By Dayib Sh. Ahmed
Moments of political crisis often expose more than administrative failure; they reveal a governing philosophy at work. Elections, especially at the local level, are meant to be routine expressions of civic trust quiet confirmations that authority flows from the consent of the governed. When such exercises instead require coercion, lockdowns, and the silencing of dissent, they raise a deeper question not simply whether rules were followed, but whether power itself is being exercised justly. In The Republic, Plato offers a deceptively simple definition of justice in governance as a just ruler governs for the benefit of the people, not for personal gain. Injustice, by contrast, emerges when power is used to serve the ruler’s own interests whether for wealth, prestige, or the advantage of a narrow faction. Such rule, Plato warned, inevitably degenerates into corruption, coercion, and ultimately tyranny. More than two millennia later, this ancient insight remains painfully relevant.
What unfolded in Mogadishu during the recent municipal elections bears the unmistakable marks of the injustice Plato described. Power was not exercised to protect the freedom of citizens, but to compel compliance. Authority was not used to secure consent, but to suppress dissent. The state did not act as a neutral guarantor of rights, but as an instrument deployed to serve the political needs of those in control. In this sense, the events in Mogadishu were not merely procedural failures but moral ones too.
Notwithstanding widespread public repudiation of the legitimacy of Mogadishu’s recent municipal elections, the administration of President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud proceeded as though dissent itself were the problem to be solved. On election day, reports from the capital indicated that the government, imposed a near-total lockdown, sharply curtailing freedom of movement across the city. Roads were blocked, neighborhoods sealed off, and ordinary life suspended in service of a deeply contested political exercise.
The NewYork times Opinion columnist Thomas L. Friedman once observed that “every few years I am reminded of one of my cardinal rules of journalism Whenever you see elephants flying, don’t laugh take notes. Because if you see elephants flying, something very different is going on that you don’t understand but you and your readers need to.” Mogadishu’s election day lockdown fits that warning precisely. When a government responds to a local vote by shutting down its capital, it is not democracy on display it is a signal that something has gone profoundly awry and demands close scrutiny, not casual acceptance.
Simultaneously, the executive reportedly issued directives compelling civil servants and members of the security forces to participate in the vote. Continued employment and the receipt of salaries were allegedly conditioned on appearing at polling stations. This was not civic mobilization; it was administrative coercion. The message was unmistakable: participation was no longer a right exercised freely, but an obligation imposed from above.
Taken together, these actions reveal a troubling pattern in Somalia’s post-conflict politics, one in which procedure is subordinated to expediency and legality bent to secure predetermined outcomes. In a country still struggling to forge trust between citizens and the state, the consequences are profound.
Constitutional Defilement
Somalia’s provisional Constitution is explicit in its commitment to political rights and civil liberties. It guarantees citizens the right to participate in public affairs without coercion and protects freedom of movement except under clearly defined and lawful circumstances. Locking down a capital city to manage the optics of a municipal election, particularly one already viewed with skepticism by large segments of the public sits uneasily with these constitutional commitments.
Government defenders have framed the lockdown as a security measure. Yet Mogadishu has endured the shadow of terrorism for years, and previous event have been conducted without paralyzing the entire city. When extraordinary measures become routine instruments of political management, their justification deserves rigorous scrutiny. More troubling still is the reported coercion of public employees. Civil servants and security personnel occupy a distinct position in any democratic system. They are meant to serve the state and the public interest, not a particular administration or political project. Conditioning their livelihoods on electoral participation collapses this distinction, converting neutral institutions into instruments of partisan validation.
Such practices corrode the integrity of the civil service and undermine the professionalism of the security sector. They also send a chilling signal to the broader public if those tasked with upholding the law can be compelled to endorse a political process, what protection exists for ordinary citizens?
Structural Catastrophe Continuation
This episode cannot be understood in isolation from Somalia’s broader governance trajectory. Since the collapse of the central state in 1991, successive governments have struggled to balance the demands of stability with the imperatives of democratic legitimacy. International partners, often anxious to preserve short-term order, have at times tolerated procedural shortcuts so long as a façade of progress was maintained.
The result has been a political culture in which outcomes matter more than consent. Elections are treated as boxes to be checked rather than as mechanisms for genuine representation. Power-sharing arrangements, initially conceived as temporary compromises, have hardened into systems that reward loyalty, transactional bargaining, and political compliance over accountability. Seen in this light, the Mogadishu municipal elections appear less an aberration than a symptom. When leadership equates dissent with obstruction and interprets public skepticism as defiance rather than feedback, coercive governance becomes not an accident but a temptation.
Critics argue that the events in Mogadishu reveal a disturbing drift toward authoritarian habits. Lockdowns, forced participation, and the securitization of civic life are hallmarks of governments more concerned with projecting control than cultivating consent. Somalia’s circumstances may be unique, but the underlying logic is familiar across fragile states when legitimacy is thin, compulsion fills the gap. The dangers of this approach are well documented. Coerced participation does not produce genuine mandates; it breeds cynicism, resentment, and disengagement. Citizens compelled to perform allegiance without believing in the process withdraw from politics altogether or seek alternative, sometimes violent, avenues of expression. In Somalia’s fragile security environment, this is a risk the country can ill afford. Equally concerning is the precedent such actions establish. Undermining constitutional norms in the name of political necessity lowers the threshold for future abuses. What begins as an exceptional measure justified by circumstance can quickly become standard practice.
Supporters of the administration may argue that municipal elections are a minor concern in a country facing insurgency, humanitarian crises, and economic fragility. But it is precisely because Somalia confronts such challenges that adherence to constitutional principles matters. Local governance is where citizens most directly encounter the state. When even municipal processes are perceived as imposed and manipulated, confidence in national institutions erodes further. There is also a strategic dimension. Somalia’s federal system rests on delicate balances between the center and the regions, between authority and autonomy. Heavy-handed tactics in the capital reinforce long-standing fears that political power is becoming increasingly centralized and intolerant of dissent deepening mistrust among regional administrations already wary of Mogadishu’s intentions.
International partners should take note. For years, donors and multilateral institutions have emphasized inclusive governance, rule of law, and institutional reform in Somalia. Silence in the face of apparent coercion undermines those commitments and signals that democratic standards are negotiable. This does not require ignoring Somalia’s security realities or disengaging from the country’s challenges. It requires recognizing a basic truth stability achieved through coercion is brittle. Sustainable governance rests on consent, not compliance.
President John F. Kennedy once said, that “when power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations; when power narrows the areas of man’s concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence, when power corrupts, poetry cleanses.” Somalia today suffers precisely from the corruption of power Kennedy described. The nation stands at a pivotal crossroads familiar to post-conflict societies: one path institutionalizes executive overreach, justifying coercion and expediency as necessary tools, while the other requires restraint, constitutional fidelity, and acceptance of uncertainty in pursuit of legitimacy.
Under President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, the first path has been chosen repeatedly. His administration has treated constitutional norms not as binding law but as instruments of convenience, dissent not as a corrective but as a threat, and public institutions not as guarantors of rights but as instruments to consolidate political control. The conduct surrounding the Mogadishu municipal elections lockdowns, coercion of civil servants, and securitization of civic life illustrates this pattern. For many Somalis, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has never embodied a commitment to state-building grounded in constitutional restraint.
Leadership is proven not by spectacle, compliance, or the optics of power, but by restraint and the ability to resist the impulse to impose outcomes through coercion. In failing this test, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has narrowed the areas of national concern, eroded legitimacy, and exposed Somalia to internal fragmentation and external manipulation. Where poetry offers moral cleansing and reflection, the presidency has substituted force; where Kennedy envisioned awareness of human limits, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has exercised authority without ethical or institutional constraint.
The long-term consequences are profound: a weakened state, hollowed federalism, and a populace increasingly alienated from the very institutions meant to serve it. Somalia’s choice now is stark. It can normalize authoritarian executive habits in the name of unity and short-term stability, or it can reclaim governance rooted in law, moral authority, and the consent of the governed. The responsibility rests squarely with the office at the center a leader who misuses power jeopardizes not only his administration but the legal, political, and moral foundations of the state itself.
Conclusion
If Somalia is to break with its history of imposed politics and fragile settlements, it must reaffirm a simple principles Plato understood long ago power exists to serve the people, not to compel them. Elections derive legitimacy not from turnout figures produced under pressure, but from the free consent of the governed.
The lockdown of Mogadishu and the alleged coercion of public servants may have delivered short-term political optics. The long-term price in trust, legitimacy, and democratic possibility is far higher. Somalia has paid that price before. It cannot afford to pay it again.
Dayib Sh. Ahmed
Email: Dayib0658@gmail.com
——
Dayib is a writer, political analyst and WardheerNews contributor