Hiiraan Online

This essay analyzes nine critical powers allocated in this framework, highlighting how the NCC grants the federal government authority over areas typically managed by regional governments in federal systems while assigning member states responsibilities usually reserved for the federal government. The essay analyzes how the proposed power structure risks encroachments, overlapping jurisdictions, and conflicts. It raises concerns about whether the framework aligns with federalism principles, promotes member-state encroachment on federal powers, and undermines regional autonomy through excessive centralization. The essay examines how this power division arrangement affects electoral powers, inter-state trade, environmental protection, resource management, and regional and national security, while also exploring its impact on regional self-governance in critical areas such as financial autonomy, local economic development, infrastructure, healthcare, education, and social services.

Electoral Powers

Federalism divides powers between central and regional governments, allowing each to govern independently. In elections, the federal government ensures national cohesion by setting "general policy, political issues, political parties, and elections" (Federal Power 11) and overseeing "electoral administration" (Federal Power 12). Member states manage their elections, aligned with their authority over "local election administration" (FMS Power 2) and regional governance policies (FMS Power 3). This structure attempts to balance national unity with regional autonomy, which is essential for inclusivity and decentralization.

This balance, however, is strained by the federal government's control over voter registration and centralized election oversight (Federal Powers 9 and 12), which overlap with the responsibilities of Federal Member States (FMS). While the federal role is essential for ensuring unity, this approach risks undermining the autonomy crucial to federalism, leading to potential friction between the levels of government. A recent example of this friction is Jubaland's withdrawal from an NCC meeting due to disagreements over electoral legislation.  

Given Somalia's reliance on traditional structures, involving community leaders in election management is key. Local governments, responsible for "coordination and smooth running of municipal administration activities" (Local Power 1), can partner with clan elders to oversee voter registration and polling. This localized approach reduces costs, enhances trust, and aligns with Somalia's realities. Federal oversight can still ensure consistency, fostering a balance between national standards and local legitimacy.

Financial Autonomy and Regional Dependency

In this power division framework, the federal government exercises extensive control over revenue generation, tax policies, revenue sources, and the administration of the federal budget (Federal Power 21 under Economy). In most federal systems, such as those of India, Brazil, United States, Canada, and Germany, centralized control is essential for maintaining national fiscal stability and cohesion. However, the power division framework limits FMSs to raising revenue through specific local taxes (FMS Power 10), which significantly curtails their financial independence. By retaining authority over broader tax structures and revenue sources, the federal government centralizes financial power, making regional administrations heavily reliant on federal allocations for funding.

When regions depend primarily on federal transfers to finance local services and development projects, they lose the flexibility to address priorities that reflect local needs. In this framework, regional financial resources are derived mainly from local taxes and federal transfers, which may come with conditions tied to federal priorities. These conditions align regional spending with national objectives, restricting the regions' ability to independently address local concerns when those priorities conflict with federal goals. This dependency reduces the ability of regional governments to allocate resources effectively and diminishes their responsiveness to local demands, weakening their autonomy within the federal structure.

Financial autonomy is a cornerstone of federalism, empowering regions to manage budgets and implement initiatives tailored to their unique priorities. Regions with control over revenue generation can design policies and programs that reflect their economic realities and development goals. Financial self-sufficiency also fosters accountability by making regions responsible for generating and managing their own funds. In this framework, regions are restricted to generating revenue primarily through local taxes, limiting their ability to fund larger or long-term projects that align with local development goals. This constraint compromises the federalist principle of regional self-governance, leaving regions with insufficient flexibility to address their populations' needs within a cohesive national framework.

Regional Control Over Local Economic Development and Resources

Federal control over national economic planning (Federal Power 19 under Economy) and monetary policy (Federal Power 20) is a cornerstone of federal systems, ensuring economic stability and fiscal unity across the nation. Centralizing these powers supports a stable environment for investment, trade, and national economic growth. However, extending federal authority into areas closely tied to regional economies—such as foreign trade, investment policies, and resource management, particularly over shared resources like rivers (Federal Powers 23, 24, and 25)—risks undermining regional autonomy. Regions need some level of control over local economic activities to attract targeted investments, prioritize relevant sectors, and optimize trade practices that align with their distinct socio-economic landscapes and resource availability.

In many federal systems, regions manage resources within their territories, including minerals, forestry, agriculture, and water, to support local economies and foster development. In this framework, the federal government centralizes control over critical resources—such as minerals, water bodies, and agricultural lands—that either span multiple regions or are significant for international trade, limiting regions' capacity to manage their own resources. Without this ability, regions may face challenges in crafting and implementing policies that stimulate local economies, limiting their capacity to generate growth, create jobs, and drive regional development. Autonomy in managing local resources is critical for fostering self-sustained growth, tailoring economic policies to local realities, and empowering regions to innovate economically within a cohesive national framework.

Federal dominance over critical resources and centralized trade policies may stifle regional growth by restricting regions' control over resource allocation, infrastructure investments, and trade partnerships tailored to local needs. Being closer to the ground, regional governments often have a clearer understanding of their unique economic needs and opportunities than the federal government. This proximity enables them to design and implement development projects and investment strategies that maximize local benefits. Limiting this input reduces opportunities for economic diversification and impedes regions' ability to build resilient economies that contribute meaningfully to national growth. By restricting regional autonomy in local economic management, the framework diminishes flexibility and innovation central to effective federalism.

Federal Overreach in Shared and Local Governance Domains

Certain domains, including environmental protection, resource conservation, and agriculture (Shared Powers 1, 6, and 12), are designated as shared responsibilities, yet the federal government retains authority to establish "uniform standards" (Regulatory Powers/Federal Parliament, Power 3). While national standards can ensure consistency and cohesion, they may reduce regions' flexibility to tailor policies to local circumstances. Regional governments are often better positioned to address specific local challenges in environmentally and agriculturally diverse countries. Uniform federal standards can hinder regions from adapting policies to fluctuating environmental conditions, such as seasonal water shortages or region-specific agricultural cycles, potentially leading to inefficiencies in resource management.

Similarly, federal control over national health policies, social welfare, and education curricula and assessments (Federal Powers 38, 41, and 43 under Health and Social Services and Education) diminishes opportunities for regional adaptation. In federal systems, health and education policies are frequently tailored locally to address demographic, cultural, and economic differences. For instance, social welfare programs aimed at supporting low-income families or addressing unemployment are often more effective when tailored to address specific regional economic conditions, such as varying job markets or local cost-of-living differences. Centralizing these areas restricts regional governments' capacity to design services aligned with their populations' unique needs, reducing the effectiveness of these programs.

Effective shared governance in a federal system requires a balance where national standards provide cohesion without undermining regional flexibility. While federal policies establish foundational baselines, regional input ensures adjustments that address local needs, enhancing policy relevance and effectiveness. Federal overreach in shared domains, such as healthcare, education, and resource management, risks imposing one-size-fits-all solutions, which fail to account for regional diversity, undermining the adaptability and responsiveness that are hallmarks of federalism.

Regional Economic Governance and Resource Control

In federal systems, natural resources are often managed collaboratively, with regions typically retaining authority over resources within their borders. However, under this power division framework, the federal government controls national energy policy, water resources, and general resource management (Federal Power 26 under Economy and Shared Power 9). This centralized approach limits regions' ability to manage resources critical to their economic well-being independently. For example, resource-rich regions with abundant minerals or water sources could reinvest revenues into local education, healthcare, or infrastructure projects, fostering economic self-sufficiency.

While regions are granted some budgetary authority and the ability to plan development projects (FMS Powers 8 and 11), federal oversight of essential economic areas such as resources, trade, and investment curtails their ability to attract investors, build infrastructure, and develop industries independently. In federal systems, regions often rely on local resource management to implement unique economic strategies, attract industry, and generate employment. Limiting regional control in these areas restricts self-sufficiency and ties regional economies to federal policies, reducing their capacity to innovate and address local needs. This dependency limits regions' ability to respond swiftly to local economic opportunities and challenges, tying their growth potential to federal policy changes rather than allowing for tailored, region-specific economic planning.

Restricting regional autonomy over resources and economic activities stifles innovation and prevents regions from implementing strategies tailored to their economic potential. Empowering regions to manage their resources and pursue localized economic initiatives fosters innovation and economic diversification, strengthening both regional and national economies. As outlined in this framework, the lack of regional control over resources and trade policies curtails flexibility, inhibiting regions from rapidly responding to economic shifts or local needs, which in turn constrains their ability to implement policies that could significantly bolster both local and national economic growth.

Security Sector

The power-division framework divides security-related responsibilities between the federal government and member states, with some powers explicitly allocated and others shared. The federal government is entrusted with authority over national defense, intelligence, and federal policing structures (Federal Powers 32 and 33), ensuring a centralized control over matters like territorial integrity and threats to sovereignty. Federal Power 33 specifically grants the federal government authority over national policing. Additionally, Federal Power 35 regulates firearms and light weapons.  The framework provides mechanisms for responding to crises beyond the capacity of member states, though such intervention requires mutual agreement (Federal Power 34). Federal intervention in crisis response, contingent on mutual agreement, ensures that large-scale or cross-border threats—such as natural disasters or widespread security incidents—are managed efficiently, leveraging national resources and expertise.

Member states oversee local policing and law enforcement, including establishing and managing their police forces (FMS Power 19) and training patrol units (FMS Power 20). They also manage judiciary functions and prosecution (FMS Power 21), enabling localized law enforcement. Shared responsibilities, such as regulating protests (Shared Power 15) and managing prisons(Shared Power 16), are designated to ensure that both federal and regional interests are considered. This shared approach allows for standardized security and human rights measures while accommodating local contexts, aiming to reduce tensions and maintain public order across different regions.

This division of powers, however, presents significant risks for conflicts and inefficiencies. Overlapping jurisdictions in policing and public order regulation can lead to confusion or competition over enforcement authority, especially in cases where federal and state interests converge, such as cross-border crimes or large-scale protests impacting both regional and national stability. These overlaps may cause inefficiencies or even inconsistent law enforcement if protocols are not clearly defined. Similarly, requiring mutual agreement for federal intervention in state crises (FMS Power 34) risks delaying urgent action, especially in politically charged situations.

The shared nature of some responsibilities exacerbates these challenges. Tasks like managing protests and prison administration demand coordination, but jurisdictional overlaps can lead to inefficiencies and inconsistencies without clear mechanisms for resolving disputes. Jurisdictional overlaps between federal and state authorities can lead to delayed responses, duplicated efforts, or contradictory enforcement actions, particularly in situations requiring immediate and cohesive action, such as large-scale protests or organized militia conflicts. Clear guidelines on whether federal or state regulations take precedence in particular scenarios—such as national security threats or cross-border incidents—would help prevent delays and reduce operational confusion, fostering a more reliable and functional security framework. The lack of explicit conflict resolution mechanisms further complicates these issues, leaving disputes unresolved and threatening the functionality of the security framework.

In federal systems, security powers are generally structured to balance national cohesion with regional autonomy. Central governments typically manage defense, intelligence, and cross-border security, while regions handle localized law enforcement to address unique needs. Effective federal systems implement clear jurisdictional boundaries, supremacy clauses to prioritize federal authority in disputes, and independent judicial bodies for conflict resolution to avoid conflicts stemming from overlapping responsibilities. Such measures enable security functions to operate effectively across all levels of government while adhering to federalist principles.

Inter-State Trade

A core principle of federalism is the free movement of people and goods across state borders, fostering economic unity and national cohesion. While Somalia's current security challenges may justify temporary border controls to manage risks such as terrorism or illicit trade, these measures should be seen and managed as short-term solutions. Over time, regulations should prioritize the free movement of people and goods to promote economic unity and foster greater cohesion among the member states. Allowing member states to regulate the movement of goods across their borders risks fragmenting the market and undermining national unity.

In federal systems, member states are typically barred from interfering with the personal or commercial activities of nationals from other states. They are also prohibited from enacting preferential policies favoring their citizens or goods over those from other states or maintaining border controls to collect taxes or fees. However, narrowly tailored inspections addressing contraband or specific security threats are permissible if they do not hinder the general movement of goods and people. Within these limits, states may tax transactions involving goods within their borders, provided such taxes are non-discriminatory and apply to similar goods elsewhere in the state. Federalism requires clear and consistent rules to ensure that all Somali citizens can move, reside, and conduct business freely without interference or discrimination.

Exclusive federal authority over inter-state trade is essential for achieving national cohesion by ensuring uniformity and preventing fragmented state policies that could divide the national economy. Centralized regulation ensures consistent standards, reduces compliance burdens, and eliminates jurisdictional disputes and regulatory fragmentation. A unified approach enables businesses to operate seamlessly across state lines, fostering economic integration. Without centralized authority, Somalia risks fragmenting its market and undermining its economic unity.

In contrast, sharing regulatory authority over inter-regional trade between the federal government and member states (Shared Power 14) introduces significant challenges, such as conflicting regulations and inconsistent enforcement. Overlapping jurisdictions lead to inconsistencies that need to be clarified for businesses operating across state lines. Furthermore, managing shared authority over inter-regional trade is inherently complex due to the need for coordination between different levels of government, each with its own priorities and regulatory frameworks. Even with mechanisms like a supremacy clause or harmonization channels, overlapping jurisdictions invite disputes as both levels of government assert their priorities. Inconsistent enforcement further complicates matters, with states prioritizing their own regulations, creating unpredictability and inefficiency. These conflicts inflate administrative costs, delay decision-making, and weaken policy effectiveness as governments struggle to align their approaches.

Cultural, Social Services, and Education

Social and cultural policies often reflect regional diversity in federal systems, allowing regions to address the unique needs of their communities. However, this power division framework centralizes control over social welfare, cultural institutions, and the regulation of professional standards (Federal Powers 17, 41, and 42), reducing regions' ability to manage social services and cultural activities independently. Federal control in these areas could diminish regional identity, as regions may struggle to shape policies that reflect local traditions, languages, or community values.

Education and health are typically areas where regions have a degree of autonomy to adapt to local needs. In this framework, however, the federal government holds extensive authority over education policy, including setting curricula and exam standards (Federal Power 43) and national health policy (Federal Power 38). This level of centralization restricts regions from adapting these services to local demographics and challenges, potentially reducing the relevance and accessibility of education and healthcare in each region. Federalism thrives when regional governments have the flexibility to adapt education and health policies to their communities' specific needs, such as addressing unique health challenges like infectious diseases or adapting curricula to reflect local languages and cultures.

Centralizing cultural, educational, and social services limits regions' role in shaping policies that reflect their unique communities. Regions benefit from autonomy in these areas as it allows them to tailor policies that promote a sense of local identity, inclusivity, and social cohesion, such as designing culturally relevant education curricula or supporting community-specific social programs. By allowing regions greater input in cultural and social policy, federal systems can enhance both unity and diversity, enabling regions to celebrate their distinct identities within a broader national framework.

Infrastructure, Communication, and Local Autonomy

National infrastructure—such as ports, international airports, and inter-regional roads (Federal Powers 27 and 28 under Transportation and Infrastructure)—is typically under federal authority in federal systems, as it serves national interests. However, regional governments often play a key role in influencing these projects through consultation or collaboration to ensure that infrastructure aligns with local economic priorities and mobility needs. In this framework, infrastructure control is centralized within the federal government, limiting regional input, which can be problematic when local priorities differ significantly from federal objectives. A balanced federal system often allows regions shared authority or consultative roles in infrastructure planning to align projects with regional development goals.

Similarly, federal control over communications infrastructure—covering internet governance, broadcast regulations, cybersecurity, and general communications policy (Federal Power 31)—centralizes oversight of a critical resource. While this centralization ensures uniform standards, facilitates cross-regional connectivity, and enhances national security, it may limit regional governments' ability to manage local broadcasting, community media, and regional content creation. Some federal systems allow regions to tailor information dissemination to local audiences, supporting regional cultures and addressing unique needs. While centralization promotes cohesion, it can limit local engagement, privacy protections, and access to regionally relevant content, which is vital in the digital age.

By centralizing both infrastructure and communications, the framework restricts regions' ability to influence services that drive regional economies and public access to information. Local control in federal systems is crucial for fostering economic growth and preserving regional identity. Infrastructure aligned with local priorities supports economic development, while media reflecting local perspectives enriches cultural expression. Reducing regional input in these areas weakens their capacity to address specific challenges and build resilient infrastructure and communication networks.

Mogadishu and the Federal Power Division Framework

The current power division framework ignores Mogadishu's dual role as the federal capital and a regional entity, leaving a critical gap in Somalia's federal structure. To address this, Mogadishu should be granted special administrative status, allowing it to manage local governance autonomously while fulfilling its national responsibilities. This model would empower Mogadishu to independently manage municipal functions, policing, and urban development, creating a governance framework that respects local priorities while ensuring the city can fulfill its broader federal obligations effectively.

Mogadishu must be integrated into federal decision-making through a structure that includes elected leadership, such as a mayor, city council, and representatives in the national parliament. This governance model should allow Mogadishu to operate similarly to a member state while accounting for its unique status as the federal capital, ensuring its interests are effectively represented and considered in national policymaking. Equitable resource allocation is essential to support both its local population and federal role. Additionally, legislative or constitutional clarity is needed to define its rights and responsibilities, preventing governance conflicts.

Conclusion: Balancing Federal Authority with Regional Autonomy

The power division outlined in this framework reflects a highly centralized approach within a federal structure, where some co-managed areas—such as inter-state trade, electoral process, and resource management—heighten the potential for conflicts. While federal control over defense, foreign policy, and national economic policy aligns with standard federal practices, the framework extends federal authority into areas typically managed at the regional level in other federal systems, such as healthcare, education, and social services. Such centralization risks limiting regional self-governance, reducing adaptability, and stifling economic innovation, ultimately undermining the federalist ideal of balanced authority and autonomy. Additionally, allowing states to interfere with inter-state trade—a critical area requiring federal oversight—threatens market cohesion. Similarly, overlapping powers in the security sector could lead to federal and state-level conflicts.

For federalism to function effectively, regions must have sufficient authority over local governance, education, healthcare, economic development, and cultural policies to reflect their unique identities and priorities. Over-centralization, such as federal control over education, healthcare, local economic activities and social services, risks transforming the system into a unitary model disguised as federalism, undermining the benefits of localized governance and self-sufficiency. A more balanced approach would grant regions greater autonomy over local economic activities, natural resources, and social services, enabling them to address their communities' needs while contributing to national unity and stability.

Somalia's challenges are exacerbated by the lack of federal courts to resolve intergovernmental disputes and a political culture where leaders often personalize conflicts. Escalations, such as declarations of 'withdrawal from collaboration,' further destabilize the system by deepening divisions and obstructing collective governance. Shared authority over inter-state trade or security is problematic even with mechanisms to manage disputes or enforce alignment. For Somalia's federal system to succeed, inter-state trade must fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction, while security powers require clear delineation to minimize overlap. Member states should be free to manage their own tax sources, fostering financial autonomy. Healthcare, education, and cultural institutions must be managed at the regional level. 

Additionally, Mogadishu's unique status as both a federal capital and a regional entity must be recognized and integrated into the federal framework. Defining Mogadishu's governance role would enhance inclusivity, functionality, and cohesion across Somalia. By balancing centralized oversight with regional autonomy, the framework can foster a more stable and effective federal system.