Addis Abeba — For nearly two decades, Somalia's recovery has depended on an uneasy external architecture. International diplomacy has preserved its sovereignty, foreign assistance has supported essential government functions, and African Union peace operations have prevented armed groups from overrunning major population centres. Yet these external pillars have never resolved Somalia's most fundamental challenge: the absence of a durable political settlement among its institutions and political actors.
Discover moreStream History DocumentariesconstitutionalProcure Defense Gear That unresolved challenge has now reached a critical juncture. The Federal Republic of Somalia is confronting a convergence of pressures that collectively threaten the resilience of the state. A deepening constitutional dispute has intensified divisions between Mogadishu and several Federal Member States. Electoral disagreements have weakened political cohesion. Al-Shabaab has exploited governance gaps and security vulnerabilities. Meanwhile, the transition from the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS) to the African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), along with growing financial uncertainty, has exposed the limits of a security model that has long depended on external military support.
Download Interactive Maps Each of these challenges would test a fragile post-conflict state. Together, they represent a structural crisis. The central lesson emerging from Somalia is straightforward: peacekeeping can create security space, but it cannot create political legitimacy. Foreign forces can protect institutions, but they cannot substitute for the domestic consensus required to sustain them. External forces can defend the walls of a state, but only political legitimacy can secure its foundations.
For Somalia's international partners, this distinction is essential. Continued investment in military stabilisation without equal attention to political reconciliation risks preserving institutions that remain vulnerable from within. The country's greatest danger is therefore not simply whether Al-Shabaab can expand militarily. The greater question is whether Somalia's political system can overcome internal divisions before insecurity exploits those weaknesses.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
Hire Grant Writers Constitutional crisis, federalism under pressure
At the centre of Somalia's current instability lies a constitutional framework that was designed as a transitional arrangement but remains incomplete more than a decade later. The 2012 Provisional Constitution was intended to guide Somalia toward a permanent political settlement by addressing fundamental questions surrounding federalism, power-sharing, resource allocation, and institutional authority. Instead, unresolved constitutional questions have become recurring sources of political confrontation. The constitution, rather than functioning as a foundation for consensus, has increasingly become the arena where competing visions of the Somali state are contested.
The controversy surrounding constitutional amendments adopted by Parliament reflects this deeper struggle. Supporters within the Federal Government argued that the reforms were necessary to modernise Somalia's political system, strengthen executive stability, and advance the transition toward direct elections. Critics--including opposition coalitions and regional leadership--argued that changes affecting the balance of power required broader consultation among federal institutions, regional administrations, opposition groups, and civil society.
Read Political News Regardless of the merits of either position, the political consequences have been significant: trust between key Somali actors has deteriorated. In federal systems, authority depends not only on legal powers but also on voluntary acceptance by constituent units. When political actors begin questioning whether shared rules are legitimate, constitutional disagreements quickly evolve into wider crises of state confidence. A constitution cannot hold a country together if the political community no longer agrees on the rules of the game.
Discover moreSubscribe To NewspoliticalgovernmentsecurityClaim Military DiscountspoliticsConsult Civil LawyersPoliticalExplore Global GrantsConstitutional This erosion of trust has become increasingly visible in relations between Mogadishu and several Federal Member States--evidenced by Puntland's decision to withdraw recognition from federal institutions following constitutional votes--particularly around disputes involving central authority, electoral arrangements, and the distribution of political power.
The problem extends beyond political elites. Repeated institutional confrontations have weakened public confidence in Somalia's federal arrangements and reinforced perceptions that political competition is consuming the attention and resources required for national governance.
Consult Civil Lawyers For a country facing an active insurgency, this is particularly dangerous. Every political dispute that consumes government attention, security resources, or administrative capacity creates additional space for armed groups to exploit.
Somalia's federal system was created as an attempt to reconcile national unity with local political realities. After decades of centralized rule and state collapse, federalism offered a framework through which regions could participate in governance while preventing a return to excessive concentration of power in Mogadishu.
A constitution cannot hold a country together if the political community no longer agrees on the rules of the game."
However, the success of federalism depends on cooperation between levels of government. Today, that cooperative foundation is under severe pressure. Relations between the Federal Government and several Federal Member States have increasingly moved from political disagreement toward institutional confrontation. Disagreements about how to read the Constitution, elections, security arrangements, and how to divide resources have made the systems that were meant to peacefully settle differences less effective.
Claim Military Discounts The most concerning development is the growing securitization of political disagreements. When federal and regional security forces become instruments of political competition rather than partners against common threats, the consequences extend beyond politics. National security institutions become fragmented, intelligence coordination suffers, and military pressure against insurgent groups weakens.
This is precisely the environment in which insurgencies thrive. Armed movements rarely succeed simply because they possess greater military capability. They succeed when their opponents are divided, distracted, and unable to coordinate effectively.
Trace Family History For Al-Shabaab, Somalia's political fragmentation represents a strategic opportunity. The greatest advantage available to an insurgency is often not battlefield strength but division among those attempting to defeat it.
Governance weakness, crisis of legitimacy
Somalia's political crisis cannot be understood only through constitutional disputes. Beneath the institutional disagreements lies a deeper challenge: the weakness of state legitimacy. For decades, Somalia has struggled with limited administrative capacity, corruption, uneven public services, and fragile institutions. These challenges have weakened the relationship between citizens and the state.
Governance failures directly affect national security. Where citizens lack confidence in government institutions, alternative systems of authority often emerge. Al-Shabaab has exploited these gaps by developing parallel structures of taxation, dispute resolution, and local administration in areas where the state remains absent or ineffective. Although these systems are imposed through coercion and violence, they provide the group with influence and financial resources.
This explains why military victories alone have repeatedly failed to deliver lasting stability. Territory can be captured through military operations, but sustainable security requires legitimate institutions capable of delivering justice, services, and protection. Counter-insurgency is therefore not only a military contest. It is fundamentally a competition over legitimacy.
For Somalia's international partners, the implication is clear: security assistance must be accompanied by genuine investment in political reconciliation, institutional reform, and accountable governance. Without renewed political consensus, even significant security gains will remain vulnerable.
Security illusion, limits of external peacekeeping
Somalia's political crisis has unfolded alongside a renewed challenge from Al-Shabaab, which remains one of Africa's most capable and resilient insurgent movements. While political leaders in Mogadishu have been consumed by constitutional disputes and disagreements over political power, Al-Shabaab has continued adapting its strategy, exploiting governance weaknesses, security gaps, and divisions among its opponents.
Download Interactive Maps The group's strength has never depended solely on territorial control. Its strategy has consistently focused on creating uncertainty, weakening state authority, and demonstrating that government institutions cannot guarantee security.
Through extortion networks operating directly within urban commerce and targeted asymmetric attacks, insurgents maintain pressure on state centers. Its objective is not simply to capture territory in conventional battles; it is to undermine the credibility of the Somali state.
Study Foreign Affairs This distinction is critical. Modern insurgencies do not necessarily need to defeat governments in conventional warfare. They only need to demonstrate that governments are unable to protect citizens, deliver services, or maintain political order.
Al-Shabaab has understood this dynamic for years. The group's continued ability to operate in rural areas while conducting high-profile attacks in urban centres demonstrates its strategic patience and organizational resilience. Even when pushed back militarily, it has repeatedly regenerated by exploiting unresolved political grievances and governance failures. The battlefield against Al-Shabaab is not only fought with soldiers and weapons; it is fought through the struggle over public confidence and political legitimacy.
The danger for Somalia is that political fragmentation creates precisely the conditions insurgent groups seek. A government divided by internal disputes struggles to maintain unified security strategies. A security sector influenced by political competition struggles to maintain operational effectiveness. And communities uncertain about the state's future become more vulnerable to coercion and manipulation.
For nearly two decades, African Union peace operations have served as Somalia's primary security shield. From the historic deployment of AMISOM to ATMIS, and now the transition into AUSSOM, regional forces have played an indispensable role in preventing Al-Shabaab from overrunning major population centres. Their contribution represents one of Africa's most significant peacekeeping efforts.
Hire Grant Writers However, the transition toward a more Somali-led security architecture has exposed a difficult reality: external military support can create stability, but it cannot permanently replace functioning national institutions.
As international partners reassess funding commitments and peacekeeping arrangements evolve, Somalia faces a critical test. Can its national security institutions sustain territorial gains without relying indefinitely on foreign forces? Can political leaders overcome divisions before security responsibilities fully shift to Somali institutions? Can the state maintain public confidence during this transition?
These questions are not merely operational concerns. They go to the heart of Somalia's long-term survival.
Neighbouring countries understand the regional consequences of failure. Troop-contributing nations like Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia have invested significant resources in Somalia because instability does not remain contained within its borders. Terrorism, displacement, maritime insecurity, and organised crime all have regional consequences.
Yet maintaining foreign military deployments indefinitely is neither financially sustainable nor politically realistic. The solution cannot be permanent external protection; Somalia must ultimately develop institutions strong enough to protect itself. Peacekeeping can delay collapse, but only legitimate institutions can prevent it.
Read Political News Corruption, erosion of public trust
Security challenges in Somalia are inseparable from governance challenges. Corruption remains one of the country's most persistent obstacles to effective state-building. Weak oversight mechanisms, patronage networks, and limited institutional accountability have repeatedly undermined efforts to build public confidence.
The consequences are profound. Corruption weakens security institutions by diverting resources away from frontline priorities. It damages public administration by reducing citizens' confidence in government. It undermines political legitimacy by creating perceptions that state institutions serve elites rather than society as a whole.
For fragile states, legitimacy is a strategic resource. Governments cannot defeat insurgencies through force alone if citizens believe state institutions are ineffective, unfair, or disconnected from their daily realities.
Al-Shabaab has repeatedly exploited these grievances. Where government presence is weak, insurgents attempt to present themselves as an alternative authority--often through coercive systems of taxation, dispute resolution, and enforcement.
Consult Civil Lawyers
Peacekeeping can delay collapse, but only legitimate institutions can prevent it."
The response cannot simply be greater military pressure. The long-term solution requires a state that citizens view as more legitimate, more accountable, and more capable than any competing authority.
Afghanistan Comparison: Warning, not prediction
Concerns about Somalia following a trajectory similar to Afghanistan have gained attention among analysts and policymakers. The comparison requires caution: Somalia and Afghanistan are distinct nations with different histories, political structures, and security environments. Al-Shabaab and the Taliban are not identical movements, and Somalia's circumstances cannot be reduced to another country's experience.
Claim Military Discounts However, the comparison highlights important structural lessons. Afghanistan's collapse in 2021 was not caused simply by the withdrawal of foreign forces. The withdrawal exposed deeper weaknesses that had developed over years: political fragmentation, corruption, weak institutions, and declining public confidence. The central lesson was that military assistance cannot indefinitely compensate for political dysfunction.
Somalia faces similar structural risks. Persistent disagreements between federal institutions and regional administrations weaken coordination. Political competition consumes attention that should be focused on governance and security reform. Insurgent groups benefit when state institutions appear divided.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The warning from Afghanistan is therefore not that Somalia is destined to collapse. The warning is that no state can survive indefinitely when external support exceeds domestic political cohesion. States rarely collapse because they lack enemies; they collapse when internal divisions prevent them from responding effectively to those enemies.
Rebuilding consensus before window closes
Somalia still has an opportunity to avoid a deeper crisis, but doing so requires political courage and immediate structural realignment. This includes restoring inter-institutional trust by establishing inclusive dialogue among federal institutions, Federal Member States, opposition leaders, and civil society. Constitutional issues of national importance cannot be resolved through unilateral executive decisions; they require broad-based ownership and consensus.
Trace Family History National security institutions must also be insulated from political competition. Effective counterinsurgency efforts depend on coordinated command structures and operational cooperation between national and regional forces. At the same time, foreign partners should recalibrate donor assistance by linking security sector support with stronger benchmarks for governance reform, transparency, and public accountability.
Ultimately, political leaders must recognise that compromise across regions and factions represents the highest expression of national responsibility, rather than a sign of weakness.
Conclusion: Statehood beyond external foundations
Somalia stands at a defining moment. The country's future will not be determined solely by the size of international peacekeeping missions, the volume of foreign assistance, or the strength of diplomatic recognition. Those factors matter, but they cannot replace the foundation upon which every durable state depends: political legitimacy.
For too long, the international community has attempted to build Somalia's security architecture faster than Somalia's political institutions have been able to mature. The result has been a state protected by external assistance but weakened by unresolved internal divisions.
Download Interactive Maps Peacekeepers can secure airports, government facilities, and strategic locations. Donors can finance institutions. Military operations can recover territory. But none of these can manufacture trust between political actors or create legitimacy among citizens. That responsibility belongs to Somalia's leaders.
The central question facing Mogadishu today is therefore not simply whether it can defeat Al-Shabaab militarily. The deeper question is whether Somalia can rebuild the political consensus necessary to make military victories sustainable.
The stakes extend far beyond Somalia itself. A stable Somalia is essential to the security of the Horn of Africa and the wider Red Sea region. A fragmented Somalia creates opportunities for extremist networks and external actors seeking influence in one of the world's most strategically vital maritime corridors.
The choice before Somalia is difficult but clear: it must choose dialogue over confrontation, institutional reform over political expediency, and national consensus over factional competition. External partners can support this journey, but they cannot walk it on Somalia's behalf. As the saying goes, "A shield may protect a nation for a time. But without a solid foundation, even the strongest shield cannot prevent the house from falling." AS
Editor's Note: Adam Daud Ahmed is a Horn of Africa political and security analyst specializing in democracy and counterterrorism. He can be reached at keysar28@gmail.com
Study Foreign Affairs
