On March 30, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud made a fateful unilateral gamble, forcing through a new constitutional draft in a move that is now risking Somalia’s fragile unity. This top-down imposition, passed by a parliament whose leadership had threatened to proceed without a quorum, has not only shattered a decade of precarious federal consensus but also ignited the most severe political crisis in over a decade.
The immediate consequence was Puntland’s decisive severance of ties with Mogadishu, a stark symbol of the fracturing state. Beyond Somalia’s borders, the maneuver has further strained critical diplomatic relations, notably with Ethiopia. More than a simple legal revision, this new constitution represents a profound political wager—one where the promised prize of direct elections is weighed against the very real peril of national disintegration, mobilizing former presidents, alienating federal states, and exposing the deep fault lines beneath Somalia’s hard-won stability.
The Genesis of Discord: A Unilateral Ambition
The current upheaval finds its roots in a meeting of the National Consultative Council (NCC) in October 2023. While publicly championing the noble goal of transitioning to a “one person, one vote” model, President Mohamud secured a more critical, less transparent concession from regional leaders: their assent to a comprehensive constitutional revision. This agreement was transactional; in exchange for supporting the president’s project, regional leaders—many holding office beyond original mandates, like Jubaland’s Ahmed Madobe—were promised extended terms. Thus, the rewrite was greenlit not by popular will or inclusive debate, but by a pact among elites seeking to consolidate power. This sparked immediate outcry, forcing a temporary retreat.
A year later, the president returned with renewed determination. Having ostensibly secured the acquiescence of influential international partners—partly by embedding progressive social values into the text—he moved decisively. The proposed changes are framed as democratic modernization, promising:
- A direct, universal suffrage election.
- A shift to a two or three-party political system.
- An extension of the presidential term to five years.
- Federal control over the electoral commission.
- Synchronized presidential and legislative elections.
However, the opposition, including former Presidents Sharif Sheikh Ahmed and Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo, argues that the process fatally undermines the content. They contend that a president, accused of nepotism and divisive governance, is exploiting the idea of democracy to construct a more centralized, authoritarian system. The critical question is whether Somalia is witnessing a genuine democratization or a clever consolidation of power.
Undermining a Proven, Though Imperfect, Foundation
The profound danger of this initiative lies in its casual disruption of the provisional constitution of 2012. This document, however incomplete, is not merely a legal text; it is the bedrock of Somalia’s post-civil war recovery. It formalized a hard-won federal compromise, granting regions autonomy while recognizing a central authority in Mogadishu. It provided the framework that ended the transitional governments and allowed Somalia to rejoin the international community. Even the secessionist region of Somaliland engages with it indirectly, sending representatives to the federal parliament.
This provisional constitution was the product of a painstaking, decades-long journey of reconciliation. From the failed talks of the 1990s to the landmark Arta Conference in Djibouti and the protracted Kenyan peace process (2002-2004), it emerged from countless negotiations among clans, warlords, and civil society. It represented a fragile consensus, a treaty of coexistence for a shattered nation. Every administration since has acknowledged the need for its finalization, and in 2022, all presidential candidates, including Mohamud, pledged to complete it through an inclusive, legitimate process.
President Mohamud’s approach, however, discards this consensus-based legacy. Instead of building upon past achievements and correcting specific flaws—such as the contentious electoral models that deadlocked the 2016 and 2021 polls—his “overhaul” is perceived as a zero-sum reset. It risks reviving the very centrifugal forces the provisional constitution was designed to contain.
Motivations and Mounting Resistance
The president’s zeal for constitutional change appears amidst a challenging tenure. The war against Al-Shabab is stalemated, insecurity persists, corruption is rampant, and disputes with federal states are escalating. In this context, the constitutional project is seen by critics as a diversionary tactic and a power grab. The agreement with compliant regional leaders to extend term lengths is a telling feature of the reform’s self-serving nature.
Yet, resistance is substantial. Puntland has taken the most drastic step, declaring a break from the federal system. Within parliament, despite pressure, a significant bloc of legislators remains hostile. Most powerfully, the collective voice of former leaders has emerged as a core rallying point for opposition. In a resonant speech, former President Farmajo, recently returned from exile, called for a united front to defend Somalia’s foundational pact. Their argument is not against constitutional finalization per se, but against a hijacked process that lacks national buy-in and threatens to exchange a flawed but functional federal balance for a centralized dictatorship.
The Pathway Forward is Consensus, Not Imposition
The constitutional impasse reveals a painful irony. The very actors now at loggerheads—President Mohamud and Puntland’s leadership—have historically obstructed democratic progress. Their current clash, however, jeopardizes the entire federal experiment. Puntland, while instrumental in state-building, has been a consistent complicating factor for Mogadishu. Bringing it and other skeptical regions into a genuine dialogue is arduous but non-negotiable.
For a president whose administration is marred by allegations of nepotism, divisiveness, and mismanagement, to claim sole stewardship of the nation’s foundational rewrite is a profound fallacy. True constitutional legitimacy cannot be decreed; it must be forged. Shutting down criticism and sidelining seasoned leaders who seek a smoother transition only deepens the national rift.
Somalia’s history teaches that sustainable governance is built on patient negotiation and clan-sensitive compromise, not political bulldozing. The written constitution is not an end in itself. As observers of Somali politics understand, the document will be meaningless without restored confidence in statehood and national leadership. The only way to achieve that is to lead this scarred nation with sensitivity, inclusivity, and effective governance. Closing the “constitutional void” requires bridging divides, not creating new ones. The alternative is not a new dawn of democracy, but a dangerous dawn of deeper discord.
