Somalia deserves a government where competence unlocks opportunity, integrity commands respect, and public office is treated as a constitutional trust—not a political inheritance. Instead, governance increasingly resembles a patronage marketplace in which loyalty is the favored currency and merit is asked to wait outside the door.

President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s administration, many experts argue, has too often prioritized political patronage over merit. When allegiance becomes the main qualification for public office, institutions stop serving the Republic and begin serving political interests. The predictable results are weakened governance, eroded public trust, and institutions that spend more time preserving alliances than solving national problems.

Somalia has already paid a steep price for authoritarianism, corruption, nepotism, political exclusion, and clan-based polarization. Those are not proud chapters to be repeated; they are lessons that demand to be remembered. A nation that persistently rewards the same governance failures should not be surprised when it inherits the same crises. Repeating yesterday’s mistakes will not build a different future.

Concerns from Somali scholars, constitutional experts, and policy analysts reinforce this warning. Disputes over electoral processes and constitutional governance risk eroding legitimacy, widening political divisions, and straining relations between the Federal Government and several Federal Member States, including Puntland and Jubbaland. A federation cannot be strengthened by governing through perpetual constitutional confrontation.

No country has appointed itself into prosperity by sidelining competence. Corruption does not become reform because it is wrapped in polished rhetoric. Nepotism does not become reconciliation because it is spoken with patriotic language. Political favoritism does not become state-building because it is labeled strategic leadership. A different slogan cannot disguise the same old machinery.

Somalia’s greatest asset has never been political patronage. It lies in honest professionals, dedicated civil servants, entrepreneurs, scholars, constitutional lawyers, security specialists, innovators, and young people whose talents far exceed their political connections. Yet merit too often waits in the wings while loyalty walks straight into positions of influence.

The real national loss is not another controversial appointment; it is the quiet departure of talent, the steady politicization of institutions, and the normalization of mediocrity. Every qualified candidate overlooked weakens state capacity. Every institution subordinated to political convenience weakens the nation itself.

History is unforgiving. It rarely recalls how many loyalists a leader appointed; it remembers whether institutions became stronger or weaker, whether the rule of law expanded or contracted, and whether the nation emerged more united or more divided. Patronage may buy today’s political comfort; only meritocracy earns tomorrow’s respect.

Analysts also warn of threats to institutional resilience: allegations of extremist infiltration into public institutions and rising political mistrust within the federal system. These risks transcend party lines and require transparent investigation, credible safeguards, and evidence-based policies. Ignoring structural vulnerabilities is not a viable national-security strategy.

For these reasons Somalia’s intellectual community cannot afford the silence of neutrality. Academics, constitutional lawyers, policy experts, civil society leaders, and professionals have a civic duty to defend constitutional governance, institutional independence, accountability, and evidence-based policymaking. Their loyalty should belong neither to personalities nor factions, but to the Constitution, the State, and the Somali people.

Somalia does not need a political culture in which surnames eclipse qualifications, access substitutes for ability, and proximity to power displaces professional excellence. It does not need unity that is applauded in speeches while patronage weakens institutions. The country needs leadership that values competence over connections, institutions over personalities, accountability over convenience, and the national interest over partisan calculation.

Ultimately, leadership should be judged not by how many allies are rewarded with office but by the quality of institutions left behind. States are not built on patronage networks or political indebtedness. They are built on merit, protected by the rule of law, reinforced by accountability, and sustained by leaders who treat public office as a responsibility—not a private franchise.

Abdiladif Ahmed

By WDM
The battle is still underway.
The United States and Israel may have succeeded in decapitating much of Iran’s senior political and military leadership. By any conventional military standard, that was an extraordinary tactical achievement.
Yet the war has not ended.
Instead, Iran’s regime remains intact, its armed forces continue to fight, and Tehran appears more assertive than before. Rather than collapsing under the weight of the initial assault, Iran has demonstrated that removing leaders does not necessarily remove a state’s capacity—or determination—to resist.
The strategic centre of gravity has now shifted to the Strait of Hormuz. With Iran asserting control over the waterway and the United States attempting to enforce its own maritime blockade, one of the world’s most critical energy corridors has become the principal battlefield. The consequences extend far beyond the Middle East, affecting global trade, energy markets, and international security.
This is the paradox of modern warfare.
Winning the opening battle does not guarantee winning the war.
If the objective was to force Iran into strategic submission, that objective remains unfulfilled. Instead, the conflict has entered a prolonged contest of endurance, deterrence, and economic pressure.
History repeatedly reminds us that tactical brilliance does not automatically produce strategic success. A government can lose its leaders and still retain its will to fight.
The decisive question is no longer who struck first or who struck hardest.
It is who can outlast the other politically, economically, and militarily.
The Middle East war is therefore far from over.
The opening strikes may have rewritten the battlefield.
The final outcome will be decided by who controls the strategic consequences.

A Story Almost Impossible to Imagine in Somalia

According to a widely shared account, the wife of Denmark’s prime minister was employed as a teacher at a public school. After concerns were raised about her performance, the school principal summoned her to an official disciplinary meeting.
As is common in such proceedings, she chose to bring someone to accompany her as a witness. That person happened to be her husband—the Prime Minister of Denmark.
The outcome was remarkable. Despite the presence of the country’s most powerful elected official, the meeting concluded with the teacher being dismissed from her job. Even more striking, the media and political opposition questioned whether the prime minister should have attended at all, arguing that his presence could be interpreted as an attempt to influence the disciplinary process.
Now imagine the same scenario in Somalia.
The questions would be very different:
How could a school principal even summon the prime minister’s wife?
If she were summoned, would the meeting genuinely focus on her professional shortcomings?
If the prime minister attended, who would dare dismiss her?
More fundamentally, how could the spouse of a sitting prime minister even hold an ordinary teaching job without attracting accusations of favouritism or political privilege?
The contrast goes beyond two individuals. It reflects two very different political cultures. In one, public office is expected to remain separate from the rule of law and institutional decision-making. In the other, state power is too often seen as a shield against accountability rather than a responsibility to uphold it.
That difference may explain more about governance than a thousand political speeches.

—–
Source: Abdirahman Hassan Anteeno. Relayed by Ahmed Farah Yare