Somalia has entered a perilous political moment. What lies before us is not an ordinary partisan dispute but a clash that could trigger renewed fragmentation and institutional breakdown. Villa Somalia has unilaterally seized control over three pillars that once rested on fragile consensus: the 2012 provisional constitution has been rewritten without agreement; the electoral framework has been reshaped unilaterally; and the entire state-building architecture, painstakingly assembled over years, now hangs in uncertainty.
These are not minor disagreements to be smoothed over with friendly consultation. They demand honest dialogue and hard-headed negotiation—an effort to rewind to the point where the process first went off course. Instead, Villa Somalia has chosen a different path, branding its approach the “National Consultative Conference.” The name may sound reassuring, but it raises a pressing question: consultation with whom—and for what purpose?
Consultation vs. negotiation
Consultation, by nature, is a conversation among those who already share a common viewpoint. It is a closed circle where allies gather to fine-tune strategy and reinforce a predetermined agenda. No one is expected—or even allowed—to challenge the framework. In the Somali context, consultation resembles the President seeking advice from loyal confidants, aiming to polish a plan they already endorse.
Negotiation, on the other hand, is the machinery of genuine conflict resolution. It is an inclusive process where rival factions meet, grievances are aired, and compromises are reached. It produces not slogans but substantive outcomes—a national agreement forged through mutual sacrifice and shared vision. Where consultation amplifies a private agenda, negotiation builds public legitimacy.
Why the “consultative conference” failed the test
Despite its name, the process that concluded Thursday in Villa Somalia bore little resemblance to true national dialogue. Opposition parties were excluded or sidelined. Key federal member states, notably Puntland and Jubaland, walked away from the table. Civil society voices—if present at all—were reduced to tokens. What emerged was not a process of national reconciliation but a stage-managed forum designed to echo the centre’s views.
By labelling this one-sided gathering a “National Consultation,” Villa Somalia revealed its true intent: not to converse, but to confirm; not to negotiate, but to impose; not to listen, but to be applauded.
A national imperative: Real dialogue
What Somalia urgently needs is not an orchestrated showcase, but genuine negotiation. This means opening the door to all political stakeholders—without preconditions. It means recognizing the legitimacy of divergent visions, whether federal, regional, or civic. It requires returning to the drawing board on the deeply contested constitutional and electoral changes.
Engaging in negotiation should not be viewed as yielding to the opposition. It is not a concession—it is a national imperative. When government and opposition are locked in a dangerous stalemate, the negotiation table becomes not just a forum but a lifeline. Consultation, no matter how elaborately packaged, cannot substitute for it.
The clock is ticking
If Villa Somalia insists on maintaining a consultation hall open only to loyalists, it risks dragging the republic into yet another cycle of fragmentation. But there is still time. The presidency can use the remainder of its term to pivot away from stagecraft and toward substance. True dialogue means broadening the circle until every aggrieved voice is heard. Only then can the knife at Somalia’s throat be set aside.
“Dialogue is not a reward; it is a responsibility of leadership. Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.” —Winston Churchill
History will remember who listened.
By Dr. Liban Cigaal
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.