Somalia’s Dialogue Trap: Months of Talks, No Political Breakthrough

From May to September, Negotiations Have Produced Meetings, Statements and More Disagreement — But No Political Settlement

MOGADISHU (WDN) — Somalia’s political dialogue is once again heading back to the negotiating table, but after months of meetings, diplomatic appeals and repeated promises of compromise, there is little evidence that the country’s political leaders have moved closer to a settlement.

The pattern is becoming difficult to ignore. The high-level negotiations between the Federal Government and the Somali Future Council held from May 13 to 15 ended without consensus. The African Union subsequently urged the parties to return to an inclusive and substantive dialogue based on genuine negotiation, compromise and constitutional order.

Since then, diplomatic efforts have continued. Yet the central disputes over elections, constitutional changes, political legitimacy and the rules governing the transition remain unresolved.

By September, opposition figures were still saying that the negotiations had stalled. On September 18, former President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed said the talks had failed to move forward and accused those in power of lacking interest in reaching a settlement. Four days later, Mohamed Abdirahman Dhabancad, a member of the Future Council’s technical committee, said no political agreement had been reached on the elections.

That leaves a question increasingly being asked across Somalia: What has actually been achieved after months of dialogue?

The Same Talks, the Same Deadlock

The latest diplomatic effort risks becoming another round of negotiations in which the parties sit across the table, repeat their positions, issue statements and return home without resolving the fundamental dispute.

International diplomats can facilitate meetings. They can encourage compromise. They can provide venues, technical expertise and political pressure. But they cannot manufacture Somali political consensus.

The problem is that the disagreement is no longer simply about the mechanics of an election. It is about who has the authority to determine the rules of the political transition and whether those rules have sufficient national consent.

The Federal Government says it is prepared to negotiate. The opposition and several political actors, however, continue to challenge the government’s approach to constitutional reform and the electoral process.

Himilo Qaran, led by Sharif, has gone further, calling for disputed constitutional changes to be suspended and arguing that the electoral process should rest on a political agreement accepted by the country’s principal stakeholders.

Until that fundamental disagreement is addressed, another meeting may simply produce another communiqué.

The Trust Deficit Begins Before the Negotiations

For many opposition figures, the problem is not merely what happens inside the negotiating room. It is what the government does outside it.

The Federal Government has pursued major constitutional and electoral changes while political negotiations have remained unresolved. Parliament approved constitutional amendments that changed the electoral framework and extended federal institutional terms; the government maintains that those amendments provide the legal basis for the current framework, while opponents dispute their legitimacy and lack of broader political consensus.

The electoral commission is also already functioning and preparing for elections. Its official website describes the National Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission as the institution responsible for administering elections and electoral boundaries.

For opponents, however, the sequence matters: how can a government ask for confidence at the negotiating table while continuing to advance contested political and electoral arrangements outside it? That is one of the central obstacles to rebuilding trust. The International Community Has a Bigger Job Than Calling for Dialogue

The international community has repeatedly called on Somalia’s leaders to negotiate. The African Union did so after the May talks failed. The United Nations and other international partners have also supported renewed political dialogue. The United States and Britain were reported in July to be preparing another diplomatic effort, although expectations for a breakthrough were already described as low. But simply urging Somali leaders to “return to dialogue” may no longer be enough.

If international partners genuinely want the negotiations to produce a political settlement, they may need to focus not only on bringing the parties into the room but on creating conditions in which both sides believe that negotiations can change what happens outside the room.

That means greater attention to contested unilateral actions, the use of state security forces in political disputes, constitutional procedures and the independence and credibility of electoral institutions.

It also means insisting that any future electoral roadmap command broad political acceptance rather than merely reflecting the position of whichever side controls federal institutions.

The Land Question Has Become Part of the Trust Crisis

The dispute over public land in Mogadishu has added another layer to the political crisis. Investigations and civil-society reports have raised allegations concerning the transfer, sale or reclamation of public properties and the treatment of displaced families.

One recent investigation alleged that more than 180 government-owned properties had been transferred to private buyers and estimated their combined value at more than $1 billion. Those allegations have not been established through a judicial finding, and the government has not publicly accepted the investigation’s conclusions.

Other organizations have called for independent investigations into alleged land seizures, evictions and abuse of authority. These allegations should not be treated as proven corruption without credible investigations and documentary evidence. But politically, they cannot simply be ignored.

Where public land is involved, the question is not only whether a particular transaction was legal. It is whether citizens believe public assets are being managed transparently and whether those responsible can be held accountable.

For that reason, calls for investigations into disputed land transactions and the financial interests of senior officials should be addressed through independent legal and financial mechanisms, rather than political accusations alone.

What Would Restore Confidence?

If the international community wants another round of negotiations to produce something different, the process needs more than another invitation to talk. The immediate objective should be to establish a credible political framework in which disputed unilateral measures are reviewed or temporarily restrained while negotiations continue.

That could include:

agreement on a mutually acceptable electoral roadmap;

independent review of disputed constitutional changes;

confidence-building measures concerning electoral institutions;

guarantees against the use of state security forces for partisan political purposes;

transparent investigation of disputed public-land transactions;

and a mechanism to monitor implementation of any political agreement reached.

The opposition’s demand for international guarantees should also be considered as part of the confidence-building discussion, rather than dismissed outright. The Future Council has previously called for a stronger international role in mediation and guarantees for implementation.

Somalia Does Not Need Another Meeting. It Needs an Agreement.

The danger now is that dialogue itself becomes a substitute for political settlement.

From May to September, Somalia has seen negotiations, mediation efforts, diplomatic statements and renewed calls for compromise. Yet the central dispute remains.

Sharif says the talks have stalled. Dhabancad says no electoral agreement has been reached. The African Union says the May negotiations ended without consensus. And international partners continue to call for dialogue.

That is not a political settlement. It is a cycle.

Somalia’s international partners therefore face a choice of their own: continue encouraging another meeting, or help create the conditions under which the next meeting must produce concrete decisions. The country does not need another round of talks that ends with the same positions and another promise to meet again.

Somalia needs an agreement on the rules of the political game — one that is negotiated, broadly accepted, constitutionally grounded and capable of being implemented. Until that happens, another dialogue may produce headlines, but it will not produce a solution.

WardheerNews