By Abdirahman Roble Ulayare
Wednesday May 20, 2026
Introduction
The question of who continues to interfere in Somalia and prevent it from becoming a fully sovereign state capable of determining its own destiny is not difficult for informed Somalis to answer. The roots of this problem go back to the colonial era and extend through the decades following Somalia’s collapse in the early 1990s. Many Somalis believe that external powers, regional actors, and internal collaborators have played a major role in shaping the country’s prolonged instability.
Understanding this issue requires examining the historical legacy of colonialism, the geopolitical interests of foreign powers, and the internal weaknesses that have allowed interference to persist.
Colonial Legacy and Structural Damage
Rather than strengthening Somali unity, colonial rule introduced policies that fostered division and rivalry. The colonial strategy of “divide and rule” created social fragmentation and empowered individuals who were more loyal to colonial interests than to the wellbeing of Somali society. When colonial powers eventually withdrew, they are left behind political structures that lacked strong legitimacy and national cohesion.
As a result, Somalis were never given a genuine opportunity to rebuild their institutions independently or restore systems that reflected their own cultural and religious values.
Renewed Foreign Influence After the State Collapse
Following the collapse of Somalia’s central government in 1991, foreign powers once again became deeply involved in Somali affairs. Western countries, particularly the United States, saw an opportunity to shape the country’s political future. At the same time, neighboring states such as Kenya and Ethiopia became active participants in Somali political processes.
Over the past three decades, numerous international conferences have been organized to address Somalia’s political crisis. However, many critics argue that these conferences often served external interests rather than genuine Somali reconciliation.
Political Engineering and the Rise of Warlords
One of the most controversial developments in Somalia’s political reconstruction was the introduction of the 4.5 clan power-sharing formula during the Arta Conference in Djibouti in 2000. Although many Somalis initially viewed the formula as a temporary solution to clan conflicts, critics argue that it institutionalized clan divisions within the political system.
Transitional governments created through externally mediated processes often struggled to function effectively. At the same time, warlords and armed factions remained powerful, sometimes receiving indirect support from foreign actors seeking to influence Somalia’s internal dynamics.
These dynamics contributed to the fragmentation of the country into regions controlled by different political and military actors, further weakening national unity.
Regional Intervention and the Federal System
Neighbouring countries, particularly Ethiopia, have played a significant role in Somali political affairs. Some Somali observers argue that Ethiopia has supported political arrangements that prevent the emergence of a strong centralized Somali state.
The introduction of Somalia’s federal system remains controversial. While federalism can function effectively in many countries, critics argue that the version implemented in Somalia has contributed to political fragmentation and competition between regional administrations rather than strengthening national institutions.
Extremism and Prolonged Instability
The rise of extremist groups in Somalia further complicated efforts to rebuild the state. The spread of insecurity disrupted economic activity, weakened social cohesion, and severely limited mobility between regions. In some areas, the proliferation of weapons among civilians fuelled cycles of violence that extremist organizations exploited.
These conditions have prolonged Somalia’s instability and make it difficult to establish effective national governance.
Dependency and Weak Institutions
Another major concern is Somalia’s dependence on foreign aid and external mediation. Critics argue that decades of international assistance have not been matched by the development of strong national institutions.
Key elements of statehood remain weak or incomplete, including:
- A fully functioning constitutional court
- Independent electoral systems
- Professional and unified security forces
- Effective accountability mechanisms within government
Without these institutions, Somalia’s political system remains vulnerable to both internal disputes and external influence.
Emerging Partnerships and Changing Dynamics
In recent years, Somalia has sought to diversify its international partnerships. Over the past fifteen years, Turkey has become an important partner in Somalia’s reconstruction. Turkish involvement has included infrastructure development, humanitarian assistance, and military training programs.
Supporters argue that Turkey’s approach differs from that of traditional Western actors because it emphasizes mutual economic cooperation and long-term partnership. Critics, however, debate the broader geopolitical implications of new alliances.
Regardless of differing perspectives, Somalia’s growing engagement with new partners reflects an effort to expand diplomatic options and reduce reliance on traditional power structures.
Conclusion
Somalia’s long struggle to achieve stable governance and full sovereignty cannot be explained by a single factor. Colonial legacies, regional rivalries, global geopolitical interests, and internal political divisions have all played significant roles.
For Somalia to move forward, many analysts argue that the country must strengthen its national institutions, reduce political fragmentation, and develop a governance model rooted in Somali realities rather than externally imposed frameworks.
Ultimately, the future of Somalia depends on the ability of its people to build a political system that ensures justice, unity, and independence while navigating a complex international environment.
