Unity in Principle, Divided in Execution: Understanding the Direct Elections Debate in Somalia

Somalia is often recognized as one of Africa’s earliest democratic republics. In the years following independence in 1960, the country established representative institutions and experienced peaceful political rivalry between parties at a time when many newly independent African states were increasingly characterized by military coups and one-party rule.

Although Somalia’s democratic journey was interrupted by two decades of military rule, followed by a conflict and state collapse, the aspiration for democratic governance has remained a central feature of the country’s political discourse.

Today, Somalia stands at a significant crossroads. Nearly every political stakeholder be it government, the opposition, or the civil society express their support for the principle of direct elections, commonly referred to as “one person, one vote”. This shared commitment reflects a broad recognition that democratic legitimacy is strengthened when citizens directly choose their leaders.

However, despite this consensus, significant disagreements remain over the implementation. Now, the debate is no longer about whether Somalia should embrace universal suffrage, but rather it concerns the timing, legal framework, institutional arrangements, and political conditions necessary to ensure that such elections are credible, inclusive, and accepted by all stakeholders.

Elections and Political debates

The current political environment illustrates this contradiction. While the government and opposition leaders publicly endorse direct elections, their approaches to implementation often differ substantially. Political calculations, institutional interests, and concerns about representation have complicated efforts to establish a common electoral roadmap. The opposition dispute the newly created constitution of 2026, how the government has conducted local elections in Benadir Region, local and state level elections in Southwest and Galmudug state without their inputs, Not only the opposition but also Independent scholars have raised their concerns about the contracting election principles in the model being in place currently.

The federal Government has already organized direct local elections in the Banadir region, Southwest State, and Galmudug. It has also announced plans to expand similar elections to districts and state institutions in Hirshabelle and northeast. These developments are presented as important milestones toward establishing a nationwide system of universal suffrage.

However, while the elections are taking place, the government and opposition groups are also holding political talks. International partners, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and Türkiye, are helping to mediate these discussions aimed at reaching a comprehensive political agreement. These discussions seek to address concerns related to the electoral framework, constitutional interpretation, institutional independence, and political inclusivity..

Parallel political discussions and ongoing elections have generated uncertainty. For many observers, the central question is straightforward: if political dialogue is intended to produce consensus on the electoral process, should elections continue before those negotiations conclude? On the other hand, waiting until all political groups fully agree before holding any elections could delay democracy for many years. Some people believe the opposition is mainly interested in the federal election, not local or state elections. However, the opposition has repeatedly expressed its concerns and dissatisfaction about elections at the local and state levels as well. This two-track approach has become one of the main features of Somalia’s current political debate.

The Implementation Challenge

Implementing direct elections in Somalia is considerably more complex than simply organizing voting stations. The country continues to face significant security challenges, varying levels of administrative capacity across federal member states, unresolved constitutional questions, and evolving relationships between federal and state institutions. Preparing credible elections requires comprehensive voter registration, clearly defined electoral boundaries, an independent electoral management system, reliable security arrangements, civic education campaigns, and broad political acceptance of electoral rules.

Political stakeholders also differ on sequencing. Some argue that Somalia should continue implementing direct elections wherever conditions permit, allowing democratic institutions to evolve gradually. Others believe that nationwide political consensus must precede any significant electoral reforms to avoid creating parallel systems or deepening political divisions. Another important point is that the federal member states of Jubaland and Puntland are not taking part in direct elections. Their absence highlights the ongoing disagreement between the federal government and these member states over the current election process.

moreover, both positions present legitimate considerations. Gradual implementation demonstrates commitment to democratic reform, while broad consensus helps ensure legitimacy and long-term stability. It’s therefore wise to put more emphasis on the dialogue between the political actors rather than continuing elections which could undermine the whole democratic transition process.

At the heart of the election debates lies an issue that extends beyond electoral procedures: trust. Successful democratic transitions depend not only on legal frameworks but also on confidence among competing political actors. When trust is limited, even technically sound electoral processes may become contested. henceforth, where political confidence exists, disagreements over implementation can often be resolved through dialogue and institutional compromise. For Somalia, government institutions, opposition groups, federal member states, and civil society all have important roles in creating an environment where electoral outcomes are broadly accepted.

Finding Common Ground

The encouraging reality is that Somalia’s political actors largely agree on the destination. Few openly oppose the principle of one person, one vote. The remaining challenge concerns the journey itself. Rather than allowing implementation disagreements to undermine the broader democratic project, political leaders should focus on developing a shared roadmap that balances ambition with practicality. Such a roadmap could establish realistic timelines, strengthen electoral institutions, improve security coordination, and define mechanisms for resolving political disputes before they escalate. Consensus should not require complete uniformity of opinion. Democracies function by managing disagreements through institutions rather than allowing disagreements to prevent progress altogether.

Conclusion

The country has already taken important steps toward expanding democratic participation. Yet lasting success will depend on whether political stakeholders can bridge the gap between agreement in principle and unity in execution. If Somalia succeeds in transforming today’s political debate into a cooperative national process, direct elections will represent more than an electoral reform. It will symbolize the strengthening of democratic governance, renewed public confidence in state institutions, and the continued rebuilding of a nation whose democratic traditions stretch back to its earliest years of independence.