The State of Somalia’s Political Settlement
Today's editorial in The Somali Wire is written by Professor Ken Menkhaus
We would like to extend an invitation to others who may wish to contribute to the Somali Wire in the future. We appreciate insightful perspectives on topics concerning Somalia crafted as editorials.
Please contact us for more information if interested.
Over the past three decades, the concept of the ‘political settlement’ has been repeatedly wielded in analysing dozens of fragile states. The much-touted framework has examined how elites establish basic norms and ‘rules of the road’ to govern relations between rival leaders in contexts emerging from violent conflict. While it has its weaknesses and critics, it has proven to be a useful and durable tool to contribute to our understanding of how countries do, or do not, successfully emerge out of, and then stay out of, armed conflict. The question for Somalia is, what is the state of its political statement today? And does it even exist anymore?
Somalia is currently in a trap. Key pillars of the old political settlement that allowed it to end its long period of state collapse and revive a semi-functional government are now in tatters and viewed by many Somalis as impediments. But no new political settlement has as yet emerged to take its place. The Italian political scientist Antonio Gramsci’s famous 1930 quote may seem melodramatic, but it is not too wide off the mark for Somalia today– “The old world is dying and the new world cannot yet be born.”
The political settlement that initially helped lift Somalia out of civil war and state collapse consisted of a crude elite bargain, a cake-cutting exercise to divvy up power and resources to reach a deal on a transitional government. Initially, its two main pillars were the ‘4.5 formula,’ which parcelled up positions in the legislative and executive branches along clan lines, and federalism, which accorded major clans a geographic zone which they controlled and from which they derived ‘rent,’ mainly in the form of foreign aid and seaport customs.
Over time, the Somali political settlement came to include three additional pillars. The first was the implicit agreements to rotate control of the Presidency between the most powerful clans both in Federal Member States (FMS) and the Federal Government of Somalia (FGS). The second was the maintenance of a balance in the number of FMS between the Darood and Hawiye clan families. And the third was the dual executive system of rule in the FGS, which guaranteed that the Hawiye and Darood would both hold a top position in government and share power. Gradually, other norms and rules, written and unwritten, have informed Somalia’s political settlement, but these have been the most visible and consequential pillars of the elite contract.
For a time, this political settlement helped revive the state by reducing areas of conflict over resources and power. It kept the peace– for the most part. But it was always clear that the pillars on which the settlement was based were temporary mechanisms, not long-term foundations for a functional state and society. In particular, critics argued that they institutionalised clan divisions rather than overcoming them.
Over the past decade, all 5 pillars have been challenged and eroded. There is a broad consensus in Somalia that the time has come to retire the 4.5 formula and replace it with one-person-one-vote elections, even if security and logistical challenges currently make that impossible. The failure to fully implement federalism has also come under attack for keeping the country divided and politically paralysed, and for contributing to a culture of ethnic exclusionism that permeates every region, district, and town. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud has controversially proposed modifying the dual executive model in a manner that would concentrate power in the hands of the Presidency.
So too, has the balancing of Hawiye and Darood FMS been thrown into question by SSC-Khaatumo’s demands, the militia that controls Laas Aanood and its environs in Sool, to be recognised as a federal state, which in turn elevates the question of the status of Banaadir region. And the informal practice of rotating presidencies among powerful rival clans has been undercut by dubious term extensions, election delays, or incumbent victories in Puntland, South West State, and Jubaland.
What this means is that the old rules and norms for sharing power and access to resources have become increasingly frayed. The gaping inequalities in Somalia are only broadening and deepening, while continued inter-elite divisions have run political development aground. And Somalia is at sea amidst a particularly troublesome moment across the Horn of Africa that is wrestling with political and economic discontent in every corner, as well as sustained violent extremism and armed conflict. With greater climactic, security, and political pressures likely to be exerted on Somalia in the coming years, without a new, more inclusive political settlement, the country is at much greater risk of further violent protests, armed conflict, and political divorce.
Gramsci’s famous quote ends ominously– “Now is the time of monsters.” Somalia’s political class needs to recognise the danger the country faces and work in good faith to build trust, effective transitional strategies, and ‘rules of the road’ for a new political settlement. In the current context, the settlement does not have to be perfect, but it must be one that can keep the monsters at bay, keep the peace, and provide a more viable, democratic, and cosmopolitan foundation for good governance in Somalia.
Ken Menkaus is a Professor of Political Science at Davison College. He is a specialist on the Horn of Africa with a focus on peacebuilding and state-building, conflict analysis, humanitarian response, and Islamic politics.
Gain unlimited access to all our Editorials. Unlock Full Access to Our Expert Editorials — Trusted Insights, Unlimited Reading.
Create your Sahan account LoginUnlock lifetime access to all our Premium editorial content
Today marks exactly two months since Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HSM) unveiled his unilateral one-year term extension. While it is too early to draw definitive conclusions, HSM has evidently survived, rebounded, and consolidated power in ways that defy earlier predictions. A leader whom many had been wont to dismiss as too tarnished to retain executive power beyond May 2026 remains firmly in the saddle, holding the political initiative and dictating terms. His opponents, meanwhile, are in deep disarray. Their cohesion is fracturing, they lack a coherent, unified strategy, and they are locked in a dialogue of attrition designed to wear down their will and force their capitulation.
The Somaliland–Ethiopia Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was hailed as a historic breakthrough. In reality, it was a strategic gamble built on contradictions—and its apparent failure may prove to be a blessing in disguise for Somaliland and Ethiopia.
For the first time in over six decades, Somalia has overhauled its foundational criminal law - the 1962 Law No. 5. Now awaiting parliamentary and presidential approval, the Draft Somali Penal Code (SPC) nonetheless struggles with multiple hurdles and will likely face significant objection, not least, from Somalia’s Western partners and liberal-minded younger generation of Somalis disappointed with the new text’s failure to break away from its historical illiberal roots.
The Federal Government of Somalia (FGS) has published a new Draft Somalia Penal Code (SPC) - marking its first comprehensive legal overhaul in 64 years. The 136-page draft was first submitted to Parliament in January 2026 and underwent its first reading but the process of endorsing it became entangled with the escalating electoral and constitutional dispute, forcing the government to shelve it. The changes aim to update the 1962 Law No. 5 Penal Code and codify Islamic criminal law (uqubat). If endorsed by parliament and approved by the President, they will formally embed the three pillars of the Sharia punitive framework into the statute - fixed punishments (hudud), retributive justice (qisas), and statutory judicial discretion (ta'zir).
A president does not pay a visit to Wajir by accident. When William Samoei Ruto chose Wajir as the centre stage for Kenya’s Madaraka Day celebrations on 1 June — the first sitting president to do so — he was not merely varying the ceremonial calendar. He was making a premeditated statement about who belongs at the centre of Kenya’s state and who no longer belongs at its margins. The message was not merely ‘taking Nairobi to NorthEastern.’ It was the centring and mainstreaming of an ethnic Somali-dominated region that, for much of Kenya’s post-colonial history, has been treated as a security issue rather than a political constituency.
Somaliland President Abdirahman Irro’s trip to Israel in June (from 14-17) was far more than symbolism. Not only was it a calculated strategic diplomatic play, and a chance for Somaliland to appear on the world stage, but also an opportunity for Somaliland to present itself as a fully-functional state, able to conduct foreign relations and cut bilateral deals. Irro, a seasoned former diplomat, navigated the intricate demands of state protocol with remarkable ease - cutting an immaculate, regal figure in his navy-blue suit. Accorded full head-of-state honours, he laid a wreath at the Theodore Herzl mausoleum, engaged in high-level talks with President Isaac Herzog and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, opened the new Somaliland embassy in Jerusalem and convened meetings with Knesset members, senior officials, and business leaders. For Israel, hosting President Abdirahman Irro in Jerusalem functioned to signal its strong commitment to deepening strategic ties while also countering perceptions of waning diplomatic momentum.
Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake. Napoleon Bonaparte’s classic rule of combat seems to be the guiding doctrine behind Al-Shabaab’s sudden, uncharacteristic radio silence as Mogadishu’s political elite tear themselves apart. As the ‘government-in-waiting’, one would have assumed the militants would take full advantage of its adversaries’ internal divisions, maximising the propaganda opportunities this offers, and campaign for their own cause. Typically quick to weaponise any intra-Somali division, the militant group's decision to sit out the latest intra-Somali fracturing is intriguing. By withholding its usual blitz of propaganda, the group is playing a longer, quieter game - waiting for the federal house to implode further before stepping in.
While much international attention is on Mogadishu – understandably so - another electoral crisis is brewing in the regional state of Galmudug. Historically unstable, prone to Al-Shabaab violence and destabilisation and wracked by chronic inter-clan frictions and periodic armed hostilities, the looming vote appears likely to aggravate the situation and foment more divisions.
Two days of heavy clashes (3–4 June) in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, between federal troops and opposition-aligned forces have underscored both the fragility of the city’s security environment and the volatility of electoral politics. Although relative calm has since returned to the two hardest-hit districts - Hawl Wadaag and Abdiaziz - and mediation efforts have intensified, tensions remain high, fuelling fears of renewed armed skirmishes. Credible reports of mass clan militia mobilisation on the edges of Mogadishu speak to a conflict that is widening. The militarisation of politics and elite fragmentation over the electoral process have shattered a core assumption: that Somali leaders will ultimately step back from the brink to negotiate a way forward. Consequently, the country is entering a perilous phase in which domestic factions alone cannot resolve the impasse, making neutral, external mediation a necessity.