OPINION: International community bent on forcing Parliament to adopt contentious poll issues
By Roble Ibrahim
SOMALIA’S INTERNATIONAL partners issued a joint statement Saturday calling on the Federal Parliament to ‘swiftly endorse the modalities of the 2016 electoral processes.’
In the statement, the partners who included among others the UN, regional body IGAD, US and UK noted it was deeply concerned by the protracted process to approve the proposals presented by Prime Minister Abdirashid Sharmake on April 30.
The modalities are contained in the proposal based on the conclusion of the two days National Leadership Forum, NLF in early April. But on the larger scale, the document captures national consultations across regional states starting late last year.
Disposal of the matter
Whereas it is understandable and within the remit of the international community to urge the disposal of the matter by parliament to pave way for the 2016 polls, the call for ‘swift endorsement’ speaks of intent to pass the document without question yet some weighty matters have emerged which need serious interrogation.
However the intent and motive of parliament, that very organ of the state cannot be denied its chance to debate, question and take the government to task over the proposals raised. From the reading of the joint statement, there seems to be a concerted effort to coerce parliament to close its eyes and endorse the proposals without question.
“On the eve of a critical visit by the United Nations Security Council, it is imperative that the agreed modalities of the electoral process are approved without further delay,” the international community said.
Contentious issues
Is the international community telling parliament to endorse the proposals just because the UNSC will soon be in town? The UNSC is expected to visit Somalia on 19th this month.
The National Leadership Forum which is largely made up of the regional state presidents in addition to the president, federal parliament speaker and the prime minister put forward about four contentious issues which have raised questions among parliamentarians and the public at large.
First, it gave regional presidential controversial powers to nominate two candidates for the Upper House and subsequently sign the final list of elected candidate. The regional executives will also sign the same list for the Lower House.
This of course is just like telling regional presidents that technically you will decide the rules of the game and chose to play according to your liking.
Banaadir region question
The NLF went ahead to deny Banaadir, which hosts the country’s capital a seat in the Upper House on account that its status as a state was yet to be determined. An estimated 1.7 million people reside in Mogadishu and it plays a significant role in contributing to the country’s Gross Domestic Product, GDP. To say this region can only be represented through a regional governor without a say in Parliament is outright ridiculous.
To re-adjust the distribution of seats to the Upper House among regional administrations is no mean feat. Parliament has indicated it will be considering Banaadir for equal seats in the Upper House just like all the other states. Ideally, Article 72 of the Provisional Constitution contemplates the formation of the Upper House which shall be made up of no more than 54 members. The NLF adopted the Federal Member State system in constituting this House as provided for in the article.
Pandoras Box
To this end therefore, it counted Jubbaland, South West, Galmudug, Middle Shabelle and Hiiraan, Puntland and Somaliland. The last two were allocated additional 3 seats each making them 11 owing to what it termed as the political maturity and population. The rest each got 8 seats. To include Banaadir, which is an imperative by all accounts means a re-calculation. That opens the Pandoras Box.
These issues are germane and cannot therefore be wished away through a ‘swift endorsement’ with the justification that they had been disposed of through nationwide consultation.
The public process did not necessarily agree on these issues and could most likely have been arrived at by the NLF for political expediency.
The Federal Parliament has not always impressed and more oft than not disappointed. It has been a disgrace at best of times but it is constitutionally mandated to provide a reasoned debate. In light of the issues at hand, we would rather risk and trust this House to deliberate and come up with a more widely accepted electoral roadmap.