Executive Summary
Somalia’s governance crisis demands innovative solutions. This paper evaluates asymmetrical federalism alongside a confederal system as potential pathways to address constitutional violations, federal-state discord, and security threats. While a confederal model prioritizes maximal decentralization, asymmetrical federalism offers a middle ground, granting tailored autonomy to regions like Somaliland, Puntland, and Jubaland while preserving a unified state. Both models present opportunities and risks, requiring careful calibration to Somalia’s complex realities.
1. Alternative Model: Asymmetrical Federalism
Definition:
Asymmetrical federalism allows for variable autonomy among member states, recognizing historical, cultural, or political differences. Unlike classical federalism (uniform powers) or confederalism (state supremacy), it enables negotiated, region-specific arrangements under a shared constitutional framework.
Examples:
- Canada: Quebec has distinct language and civil law privileges.
- Spain: Catalonia and the Basque Country enjoy fiscal and linguistic autonomy.
- India: Jammu and Kashmir (pre-2019) and Northeastern states had special status.
1.1 Key Features
- Flexible Power-Sharing: Core federal functions (defense, currency) remain centralized, while states negotiate additional powers (e.g., policing, resource management).
- Constitutional Recognition: Legally enshrined differences (e.g., Somaliland’s unique status).
- Equity Mechanisms: Redistributive policies to prevent disparities between stronger and weaker states.
2. Comparative Analysis: Federal vs. Confederal vs. Asymmetrical Federalism
| Aspect | Federal System | Confederal System | Asymmetrical Federalism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty | Shared | Retained by states | Shared, with variable autonomy |
| Power Distribution | Uniform regional powers | Fully decentralized | Tailored to state needs |
| Conflict Resolution | Constitutional courts | Consensus-based | Hybrid (courts + negotiation) |
| Security | Centralized command | State-led | Mixed (central oversight + local operations) |
3. Opportunities of Asymmetrical Federalism for Somalia
3.1 Addressing Somaliland’s Secessionist Ambitions
- Grant Somaliland constitutionally recognized autonomy (e.g., control over security, customs, and education) while retaining symbolic ties to Somalia (e.g., flag, international representation).
- Example: Greenland’s self-rule within Denmark.
3.2 Resolving FG-FMS Deadlocks
- Allow Puntland and Jubaland to negotiate enhanced powers (e.g., oil revenue sharing, local policing) without dismantling federal institutions.
3.3 Mitigating Fragmentation Risks
- Maintain a unified military and foreign policy to counter Al-Shabaab/ISIS, while permitting states to manage local security operations.
3.4 Electoral Flexibility
- Adopt region-specific electoral models (e.g., Somaliland’s hybrid clan-system elections) under federal oversight to break national deadlocks.
4. Challenges of Asymmetrical Federalism
4.1 Complexity in Governance
- Negotiating and managing diverse agreements risks bureaucratic inefficiency and legal contradictions.
4.2 Inter-State Resentment
- States with fewer privileges (e.g., Hirshabelle, Galmudug) may reject perceived inequities, fueling new conflicts.
4.3 Constitutional Legitimacy
- Requires broad consensus to amend the PFC, which Mogadishu and distrustful FMS may resist.
4.4 External Exploitation
- Adversaries like Al-Shabab could exploit governance disparities to destabilize weaker regions.
5. Recommendations
- Constitutional Convention:
- Draft a new charter recognizing asymmetrical autonomy for Somaliland, Puntland, and Jubaland, while ensuring baseline federal protections for all states.
- Tiered Security Framework:
- Centralize national defense and intelligence under the FG, while delegating counterterrorism operations to capable states (e.g., Puntland’s Darawish forces).
- Asymmetrical Resource-Sharing:
- Let resource-rich states retain a higher share of revenues (e.g., Jubaland’s ports) but mandate contributions to a national cohesion fund.
- Phased Implementation:
- Pilot asymmetrical agreements in Puntland and Somaliland with AU/UN mediation before nationwide rollout.
- Strengthen Federal Institutions:
- Build impartial mechanisms (e.g., intergovernmental councils, courts) to resolve asymmetrical disputes.
6. Conclusion
Neither confederalism nor asymmetrical federalism alone can resolve Somalia’s crises. However, asymmetrical federalism offers a pragmatic compromise: it acknowledges Somalia’s diversity without abandoning unity. To succeed, it must be paired with guarantees of equity, robust conflict-resolution systems, and international support. Conversely, a confederal system risks institutionalizing fragmentation but could appeal if distrust in Mogadishu becomes irreparable. Somalia’s leaders must weigh these models against the catastrophic costs of inaction.
Endorsed by Warsame Digital Media
Date: March 11, 2025
This white paper underscores the urgency of reimagining Somalia’s governance. Whether through confederalism or asymmetrical federalism, the goal remains: a stable, inclusive Somalia capable of defeating extremism and fulfilling its people’s aspirations.
Warsame Policy & Media Network (WAPMEN) 