By Hon. Ali M Omar
Sunday April 5, 2026
The Federal Government will not be lectured on democracy by those who conveniently seek to undermine it.
Much of the commentary now circulating on Somalia, online and beyond, offers a selective and sometimes deeply misleading account of the country’s governance. The same is true of how developments in South West State are being portrayed, obscuring the real issue at hand: the integrity of Somalia’s federal compact. That demands a direct response.
Let's start with what has actually been achieved. On 25 December 2025, Mogadishu held Somalia's first one-person, one-vote elections since 1969. Nearly one million voters registered. More than 1,600 candidates from 20 political parties contested 390 council seats across 523 polling stations. On 4 March 2026, the Federal Parliament concluded a 14-year constitutional review process, and the President signed the Constitution into law four days later. Add to that Somalia's completion of the HIPC debt relief process and its assumption of the Presidency of the United Nations Security Council in January 2026, and you have a country that is moving, visibly and measurably, toward stronger institutions, constitutional clarity, and a credible democratic transition.
None of this happened by accident. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud led much of Somalia's foundational state-building during his first term, establishing most of the current Federal Member States, forming the Upper House, and implementing the country's first delegate-based indirect electoral system. His second term has delivered the constitution's completion and is now driving the implementation of one-person, one-vote elections, all while continuing to fight an insurgency, defend the country's unity and sovereignty, and strengthen Somalia's diplomatic standing. The broader claim that fourteen years of state-building are being undone simply does not survive contact with the facts.
Building consensus in a federal system assembled from the fragments of a collapsed state, while simultaneously fighting Al-Shabaab, is not easy; it is slow, messy, and often difficult. That is not a failure of governance. It is the reality of governance. The Federal Government has consistently pursued negotiated, broadly supported outcomes through dialogue. To describe that process as an institutional breakdown is to either misunderstand how Somali federalism works in practice or to misrepresent it on purpose. The Federal Government is actively consulting with Federal Member States and key stakeholders through the National Consultative Council and other platforms to develop a credible, inclusive electoral framework. This is not a constitutional vacuum. It is politics, the hard, unglamorous kind that doesn't lend itself to dramatic headlines, but is how real democracies take shape. Those who oppose this process need to bring ideas and solutions, not just criticism and objections. Many of the loudest voices belong to former leaders who understand the complexity of what they criticize, or to sitting members of parliament who have yet to use their own platforms to better represent their constituents.
The current situation in South West State must be understood in this wider national context. The National Consultative Council agreed on a harmonized political and electoral framework to preserve national coherence during Somalia's transition. As part of that collective arrangement, Federal Member State mandates were extended by agreement. The President of South West State benefited directly from that framework and has since chosen to depart from it, pursuing a separate regional path. This is not merely a political disagreement. It is a direct challenge to the credibility of a nationally agreed process and to the integrity of Somalia's federal compact. The question is straightforward: can collective national agreements be set aside unilaterally after their benefits have already been secured? If that conduct is legitimized, it will set a damaging precedent, weaken confidence in national agreements, and invite future political fragmentation.
The suggestion that the Federal Government's response amounted to coercion does not hold up. The government has both the constitutional authority and the sovereign duty to uphold the rule of law, defend legitimate institutions, and protect citizens when those institutions come under threat. What critics call coercion, the Constitution calls obligation. Federal action was taken lawfully to restore order in a member state facing an internal crisis. To portray that as a drift toward authoritarianism is not objective analysis, but advocacy cloaked in the language of concern.
The claim that Somalia's political culture is eroding is particularly hard to take seriously. This is a government that has sustained multi-party engagement, tolerated vocal opposition, and kept political space wide open, all while operating under extraordinary security pressures. You cannot credibly accuse a government of ruling through intimidation when the very people making that accusation are free to make it publicly and without consequence. These charges typically come from those who, having lost ground through legitimate political competition, now seek to discredit the process itself.
This matters beyond politics. While national attention is diverted toward avoidable internal disputes, Al-Shabaab continues to exploit division and uncertainty. Every unnecessary political confrontation consumes state capacity and pulls focus from the shared security threat facing Somalia and the wider region. The people fueling these distractions should ask themselves who benefits most from a fractured Somali state.
On Somalia's international partnerships, specifically with the Republic of Turkey, let's be clear. The agreements Somalia made with Turkiye are sovereign decisions, made in Somalia's national interest. They have been negotiated across three successive administrations since 2011, each holding a legitimate electoral mandate. To suggest that a longstanding development partnership amounts to foreign interference or patronage-driven corruption is both unfair to Turkey and an insult to Somali sovereignty. All agreements have gone through appropriate executive channels. The government remains fully committed to ensuring Somalia's natural resources serve the Somali people. Attempts to weaponize legitimate public concern about resource governance for narrow political gain will not go unanswered.
Somalia faces real challenges. The Federal Government has never pretended otherwise. But the difficulties of governing a post-conflict federal state are not proof of authoritarian intent; they are the conditions under which every Somali government has had to operate. What the country does not need is political actors using the language of constitutionalism and accountability as a weapon against the very institutions they claim to defend. The Federal Government will continue to govern in the interest of all Somali citizens, to pursue a credible and inclusive electoral process, and to engage with international partners transparently and on terms of mutual respect. It will not be distracted by statements designed to destabilize rather than to build.
Hon. Ali M Omar is the State Minister of Ministry of the Foreign Affairs, Federal Republic of Somalia
