The Mogadishu confrontation exposed the limits of governing through coercion and the growing gap between power and statesmanship.
The confrontation that unfolded in Mogadishu on 3 June will be remembered not because an opposition demonstration was planned, but because of how Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HSM), whose constitutional mandate had expired, chose to respond to it. What could have remained a manageable political dispute was transformed into a national crisis that attracted widespread domestic and international attention.
The opposition’s objective was straightforward: to draw attention to the political crisis that emerged following the expiration of HSM’s constitutional mandate and to advocate for an inclusive electoral agreement, supported by credible mediation, capable of guiding Somalia through a peaceful and legitimate political transition.
Since the issues at stake were fundamentally political, they could only be resolved through dialogue, compromise, and consensus. Yet the decision to rely on force instead transformed what had been a manageable political dispute into a wider crisis, exposing civilians to danger, deepening mistrust among political actors, raising serious questions about the neutrality of security institutions, and focusing national and international attention on the legitimacy of the political process and the future of Somalia’s transition.
In attempting to suppress the message through force, HSM amplified it. In doing so, he exposed something even more consequential: the limits of governing through coercion, the dangers of political recklessness, and the widening gap between the exercise of power and the practice of statesmanship.
A Missed Opportunity for De-escalation
Recognizing the danger of further escalation, traditional elders and senior political figures initiated mediation efforts between HSM and the opposition.
Following consultations with both sides, they proposed a simple de-escalation agreement whereby government forces would return to their original positions, opposition leaders who had moved out of the heavily fortified zone around Mogadishu’s airport would return to their residences and headquarters, and an immediate political dialogue would begin under a mutually agreed framework.
The opposition leadership, including myself, accepted these proposals in good faith as a foundation for de-escalation and meaningful dialogue. HSM, however, rejected the agreement, thereby forfeiting an opportunity to reduce tensions and pursue a peaceful political settlement.
That decision reflected a preference for coercion over compromise, force over dialogue, and confrontation over consensus. History shows that lasting political authority is not measured by how many security forces a leader can deploy, but by how many crises he can resolve without resorting to force.
Statesmanship is demonstrated not by the exercise of power alone, but by the restraint, judgment, and political wisdom with which it is used.
Civilians Bore the Cost
While politicians and security commanders occupied the center of the confrontation, the heaviest burden was borne by ordinary citizens, who found themselves trapped in a crisis they neither created nor desired.
As gunfire echoed through neighborhoods, families were confined to their homes, businesses were forced to close, roads became impassable, and daily life ground to a halt. Children were exposed to scenes of fear and uncertainty, while many elderly citizens were forced to relive painful memories of conflicts that Somalia has spent decades struggling to overcome.
This human cost should not be underestimated. Somalis have sacrificed enormously to rebuild their communities, restore normalcy, and nurture hopes for a more peaceful future, yet every episode of political violence risks undermining that hard-won progress and reopening wounds that have not fully healed.
Although political disputes are inevitable in any society, exposing civilians to violence, fear, and insecurity should never be accepted as a legitimate consequence of political competition. Every life lost is a tragedy, every injury leaves a lasting impact on families and communities, and every act of destruction represents a failure to manage political disagreements responsibly.
Above all, statesmanship requires an unwavering commitment to protecting citizens from preventable harm, for the first duty of any leader is not to defeat political rivals but to safeguard the lives, security, and well-being of the people. In this confrontation, it was ordinary Somalis who paid the highest price.
Force Cannot Resolve a Crisis of Legitimacy
The central challenge facing Somalia today is not primarily a security challenge but a crisis of legitimacy, as questions concerning constitutional mandates, electoral processes, political representation, and the lawful transfer of authority cannot be resolved through security deployments, coercive measures, or demonstrations of force.
Following the collapse of the mediation effort, HSM rejected the proposed de-escalation agreement and authorized a large-scale security operation directed not only against opposition figures but also against traditional elders and political leaders who had been engaged in efforts to mediate between the two sides. The operation involved every major component of the national security forces, including the Gorgor units trained by Türkiye, the Haramcad special police forces, UAE-trained military police units, the Presidential Guard Regiment, the Special Guard Force, and elements of the National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA), while also authorizing the use of heavy weapons, including mortars and armed fixed-wing drones.
Yet whether viewed as a show of strength or a security operation, the central political reality remains unchanged: force cannot resolve the underlying crisis. While it may suppress political opponents, intimidate critics, restrict political activity, or temporarily silence dissent, and may even eliminate individual adversaries, it cannot create political consent, restore public trust, or answer the fundamental questions of legitimacy that continue to shape Somalia’s political debate.
Indeed, the opposite occurred. The opposition sought to draw attention to concerns regarding legitimacy and the absence of an agreed electoral framework, but by attempting to suppress those concerns through force, HSM ensured that they received far greater attention than they otherwise would have received.
Consequently, public attention shifted away from the demonstration itself and toward the issues it was intended to highlight: the legitimacy of the political process, the future of Somalia’s political transition, and the urgent need for a negotiated political settlement.
History repeatedly demonstrates that legitimacy cannot be imposed through force; rather, it is earned through dialogue, constitutional order, political agreement, and public confidence, all of which remain indispensable to any durable solution to Somalia’s current crisis.
The Crisis Revealed Recklessness Rather Than Statesmanship
Leadership is tested most severely during moments of political tension and uncertainty, when judgment, restraint, patience, and a willingness to place national stability above immediate political interests become indispensable qualities of statesmanship.
The events in Mogadishu projected a very different image, however, as HSM chose escalation over dialogue, deepened polarization instead of fostering compromise, and generated greater uncertainty and mistrust rather than reassuring citizens and political stakeholders about the country’s political future. In doing so, he reinforced a pattern that many Somalis have increasingly come to recognize: the treatment of political disagreements as security threats, the portrayal of critics as adversaries to be subdued rather than political actors to be engaged, and the tendency to regard consensus-building as an obstacle rather than a necessity.
Yet leaders who are confident in the legitimacy of their position typically seek dialogue because they trust the strength of their arguments and their ability to prevail through political engagement. By contrast, leaders who are uncertain of their position often seek greater control because they fear the consequences of open political competition and genuine political contestation.
For many observers, therefore, the use of force against political opponents advocating for an agreed electoral process appeared less a demonstration of strength than an expression of insecurity, impatience, and strategic miscalculation. Rather than projecting confidence and authority, it raised deeper questions about political judgment and reinforced concerns that coercion was being used where dialogue, compromise, and consensus were required.
The Security Apparatus Exposed Structural Weaknesses
The confrontation also exposed troubling weaknesses within Somalia’s security apparatus, raising serious questions about its professionalism, command structure, and ability to remain insulated from political disputes.
Rather than operating as professional national institutions entrusted with protecting the lives, property, and rights of citizens, the security forces appeared to be carrying out the directives of an individual whose constitutional mandate had expired, while losing sight of their fundamental responsibilities to safeguard the public, uphold the Constitution, and enforce the rule of law.
The operation revealed significant deficiencies in command and control, marked by conflicting orders, overlapping chains of authority, and poor coordination among the various forces involved. Instead of demonstrating unity of purpose and operational discipline, the deployment exposed fragmentation, uncertainty, and a lack of coherent leadership.
There appeared to be no clearly defined political or security objective, no unified command structure directing the operation, and no shared sense of mission among the forces involved. Consequently, discipline gave way to confusion, coordination yielded to disorder, and the operation descended into chaos and disarray.
Such outcomes should concern every Somali citizen. When security institutions become entangled in political disputes, politics inevitably becomes more dangerous while security itself becomes less effective. Forces established to protect citizens, defend national institutions, and confront terrorist organizations such as Al-Shabaab and ISIS risk being diverted into political contests for which they were neither designed nor trained.
The recent crisis therefore exposed vulnerabilities within Somalia’s security architecture that can no longer be ignored, while underscoring the urgent need to preserve the professionalism, neutrality, cohesion, and institutional integrity of the country’s security forces.
The Way Forward
Somalia’s current crisis cannot be resolved through force, nor can it be overcome through unilateral decisions imposed by one side upon another. At its core, the crisis is not a security problem but a crisis of legitimacy, trust, political representation, and the future direction of the Somali state. These are fundamentally political questions that require political solutions.
The first and most urgent priority must be de-escalation. No meaningful political process can succeed while tensions remain high, mistrust deepens, and political actors fear confrontation. Restoring confidence among all stakeholders is therefore essential to creating an environment conducive to dialogue and compromise.
The second priority should be the establishment of mutually agreed security protocols for the transitional period. Such arrangements must provide credible security guarantees for political leaders, mediators, civil society representatives, and all participants in the political process, while ensuring that national security institutions remain professional, politically neutral, and insulated from partisan competition. Security must become a guarantor of political dialogue rather than an instrument of political leverage.
The third priority is the identification of mutually acceptable mediators who command the trust and confidence of all sides. Their role should extend beyond facilitating discussions to rebuilding confidence, reducing tensions, addressing grievances, and guiding the parties toward a durable political settlement.
The fourth priority should be the negotiation of an inclusive electoral roadmap supported by all major political stakeholders. Such a roadmap must establish a clear timetable, agreed rules, implementation mechanisms, and oversight arrangements capable of restoring legitimacy to Somalia’s institutions and providing a peaceful pathway out of the current impasse.
Beyond these immediate steps, Somalia requires a broader political understanding: legitimacy cannot be manufactured through force, and stability cannot be sustained through coercion. Durable political order emerges when citizens trust their institutions, believe that political competition is fair, and accept that power is exercised within agreed constitutional limits and subject to the rule of law.
Most importantly, Somalia needs a different model of leadership—one that inspires confidence rather than fear, seeks dialogue rather than confrontation, treats opponents as political competitors rather than enemies, and understands that compromise is often the highest expression of political strength rather than a sign of weakness. True leadership is measured not by the ability to mobilize force, but by the ability to build consensus, manage disagreement peacefully, and unite a divided nation around a common future.
Ultimately, the choice facing Somalia is not between government and opposition, nor between victory and defeat for any particular political actor. It is a choice between two competing visions of politics: one rooted in coercion, escalation, and the pursuit of power through force, and another grounded in legitimacy, dialogue, constitutionalism, political inclusion, and statesmanship.
The events in Mogadishu exposed the limitations of the first approach. Somalia’s future stability, national unity, and democratic development will depend upon embracing the second. The enduring lesson of this crisis is clear: force may compel compliance for a time, but only legitimacy, trust, and political consensus can secure lasting peace, stable governance, and a democratic future.
—
Abdirahman Abdishakur Warsame is a member of the Somali Federal Parliament, an opposition leader, the chairman of the Wadajir Party, and a presidential candidate in the forthcoming elections of 2026.