2/24/2025
Today from Hiiraan Online:  _
advertisements
Google
Somalia's Democratic Future: Why Direct Elections Are Non-Negotiable
47 Shares
    FacebookFacebook messengerTwitterWhatsAppLinkedInTelegramEmail
    February, 24 2025
    Mohamed Omar Hashi



    Somalia is at a critical juncture, with the government's unwavering commitment to transitioning to direct elections marking a significant step towards democratic renewal and the consolidation of national sovereignty. This shift is not just a reform, but a necessary and urgent change. The current indirect electoral system, which has historically concentrated power among a small group of political elites, leading to corruption, governance inefficiencies, and clan-based fragmentation, is no longer sustainable. The move towards direct elections is a profound assertion of the Somali people's right to self-determination. It ensures that the nation's future is shaped by the collective will of its citizens rather than opaque negotiations and transactional politics that have long been the norm. The current indirect electoral model has become synonymous with systemic malpractice, including vote manipulation and monetized decision-making. This process perpetuates elite hegemony, prioritizes the interests of the highest bidder, and marginalizes ordinary citizens from meaningful political engagement. By advocating for direct elections, Somalia clearly states that political authority must come from the people and be exercised through transparent and equitable democratic mechanisms.

    The opposition to this democratic transition, framed by some as pragmatic caution, is a calculated effort to preserve a deeply flawed system that perpetuates the dominance of entrenched interests at the expense of the broader Somali populace. The current indirect electoral framework has institutionalized exclusion, entrenched corruption, and facilitated undue external influence, ensuring that power remains concentrated within a privileged minority rather than reflecting the authentic will of the electorate. By reducing political representation to a transactional process, where financial clout supersedes public trust and merit, this system has systematically disenfranchised millions of people. The "dollarized selections" phenomenon has effectively transformed (s)elections into high-stakes auctions, stripping citizens of their sovereign right to elect leaders through free and fair democratic processes. This entrenched structure undermines effective governance and perpetuates instability, creating fertile ground for extremist groups to exploit political grievances and infiltrate state institutions. The perpetuation of such a system represents not merely a failure of leadership but an existential threat to Somalia's stability and democratic aspirations. A decisive rupture from this outdated paradigm is necessary and imperative for the nation's long-term progress and sovereignty.

    Direct elections signify far more than a procedural adjustment; they embody the foundation of a new governance paradigm rooted in legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. By empowering citizens to elect their leaders directly, Somalia can strengthen its democratic institutions, foster national cohesion, and enhance its international standing as a nation committed to progressive governance. The government's resolute determination to implement direct elections is commendable and indispensable. 

    This article will unequivocally articulate the necessity of direct elections as a non-negotiable imperative, expose the obstructionist strategies employed by those who seek to maintain the status quo and reaffirm the inalienable right of the Somali people to a government that genuinely represents their interests. The moment for decisive action has arrived, and the path toward a democratic and sovereign Somalia must be pursued with unwavering resolve.

    THE IMPERATIVE OF DIRECT ELECTIONS: A DEMOCRATIC RENAISSANCE

    The Somali government's proposal to transition to a system of direct elections is not just a policy adjustment; it is a matter of political and democratic survival. The current framework of indirect (s)elections, an antiquated and exclusionary mechanism, has systematically disenfranchised the Somali populace, consolidating power within a narrow stratum of self-serving elites who operate with minimal accountability. For decades, this clan-based, transactional model has reduced electoral politics to a closed-door bargaining process, where political authority is negotiated among a select few, effectively marginalizing the broader citizenry from meaningful participation in their political destiny. This untenable status quo must be dismantled. Direct elections emerge as the only viable pathway toward achieving genuine democratic legitimacy and fostering accountable governance in Somalia. The transformative potential of direct elections is immense, offering a beacon of hope for a more inclusive and unified society.

    The prevailing indirect electoral system epitomizes the phenomenon of elite capture, wherein political power is monopolized by a privileged minority, relegating ordinary citizens to passive observers in their nation's political processes. Under this system, electoral outcomes are determined not by the collective will of the populace but through opaque negotiations among clan elders, warlords, and well-resourced actors who exploit the system for personal and factional gain. This arrangement perpetuates a political environment rife with corruption, coercion, and electoral manipulation, effectively commodifying political office and reducing it to a tradable asset. Direct elections, by contrast, would decentralize power and restore decision-making authority to the electorate, thereby dismantling the entrenched structures of transactional politics that have long undermined Somalia's democratic potential.

    A fundamental flaw of the indirect electoral model lies in its inherent lack of transparency and accountability. Political leaders who ascend to power through backroom agreements rather than popular mandates have little incentive to prioritize the interests of the broader public. Their allegiances remain tethered to the elites and financiers who facilitated their rise rather than the citizens they ostensibly serve. This disjunction between leadership and public interest has engendered weak governance, pervasive corruption, and policy frameworks that disproportionately benefit elite factions at the expense of national development. Direct elections would introduce a robust mechanism of accountability, empowering citizens to elect and, if necessary, remove leaders based on their performance. Such a system would ensure that public officials are genuinely answerable to the electorate, thereby aligning governance with the needs and aspirations of the Somali people. The empowerment of citizens through direct elections is not just a theoretical concept, but a practical reality that can reshape the political landscape of Somalia.

    Beyond their implications for governance, direct elections hold the key to fostering national unity and stability. Somalia's clan-based electoral framework has exacerbated societal divisions, cultivating a political culture in which the widespread and commonly acknowledged norms and practice of transactional, monetized and dollarized electoral practice threatens national cohesion. Direct elections offer a transformative alternative by establishing a system prioritizing individual citizenship over clan affiliation, promoting a shared national identity. By granting all Somalis, irrespective of clan, an equal voice in determining their country's leadership, direct elections would lay the foundation for a more inclusive and unified society, mitigating the risk of factional conflicts driven by elite power struggles.

    Moreover, Somalia's transition to direct elections is not merely a domestic imperative but also a prerequisite for achieving international legitimacy. A democratic system characterized by direct public participation in electoral processes would enhance Somalia's credibility on the global stage, rendering it a more attractive partner for diplomatic engagement and foreign direct investment. Nations with transparent and accountable electoral systems typically experience better political stability and economic growth, as investors and development partners are more likely to engage with governance structures that are predictable and resistant to corruption. Without direct elections, Somalia risks perpetuating a cycle of instability, constraining its ability to capitalize on international partnerships and opportunities for sustainable development.

    THE OPPOSITION’S OBSTRUCTIONISM DOCTRINE: A CALCULATED BETRAYAL OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES

    Despite the widely recognized advantages of direct elections, Somalia's opposition remains resolutely opposed to their implementation, advocating instead for the continuation of an indirect electoral system that has become emblematic of systemic corruption, vote manipulation, and the commodification of political power.

    Their core argument is that Somalia's security challenges and logistical limitations render the country ill-prepared for such a transition. However, this argument serves as a pretext for maintaining the status quo, which disproportionately benefits those who thrive within the existing opaque and corrupt practice. The reality is that no nation in transition has ever achieved ideal conditions prior to embarking on democratic reforms. To delay indefinitely in pursuit of an elusive "right moment" is to perpetuate Somalia's governance failures indefinitely. Their resistance is not grounded in a genuine commitment to democracy, stability, or national unity; instead, it is driven by a desire to preserve a system of elite-controlled, financially driven selection processes that serve their narrow interests at the expense of the wider population. The opposition thrives in a political environment where votes are commodified, political decisions are auctioned to the highest bidder, and a small group of political brokers wields disproportionate influence over electoral outcomes, ensuring power remains concentrated.

    The insistence on maintaining indirect selections is, in essence, a financialized mechanism—a political marketplace where influence is traded for monetary gain, and loyalty is secured through illicit transactions. The current system cannot be characterized as a genuine electoral process; it is instead a rigged mechanism in which delegates, handpicked by a select group of clan elders and political operatives, are openly bribed to deliver predetermined outcomes. The opposition's steadfast defence of this corrupt system reveals their true motives: preserving a political order in which leadership is determined not by the people's will but by the highest bidder's financial clout.

    This monetized process ensures that political elites retain control over the selection of representatives through coercion, financial incentives, and clan-based patronage networks. The opposition's rejection of direct elections is not motivated by concerns over stability or governance; instead, it is a calculated effort to safeguard their transactional politics from reform. They fear a system in which ordinary citizens possess the agency to directly elect their leaders, as it would dismantle their entrenched networks of influence and strip them of their ability to trade political positions as commodities.

    The opposition's hypocrisy is evident in their selective endorsement of indirect, financially driven electoral processes. While they vehemently oppose direct elections at the national level, they actively support monetized electoral systems within regional administrations. This double standard was starkly illustrated in their endorsement of Ahmed Madobe's controversial reappointment in Jubaland—a process widely criticized for its lack of transparency, allegations of foreign interference, and the use of intimidation tactics. Their support for such a flawed process underscores their true objective: maintaining a façade of democracy while entrenching a system in which financial power, rather than popular will, dictates political outcomes.

    The opposition's alignment with figures like Madobe further underscores their commitment to preserving a system of elite dominance, where governance is determined by financial transactions rather than genuine public participation. This dollarized selection process not only betrays democratic principles but also actively undermines Somalia's political stability by fostering widespread public disillusionment. When citizens perceive that leadership is secured through bribery and backroom deals, trust in governance erodes, and the political system's legitimacy is severely compromised.

    The opposition is sabotaging Somalia's state-building efforts by obstructing the transition to direct elections. Their refusal to adopt a fair and transparent electoral system perpetuates cycles of power struggles, corruption, and inefficiency, entrenching the country in chronic instability. This is not merely a matter of political disagreement; it is a deliberate strategy to block progress, protect personal fiefdoms, and ensure the continuation of a corrupt status quo.

    The consequences of this obstructionism doctrine are profound. By clinging to an outdated system designed to benefit a privileged few, the opposition is stifling the democratic aspirations of millions of Somalis. Their refusal to embrace electoral reform denies ordinary citizens their fundamental right to participate in governance, perpetuating a cycle of exclusion, manipulation, and disenfranchisement. The Somali people have repeatedly expressed their desire for a direct electoral system reflecting their collective will, yet the opposition continues prioritizing their financial and political interests over the nation's progress.

    Direct elections represent the only viable path toward establishing a legitimate, accountable, and people-driven government. Unlike the dollarized selection model championed by the opposition, a direct voting system empowers the electorate and dismantles the entrenched networks of political bribery and elite control. By granting millions of eligible voters the power to choose their leaders, the influence of political elites and money-driven politics would be significantly curtailed. The transition to direct elections would mark a pivotal step toward genuine democratic governance in Somalia—a system shaped by the people's will rather than a corrupt few's financial interests.

    SHADOWS OF FEAR: AL-SHABAAB'S GRIP ON SOMALIA'S INDIRECT ELECTORAL PROCESS

    Al-Shabaab has persistently exploited the indirect electoral system in Somalia as a mechanism to erode the legitimacy of the federal government. Through a combination of coercion, intimidation, and targeted assassinations, the militant group exerts substantial influence over key stakeholders in the electoral process, including clan elders and delegates responsible for selecting Members of Parliament (MPs). These actors are frequently subjected to threats, compelling them to either align with Al-Shabaab's directives or face severe repercussions, including execution. This systematic campaign of intimidation ensures that Al-Shabaab's interests are embedded within both federal and regional governance structures, enabling the group to position operatives and sympathizers in critical positions of authority.

    The primary objective of Al-Shabaab's interference in the indirect electoral process extends beyond manipulating specific political outcomes; it aims to destabilize the very foundation of the federal government. By controlling participation in the electoral process, the group ensures that governance structures remain weak, fragmented, and susceptible to ongoing insurgency. This strategic approach allows Al-Shabaab to perpetuate an environment of instability, which it leverages to justify its insurgency and consolidate control over territories beyond the federal government's reach.

    In addition to overt acts of terrorism, Al-Shabaab employs more covert methods to infiltrate Somalia's political system. Through the indirect electoral process, the group establishes sleeper cells within government institutions, embedding operatives who gather intelligence and influence decision-making from within. This deep level of infiltration significantly undermines counterterrorism efforts and enables Al-Shabaab to neutralize threats to its operations preemptively. The group's ability to control or influence elements of governance enhances its operational resilience, complicating the federal government's capacity to mount an effective counteroffensive.

    Al-Shabaab's manipulation of the indirect electoral system perpetuates a cycle of elite capture that aligns with its broader ideological objectives. Electing MPs through a limited pool of elders—many of whom are coerced or compromised—ensures that Somalia's political landscape remains dominated by warlordism and transactional governance. This dynamic allows Al-Shabaab to operate with relative impunity, as many within the political system are either complicit in its activities or too compromised to take decisive action against it.

    In contrast, a transition to direct elections poses a significant challenge to Al-Shabaab's containment strategies. By enabling millions of citizens to participate in the electoral process rather than relying on a small group, direct elections diminish the group's ability to control political outcomes. The expansion of voter participation not only enhances democratic legitimacy but also complicates Al-Shabaab's efforts to intimidate or influence the electorate. The scale and unpredictability of mass participation disrupt the group's capacity to manipulate results through coercion.

    Moreover, a decentralized and inclusive electoral framework strengthens state legitimacy, fostering more representative and resilient governance to extremist infiltration. A government elected through direct public participation is more likely to garner broad support, undermining Al-Shabaab's narrative that the federal system is an imposed or illegitimate entity. Strengthening electoral integrity through direct participation represents a critical step toward dismantling the militant group's ability to sabotage the political process, ensuring that Somalia's democratic future is determined by its citizens rather than by terrorist networks.

    A CALL TO ACTION: DEFENDING SOMALIA’S DEMOCRATIC FUTURE

    The Somali people stand at a critical juncture in their political history, where the choice between direct elections and the perpetuation of an indirect selection system—a mechanism rife with vote rigging, dollarized bargaining, and financialized coercion—will determine the trajectory of the nation's democratic future. The current electoral framework, characterized by its monetized processes and elite-driven financial transactions, has systematically undermined the principles of democratic governance, perpetuating a cycle of corruption, exclusion, and instability. This system, which opposition groups and Al-Shabaab tacitly endorse, thrives on modifying political power and reducing elections to a transactional marketplace where influence is auctioned to the highest bidder.  

    Direct elections represent the only viable pathway to dismantling this entrenched elite capture and restoring the sovereignty of the Somali people. The existing indirect selection model, often defended under the guise of practicality or stability, is fundamentally antithetical to democratic principles. It facilitates vote rigging by manipulating clan-based intermediaries, entrenches dollarized selections by allowing wealth to dictate political outcomes, and institutionalizes a monetized electoral process prioritizing financial leverage over public will. This system not only disenfranchises ordinary citizens but also entrenches a kleptocratic class that thrives on the exclusion of the majority.  

    The opposition's resistance to direct elections is not rooted in a genuine concern for stability but in a calculated effort to preserve a system that benefits their political and financial interests. By advocating for the continuation of indirect selection, opposition groups perpetuate a financialized electoral framework where political power is brokered through backroom deals, financial transactions and the coercion of intermediaries. This model, which Al-Shabaab exploits to infiltrate and destabilize governance, ensures that weak institutions persist, creating a vacuum that extremist groups readily fill. Direct elections, by contrast, would disrupt these parallel economies of influence, forcing political actors to derive legitimacy from the electorate rather than from illicit financialized networks.  

    Moreover, the current system exacerbates Somalia's deep-seated divisions by reinforcing clan-based patronage networks and reducing governance to a competition for financialized control. The monetized indirect selection process undermines national unity and entrenches a political culture where citizenship is subordinate to clan identity and financial power. A transition to direct elections would foster a more inclusive political culture that prioritizes merit and public accountability over the dollarized bargaining that defines the status quo.  

    The international community must also critically reassess its role in perpetuating Somalia's financialized electoral system. By providing tacit support for indirect selection, foreign actors have inadvertently enabled a system that prioritizes elite interests over democratic progress. To genuinely support Somalia's democratic transition, the international community must condition its engagement on abolishing monetized electoral processes and implementing reforms that ensure free, fair, and transparent elections.  

    The Somali people must reject the false narratives propagated by defenders of the indirect system, who argue that the nation is unprepared for direct elections. Such claims are not only empirically unfounded but also serve to legitimize a financialized status quo that actively undermines democratic governance. The notion that Somalia must achieve stability before democratizing is a fallacy; democracy is the mechanism through which stability and accountability are achieved.  

    In conclusion, the choice before Somalia is clear: to continue with a monetized, dollarized electoral system that entrenches elite control and perpetuates instability or to embrace direct elections to reclaim democratic sovereignty. The opposition's defence of indirect selection and reliance on financialized coercion must be exposed as a self-serving strategy to maintain power. The Somali people, supported by the international community, must demand an end to this financialized charade and advocate for a governance structure that prioritizes the will of the people over the interests of a privileged few. The time for half-measures and political compromises has passed; pursuing direct elections is not merely a political imperative but a moral obligation. Somalia's future depends on its ability to break free from the chains of elite capture and financialized coercion—and the time to act is now.


    Mohamed Omar Hashi was a Member of the Transitional Federal Parliament of Somalia, and holds an M.A. in International Security Studies from the University Of  Leicester.  
    E-mail: [email protected]   
    Twitter: @mohamedohashi   

     





    Click here