By Isha Qarsoon
Somalia’s public debates tend to focus on individuals and the daily turbulence around them. But behind these arguments, a more serious problem is developing. The country is drifting into a governance trap that will shape its future far more than any single president or cabinet. This trap is not the result of ideology or long-term political vision. It is the cumulative effect of decisions made to solve immediate political needs—satisfying a faction, neutralizing a politician, balancing sub-clans, or pushing a short-term agenda. Each act is small, yet together they are building a structure that will be increasingly difficult for any government to manage or reform.
The trap forms when institutions become bargaining chips rather than stabilizing mechanisms. Every time a constitutional rule is bent to accommodate political pressure, it weakens for the next administration. Every time a position is created or fragmented to appease a sub-clan, the system becomes more crowded and less coherent. And every time a political crisis is settled through personal negotiation instead of institutional procedure, the country reinforces the idea that formal rules do not matter. A fix introduced today becomes the precedent of tomorrow, then an expectation, and eventually an informal rule that floats above the written Constitution.
This trap deepens because Somali politics rewards immediate accommodation more than structural discipline. Leaders face real pressure: a minister threatening mutiny, a regional leader withholding cooperation, a parliamentary bloc demanding jobs. The fastest way to quiet that pressure is to concede—an office, a budget line, a mandate, or even a slice of constitutional authority. None of these concessions looks dangerous on its own, but each one expands the number of people with non-negotiable claims over the state. Over time, the political system becomes a maze of obligations that future leaders inherit but cannot unwind. Governments are judged not by how they perform, but by how many political demands they can absorb without collapsing.
Every concession also creates new stakeholders who defend the arrangement fiercely. A post created to calm one politician becomes a permanent entitlement for his allies. A workaround designed to solve a short-term constitutional dispute becomes a practice the next administration is expected to follow. A privilege extended to one group becomes the baseline from which others demand parity. As this continues, the state accumulates overlapping offices, hybrid authorities, and expectations that no one can fully satisfy. The government becomes structurally over-promised and under-capacitated.
Eventually, reform itself becomes politically perilous. Dismantling unnecessary positions angers those who rely on them. Reasserting constitutional limits threatens those who benefited from earlier violations. Strengthening institutions alarms actors accustomed to personalized decision-making. The need for reform is obvious, but the political cost is so high that leaders postpone it. That postponement is not neutral—it allows the trap to tighten. The more the system is stretched, the less room any leader has to pursue national objectives without triggering resistance from those who benefit from the disorder.
This is how governance collapses without a dramatic event. Not through a coup, a new ideology, or a catastrophic policy, but through a steady accumulation of exceptions, accommodations, improvisations, and shortcuts. Somalia is approaching this point. The daily disputes that dominate public debate conceal a slow drift toward a system that is unmanageable, expensive to operate, and resistant to correction. The real danger is not who wins the next argument on television or social media. It is the quiet construction of a political environment in which no leader—no matter how capable—can govern without confronting a structure designed to resist coherence.
Political science describes this pattern as path dependence or institutional lock-in: once a country adopts a certain style of governance, reversing it becomes politically costly even when the system clearly underperforms. Somalia is nearing that moment. The problem is not the creation of federal states, ministries, agencies, commissions, or political offices themselves. It is that many are created without an overarching framework that considers future coherence. Each new structure satisfies someone in the short term, resolves a political problem, or buys temporary calm. But each one also adds another actor, identity claim, or administrative body that must be accounted for when future reforms are needed.
Scholars of Somalia describe the country as having fragmented, hybrid governance, where formal and informal authorities coexist without a clear hierarchy. Decisions must pass through state governments, ministries, elders, sub-clans, security actors, and informal networks. Coordination becomes difficult, and leaders resort to temporary fixes rather than institutional planning.
Federalism reflects the same dynamic. It was intended to distribute power and reduce tensions, but the formation of federal units has often followed short-term political pressures rather than a clear constitutional design. As one study notes, the “meaning and structure of federalism remain unclear,” producing a system where responsibilities overlap and authority is contested. With each passing year, the boundaries, roles, and powers of the federation become harder to adjust.
This is the essence of the trap. When a political structure becomes more complex than its own Constitution, any attempt to correct it runs into a wall of resistance. Every ministry represents a group. Every agency reflects a past compromise. Every federal unit symbolizes recognition. Removing or reshaping any of them becomes difficult not because they are effective, but because someone sees them as their share of the state.
The fragmentation of political representation intensifies this problem. Where major clans once had one or two national figures, representation has now spread across dozens of sub-clans and lineage groups, each expecting a role in the state and a visible institutional presence. Politically, this desire for recognition is understandable. Administratively, it multiplies institutions far beyond what a low-capacity state can sustain.
Somalia is not unique. Comparative politics shows similar patterns in post-conflict countries where inclusive settlements gradually evolve into complex administrative structures. Over time, these structures develop their own political constituencies. Reform becomes difficult not because leaders lack will, but because change itself becomes politically costly.
Somalia now shows many of these signs. There are more political actors than viable institutions. Ministries and agencies continue to multiply. Some have overlapping mandates; others lack clear purpose. Scholars call this “institutional proliferation,” noting that once such units exist, reversing them becomes difficult because each is tied to identity-based expectations.
The security sector illustrates the dynamic. Somalia has federal forces, state forces, intelligence services, special units, and other actors whose roles are not fully aligned. These arrangements were created to respond to real threats, but each structure now has political sponsors and local interests. Integrating or consolidating them becomes harder with time.
Urban governance in Mogadishu offers another example. The city has millions of residents, yet basic infrastructure remains inadequate. Congested roads, failing drainage, and inconsistent planning reflect not only resource constraints but also fragmented authority. Multiple institutions claim responsibilities for planning, security, taxation, regulation, and services. Reform requires cooperation across actors who do not share incentives. This creates a “limited-access order” where public goods are secondary to the political arrangements that hold the system together.
None of these problems reflect a single leader’s intention. They reflect political decisions made without considering long-term structural consequences. When a political actor demands a position, a ministry is created. When a federal state needs recognition, borders or authorities are adjusted. When a security challenge arises, a new unit is formed. When a sub-clan pushes for representation, an agency is created or a director-general slot is added. Each step is manageable on its own; together, they create a system with too many components to coordinate and too many actors able to block reform.
This is the trap Somalia now faces. The state is expanding in form but not in function. It is accumulating more institutions than it can manage. Each institution has its own political constituency. Future leaders will inherit a structure that is difficult to adjust without provoking broad resistance.
Comparative research warns that once a political order becomes too fragmented, reform tends to occur only through crisis rather than deliberate policy. Somalia does not need crisis-driven reform. A political crisis in Somalia could be the last straw—a point from which recovery may be impossible. What Somalia needs is recognition that the current trajectory is unsustainable. The country cannot continue expanding administrative units to satisfy every political demand. Federal formation cannot remain a series of tactical bargains. Identity-based politics cannot keep expanding without overwhelming the state.
This does not require dramatic predictions. It requires a simple acknowledgment: Somalia is constructing a governance model that will be extremely difficult to modify once fully entrenched. The warning is not about political personalities; it is about the structure they are collectively creating—one built around short-term accommodation rather than long-term coherence. The question is straightforward: can future administrations realistically reform a system that multiplies actors faster than institutions can coordinate them? If not, then the trap is already forming. And the longer the country continues on this path, the harder it will be to find a way out.
Isha Qarsoon
Email: Ishaqarsoon1@gmail.com
——-
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.