Power, Prestige, and the Betrayal of Public Trust: A Rejoinder

By Dayib Sh. Ahmed

There is no nation in the world that has achieved greatness without visionary leadership, just as there is none that has failed without the consequences of poor leadership. From America’s Founding Fathers, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, to modern-day Singapore under its first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, history offers endless parallels of how leaders reorient the destinies of their nations.

Somalia’s current predicament cannot simply be attributed to episodic circumstances. It is also a reflection of leadership failures at every level, from grassroots to the highest echelons of government because nation-building is a two-way traffic that requires both visionary leadership and responsible citizenry.

It is with this understanding of the relationship between leadership, the public and institutions in mind that can be grasped Abdelkarim A. Haji Hassan’s article, Fame and Fortune , published in WardheerNews that inspired me to write this rejoinder.

Since the establishment of the Transitional National Government following the 2000 Arta peace process in Djibouti, Somalia has had 14 prime ministers, from Ali Khalif Galaydh to the incumbent, Hamza Abdi Barre. On this, I struggle to pinpoint a prime minister who acknowledged his failures at face value, let alone resigned because of them.

Although some prime ministers, including Ali Mohamed Gedi in 2007 and Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke in 2010, resigned amid political disputes with their presidents not for policy issues but personal or tribal, I am referring to one driven by moral conscience: one that compels a person to voluntarily step down because remaining in office would contradict their principles or jeopardise national progress. I also struggle to recall a minister who voluntarily relinquished a position of authority because of a fundamental disagreement with government policy or a matter of conscience.

Instead, we have witnessed ministers being dismissed from office, often without even fully understanding the reasons for their removal. This raises an important question: why does resignation on matters of conscience appear so uncommon in Somali politics?

Consider the example of General James Mattis, who served as U.S. Secretary of Defense under President Donald Trump.

On December 20, 2018, Mattis submitted his resignation, explaining that the president had the right to have a defense secretary whose views were more closely aligned with his own. In his resignation letter, he wrote, “Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.” Mattis’s resignation was significant not simply because he was a senior government official leaving office, but because he publicly acknowledged a fundamental disagreement with the president’s direction and chose to relinquish his position rather than remain in an administration whose policies he could no longer fully support.

His decision demonstrated that public office, however prestigious, should never become more important than one’s principles and convictions.

Yet, Mattis’s decision also raises a deeper question that extends beyond the conduct of an individual political leader: What happens to a society when personal interests consistently take precedence over moral principles? This brings me to a broader philosophical question raised by philosopher Susan Neiman in her book Call It Evil . Neiman argues that when self-interest becomes society’s accepted standard of rational behavior, moral principles such as empathy, compassion, and shame are dismissed as signs of weakness or naïveté. “She further argues,”

It can also develop within a political and social culture in which people place their personal interests above everything else and regard those who defend morality, justice, and the common good as unrealistic or foolish. Neiman’s argument offers an important lens through which to examine Somalia’s political culture.

When political office becomes more valuable than personal integrity, when loyalty to power outweighs loyalty to principle, and when remaining in government takes precedence over defending the public interest, the problem extends beyond corruption or incompetence. It becomes a crisis of political morality.

Perhaps one of Somalia’s greatest leadership challenges is not simply finding individuals capable of acquiring political power, but finding individuals with the courage to relinquish it when their principles demand it. Abdelkarim makes an important observation in his article when he writes, “ Political power is temporary, but the consequences of how it is exercised can define a nation for generations.

Those who pursue public office for fame, fortune, and personal glory may enjoy the privileges of power for a brief period, but once that power fades, what remains is their legacy or the damage they leave behind .” I strongly agree with this observation.

Indeed, this understanding of political power leads to a broader question of what truly defines responsible leadership. Ultimately, public office should be understood not as a personal possession or a source of privilege, but as a temporary responsibility entrusted by the people.

A leader’s true measure is not simply how long they remain in power, but whether they have the courage to respect constitutional limits, defend democratic institutions, accept accountability, and, when necessary, walk away from office rather than compromise their principles. History may remember those who held power, but it is their decisions, principles, and contributions to their country that determine how they are remembered.

Somali poet Mohamed Ibrahim Warsame (Hadraawi) once said:

“ Xilkii dad nimay gabeen xuquuq dad nimay rabaan.

Naf daalina bay rabaan inaan dulmigeedu qaban.

Dawgii nolosha rabaan inay shar ku daydayaan. Xuman qofku daalayaa wanag damacisa hayaa”

English translation.

“ They have abandoned their human responsibilities, yet they demand human rights.

An oppressive soul, they wish to escape the consequences of their own tyranny.

They seek to navigate the path of life through malicious ways.

The one who exhausts themselves in doing evil still desires the rewards of goodness .”

Leadership or Institutions: Which One Matters More?

Some people argue that institutions are more important than leadership. However, they often overlook a fundamental question, who builds institutions in the first place? Institutions do not emerge on their own, they are established, strengthened, and sustained through visionary leadership. Without leaders who understand the importance of constitutional governance, accountability, and the rule of law, even the strongest institutions can become vulnerable to political manipulation and destruction.

To better understand this relationship between leadership and institutions, Somalia’s history offers two important political periods worth examining, the period following independence in 1960 and the political situation the country faces today. When Somalia gained independence in 1960, it established constitutional institutions based on the separation of powers among three equal branches of government, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. These institutions were designed to maintain checks and balances, prevent the concentration of power, and protect democratic governance.

However, the military coup of October 21, 1969, fundamentally changed Somalia’s constitutional and political order. The Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC) suspended the 1960 Constitution, dissolved the National Assembly, abolished political parties, and concentrated legislative, executive, and judicial authority under military junta rule.

The Constitution was initially suspended on October 21, 1969, and formally repealed in February 1970. Consequently, the constitutional separation of powers was dismantled, and independent democratic institutions were replaced by a military-controlled system.

More than five decades later, Somalia appears to be facing another troubling chapter in its political history.

When Hassan Sheikh Mohamud returned to the presidency in 2022, his administration introduced significant changes to the country’s institutional and constitutional arrangements, including the erosion of the prime minister’s executive authority and the consolidation of executive powers within the presidency. Furthermore, in 2024, his administration pursued further constitutional changes without the broad political consensus and inclusive constitutional process required under the spirit and procedures of the 2012 Provisional Constitution.

Taken together, these developments raise serious questions about constitutional legitimacy, institutional independence, and the concentration of political power.

This brings us to a fundamental question, what is more important for nation-building visionary leadership or strong institutions? If institutions are more important than leadership, how do we explain a political system in which a president can weaken or undermine the very institutions that are supposed to constrain presidential power?

What happens to the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary when their constitutional independence is compromised by the decisions of one individual? The lesson from Somalia’s history is that institutions matter enormously, but their strength and survival depend on leadership that respects them.

In this context, Yale University historian and professor Timothy Snyder, author of On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century , writes, “Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after another unless they are defended from the very beginning. Therefore, choose an institution you care about: a court, a free press, the rule of law, or a legislature and stand up for it. Its survival depends on those willing to defend it.” Indeed, institutions cannot defend themselves when those entrusted with protecting them become the very people undermining them.

This is why visionary leadership is not simply about establishing institutions; it is about respecting their independence, strengthening their authority, and ensuring that they remain stronger than any individual president. A country cannot build a sustainable democracy around personalities or the ambitions of individual leaders. Rather, it must establish a political system in which institutions outlast the leaders who create them and remain capable of holding those in power accountable.

Ultimately, Somalia’s greatest challenge is not merely the absence of strong institutions. Institutions, no matter how weak, are already there.

But the challenge is the lack of principled leadership willing to respect the same institutions. Institutions cannot survive without leaders who respect constitutional limits, defend public trust, and recognize that political authority is a public responsibility, not a personal possession.

As philosopher Susan Neiman asks, “How do you summon up shame for so many years of shamelessness?” Her question speaks directly to the moral crisis confronting societies emerging from years of political cynicism, corruption, and institutional erosion. Somalia needs leaders with the integrity and courage to relinquish power rather than compromise their principles or undermine the constitutional foundations of the state.

The consequences of failing to uphold these principles extend far beyond individual political administrations. As historian Arnold J.

Toynbee famously observed, civilizations “die from suicide, not by murder.” His argument reminds us that societies often collapse not because of external enemies, but because of internal moral, political, and institutional decay. When a ruling class becomes more concerned with preserving its privileges than serving the public, democratic institutions gradually weaken, national wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, citizens are impoverished, and coercion increasingly replaces accountability as the principal instrument of governance.

Somalia must recognize that the survival of its democratic institutions depends on cultivating leaders with the moral courage to respect, protect, and preserve them. Nations are built not by those who merely seek power, but by those who understand the responsibility that comes with it.

Dayib Sh. Ahmed

Email: [email protected]

——

Dayib is a writer, political analyst and WardheerNews contributor