Somalia's Electoral Process Sparks Debate Over Power and Agency

Somalia's electoral history has undergone significant changes since its independence in 1960. Initially, the country held elections based on universal suffrage, including local and parliamentary elections. However, this democratic period was cut short by a military coup led by Mohamed Siad Barre in 1969, which ushered in an authoritarian regime that lasted until the state's collapse in 1991. Since then, Somalia has yet to hold a national election based on universal suffrage.

The debate over Somalia's electoral process reflects a longstanding difference in approach between the international community and Somali political actors. The international community has advocated for universal suffrage, while Somali actors have relied on clan-based electoral arrangements, citing local political realities and historical experiences. This difference goes beyond voting procedures, touching on deeper questions about who holds political authority and how sovereignty and agency are negotiated in Somalia's state-building process.

The concept of pastoral democracy, introduced by Lewis in 1961, provides insight into Somalia's political organisation and the enduring influence of clan structures. Lewis described pre-colonial Somali society as having indigenous systems of political organisation shaped by negotiation and collective decision-making. Clan-based electoral arrangements are rooted in this history, predating colonial rule and the modern state. These arrangements have also helped maintain social order and resolve disputes in the absence of strong national institutions.

The international community has consistently supported a gradual shift towards universal suffrage, citing the need for political accountability, state legitimacy, and citizen participation. This position is informed by liberal peacebuilding and neoliberal governance frameworks, which assume that sustainable peace and development can be advanced through liberal democratic institutions and competitive elections. However, these assumptions can overlook local complexities and prioritise externally promoted models of governance.

Partnership and local ownership are central to the debate over Somalia's electoral process. International organisations stress the importance of locally owned political processes, but in practice, significant imbalances in power often remain. The language of partnership and local ownership can serve as a way for actors to advance their interests, with the international community exercising considerable influence through financial support and technical expertise.

The Somali government exercises agency by negotiating over election timelines, interpreting constitutional provisions, and invoking security concerns related to Al-Shabaab. Somali political actors invoke local ownership and sovereignty to defend clan-based electoral arrangements, which they view as enjoying greater domestic legitimacy. However, these arguments are not uncontested within Somalia, with some regarding clan-based systems as necessary for maintaining stability and preventing conflict.

The choice of electoral system offers a lens through which to examine how power and agency are negotiated between the international community and the Somali government. Understanding this debate requires considering Somalia's historical context and the continued influence of clan structures in governance. The international community and Somali government must navigate these complexities to find a solution that balances competing interests and priorities.

Key points

• The debate over Somalia's electoral process reflects a longstanding difference in approach between the international community and Somali political actors.
• Clan-based electoral arrangements are rooted in Somalia's history and have helped maintain social order and resolve disputes.
• The international community and Somali government must navigate complexities to find a solution that balances competing interests and priorities.