Those criticising Hassan’s leadership are not offering a better alternative vision for the country
Politicians tend to think short-term, focusing on decisions that are popular or easy. They avoid anything that is controversial or difficult, so goes the observation. A politician who takes a controversial decision does so early in their term of office, hoping to accumulate some political capital by the time elections come round and the political dividends start to pay off.
This explains why Hassan Sheikh Mohamud (HsM) wanted to insert an executive presidency clause into the constitution. It reflects his ambition to return to office, free from the constraints of a meddling parliament and “cash-for-motion” scenarios. It is a risky move too: an executive presidency requires a personal brand and HsM has an image problem. Failure to deliver on security and jobs means the executive presidency he designs for himself might well be enjoyed by a successor. At this point, we should be seeing HsM obsessing with policy delivery for his legacy (he is not) and political opponents putting forward alternative visions (they are not). Instead, what we have is a pointless debate about things that do not matter.
Most Somalis would like to see a stable government without the fissiparous tendencies of the past. For this reason, what HsM has done could be what the country needs and should be applauded. The criticism that HsM is indulging in his worst instincts, by changing the constitution, is therefore disingenuous and wide of the mark.
Which is why the deafening crescendo and the irrelevant scrap about the constitution is pointless. The chorus of disapproval of HsM – “the person” – is reaching the point where it is beginning to drown out the real pertinent questions about his government’s policy and achievements. We are no longer talking about security, economic delivery and stabilisation of the country, but focusing on why HsM is such a dreadful occupant of Villa Somalia intent on building a dynasty. It is one thing to scrutinise HsM’s leadership, quite another to indulge in outright HsM rejectionism. By focusing on the person, rather than the policy, we risk leaving the door open to dangerous self-serving charlatans much worse than HsM. The fateful choice in 2017 is illustrative here, lest we have short memories and forget it again at our peril.
Your enemy’s enemy is not your friend
Another important point is mistaking HsM – “the president” – for the country’s national interest. Take Puntland leadership’s politics of petulance. It is fine to take issue with the government but not at the expense of becoming the extended arm of Ethiopia and subverting the country’s national interest. By keeping the Ethiopian consulate open, weakening the Somali government’s assertion of sovereignty, the Puntland leadership is actively undermining the country’s national interest from within at the worst possible moment just to make HsM look bad. It is a classic case of Somalis showing to the world, not least to Ethiopia, their unity in disunity and doing incalculable damage to the country in the process.
Your enemy’s enemy could be your shared enemy, not your friend – a fact lost on some Somalis. The irony is that those who claim to be the alternatives to HsM and say they have Somalia’s interest at heart, are the first ones to descend into mutual self-loathing, preferring Ethiopian embrace over Somalia’s national interest – as appalling as it is dangerous indeed. It is precisely the purpose for which the “Maamul Goboleed” were designed, if this were ever in doubt, to make the country ungovernable.
That is also why linking the government’s work on the constitution to HsM’s perceived plan for a dynasty is dishonest at best. We need to cut HsM some slack for the things he does well. The focus should be on whether he is delivering on security and jobs, not undermining him at every turn for defending the country’s sovereignty or completing a constitution that was, for decades, nothing more than a cashflow project.
What is the alternative to life after HsM?
HsM has done well to arrest the decline he inherited from his predecessor. However, relying on a predecessor’s deplorable record is not a governing strategy. He has not grasped what he needs to do to shift the dial on a number of critical areas for the country.
Start with his government of low expectations which is drifting, pretending it has a purpose. While he has taken some steps to deal with the threat from terrorism, there is no strategic cohesion in execution. He has provided no answers to the difficult economic challenges the country faces and does not see rampant corruption, which is thriving in plain sight, as the cancerous tumour it is. Under his leadership, lofty ideas of economic development hardly translate into real actions. Not a single school, hospital or road has been built and there would be no legacy to speak of by the time his term ends. He has created more ministers and advisers than there are hospital beds in the country.
He has squandered a great opportunity to reform the delivery of public services and failed to unleash private investment to create jobs. There is far too much symbolism – from debt relief, membership of economic blocs to attending every forum under the sun – but little substance in translating any of these into concrete economic opportunities. We have a helicopter president who has spent more time in the air than at home.
A snail’s view of the world pervades the government’s thinking, perpetuating the belief that Somalia is helpless without external help, thus limiting the government’s ambition to be bold in its policies. It is a government of mediocrities that is content with foreign hand-outs, rather creating opportunities for the country. A hedge against foreign interference and bullying is creating economic dividends that pay for the country’s bills and build military strength, not reliance on foreign handouts.
The points above could be added to the long list of issues HsM’s government is failing to address, including Mogadishu which is in a much bigger political, economic and security rut. For someone who came in with prior experience, his first two years have seen huge opportunities squandered.
These points matter to the country and should be rich pickings for HsM’s political opponents. However, their current obsession with personality politics is more likely to blindside us to another incompetent, if not power-crazed wannabe dictator. We have been here before in 2017 and cannot risk repeating the same mistake.
In that context, the country needs to see a credible alternative and ideological contests based on policies and delivery, rather than a cantankerous debate about HsM and this background noise about the “constitution”.
Despite HsM’s failings to deliver on core priorities, we still see no credible better alternative. This is the real tragedy which is not good news for Somalia.
Abdi Ali
[email protected]
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official stance of Caasimada Online or its members.
