An international community delegation led by Michael Keating, Special Representative of the Secretary General, recently visited Garowe, capital of Puntland, to discuss the much-debated electoral model for 2016 with different stakeholders in Puntland and attempt to convince them of the Federal Government of Somalia’s (FGS) position. They met with a well-organised and united front, and after presentations by influential Puntlanders, the international community travelled back to Mogadishu, the seat of the FGS, with the message that Puntland would not be participating in this year’s election if the 4.5 clan sharing model remained. Policymakers are now thinking about how best to reconcile the two sides and ensure Puntland’s inclusion.
To come up with an answer, one must consider some historical background. Puntland was formed in 1998 after waiting in vain for seven years for a Somali government to form. Its formation was bottom-up and for the past 18 years it has protected itself from the lawlessness and chaos that has engulfed south-central Somalia. It has enjoyed a semi-autonomous status, but has also been active in rebuilding a Somali state. Indeed it is credited for championing the federal system in Somalia and exhausting time and effort on this project, which culminated in the ending of the federal transitional process in 2012.
That year was a turning point for Somalia. For example, as Puntland reiterates and the FGS continues to ignore, 2012 was supposed to be the last time that the clan-based 4.5 electoral system was used. Two agreements, Garowe I and Garowe II, were signed by the then political leaders of Somalia and witnessed by the international community. Those agreements, alongside the provisional constitution, gave an explicit mandate to the elected government in 2012. Among other important steps was the 2016 vision of the one-man-one-vote electoral model. Puntland was assured in 2012 that 4.5 would not be used again. After failing to achieve all of the important milestones, the FGS recently announced that a popular election would not take place, citing security and political difficulties. After fruitless negotiations, the three federal leaders, president, prime minister and speaker, confirmed their support for retaining the 4.5 model, which was a position initially supported by two Federal Member States, Interim Galmudug Administration (IGA) and Interim South-West Administration. While Jubaland has recently accepted the model selected by the FGS, Puntland continues to oppose it.
Before considering Puntland’s current position, the reasons for the FGS’s failure to move on from the clan-based system must be considered. Rather than focusing on his mandate, the FGS president, Hasan Sheikh Mohamud, spent one whole year opposing the establishment of Jubaland, which distracted him from his constitutional duties. He then spent millions of Somalia’s meagre finances installing his ally Abdikarim Hussein Guled as the president of the unconstitutional IGA, who, as predicted, used the FGS’s state weapons and resources to launch a war against Puntland. Furthermore, the FGS president has fallen out with two prime ministers and is now working with his third prime minister in three years. This disruption of continuity has also adversely affected the 2016 vision. Moreover, countless examples of corruption and malfeasance, including FGS state actors diverting weapons to support their clans, have hampered the credibility of the president. For the FGS to then select an electoral model, considering its disregard of past agreements and its own failures, is a slap in the face for all Somalis who value good-governance.
What guarantees are there that the FGS will not take a similar position in 2020? What constitutional promises has it offered? If it offers one, what are the consequences for any breaches? How will it eliminate vote-buying in 2016, given its ease in a clan-based system? How will it allay the fears that its model is rigged and serves as a re-election tool for the current federal president? How honest are the FGS leaders in admitting to their failures and wrongdoing?
For the international community to be constructive players in this dispute, they must understand the historical context of Somalia’s electoral model. This issue is not an isolated one; to appease Puntland, the international community and the FGS must recognise and accept sincerely Puntland’s legitimate position and bring satisfactory answers to the above questions. Furthermore, stakeholders must seriously consider the possibility of dispensing with the worst manifestation of the 4.5 system, namely the apartheid towards “minorities”, which could easily be corrected with a 5 model. Moreover, broken and empty promises, vote buying and re-electing failed leaders must be addressed if Puntland is to be convinced. As a Puntland MP told the international community delegation last week, Somalia cannot re-enact the same play again and again. Good-governance and fair play must be championed; that is the path to a federal and united Somalia at peace with itself and its neighbours.
Puntlandi.com
post@puntlandi.com