Mogadishu – (WDN)–The latest call for national dialogue by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud is being received not as a breakthrough, but as a calculated delay tactic, an attempt, to buy time as political pressure mounts and the end of his mandate approaches.

On paper, the invitation to a May 10 consultative meeting signals openness. In reality, it follows a week of failed engagements that have only hardened positions. Traditional elders held three separate rounds of talks with the president in Mogadishu. Each ended the same way: no concessions, no movement, no agreement. Opposition leaders also met him three times. The outcome, again, was stalemate.

What is emerging, according to multiple political actors, is not a leader seeking compromise but one intent on imposing a pre-determined political order.

At the center of the dispute is a series of unilateral decisions that critics argue have reshaped Somalia’s fragile political architecture without consensus. The president is accused of driving constitutional changes, forming an electoral commission of his choosing, and pushing ahead with an election model that lacks broad agreement.

The controversy deepens around the federal member states. In Hirshabelle, Galmudug, and South West State, where leadership mandates are disputed or expired, the president is positioning to effectively determine, the outcome of leadership transitions. For many, this is seen as a direct assault on the federal system.

Equally contentious is the insistence on a one-person, one-vote election model in the absence of political agreement. In principle, it is widely supported. In practice, critics argue, pushing it forward without consensus risks turning it into a controlled process rather than a credible democratic exercise. The electoral commission lacks independence and strategically the president is using to handpick members of parliaments.

The political fallout is already visible. Several heavyweight figures who once stood alongside the president have now defected to the opposition. Their reasoning is strikingly consistent: not ideology, not policy differences, but what they describe as entrenched obstinacy at the highest level of power.

For many observers, the situation is beginning to echo darker chapters of Somalia’s past, when centralized control, exclusionary politics, and institutional breakdown paved the way for national collapse. The comparison is not made lightly, but it is being made with increasing frequency.

The president’s supporters argue that strong leadership is necessary to break cycles of paralysis. His critics counter that there is a difference between leadership and unilateralism—and that Somalia is now veering dangerously toward the latter.

As the clock ticks down, the stakes are no longer abstract. This is no longer just a dispute over elections or process. It is a defining struggle over the nature of Somalia’s political system—whether it will be built on consensus or commanded from the center.

The May 10 meeting now looms not as a solution, but as a test. Whether it becomes a genuine turning point or simply another stage-managed pause in a deepening crisis may determine the country’s immediate future.

WardheerNews