By Mohamed Abdullahi Hussein - a researcher and Senior Lecturer at Hormuud University in Mogadishu.
“Somalia’s political challenge is not simply changing leaders, but building institutions that uphold the same principles regardless of who holds power.” Mohamed Abdullahi Hussein
Why do political leaders defend accountability, constitutional limits, and democratic principles while in opposition, yet adopt different positions once they assume power? Somalia’s recurring political crises reveal a fundamental challenge: establishing institutions that uphold democratic principles and constitutional order regardless of who occupies the highest offices.
Somali politics reveals a persistent contradiction. When outside government, leaders often criticize decisions made without consultation, challenge disputed political processes, and call for broader participation. Yet some defend similar decisions once in office. The question is not simply why politicians change their views, but why their principles appear to change when they gain power.
This problem goes beyond any one politician or administration. It reflects a political culture in which decisions are often judged according to who holds power rather than whether they are right or fair. When leaders support or oppose similar actions depending on who is in charge, public trust in institutions begins to erode.
Somalia’s electoral disputes in 2021–2022 provide a clear example of this pattern. Opposition leaders challenged decisions concerning political terms and election procedures, expressing concerns about excessive executive power and calling for broader consultation.
Following the change of leadership in 2022, new disagreements emerged over proposed constitutional and electoral reforms. President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s government presented these reforms as efforts to expand voting rights and strengthen electoral institutions. Critics, however, argued that such changes require broad political consensus and adherence to due process to ensure their legitimacy, warning that unilateral implementation could undermine Somalia’s state-building efforts.
The debate over one-person-one-vote elections makes this contradiction particularly evident. Direct voting is a widely shared democratic goal, but credible elections also require security, trusted institutions, clear procedures, and meaningful public participation.
Supporters of reform emphasize the need to give citizens a greater role in choosing their leaders. Critics question the timing, consultation process, and practical arrangements. Both arguments deserve to be considered on their merits rather than accepted or rejected according to political allegiance.
Why Does This Pattern Persist?
First, institutional checks and balances are often too weak to resolve disputes over political authority. When oversight is limited and constitutional questions remain contested, leaders have greater room to interpret the rules according to their immediate interests.
A decision condemned as executive overreach from the opposition bench can later be defended as necessary government action. Clearer constitutional rules and credible oversight would make such inconsistencies harder to justify.
Second, the pressures of remaining in power can alter political calculations. Governing involves managing security threats, negotiating with allies, and maintaining political coalitions. Compromise is sometimes unavoidable.
Problems arise, however, when leaders invoke these pressures to avoid explaining why they now support an approach they previously opposed. Political stability should not become an excuse for avoiding accountability.
Related articles
Third, much of Somalia’s political competition remains personality-driven. Alliances frequently form around individual leaders and access to political office rather than consistent policy programmes.
Clan-based bargaining, patronage networks, and competition for appointments can reinforce this tendency. As political loyalties shift, public positions may shift with them. The result is policy uncertainty and a public left questioning whether decisions serve national interests or short-term political alliances.
Of course, changing a political position does not automatically amount to hypocrisy. Leaders in office may encounter practical obstacles that were less apparent while in opposition. New information, security concerns, or genuine negotiations can justify reasonable adjustments.
What matters is whether leaders explain what has changed, provide credible reasons for their decisions, and accept the same scrutiny they once demanded of others.
This is why replacing one group of leaders with another is not enough. Somalia needs more predictable decision-making, meaningful consultation, and institutions capable of holding those in power accountable.
Electoral rules should be debated openly, constitutional disagreements addressed through lawful procedures, and public officials expected to explain significant changes in political direction.
At the heart of the issue lies a simple test: political decisions should be judged by their legality, fairness, and consequences for the public, not by the identity of the leader proposing them.
If that principle is ignored, yesterday’s critics of executive overreach may become its defenders, while former officeholders rediscover the importance of constitutional limits once they return to opposition.
Somalia’s political future depends on breaking this cycle. The real question is not why politicians sometimes change their positions after taking office, but whether the country can build institutions strong enough to protect the public interest, uphold constitutional principles, and hold leaders to the same standards, regardless of who governs.
———-
About the Author
Mohamed Abdullahi Hussein is a researcher and Senior Lecturer at Hormuud University in Mogadishu.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Dawan Africa.