By Abdullahi A. Nor

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s message to the United Nations reveals what may be the central contradiction of Somalia’s current political crisis. He wants the international community to support Somalia’s democratic transition — but he also appears to want the international community to accept the Federal Government’s definition of that transition without challenging the political process through which it is being pursued.

That is not how democracy works. In his address to the UN General Assembly, Hassan Sheikh called on the United Nations and Somalia’s international partners to support constitutional reform, democratic institutions and the transition toward direct elections.

He then emphasized that Somalia’s democratic transformation must remain “owned” and led by Somalis. On the surface, that sounds entirely reasonable. But there is a much harder question underneath it: Which Somalis?

If the Federal Government and the principal opposition forces cannot agree on the electoral rules, constitutional changes or the administration of the next election, then it is difficult to argue that there is already a national Somali consensus behind the government’s approach.

The President Appears to Be Living Inside a Political Bubble

The most troubling feature of Hassan Sheikh’s position is not his stated commitment to direct elections. Somalia needs credible elections. It needs stronger institutions. It needs constitutional government.

The problem is the apparent assumption that the government’s preferred route toward those objectives should automatically become the country’s route. That is where the president risks becoming trapped inside a political bubble.

From within Villa Somalia, constitutional amendments may look like institutional reform, direct elections may look like democratic progress and government-led electoral preparations may appear to be the natural path forward. Outside that bubble, however, Somalia looks very different.

Puntland and Jubaland have sharply disagreed with Mogadishu. Opposition leaders have rejected important aspects of the government’s political approach. The Somali Future Council has taken the dispute to the UN Security Council and called for international mediation.

These are not minor disagreements. They concern the fundamental rules by which political power will be acquired and transferred.

Who Owns Somali Democracy?

Hassan Sheikh’s insistence on “Somali ownership” raises an obvious question. Does Somali ownership mean that the Federal Government in Mogadishu owns the process? If so, that is not national ownership.

Somalia is a federal country. Its political legitimacy cannot simply be reduced to the preferences of the government sitting in the capital. Puntland is Somali. Jubaland is Somali. Hirshabelle is Somali. Galmudug is Somali and South West State is Somali.

Opposition leaders, political parties, civil society and ordinary citizens are also Somali.If these constituencies disagree over the rules of the political system, their disagreement cannot be erased by declaring the process nationally owned. Ownership requires participation. And participation requires compromise.

The UN Is Not Somalia’s Political Enemy

There is also something deeply uncomfortable about telling the international community to support Somalia while simultaneously attempting to define the limits of what that support should mean.

Somalia has relied on international partners for decades. The United Nations and other international institutions have supported humanitarian operations, state-building, security institutions, elections, constitutional processes and political dialogue.

Somalia’s international partners are not strangers arriving at the gates of a fully functioning state. They have been part of Somalia’s survival. That does not mean foreigners should govern Somalia. It means international partners have a legitimate interest in ensuring that political agreements are inclusive, credible and capable of preventing renewed conflict.

If Somali leaders cannot reach such an agreement themselves, asking international partners to facilitate dialogue is not a surrender of sovereignty. It is political realism.

The Future Council’s Appeal Cannot Simply Be Ignored

The appeal by the Somali Future Council to the UN Security Council should therefore not be dismissed as merely another opposition complaint. It represents a fundamentally different interpretation of Somalia’s political crisis.

The coalition is arguing that the dispute requires external mediation precisely because the Somali political leadership has been unable to reach an agreement on the electoral framework.

Whether one agrees with the Future Council’s proposals or not, its appeal demonstrates that the country’s political crisis has reached a point where international attention is being sought by major Somali actors themselves. That reality should force the president to reconsider the meaning of “Somali ownership.”

If Somali political leaders are asking the UN to help them negotiate, the answer should not be to tell the UN to remain on the sidelines.

Direct Elections Are Not the Entire Democratic Project

Hassan Sheikh presents direct elections as the centrepiece of Somalia’s democratic transformation. But elections alone do not create democracy. The rules must be agreed. The institutions must be trusted.

The opposition must have meaningful political space. Federal states must have confidence in the constitutional order. And the losing side must believe that the election was sufficiently legitimate to accept the result. Otherwise, direct elections can become another source of conflict rather than a solution to Somalia’s political crisis.

The real democratic achievement would therefore not simply be putting ballots into boxes. It would be creating a political system in which the major Somali stakeholders accept the rules before the voting begins.

The President Cannot Dictate Consensus

This is where Hassan Sheikh’s position ultimately faces its greatest test. A president can propose constitutional reform. He can advocate direct elections. He can ask international partners for assistance. But he cannot manufacture national consensus by presidential declaration.

Nor can he decide unilaterally which Somali political actors deserve to participate in determining the country’s political future. That is the essence of democratic politics. The president’s mandate gives him authority to govern. It does not give him ownership of Somalia’s political future.

Somalia needs the International Community — and the International Community needs to be honest. The country remains dependent on international support in ways that cannot simply be wished away. Its security institutions require external assistance. Its humanitarian system depends heavily on international funding. Its political institutions continue to receive international support.

It is unrealistic to tell the international community: finance us, protect us and support us — but do not question our political process. International partners should respect Somali sovereignty. But respect for sovereignty does not require silence in the face of political deadlock.

Nor should international engagement mean imposing solutions on Somalia. The proper role is mediation, facilitation and support for agreements reached by Somalis themselves.

The Choice Before Hassan Sheikh

Hassan Sheikh now has an opportunity to demonstrate whether his commitment to democracy means more than direct elections. He can continue along a government-led path and insist that the international community simply support it.

Or he can recognize that Somalia’s democratic transition requires something more difficult: political compromise.That means sitting with opponents. Listening to federal member states. Reconsidering disputed constitutional changes. Negotiating the electoral rules. And allowing the international community to help when Somali political leaders cannot resolve their differences alone.

That would not weaken Somali ownership. It would demonstrate it. Somalia does not need a president who believes he can dictate the terms of consensus. It needs political leaders capable of building consensus even when they do not control the room.

The UN cannot save Somalia from Somali political disagreements. But neither should Somalia’s leaders demand that the UN look away while those disagreements threaten to deepen the country’s political divisions. The future of Somali democracy cannot belong to one president, one government or one political camp. It must belong to Somalia.

Abdullahi A. Nor
Email: abdulahinor231@gmail.com