By Abdullahi Ali Noor (Ameriko) - Pharmaceutical Regulatory Expert
“Too many political choices can sometimes produce less democracy, not more. Somalia’s next election may test whether history is repeating itself.”
In 1968, Somalia reportedly had 64 registered political parties competing for 124 parliamentary seats. In theory, every two members of parliament could have represented a different political party. The elections produced a fragmented legislature with several opposition parties represented, but none was able to form a government. Many of the smaller parties later joined the ruling Somali Youth League (SYL), increasing its representation from 73 to 120 of the 124 parliamentary seats by 1969.
Some historians argue that this concentration of political power created the appearance of a one-party democracy. The period was also marked by allegations of corruption within the political system, contributing to growing public dissatisfaction before the military takeover later that year. The episode offers an interesting historical example of what may be described as the “Paradox of Choice.”
The Paradox of Choice is a psychological theory developed by Barry Schwartz. Simply put, it argues that having more options does not always lead to better decisions. Instead, too many choices can overwhelm people, creating uncertainty, decision fatigue and what psychologists call “analysis paralysis.” In politics, where every party promises reform, prosperity and better governance, voters may struggle to distinguish between competing alternatives. When expectations become unrealistic and promises remain unfulfilled, disappointment often follows.
Nearly six decades later, Somalia appears to face a similar situation. More than 100 political parties have reportedly been registered with the National Independent Electoral Commission ahead of the country’s upcoming elections. While a large number of parties may reflect political openness and democratic participation, it could also produce greater fragmentation and make coalition-building more complex after the vote.
Schwartz also distinguishes between two types of decision-makers: “maximisers” and “satisficers.” A maximiser seeks the best possible outcome and is willing to use every available advantage to achieve it. A satisficer, on the other hand, is prepared to accept an outcome that is good enough.
Viewed through this framework, it could be argued that the governing party is attempting to maximise its political advantage before the elections, while sections of the opposition appear to be operating from a comparatively weaker position. Whether this strategy ultimately proves successful remains uncertain. Political momentum built too early can consume valuable energy before the decisive stage of an election, while competitors who preserve their resources may prove more resilient during the final contest.
This strategic dilemma recalls the advice of the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, who wrote: “Do not rely on the enemy not coming. Rely instead on making your own position unassailable.”
Related articles
Somalia’s electoral politics have rarely been predictable. As suggested by Chaos Theory, seemingly unrelated events, shifting alliances or unexpected developments can combine to produce dramatic political outcomes. Small changes in political calculations, public sentiment or coalition negotiations may ultimately prove decisive on election day.
The growing number of registered political parties, the fragmentation of opposition movements, the influence of clan dynamics and what many observers describe as the transactional nature of Somali politics could together create conditions consistent with the Paradox of Choice. If no single party secures a parliamentary majority, one possible outcome is that smaller parties may choose to align with the governing party during coalition negotiations.
Should such a scenario emerge, it could improve President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud’s chances of securing a third presidential term. Equally, Somali politics has repeatedly shown that unexpected alliances and last-minute political shifts can overturn even the strongest predictions.
Whatever the outcome, the debate raises an important institutional question. Would Somalia benefit from a political system built around two or three major political parties instead of dozens of competing organizations? A more consolidated party system could strengthen accountability, simplify electoral choices for voters and contribute to more stable coalition governments.
Whether Somalia eventually moves in that direction will depend on future political reforms and broad national consensus. Regardless of the answer, the country’s next elections are likely to test not only its democratic institutions but also whether the Paradox of Choice has become a defining feature of Somali politics.
*Dr. Abdullahi Ali Noor (Ameriko) is a pharmaceutical regulatory expert with more than 25 years of experience in pharmaceutical regulatory affairs across Europe and the United States. He also writes on Somali politics, governance, civic education, and public policy.
*The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dawan Africa.