Somalia’s Political Elite Settlement: The Role of the Parliament

Abstract

The transitional Federal Government ended in 2012, and Somalia people expected that the political elite could reach a political agreement on the provisional federal constitutional review process, resource sharing, fiscal policy, universal suffrage, and the capital city’s status. Unfortunately, all efforts have ended unsuccessfully and hopelessly. However, significant impediments remain as a result of the lack of political settlement between the federal government (FGS) and the federal member states (FMS), resulting in a lack of means for resolving political impasses because the National Consultative Council’s decision does not include a vote if the political deadlock emerges, as well as the absent role of parliament due to government interference and intertwining members of parliament and the council of ministers. Since 1991, Somalia has witnessed a lack of political agreement that plunged the country into the worst civil war, and terrorism, that claimed thousands of Somalis’ lives and induced displacement and refugees. Twenty (20) reconciliations for the Somalia faction aimed to solve the deadly conflict and revive the state, have not been produced in good upshot due to the absence of a third-party guarantee of the agreement and a lack of political will. This research paper is going to shed light on the long-standing lack of political settlement among leaders of the federal government and federal member states (FMS) that has been undermining state-building, the fight against al-Shabaab, the federal constitutional review process, holding for a free and fair election, and economic growth since 2013. The paper investigates how the role of parliament could contribute to political settlement among the federal government and federal member states (FMS) and the main challenges that the National Consultative Council (NCC), which includes the leaders of the federal government of Somalia (FGS), and federal member states (FMS) have faced since 2013. The study used mixed methods by combining literature studies, including an academic papers and policy documents, and qualitative methods with face-to-face interviews with key informants, including high-ranking officials, politicians, civil society, academics, youth, and women.