Somalia goes to polls: Reflecting determinants of past, present, future

 

Early this year, Somalia is to hold presidential and parliamentary elections despite the opposition's allegations that the government has mishandled the election process and violated the new election model formed following an agreement in Dhuusamareeb, the administrative capital of Galmadug state, in August 2020.

The country's political landscape has been characterized by conflict and reaction for a while now, exemplified in the past three elections that resulted in political turmoil and confusion.

Lack of trust in the system is the leading cause of ongoing political disarray. Somalia has been ruled by a military regime for 21 years and has lacked functioning government institutions for almost 30 years, still struggling to heal past wounds. The political system is fragile and susceptible to exploitation, giving opposition presidential candidates reason for concern.

Just like anywhere else, there are some specific factors that determine the choice of the president in Somalia.

Factors of the past

After becoming independent from its former colonizers, Britain and Italy, Somalia eagerly formed its first republic, which was followed by nine years of parliamentary democracy, proclaiming itself the first democracy in Africa.

In reality, the democratization efforts fell short in many ways. Elections were held, but there was a disconnect in power, transparency and accountability, while the tireless efforts to separate the clan from the statehood and elections did not yield positive results.

The clan played a determinant role in choosing who would rule the country and denying that role means ignoring Somalia’s political culture.

The emergence of a sense of nationalism provided unity and impeded the clan's influence, suggesting that it could be a fading force.

The leaders of the civic governments tried to take advantage of the situation, which turned out to be a naive miscalculation. Old traditions ingrained in the country's political culture cannot be erased so quickly.

As many scholars argue, the best way to handle this situation is to relegate and demote the group's influence and capacity over time. Trying to remove it altogether is not an option and often results in more grave consequences in the long run, as happened in Somalia.

The final years of the civilian era in Somalia were marked by corruption, nepotism, mismanagement of public finances and alleged election fraud. These factors lead to the deterioration of state institutions and the demand for change, bringing the experimental democracy to an end and providing the military the golden opportunity to seize power.

With the fragile democracy no more, the military did what any dictatorship would do and proceeded to dissolve the constitution, put an end to the multiparty system and suspend many rights citizens had during the civilian era.

The military regime lasted 21 years but made some critical mistakes during the period, including the adaptation of socialism and the Ethiopian war among other diplomatic blunders that would decide its fate.

If the clan was an election determinant in the civilian government era, then the military regime used it as a political weapon to benefit their agenda – a decision Somalia is still recovering from the social and political consequences of.

Soon after the regime of Mohammed Siad Barre, the commander of the Somali armed forces, was ousted, the clan rebels produced a manifesto and agreed to form a rebel government.

The clan factor was an intrinsic part of the movement and later played a crucial role in developing their rebellious government in 1991. It was followed by the Cairo agreement in 1997, which crowned Ali Mahdi Muhammad as president once again.

This marked the beginning of the clan being formally and legitimately recognized as a significant political and power-sharing component. And what came after only further institutionalized it.