Abdi Ahmed, Journalist
The first duty of any government is to protect its citizens and maintain public order. No country can build democracy, hold elections, or defeat terrorism if armed political groups are allowed to challenge state authority in the capital.
Somalia is already fighting Al-Shabaab on several fronts. At a time when national unity is needed most, political tensions in Mogadishu should concern everyone. Political disagreements are normal in any democracy, but weapons should never become a tool for political pressure.
Recent opposition calls for mass protests did not result in large-scale unrest. Only isolated demonstrations were reported in parts of Mogadishu, while businesses remained open and public services continued to operate. Many residents went about their daily lives, reflecting a security situation that remained largely stable despite heightened political tensions.
The debate facing Somalia today is bigger than any individual politician or political party. It is about the country’s future. One side favors a return to an indirect system where a limited number of delegates and clan representatives choose national leaders. The other side supports one person, one vote elections, allowing ordinary citizens to directly decide who governs them.
For many young Somalis, direct elections represent hope. They offer a path toward broader political participation and stronger democratic institutions. Democracy cannot grow if armed groups can pressure elected institutions whenever they disagree with government policies.
Governments should always be open to criticism and political opposition. Citizens have the right to challenge leaders through lawful and peaceful means. At the same time, governments have a responsibility to defend constitutional institutions, maintain security, and protect the democratic process established through legal and parliamentary mechanisms.
Armed opposition is not a legitimate democratic tool. No state can tolerate militias, armed factions, or political actors who seek to influence national decisions through force or the threat of violence. If such tactics are allowed to succeed, the rule of law becomes meaningless and democratic institutions become vulnerable to coercion.
There must also be consequences for those who choose intimidation and the threat of force over democratic engagement. Failure to hold such actors accountable risks encouraging similar actions by other groups in the future, further undermining stability and public confidence in state institutions. Those who incite, organize, support, or carry out political violence must face the full force of the law.
Many Somalis believe the country faces not only political disagreements but also networks and actors willing to create instability to advance their objectives. Whatever their motivations may be, any effort to destabilize the capital, undermine constitutional institutions, or provoke violence must be firmly rejected. The state has both the authority and the obligation to defeat such threats and protect the public.
Somalia has made important progress in recent years. Efforts to strengthen state institutions, advance democratic reforms, improve economic conditions, and expand regional cooperation have created new opportunities for the country. These gains remain fragile and should not be put at risk by political confrontation or instability.
The future of Somalia should be decided through dialogue, elections, and democratic institutions. Political competition is healthy. Intimidation is not.
Somalia deserves ballots over bullets, institutions over intimidation, and a future shaped by the voices of its citizens rather than the power of weapons.
