By Abdelkarim A Haji Hassan

There is a concern among some political elites in Puntland that Somalia’s current federal system is fundamentally flawed. According to Minister Abdinur Farah Juxa, Puntland’s Minister of Interior and Federal Affairs, the root cause of the country’s persistent governance challenges lie in the very structure of its federal arrangement. He places the blame squarely on federalism and the Federal Government in Mogadishu, arguing that shifting toward a confederal system, where member states hold greater autonomy and the central government assumes a minimal role, could provide a more viable path to stability.

This article does not seek to engage in the normative debate surrounding federalist versus confederalist governance models. Rather, it focuses on the contemporary political discourse unfolding in Puntland, where the confederal system has emerged as a salient and contentious policy proposition, highlighting how subnational entities in fragile federal systems conceptualize their constitutional futures amidst complex political realities. The author of this short piece also wishes to disclose that Minister Juxa is a close friend, and the analysis presented herein maintains objectivity.

Minister Juxa’s call for a confederal system reflects a legitimate frustration with Somalia’s political stagnation. At first glance, his proposal offers a fresh perspective, especially in a nation that has struggled to reconcile the powers of the federal government and the Federal Member States (FMS). However, his argument raises critical questions:

Is the source of Somalia’s political conflict truly the federal system, or is it the failure of leaders at all levels to uphold and implement the constitutional framework of that system?

The tensions between the Federal Government of Somalia and the FMS are well documented. These conflicts often revolve around the distribution of powers, resources, and political representation. Yet, these tensions are not inherent flaws of federalism itself, but rather the product of:
a) Overcentralization of authority
b) lack of political will,
c) abuse of power,
d) institutional weaknesses, and
e) selective interpretation of the Provisional Constitution.

Moreover, the Federal Member States themselves are not immune to critique and abuse of power. Many operate with significant autonomy and act in direct contradiction to the principles of federalism, such as power-sharing, cooperation with federal institutions, and adherence to national frameworks. In practice, both Mogadishu and regional administrations have fallen short in applying the tenets of federal governance.

The corruption, lawlessness, and unchecked power that define Mogadishu’s political system are not unique to the Federal Government, but they are also deeply embedded in Somalia’s regional states. Far from being models of good governance, these member states operate as personal dominions for their presidents, who have seized absolute control over all branches of government. Parliaments and judiciaries, stripped of their independence, exist only in name, serving as rubber stamps for executive decrees rather than institutions of accountability.

Confederalism: A Mirage of Solution?

If the current federal model has not been fully or properly implemented, would switching to a confederal system make any real difference?

The logic underpinning the argument for a confederal system assumes that structural change alone can address systemic dysfunction. However, history shows that without a commitment to legal adherence, leadership with political accountability, and institutional development, no system—be it federal, or confederal—can succeed.

At the state level, the promise of federalism, meant to decentralize power and ensure fair representation, has been equally and utterly betrayed. Instead of fostering accountability, it has merely replicated Mogadishu’s autocratic dysfunction at the regional level. There is no real rule of law, no separation of powers, and no meaningful difference between the Federal Government and the regional administrations. Moreover, there is no devolution of power from the central to the districts and villages. Both operate as autocratic regimes where power is concentrated in the hands of one person at the top, where corruption is institutionalized, and where governance serves the interests of the elite rather than the people.

Confederalism, by design, would reduce the authority of the central government, giving member states near-complete sovereignty. While this might appear attractive to regions that feel marginalized or fear domination by the center, the following challenges must be recognized:

1) Confederation poses risks of further fragmentation, weakened national identity, and diminished collective capacity to tackle national issues such as security, development, and foreign policy.

2) It is the most expensive form of government and requires exorbitant resources and a large bureaucracy to synchronize and then implement national programs and regional policies. Can Somalia, in its current shape, afford this system?

3) There is not a single country in the world that practices this form of government, and to saddle Somalia with another expensive form of governance that no one else can share their experiences or learn from exposes the country to unwarranted governance challenges.

The Real Solution: Rule of Law Over System Design

The heart of the issue lies not in the name or form of the governance system, but in the lack of respect and upholding for the rule of law and constitutional order. Somalia’s political crisis stems from a deeper dysfunction: leaders at both the federal and state levels have consistently prioritized short-term political gains over the rule of law and building inclusive and accountable institutions. Blaming the structure without acknowledging the failures of leadership and implementation offers no real solution.

Changing the system without changing the behavior of political actors will only lead to the repetition of past failures under a new banner. Without a strong culture of legalism, the supremacy of the rule of law, transparency, and mutual respect and uphold according to the federal constitution between different levels of government, any federal system, confederal, or otherwise will remain ineffective.

The path forward for Somalia lies not in replacing one system with another, but in ensuring that whichever system is in place is respected, implemented in full, and supported by a leadership committed to the rule of law. Only then can Somalia hope to overcome its governance crisis and build a stable, united future.

Abdelkarim A Haji Hassan
Email: abdelkarimhass@gmial.com

————

Related articles

Somalia: Broken promises and the peril of disintegration By WardheerNew

No Adult in the Room: Somalia’s Zero-Sum Political Trap By Abdelkarim A H. Hassan