Hirshabelle and Galmudug: Elections or Appointments by Another Name?

By Abdiqani Haji Abdi

Somalia’s latest experiments with direct elections in Hirshabelle and Galmudug are being presented by the Federal Government as a historic step toward democracy. But beneath the celebration lies a much deeper political dispute: are voters genuinely choosing their leaders, or are they being asked to validate political outcomes that have already been decided by the ruling party?

The question has become particularly sharp because the Justice and Solidarity Party (JSP), led by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, has already selected its preferred candidates for the leadership of the two federal member states.

In Hirshabelle, JSP nominated incumbent President Ali Abdullahi Hussein Guudlaawe for another term and subsequently selected former Hiiraan governor Abdifatah Hassan Afrah as its candidate for deputy president. Afrah himself said President Hassan Sheikh played a role in his selection.

In Galmudug, JSP emerged from the September 30 rerun with 67 of the 89 parliamentary seats, giving the party a commanding majority in the state legislature. Reports indicate that JSP and the Federal Government are backing Libaan Axmed Xasan (Libaan Shuluq) for the Galmudug presidency. This is where the opposition’s argument begins.

The Election Is Direct But the Leadership Is Not

The elections in Hirshabelle and Galmudug are technically elections for state assemblies and local councils, not direct presidential elections. But the state parliament ultimately determines who becomes president and deputy president. That distinction is crucial.

If one political party controls a commanding majority of the state parliament and has already selected the candidates it wants to see occupy the executive leadership, critics argue that the presidential contest risks becoming a confirmation exercise rather than an open political competition.

That concern is particularly strong in Galmudug, where JSP’s 67 seats give it more than enough parliamentary strength to determine the composition of the state leadership without requiring a broad coalition. The same concern exists in Hirshabelle, where JSP has openly backed Guudlaawe and Afrah.

The ballot may therefore determine the composition of parliament, while the ruling party’s internal decisions may largely determine who occupies the presidency. That is the central political criticism surrounding the process.

Opposition Says the Rules Were Never Agreed

The dispute goes beyond individual candidates. Opposition groups have challenged the legitimacy of the electoral framework itself, including the composition and independence of the national electoral commission, the rules governing the elections and the constitutional amendments adopted under President Hassan Sheikh.

Earlier opposition discussions with the Federal Government identified precisely these issues as central to reaching an electoral agreement: the election model, an independent and trusted electoral commission, and the constitutional framework.

The opposition’s position is that an electoral system of this magnitude should emerge from broad political consensus, rather than being established unilaterally and then implemented by institutions that the opposition does not recognize. The constitutional dispute is particularly consequential.

Parliament approved amendments extending presidential and parliamentary terms from four to five years. The Federal Government considers the amendments valid, while opposition groups have rejected them and disputed their application to the current leadership. The disagreement has remained one of the central unresolved issues in Somalia’s political crisis.

The International Community Tried to Bridge the Gap

This is also why the latest elections cannot be separated from the broader political negotiations that preceded them. For months, international partners and diplomats have sought to bring the Federal Government and opposition groups toward an agreement on the electoral roadmap.

The issues were not limited to whether Somalia should have one-person-one-vote elections. They included who controls the electoral institutions, what rules govern the elections, which constitutional framework applies, and whether the major political actors accept the process.

The opposition’s argument has been that an election conducted without agreement among the principal political stakeholders risks reproducing the very crisis it is supposed to resolve. The government, by contrast, has argued that Somalia cannot remain trapped indefinitely in negotiations among political elites and that citizens should be allowed to vote directly. Both arguments contain an important democratic principle.The question is whether they can coexist.

Baidoa Offers a Warning

The controversy is particularly sensitive because of what happened in South West State. The Federal Government’s confrontation with former South West President Abdiaziz Hassan Mohamed Laftagareen eventually developed into armed conflict after months of political disagreement.

The federal intervention in Baidoa was presented by Mogadishu as necessary to restore stability and advance the electoral process. Laftagareen’s supporters, however, described it as an attempt to impose a political outcome on the state.

The confrontation subsequently produced repeated fighting and a prolonged security crisis. For critics of the current electoral model, Baidoa is therefore the warning that hangs over Hirshabelle and Galmudug: when political competition is replaced by the imposition of a predetermined outcome, an election can become another source of conflict rather than a mechanism for resolving it. That comparison remains a political interpretation, not proof that the same outcome will occur in Hirshabelle or Galmudug. But the concern is understandable.

Galmudug Already Exposed the System’s Weakness

Galmudug itself has provided another warning. The Supreme Court annulled the July election after finding that the process had not complied with constitutional and electoral requirements and that irregularities had affected the integrity and outcome of the vote. It ordered a rerun. The rerun subsequently gave JSP 67 of 89 seats.

The court’s intervention demonstrates that electoral institutions can correct a disputed process. But it also demonstrates something more uncomfortable: the first election was not sufficiently credible to survive judicial scrutiny. That should make the question of electoral legitimacy central to the next stage.

The Bigger Political Objective

Opposition figures have interpreted the sequence of events as part of a broader strategy by President Hassan Sheikh to consolidate political influence across South West, Hirshabelle and Galmudug through an electoral architecture that produces governments aligned with Villa Somalia.

That is an opposition interpretation and has not been independently established as the government’s stated objective. What can be documented is that JSP has selected candidates in Hirshabelle and has emerged with a dominant parliamentary position in Galmudug. JSP is also the party led by President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud.

The political consequence is therefore real regardless of how the strategy is interpreted. If the same national ruling party controls the parliamentary majorities that select the presidents of several federal member states, the traditional distinction between federal and state-level political power becomes considerably less clear.

That raises an important federalism question: How much political independence can a federal member state exercise when its executive leadership depends on a parliamentary majority controlled by the same national party governing from Mogadishu?

The government can point to something genuinely significant: people are voting directly. That is an important departure from Somalia’s long-standing system of clan-based indirect elections. But democracy is not simply the act of putting a ballot into a box. It also requires credible rules, trusted institutions, genuine competition, political inclusion and acceptance of the result by those who participate.

That is where Somalia’s current experiment remains vulnerable. If opposition parties do not recognize the electoral commission, if major political actors reject the electoral rules, if constitutional amendments remain contested, and if the eventual state leadership appears predetermined by the dominant national party, the government may succeed in holding elections without achieving a political settlement. And that distinction could prove decisive.

The Choice Facing Somalia

The question facing Somalia is therefore larger than whether Hirshabelle and Galmudug have successfully conducted voting. It is whether direct elections will become a mechanism for broadening political participation or a mechanism for transferring political control from one level of government to another under the appearance of electoral competition.

The difference will ultimately be measured not by the number of polling stations or ballots cast, but by whether political opponents believe they had a genuine opportunity to compete and whether citizens believe their votes — rather than decisions made within party headquarters — determined who governs them.

Somalia needs elections. But it also needs elections that the losing side can accept. Without that political legitimacy, an election can produce a parliament, a president and a government — and still leave the underlying conflict unresolved. That is the lesson Somalia should take from Baidoa, and the question now hanging over Hirshabelle and Galmudug.

Abdiqani Haji Abdi

Email: [email protected]