By Ismail H. Warsame, MSc, PhD Candidate
Somalia is making history—but not the kind of history that nations celebrate. It is making history in dishonour, constitutional recklessness, and political absurdity. Across the Somali territories, leaders who were entrusted with public office have transformed democratic mandates into personal entitlements, constitutional terms into indefinite privileges, and public institutions into instruments of self-preservation.
The result is a political landscape so bizarre that future historians may struggle to find comparable examples anywhere in the modern world.
At the centre of this crisis stands President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud. Elected through a constitutional process and entrusted with the responsibility of safeguarding the Somali state, he now faces accusations from his opponents of remaining in office after the expiry of his constitutional mandate. In functioning democracies, leaders prepare for departure as their terms end. They seek legitimacy through elections, constitutional transitions, and public consent. They do not govern through ambiguity or institutional paralysis.
Yet Somalia has become a place where the expiration of a constitutional mandate is treated as a technical inconvenience rather than a binding legal requirement.
The problem, however, does not end in Mogadishu.
In Puntland, President Said Abdullahi Deni has increasingly come under criticism for strained relations with oversight institutions and for political disputes regarding accountability and governance. Parliament, which should serve as an independent check on executive authority, appears weakened and unable to exercise effective oversight. The fundamental principle of constitutional government—that leaders answer to institutions and laws—has been steadily eroded.
Meanwhile, Somaliland has ventured into territory unprecedented in modern Muslim political history. By pursuing diplomatic engagement in Jerusalem while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains unresolved, Somaliland’s leadership has stepped into one of the most sensitive political and religious disputes in the world. Whatever one’s view of diplomacy or recognition, the symbolism is profound. No self-governing Muslim political entity has willingly positioned itself in such a manner while the status of Palestine remains contested and unresolved.
History will record that decision.
The absurdity deepens further in the federal member states.
In Galmudug, President Ahmed Abdi Kaariye (Qoor Qoor) continues to govern despite persistent debates over mandate legitimacy and delayed political transitions. In Hirshabelle, President Ali Abdullahi Hussein (Ali Guudlaawe), has similarly remained in office amid long-standing controversies surrounding constitutional timelines and electoral processes.
The message being sent across Somalia is devastatingly simple: constitutional terms no longer matter.
If leaders can remain in office indefinitely, why hold elections? If mandates can be extended through political manoeuvring, why draft constitutions? If institutions cannot enforce legal limits, why pretend that the rule of law exists?
This is not merely a governance crisis. It is a crisis of political morality.
A society survives not because it possesses constitutions, parliaments, courts, or security forces. A society survives because its leaders accept limits on their power. Once leaders begin treating public office as private property, institutions become hollow shells. Elections become rituals. Constitutions become decorations. Citizens lose faith in the political system itself.
Somalia today appears trapped in precisely that cycle.
The tragedy is that this constitutional breakdown is occurring at every level simultaneously. The Federal Government faces legitimacy disputes. Federal member states face legitimacy disputes. Political opposition groups reject existing arrangements. Constitutional frameworks are contested. Electoral timelines are uncertain. Trust between institutions has collapsed.
The country is not suffering from a shortage of leaders.
It is suffering from a shortage of statesmen.
A statesman understands that legitimacy does not come from occupying an office. Legitimacy comes from respecting the rules that created that office in the first place. A statesman knows when to govern and when to leave. A statesman protects institutions even when doing so weakens his personal power.
What Somalia increasingly produces instead are political actors who view institutions as obstacles rather than guardians of national stability.
The consequences are predictable. Public cynicism deepens. Clan tensions intensify. Extremist groups exploit political divisions. International partners lose confidence. Investors stay away. Young people lose hope.
And perhaps most dangerous of all, constitutional violations become normalised.
When constitutional anarchy becomes routine, national collapse ceases to be an event and becomes a process.
Somalia’s leaders should understand one fundamental truth: no political office is permanent, but the damage inflicted on institutions can last generations.
History is watching. Future generations are watching. The Somali people are watching.
The question is whether today’s leaders wish to be remembered as founders of a constitutional democracy—or as the politicians who transformed Somalia into a global case study of how not to govern a nation.
The answer will be written not by speeches, but by whether they respect the limits of their power.
——-
Support WAPMEN — the home of fearless, independent journalism that speaks truth to power across Somalia and the region.
Tel/WhatsApp: +252 90 703 4081