By Ismail H. Warsame
There is a profound difference between rejecting federalism and failing to understand how federalism works. Somalia’s political class continues to confuse the two, and the consequences have been devastating. Instead of confronting political reality, many leaders remain trapped in the illusion that the country can simply return to the highly centralized state that collapsed with the First Somali Republic in 1991.
History, however, is indifferent to political wishes.
Somalia’s federal system did not emerge because constitutional scholars designed an ideal model of government. It emerged from the ashes of one of Africa’s longest and most destructive civil wars. It was born out of necessity rather than ideology. It represented a political settlement between communities that had lost confidence in centralized rule after decades of dictatorship, state collapse, and violent fragmentation.
Whether one likes it or not, that historical process cannot simply be reversed by political speeches in Mogadishu or by unilateral constitutional amendments.
Federalism today is a de facto political settlement. It reflects realities created by history, geography, security, and the emergence of clan-based territorial administrations. Puntland, Jubaland, Galmudug, Hirshabelle, South West, and Somaliland each developed their own political institutions in response to the vacuum created by the collapse of the Somali state. One may criticize how these administrations function, but pretending they do not exist is not politics—it is denial.
Some in Mogadishu appear to believe that federalism is already badly wounded—that its institutions have been weakened by constitutional disputes, political confrontation, and repeated attempts to concentrate power at the centre—and that this presents an opportunity to roll it back in favour of a centralist agenda. This is perhaps the greatest strategic miscalculation facing Somalia today. Weakening federal institutions does not erase the historical forces that produced them. Every attempt to recentralize power without broad national consensus only reinforces regional resistance and deepens mistrust between the Federal Government and the Federal Member States. Federalism may be bruised and imperfect, but it remains the constitutional expression of Somalia’s post-civil war political reality.
More importantly, those advocating a return to centralized rule misunderstand the direction of political evolution. If federalism were ever to fail, the logical destination would not be a stronger unitary state. It would be the opposite: an even looser constitutional arrangement in the form of confederalism, where regional governments retain greater sovereignty and delegate only limited powers to a common national authority. Political history rarely moves backwards. Failed attempts at recentralization tend to accelerate decentralization, not reverse it.
Many of Somalia’s political elites therefore continue to wage an imaginary war against federalism instead of improving it. They expend enormous political capital trying to recover powers that history has already redistributed, rather than building trust, cooperation, and effective institutions between the Federal Government and the Federal Member States.
The tragedy is that federalism itself is rarely the real problem.
The real problem is poor leadership.
Successful federations around the world function because their leaders understand that federalism is not a contest over who controls power, but a constitutional framework for sharing it. Somalia’s leaders too often approach it as though one level of government must destroy the other in order to survive. That mindset guarantees perpetual instability.
Critics frequently argue that Somali federalism rests upon clan-based territorial boundaries. They are correct.
But that observation should lead to understanding—not denial.
Those clan enclaves were not invented by the 2012 Provisional Constitution. They evolved over decades of conflict as communities organized their own security, administration, and governance. Federalism merely acknowledged an existing political reality. Constitutions do not create history; they codify it.
Ignoring that reality will not make it disappear.
No decree issued from Villa Somalia can erase more than three decades of political evolution. No presidential ambition can rewind Somalia to 1990. No constitutional manipulation can compel communities to abandon institutions they have painstakingly built over a generation.
Leadership means working with reality rather than against it.
National unity cannot be imposed from above.
It must be negotiated, respected, and continuously renewed through constitutional dialogue, mutual trust, and genuine power-sharing.
Those who genuinely oppose federalism must answer one simple question: What realistic constitutional alternative commands nationwide legitimacy today?
No convincing answer has yet been offered.
Somalia has already paid an enormous price for political experiments driven by personalities instead of institutions. It cannot afford another.
The sooner Somalia’s leaders accept that federalism is not a temporary political inconvenience but the constitutional consequence of the civil war, the sooner they can focus on the real national priorities: restoring security, rebuilding institutions, strengthening the rule of law, promoting economic development, and reconciling a fractured nation.
History has already rendered its verdict.
Federalism is no longer merely a constitutional choice. It is the political foundation upon which Somalia’s future must be built. If that foundation is recklessly undermined, the country is unlikely to return to centralization. It is far more likely to fragment further into an even looser confederal order.
Wise nations build upon historical realities.
Foolish nations spend generations fighting them.
—–
Support WDM — the home of fearless, independent journalism that speaks truth to power across Somalia and the region.