By Dawan Africa - Editorial
The emergency meeting held last night at the President’s Office in Villa Somalia exposed a widening political fault line in Mogadishu—not over foreign policy itself, but over how a moment of national sensitivity is being used for domestic political gain.
As Somalia confronts what is widely viewed as a grave external challenge linked to Israel’s recognition of the Somaliland region as an independent state, the Mogadishu-based opposition appears to be exploiting the crisis to advance its electoral agenda. Rather than treating the situation as a matter of sovereignty requiring national cohesion, the opposition’s statement reframed the issue through the lens of political legitimacy and the disputed electoral process.
This reframing is central to the nation’s concern. In moments of external pressure, states typically seek to consolidate internal unity. Instead, opposition rhetoric shifted attention inward, subtly presenting the crisis as further proof of political dysfunction and governance failure. By doing so, the opposition transformed a foreign policy challenge into a tool for reinforcing its long-standing narrative about elections, authority, and power-sharing.
The official communiqué issued by the opposition after the Villa Somalia meeting reflects this unease. It called explicitly on political actors to rise above factional interests, urging:
“all national institutions and leaders to take firm and responsible measures to address the root causes of political fragmentation.”
This language is not incidental. It signals that the opposition’s response is framed not as constructive dissent, but as part of a broader pattern of politicizing national crises to score electoral points.
The communiqué went further, directly addressing the tactic of narrative manipulation:
More from Somalia
“to counter misguided narratives that seek to weaken national cohesion through irresponsible political exploitation, while strengthening the role of legitimate state institutions in defending the country’s independence and guiding the nation forward.”
Here, a clear line is drawn between criticism and exploitation. Invoking elections in the context of an external sovereignty challenge risks eroding public trust, weakening state institutions, and projecting internal division at a time when cohesion is strategically essential.
The core issue, therefore, is not whether opposition voices have the right to speak, but when and how they choose to do so. By folding a sensitive foreign policy confrontation into an electoral argument, the opposition blurred the distinction between national interest and political competition. That blurring, some argue, undermines Somalia’s ability to respond effectively to external challenges and dilutes the collective national position.
The meeting at Villa Somalia sought to reassert a different principle: that disputes over elections, governance, and political reform—however legitimate—must not be pursued at the expense of national unity when sovereignty is perceived to be under threat. In this framing, exploiting a crisis is not merely opportunistic; it is destabilizing.
AsSomalia navigates an already fragile political landscape, the episodehighlights a recurring dilemma: whether political actors can separate electoralrivalry from moments that demand national consensus. The message emerging fromlast night’s discussions was clear—foreign policy crises are not campaignplatforms, and national unity, in such moments, is not optional.
