By Isha Qarsoon[1]

Introduction

Somalia stands at a crossroads. So do its supporters. The international institutions and nations that have invested in Somalia’s institution-building—the United Nations and its agencies, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the African Development Bank, the United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union, and key European nations such as Germany and Sweden—now face a critical choice. Their support has been essential in helping Somalia rebuild its governance structures. But that same support now risks enabling the erosion of federalism.

At the heart of any legitimate government is the electoral process. Elections define governance. They determine who rules, who holds them accountable, and whether the people’s voice is truly heard. In a federal system, elections are more than mechanisms of representation; they are the foundation of autonomy. They grant each sovereign entity—both the federal government and the member states—the ability to govern themselves. The moment a central authority seizes control of subnational elections, federalism ceases to exist in any meaningful form.

Somalia is at that moment now, teetering on the edge of democratic legitimacy. The newly enacted National Elections Law [2], passed on November 23, 2024, fundamentally shifts the balance of power. It strips Federal Member States (FMSs) of their authority over elections and places all electoral processes under the control of a federally appointed commission.

Elections are not mere technical exercises; they are the soul of governance. A sovereign that loses control over its electoral system loses control over its future. A member state that cannot choose its own leaders is not sovereign or autonomous—it is an administrative zone subject to the whims of the center. The Somali constitution was designed to prevent such an outcome. Yet, the new electoral law has put this very foundation at risk. It is not just a legal violation; it is a deliberate act of centralization that erases the essence of federalism in Somalia.

Yet, despite the gravity of the situation, the international community remains troublingly silent. Only James Swan, Acting Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Somalia, has publicly addressed the issue, emphasizing the need for dialogue and consensus among political stakeholders. However, Mr. Swan’s remarks stopped short of directly addressing the core problem—the unconstitutional nature of the new electoral law. The US, UK, EU, Germany, and Sweden remain conspicuously quiet, a silence that speaks volumes. If these international partners financially support the implementation of an illegal electoral framework, they will not be mere bystanders; they will be complicit in dismantling Somalia’s federal system and undermining its democracy.

Electoral Manipulation and the Dismantling of Federalism

Somalia is not the first country to face this crisis. The path Somalia is now on has been walked before—with disastrous consequences. Venezuela and Ethiopia stand as stark warnings of what happens when electoral centralization is used as a tool to dismantle federalism, erode democracy, and consolidate power.

Venezuela was once a functioning federation with autonomous states. However, under Hugo Chávez, the country’s electoral system was gradually brought under the control of the central government. In 1999, Chávez spearheaded the drafting of a new constitution that concentrated power in the presidency. While the document proclaimed Venezuela a “decentralized federal state,” in practice, it allowed the central government to weaken the autonomy of regional governments by controlling their elections. The National Electoral Council (CNE), which was meant to be an independent body, was instead filled with loyalists, ensuring that state elections would favor Chávez’s ruling party. This manipulation of the electoral process removed political accountability at the regional level, stripping opposition governors and mayors of their legitimacy. Over time, this electoral stranglehold allowed the federal government to bypass local authorities altogether, appointing its own administrators in place of elected officials. The result was a complete collapse of Venezuela’s federal system. The fight over autonomy transformed into political purges, economic devastation, and mass migration, leaving the country in a state of perpetual crisis.

Ethiopia provides a more recent and alarming example—one that hits close to home for Somalia. Ethiopia’s federalism was based on ethnic regions governing themselves under a decentralized model. For a while, this system seemed to have allowed some degree of stability. However, when Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed moved to centralize electoral control, it set the country on a collision course with civil war. By restructuring Ethiopia’s multi-party federal arrangement into a single centralized political entity, Abiy marginalized regional governments, particularly the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF).

The move was seen as an attempt to dissolve the federal balance that had kept Ethiopia together. The breaking point came when the Tigray region held its own elections in defiance of Abiy’s centralized system. The federal government responded with military force, launching what became a brutal civil war. Many thousands were killed, hundreds of thousands displaced, and Ethiopia was plunged into chaos. The destruction was not just political; it was economic and social, leaving scars that will take generations to heal.

Somalia is already exhibiting early symptoms of a similar descent into crisis, most recently demonstrated by the military confrontation in Jubaland. Prior to the enactment of the National Elections Law, tensions escalated during the National Consultative Council (NCC) negotiations in October 2024, culminating in President Ahmed Madobe of Jubaland withdrawing from the discussions. The situation deteriorated further in November when Madobe quickly secured a third term in a regional election held on November 25, 2024, following amendments to the regional constitution that removed presidential term limits. The federal government in Mogadishu deemed this election illegitimate, asserting it was conducted without federal involvement, thereby exacerbating tensions between Jubaland and the central authorities.

In response, the Banadir Regional Court in Mogadishu issued an arrest warrant for Madobe on charges of treason and revealing classified information to foreign entities. Retaliating, Jubaland’s First Instance Court issued an arrest warrant for Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, accusing him of treason, inciting civil war, and organizing an armed uprising to disrupt the constitutional order.

The federal government subsequently deployed troops to the town of Ras Kamboni in late November, aiming to assert control over the region and remove Madobe from power. This intervention led to intense clashes between federal forces and Jubaland’s regional troops near the Kenyan border. The conflict culminated in the defeat of Somali National Army (SNA) forces,[3] with hundreds of soldiers surrendering and fleeing into Kenya. Notably, approximately 600 SNA soldiers sought refuge in Kenya’s Lamu County following the violent clashes, underscoring the severe fractures within Somalia’s federal structure.

While Madobe’s swift election manipulation—first amending the state constitution and quickly securing his own re-election for a third term—cannot credibly be considered legitimate, it would be equally mistaken to overlook the federal government’s deliberate provocations. The federal government’s aggressive push, through the new electoral law, to strip member states of their right to conduct their own elections and place this power under federal control was already underway, driving tensions well before Madobe acted.

Any Somali political observer could see the federal government’s intentions during the October 2024 negotiations: a calculated strategy to eliminate opposition, weaken regional autonomy, and centralize power. History warns starkly about where such tactics lead. In Venezuela and Ethiopia, similar maneuvers ended in economic collapse, civil war, and democratic erosion. Somalia now teeters on the brink of that same perilous path—its federal structure directly threatened by a law designed not just as an administrative reform, but as an existential attack on regional autonomy and shared governance.

If Somalia continues on its current path, it risks descending into prolonged authoritarian rule or open conflict. Neither outcome brings stability; both guarantee suffering. Federalism remains Somalia’s only safeguard against concentrated power, and elections form the backbone of federalism. Without genuine elections, Somalia’s fragile political order will collapse.

The question now is whether Somalia’s supporters—both domestic and international—will recognize this danger and act before it is too late.

The Danger of Silence

Somalia’s international supporters—including the United Nations, United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, and institutions like the World Bank and the African Development Bank—cannot plead ignorance. They have poured resources into rebuilding Somalia’s institutions, advocating for governance, the rule of law, and democratic principles. Yet federalism cannot be sustained by financial aid alone; it requires genuine political commitment. That commitment is fading. Implementation of the newly enacted electoral law may be the final blow that dismantles Somalia’s fragile federal system.

The silence of Somalia’s international partners is not neutral; it is enabling a dangerous precedent. By turning a blind eye to the dismantling of federalism, they risk funding centralization under the guise of institution-building. What good is an electoral commission if it serves only one interest? What stability can be achieved if elections become tools of control rather than expressions of the people’s will? Somalia’s backers must recognize that supporting this electoral framework is not supporting democracy—it is endorsing the collapse of federalism.

The role of international partners should be to safeguard federalism, not to finance its demise. They must recognize that a centralized electoral system will not bring stability but rather fuel political tensions and deepen mistrust between the central government and the regions. By remaining silent, these actors are failing in their responsibility to uphold democratic governance. The consequences of their inaction will not be abstract; they will be measured in lost autonomy, increased authoritarianism, and the further destabilization of Somalia.

A Call to Action

Somalia’s constitution is clear: elections at the state and local levels are the prerogative of the member states. If the new electoral law and the commission it creates are allowed to stand, Somalia will drift further from federalism and deeper into central control. The world has seen where this road leads. It does not end in democracy. It ends in autocracy.

The international community must act decisively. It must demand respect for the constitution. It must insist that member states retain control over their own elections. It must recognize that stability does not come from centralization but from a system where power is balanced, not monopolized.

Federalism is not a bargaining chip. It is not a temporary arrangement that can be adjusted to fit the political ambitions of those in power. It is the foundation of Somalia’s governance. If it is allowed to erode, the consequences will be severe—political instability, regional resistance, and possibly even conflict. History has shown that when local governance is stripped away, resentment builds. When elections are manipulated from the center, opposition is forced underground. When central governments ignore the constitutional order, they invite unrest.

The Somali people have fought hard for a system that allows them to govern themselves. They deserve a future in which they can choose their leaders freely and fairly. That future is now at risk.

The world cannot afford to ignore what is happening in Somalia. Federalism is fracturing. The question now is whether those who claim to support its governance will help repair it—or stand by as it crumbles.

Ishaqarsoon
Email: ishaqarsoon1@gmail.com

__________________________

Note and References

[1] Isha Qarsoon- is a platform dedicated to addressing critical issues pertaining to good governance, corruption, and social challenges. It emphasizes investigative journalism as a means to uncover and disseminate information, enabling the public to engage with and understand the realities of the country. Through its focus on transparency and accountability, the forum aims to foster informed public discourse and contribute to societal awareness and reform.

[2] This essay builds on Federalism Fractured (Part IV), where I analyzed Somalia’s new National Electoral Law in the context of federalism and the Provisional Constitution. In that analysis, I highlighted how both the law and the electoral commission it establishes violate federal principles and constitutional norms. Here, I focus on the consequences of implementing this law.

[3] The federal government’s priorities are clear. In November 2024, it chose to deploy the SNA—not against Al-Shabaab, but against Jubaland—yet by March 2025, police and custodial forces were left fighting the terrorist group. These decisions reveal the government’s true intention: using alleged electoral violations as a pretext to assert control over member state administrations, while addressing the ongoing threat from international terrorism only superficially. The federal government’s emphasis on dominating member states and its neglect in genuinely confronting Al-Shabaab are not contradictory; persistent insecurity conveniently allows the central government to expand its power under the guise of national security.

————–
Related articles

Federalism Fractured-Part IV: How Somalia’s Federal Government is Dismantling Federalism Through Electoral Manipulation By Isha Qarsoon

Federalism fractured-part III: poverty as the price of the absence of rule of law  By Isha Qarsoon

What Does the Health Booklet Fee Controversy say About Somalia’s Governance? By Isha Qarsoon

Federalism Fractured: The Livestock Controversy and Somalia’s Future- Part II By Isha Qarsoon