
Fourth, the protection of civic and political freedoms must remain non-negotiable. Peaceful opposition, public debate, and lawful political assembly are essential to political stability, not threats to it. All parties should reject violence and intimidation as instruments of political competition.
Finally, political leaders should recommit themselves to national priorities, including security, humanitarian assistance, climate resilience, economic recovery, and accountable public administration. A political settlement will have limited value if it fails to restore the government’s capacity to address the everyday concerns of its citizens.
Conclusion: Somalia Needs a Political Settlement, Not Another Power Struggle
Somalia’s current political stalemate is a test of the country’s commitment to constitutional governance and democratic transition. The controversy over term extensions, the dispute over the electoral model, and deteriorating relations between federal and regional authorities all point to a deeper problem: the absence of sufficiently trusted rules for managing political competition.
The government has a responsibility to ensure that constitutional reform strengthens institutional legitimacy rather than intensifies political division. The opposition has an equally important responsibility to offer constructive alternatives and pursue its objections through peaceful, constitutional means. Federal member states must participate in negotiations in good faith, while international partners should support a Somali-led process that prioritizes dialogue and institutional stability.
No political actor should place the preservation of power above the preservation of the state. Nor should the legitimate ambition to introduce direct elections become a justification for bypassing the political consensus necessary to make those elections credible and sustainable.
Ultimately, Somalia’s democratic future will not be determined simply by whether presidential and parliamentary terms last four or five years, or by whether elections are direct or indirect. It will depend on whether political leaders can agree on fair rules, respect constitutional limits, accept legitimate competition, and place national interests above short-term political calculations.
Somalia does not need another cycle of political confrontation. It needs a constitutional settlement that restores trust, protects democratic participation, strengthens federal cooperation, and allows the country to focus on the security and development priorities its citizens urgently need.
