Introduction
The article “The Somali Political Crisis Explained” presents a seemingly balanced overview of Somalia’s ongoing political transition, particularly the push for a one-person-one-vote electoral system. However, while the intention to democratize governance is laudable, the piece fails to interrogate the political opportunism, elite engineering, and securitization dynamics shaping the current electoral reform agenda. This response aims to critique the article’s framing and highlight the deeper structural issues that continue to undermine democratic development in Somalia.
1. Myth of Electoral Democratization
The original article portrays the push for direct elections as a democratic leap forward. However, it ignores the fact that elections, without institutions capable of ensuring transparency, inclusiveness, and security, merely reproduce elite bargains under the guise of reform. Somalia’s political architecture is dominated by transactional politics, where electoral mechanisms often serve as tools for factional control rather than public accountability. As such, the “one-person-one-vote” slogan risks becoming a populist cover for a partisan consolidation of power by Villa Somalia.
2. State-building Without the State
The article glosses over the fundamental contradiction of attempting centralized electoral reform in a context where the Somali state lacks monopoly over coercion, taxation, or lawmaking across large swaths of the territory. The presence of Al-Shabaab in rural and even peri-urban areas, the fragmentation of federal member states, and the politicization of security forces suggest that the electoral push is not only premature but structurally dangerous. Imposing a direct election system in such a volatile context could lead to widespread disenfranchisement and further violence, rather than the stability the article implies.
3. Security as a Smokescreen
While acknowledging security concerns, the original article fails to interrogate the securitization strategy underpinning the federal government’s agenda. The monopolization of security apparatuses, misuse of the SNA and NISA, and the federalization of repression are all symptoms of a broader trend: the weaponization of security to neutralize dissent. Opposition groups are not simply “resistant to reform”; they are reacting to a political environment where electoral engineering is backed by coercive force, foreign backing, and asymmetric negotiations. The article neglects this power asymmetry and instead portrays opposition voices as obstacles to progress.
4. Ignoring Hybrid Governance and Local Legitimacy
One of the most glaring omissions is the article’s disregard for the hybrid nature of Somali governance. Traditional authorities (e.g., nabaddoonnada and isimada), local councils, and community security networks play vital roles in the political ecosystem. Yet, they are completely absent from the analysis. Imposing a top-down electoral model that mimics liberal democratic ideals without grounding it in local legitimacy risks deepening governance vacuums and delegitimizing centuries-old authority structures that continue to maintain peace in areas the state cannot reach.
5. The Real Reform Question: Who Decides the Rules?
Finally, the article treats electoral reform as a technical problem requiring logistical solutions. But electoral legitimacy in Somalia hinges not on ballot design or voter registration but on the question of who sets the rules. The current process is being driven by a closed circle of political elites with limited input from civil society, regional actors, and grassroots communities. A truly democratic reform would start with a national convention or social compact involving all stakeholders — not simply a partisan coalition under the guise of reform.
Conclusion
Somalia’s political crisis is not simply a question of elections but of governance, legitimacy, and inclusion. While the article from The Somali Diary attempts to capture the surface-level dynamics of the current electoral debate, it fails to reckon with the deeper structural and historical forces at play. Rather than celebrating reform for reform’s sake, the focus must shift to building inclusive, hybrid, and context-sensitive institutions that reflect Somalia’s plural realities. Only then can elections serve as a mechanism of peace and not a trigger for renewed conflict.
About the Author:
Alinasir a security and political analyst with GEIRE Social Enterprise, focusing on governance, security, and hybrid political orders in the Horn of Africa.
Comments