By Ahmed Hassen
As I reflect on the events of Tuesday, April 30th, 2024, a profound sense of anticipation and unease settles in. The National Reconciliation Framework was set to be launched at Aden Abdulle International Airport, a location long synonymous with Somalia’s indirect elections. On the occasion, Hamza Abdi, Somalia’s Prime Minister, took the stage and pledged to end the tradition of clan-based indirect elections and transition to a one-person, one-vote system.
This announcement was notable for its boldness its timing. With ongoing reconciliation efforts, the promise of universal suffrage raises a crucial question: will shifting to a one-person, one-vote system promotes genuine reconciliation, or could it potentially undermine the painstakingly constructed, imperfect but functional clan-based system that has maintained the fragile peace? Former President Mohamed Abdulahi Farmajo also vowed to replace the clan-based system, only to re-embrace it later. Can the current administration succeed where others could not? Will this transition truly advance the reconciliation process or risk jeopardizing it?
This article argues that while a one-person, one-vote system is desirable for Somalia in the long run, it is not currently feasible due to several challenges. These challenges include undermining the delicate balance of the clan system and the lack of trust between the state and society, as well as within the societies themselves. Therefore, the article offers feasible roadmaps for achieving universal suffrage while maintaining stability and increasing citizen involvement in electing representatives at all levels of government.
The Debate: Immediate Change vs. Incremental Approach
The debate on electoral reform in Somalia revolves around two main perspectives. One perspective argues that Somalia must break free from the rigid clan-based system immediately and transition to a one-person, one-vote system, despite its imperfections.
Conversely, others support a gradual approach, warning that hastening the process could destabilize the country further. They contend that while universal suffrage is a worthy goal, it should not overshadow more pressing priorities such as security and stability. This debate encapsulates the tension between urgency and prudence, raising fundamental questions about the best path forward for Somalia.
Personal Experience and the Power of Participation
Over the past year, I had the honor of working on the USAID-funded People Centered Governance (PCG) project across Galmudug, Hirshabelle, Jubaland, and South West states. The project’s goal was to enhance the legitimacy of local governments by building their capacity and improving service delivery. One notable achievement was the community voting process in four districts—Afmadow, Galkayo, Hudur, and Warsheikh. Thousands of first-time voters participated in prioritizing local needs, which reduced clan influence, promoted transparency, and fostered community trust.
The success of the project stemmed from addressing issues like clan politics, elite manipulation, and distrust among stakeholders. By fostering diverse interest groups and emphasizing interdependence, transparency, and trust, the project reduced the influence of vested interests. This inclusive approach, engaging both wealthy and disadvantaged stakeholders, promoted cooperation and compromise toward a common goal. Ultimately, the PCG project underscored the importance of community participation in governance and the potential for holding the state accountable through greater stakeholder involvement.
I am well aware of the distinction between community voting based on need identification and voting for representatives. In the former case, the state does not seek to influence and even supports voting to happen as planned. However, in elections for representatives, the state will use all available resources and means to influence the results. The key takeaway from this scenario is that while the state has the power, increased community involvement makes it more difficult for the state to act with impunity.
Balancing Tradition and Modernity
Universal suffrage is a commendable concept, granting citizens the right to choose their representatives. However, Somalia’s contemporary state requires reconciling with its clan system and Islamic principles, both of which emphasize participation, consensus-building, and consultation.
Despite the fact that Somalia lacks the capacity to enforce the rule of law and maintain a monopoly on violence, with areas under Al-Shabaab control and armed clans competing with the government, the state is gradually consolidating power. Without balancing tradition and modernity, the urgent move towards universal suffrage will destabilize the country, as the government lacks the enforcement power to manage the transition effectively.
Participation vs. Stability
For over two decades, Somalia’s clan-based formula has played a crucial role in maintaining some stability and inclusivity. The 4.5 clan formula, introduced during the Arte Conference in 2000, was initially meant as a temporary peace and state-building solution, offering a structured yet provisional mechanism for political representation. Despite its flaws, this system has been essential in maintaining relative peace in a nation deeply divided along clan lines, enabling a negotiated balance of power and ensuring each clan has a stake in the political process.
Initially, representation involved only 135 traditional elders, but over the years, participation has expanded significantly, reaching over 28,000 participants during the last indirect election in 2022. This growth reflects the system’s ability to adapt and engage a broader segment of the population, even though it falls short of the ideal of one person, one vote.
The proposed shift towards universal suffrage promises greater democratic participation and equality, where every citizen’s vote carries equal weight. However, this transition is fraught with risks. The clan-based system, despite its shortcomings, has provided a structured approach to representation that has helped stabilize the country. A sudden move to universal suffrage could disrupt this fragile balance, potentially worsening existing tensions and jeopardizing the progress made in state-building. If not carefully managed, it might provoke resistance from clans as they lose trust in the system. Therefore, a gradual and inclusive approach is essential to ensure that the transition to universal suffrage strengthens rather than destabilizes Somalia.
Read more: Achieving Universal Franchise in Somalia: Balancing Reform with Stability
Ahmed Hassen
Email: [email protected]
————–
Ahmed Hassen is a seasoned expert in governance, conflict management, peacebuilding, stabilization, community-driven development, community policing, and armed violence reduction
We welcome the submission of all articles for possible publication on WardheerNews.com. WardheerNews will only consider articles sent exclusively. Please email your article today . Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of WardheerNews.
WardheerNew’s tolerance platform is engaging with diversity of opinion, political ideology and self-expression. Tolerance is a necessary ingredient for creativity and civility.Tolerance fuels tenacity and audacity.
WardheerNews waxay tixgelin gaara siinaysaa maqaaladaha sida gaarka ah loogu soo diro ee aan lagu daabicin goobo kale. Maqaalkani wuxuu ka turjumayaa aragtida Qoraaga loomana fasiran karo tan WardheerNews.
Copyright © 2024 WardheerNews, All rights reserved
