Opinion -The Election Was Criticized… But Somalia Has Crossed a Point of No Return

I write this not as a distant observer, but as someone who once sat at the heart of Somalia’s electoral debates. As a former Commissioner of the Electoral Commission, I spent years investing time, effort, and intellectual energy advocating for one-person, one-vote elections in a country where such an idea was often dismissed as reckless, premature, or outright impossible. I have listened—repeatedly—to the same arguments: the country is not secure; institutions are too weak; society is too divided; Somalis are not ready.

That is why the recent election matters to me not only politically, but personally.

The election has been criticized, and rightly so. Criticism is natural in any democratic process. But criticism must be placed in context. What happened was not the arrival of a perfect democratic system—it was the breaking of a long-standing psychological and political barrier. For the first time in decades, the question “Is direct voting possible in Somalia?” was answered not with theory, but with practice.

For years, Somali politics remained trapped in a cycle of caution disguised as realism. Security concerns, clan sensitivities, and institutional fragility became permanent justifications for delaying direct elections. Over time, these justifications hardened into dogma. What the latest election achieved—despite its flaws—was to dismantle that dogma. The debate has shifted from whether Somalis can vote directly to how the system can be improved. That shift alone represents a fundamental change in political thinking.

From my own experience within the electoral system, I can say this with certainty: democracy is never born complete. It is constructed through trial, error, correction, and persistence. Expecting Somalia to transition from indirect, elite-managed politics to a flawless mass electoral system in a single leap ignores both history and reality. Even established democracies endured decades of imperfect elections before institutional maturity took hold.

Another critical but underappreciated outcome of this election is the message it sent about sovereignty and self-reliance. For years, Somali elections were framed as impossible without heavy financial and logistical backing from donors and international partners. This time, the process moved forward without external funding dictating its pace or structure. That fact alone challenges a deeply embedded assumption about Somali state capacity. It demonstrates that national political processes do not have to be outsourced to be legitimate.

Equally significant was the act of participation itself. Citizens standing in line, identifying as voters, and casting ballots may seem procedural, but in fragile states, such moments are transformative. They redefine the relationship between citizen and state. Political legitimacy is not manufactured solely through agreements among elites—it grows when ordinary people see themselves reflected in the process of governance.

Much of the resistance to direct elections is not rooted in principle, but in fear of change. Direct voting redistributes power. It weakens political gatekeepers and disrupts systems built on negotiation rather than representation. Opposition, therefore, was inevitable. But opposition without an alternative is not leadership. If critics believe this process is inadequate, they must present a more democratic, more inclusive, and more credible model—not simply call for a return to paralysis.

None of this is to deny Somalia’s ongoing challenges. Security threats remain real. Institutions require strengthening. Electoral frameworks need refinement, expansion, and legal clarity. But progress is not measured by the absence of flaws; it is measured by the refusal to retreat when imperfections appear.