The electoral processes in Somalia’s Galmudug and Hirshabelle regional states raise important questions about how their leaders are chosen, the influence of political elites and traditional elders, and the extent to which ordinary citizens participate in deciding who governs them.
At the heart of the debate is whether these elections represent direct public participation or an indirect political process in which regional lawmakers, clan elders and influential political groups play a decisive role.
The distinction matters because the method used to select leaders affects political representation, accountability and public confidence in government institutions.
Somalia operates a federal system in which regional states have their own administrations and legislative assemblies.
For years, presidential elections in many regional states have generally been conducted indirectly, with members of regional parliaments voting for presidential candidates.
The lawmakers themselves have often been selected through arrangements involving clan elders, delegates and political negotiations.
This model differs from a direct election, in which eligible citizens cast ballots themselves to choose their preferred candidates.
Although indirect elections can be legally valid under the applicable constitutional and electoral framework, they limit the public’s direct role in selecting regional presidents.
Supporters of the indirect system argue that it accommodates power-sharing arrangements, clan representation and political consensus in a country where organising nationwide, direct elections remains challenging.
Critics, however, contend that concentrating the final decision in the hands of a relatively small group of lawmakers can give powerful politicians disproportionate influence over the outcome.
The distinction is important: an election conducted by lawmakers is not automatically illegitimate, just as the existence of an electoral procedure does not, by itself, establish that the process was transparent, competitive or representative.
Each election must be assessed against the applicable laws, the procedures followed and the evidence available.
In Galmudug, leadership elections have periodically been shaped by political rivalries, negotiations among competing factions and debates over community representation.
Assessing these contests requires distinguishing between the selection of the regional president, the process through which lawmakers are appointed or elected, and the extent of public participation at each stage.
The key questions include whether lawmakers were selected through transparent procedures, whether presidential candidates were able to compete fairly, whether voting rules were respected and whether the competing sides accepted the results.
The role of civil society, the media and local communities in monitoring the process is also relevant.
Where political agreements among influential figures determine the composition of a regional parliament or shape the presidential contest, concerns can arise over whose interests ultimately guide the outcome.
Nevertheless, conclusions about a particular election should be based on documented evidence rather than general assumptions about the political system.
Similar questions apply to Hirshabelle. Assessing its electoral process involves examining how the regional parliament is formed, who participates in selecting lawmakers and how those lawmakers vote for candidates seeking the presidency.
The openness of the contest, the freedom of legislators to make their choices and the transparency of the procedures are all important considerations.
If citizens do not vote directly for the regional president, the process should accurately be described as an indirect election rather than a direct public vote.
That distinction does not automatically determine whether the election was lawful; legality depends on the relevant constitutional provisions, electoral laws and whether the required procedures were followed.
A direct election allows eligible citizens to vote for candidates or political lists themselves. Under an indirect system, a designated body—such as a parliament—chooses the leader.
Both models exist in different political systems, and the legitimacy of an indirect election depends on its legal basis and the integrity of the process.
The term “political selection” is often used critically to describe a process in which political elites exercise substantial influence. However, it is not a legal classification and does not, by itself, prove that an election was unlawful.
To establish how a particular election in Galmudug or Hirshabelle was conducted, it is necessary to determine who voted, how lawmakers were selected, which rules applied and what opportunities the public had to participate.
The method used to choose regional leaders can shape the relationship between government and citizens. Direct elections offer voters an immediate opportunity to express their political preferences.
Under indirect systems, accountability depends more heavily on effective parliamentary oversight, independent scrutiny, media freedom and opportunities for citizens to communicate their views to elected or appointed representatives.
If people believe that leadership decisions are made through private agreements among a small group of political figures, public confidence in government institutions may suffer.
However, the extent of such concerns should be established through evidence, research and public opinion rather than treated as a universal fact.
Transparent electoral procedures can also contribute to political stability. When competing parties accept common rules and have confidence in the process, disagreements may be easier to manage. Conversely, disputes over unclear procedures or contested outcomes can intensify political tensions.
Improving electoral systems in Galmudug and Hirshabelle would require clear rules, credible oversight institutions and procedures that candidates and the public can trust.
Greater opportunities for women, young people and other sections of society to gain meaningful political representation are also important.
Media organisations and civil society groups should be able to monitor electoral activities without unlawful interference or intimidation.
A transition towards direct, one-person-one-vote elections would require substantial preparation, including voter registration, security arrangements at polling stations, public education, clear electoral legislation and reliable mechanisms for resolving complaints.
Such a transition would also need broad political agreement, adequate technical capacity and security conditions that allow citizens to vote freely.
Ultimately, the central question is not simply what the elections are called, but how they are conducted: who casts the votes, whether the law is respected, whether candidates can compete fairly and whether citizens have meaningful representation in determining their leaders.
Those factors provide a more reliable basis for evaluating the electoral processes in Galmudug and Hirshabelle than the label attached to them.