By Abdulkadir Mohamed Osman
Political leaders often invoke democracy’s most powerful slogans. But slogans alone do not make a democracy. Institutions do. The principle of the separation of powers exists for a simple reason: no individual, however popular or powerful, should be able to extend his tenure by placing himself above the constitution.
Independent courts, legislatures, security institutions, and electoral bodies exist to ensure that political power changes hands according to law rather than personal ambition.
The United States offers a useful illustration. After losing the 2020 presidential election, President Donald Trump challenged the outcome through multiple legal and political avenues. Senior military leaders publicly affirmed that the armed forces would defend the Constitution rather than intervene in electoral disputes. Courts rejected numerous legal challenges,
Congress ultimately certified the election results despite the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and constitutional institutions prevailed. Whatever one thinks of American politics, the episode demonstrated that democratic systems depend on institutions capable of resisting pressure from those in power.
If even a democracy with more than two centuries of institutional development faced such a test, the stakes are even higher for Somalia—a country still rebuilding after decades of civil war, state collapse, and political fragmentation.
Many Somalis hoped that the return of former President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud would represent a departure from the constitutional crisis that marked the end of former President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo’s administration, particularly the controversial attempt to extend his presidential mandate.
Those expectations have increasingly given way to disappointment among critics who argue that Somalia is once again moving toward prolonged constitutional uncertainty rather than a credible transfer of power.
Supporters of the government frequently present “one person, one vote” as the defining democratic objective. In principle, few Somalis would oppose universal suffrage. Genuine direct elections remain a national aspiration shared across political divides. The question, however, is whether that aspiration is being pursued sincerely or being used as political justification for extending executive power beyond constitutional limits.
Critics point to repeated confrontations with political opponents, security operations targeting opposition figures, restrictions on protests, and growing tensions with traditional leaders as evidence that the government’s commitment to democratic competition is being undermined by increasingly coercive methods. The broader reality is damaging: democratic rhetoric is being accompanied by actions that erode confidence in democratic institutions and literality endanger the nation.
If direct elections were truly the administration’s overriding priority, legitimate questions deserve answers. Why were the necessary preparations—such as voter registration, a nationwide identification system, a reliable census, adequate funding, and nationwide security planning—not completed during the government’s constitutional term? Why has the urgency surrounding universal suffrage intensified only as the presidential mandate has reached its constitutional endpoint of May 15, 2026?
These are not procedural details. They are the foundations upon which credible elections depend. Somalia also faces practical realities that cannot be ignored. Large areas of the country remain insecure due to the presence of Al-Shabaab, while the authority of the federal government varies significantly across regions.
Organizing nationwide direct elections under such conditions requires broad political consensus, cooperation among federal and state institutions, and substantial logistical preparation. None of these challenges can be overcome through political slogans alone. This is why consensus matters.
Throughout Somalia’s fragile democratic transition, negotiated electoral agreements have often served as imperfect but necessary mechanisms for preserving stability. Abandoning political consensus without first establishing the institutional capacity for nationwide elections risks replacing one constitutional crisis with another.
The international community has invested billions of dollars, diplomatic capital, and years of engagement to help Somalia rebuild its institutions. That investment should not be treated as unconditional. International partners should continue encouraging constitutional governance, political dialogue, and peaceful transfers of power while making clear that support for Somalia’s democratic development depends on respect for constitutional norms and agreed political processes.
History offers a clear lesson: nations rarely descend into instability because constitutions fail on paper. They do so when leaders decide that remaining in office is more important than respecting constitutional limits.
Somalia’s future depends not simply on achieving one person, one vote, but on ensuring that every election—whatever its format—is conducted within the framework of the Constitution, through political consensus, and with genuine respect for the peaceful transfer of power.
Without those principles, “one person, one vote” risks becoming less a democratic promise than a political slogan used to justify one more presidential term, and that is unacceptable. Period.
Abdulkadir Mohamed Osman (Abdi Boqor)
Email: abdulkadirphd@hotmail.com
