Mogadishu (WDN) – After months of escalating political tensions, mounting constitutional disputes, and repeated warnings from Somali stakeholders, Somalia’s international partners have once again stepped into the country’s political arena. Yet for many observers, the question being asked in Mogadishu is not why they intervened but why it took them so long.
Representatives of the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States held a high-level meeting with former Somali President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo on Monday, as part of a renewed effort to prevent Somalia’s worsening political crisis from spiraling into a full-scale national confrontation.
According to sources familiar with the discussions, the meeting focused on the country’s increasingly fragile political environment, the disputed electoral process, constitutional disagreements, and the urgent need for a political settlement capable of restoring confidence among Somalia’s divided political actors.
The international delegation reportedly emphasized the importance of dialogue, compromise, and consensus-building as the only viable path toward a credible electoral process and long-term stability. But many Somali political observers remain unconvinced. Several similar meetings have been held over the past year involving opposition leaders, federal member states, former presidents, and international diplomats. Yet despite countless statements, consultations, and diplomatic interventions, little progress has been achieved in bridging the widening political divide.
Sources close to the discussions indicate that former President Farmaajo remains firm on his political position and continues to advocate for a broad national consensus based on constitutional legality and previously agreed political frameworks. The challenge facing mediators, however, extends far beyond one political figure.
At the center of the crisis is the growing perception among many Somalis that former President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud continues to pursue a unilateral political agenda while expecting opposition groups, federal member states, and other stakeholders to simply endorse decisions that have already been made. The country’s political deadlock is the result of a consistent refusal of Hassan Sheikh to seek genuine compromise on fundamental questions relating to governance, elections, federalism, and constitutional legitimacy.
The recent developments in South West State, where opponents of the federal government contend that political processes were dictated by Villa Somalia, resulting in the installation of an administration who lacked broad-based legitimacy but backed by former President Hassan.
Villa Somalia is also employing on similar political engineering in Hirshabelle and Galmudug their respective political transitions approach. “The concern is no longer about a single state,” one veteran Somali political analyst told WardheerNewsd. “The concern is whether Somalia is witnessing the systematic replacement of federal autonomy with centrally controlled administrations.”
The growing dispute has also revived debate over political legitimacy at the federal level. Opposition leaders and constitutional experts continue to question the legal basis upon which key federal institutions are operating following the expiration of their constitutional mandates. They argue that political actors whose mandates are disputed lack the authority to organize, supervise, or impose electoral arrangements on others.
These concerns have become increasingly prominent as Somalia approaches another potentially decisive electoral period. Many Somalis are openly questioning the role of the international community. For years, international partners have played decisive roles during major Somali political crises, often intervening when disputes threatened constitutional order, electoral timelines, or national stability. Previous crises frequently ended only after strong diplomatic pressure from international stakeholders forced competing actors back to the negotiating table.
This time, however, critics argue that international engagement has been both delayed and inconsistent. Many wonder why firm diplomatic action was absent during the constitutional disputes, political confrontations, and controversial state-level interventions that have contributed to today’s crisis. Others question whether international partners genuinely support inclusive political dialogue or whether they have become passive observers of a steadily deteriorating situation. “What is difficult to understand,” said one political observer in Mogadishu, “is that the warning signs have been visible for years. Somalia did not suddenly arrive at this point. The crisis was predictable, yet meaningful intervention came only after tensions had already reached dangerous levels.”
The international partners are also expected to hold separate consultations with members of the Future Forum opposition coalition as part of their latest diplomatic initiative. Whether these meetings produce a breakthrough remains uncertain. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Somalia finds itself at one of the most delicate political moments in recent years. Trust between key stakeholders has eroded, constitutional disputes remain unresolved, and the prospect of further political confrontation continues to loom over the country.
For many citizens, the greatest concern is that the same cycle is repeating itself once again: warnings ignored, dialogue delayed, positions hardened, and international mediation arriving only after the crisis has already deepened. As diplomats shuttle between political leaders in Mogadishu, the question now facing Somalia is not simply whether dialogue can resume, but whether it can come in time to prevent yet another chapter of political instability in a country that can ill afford another crisis.
