Addis Abeba – In recent times, I have followed with interest a range of articles and commentaries reflecting both praise and criticism of the current administration in the Somali Regional State. The perspectives have been varied—some highlighting notable achievements since 2018, while others raise valid concerns about ongoing governance challenges. Having carefully considered arguments from both sides, I have chosen to pen this piece as an impartial observation, aiming to offer a balanced reflection that acknowledges the progress made while also underscoring the importance of embracing constructive critique as part of any meaningful reform process.
In 2018, the Somali region marked a significant political shift, one that many hoped would reset the region’s governance trajectory. With the end of a decade-long authoritarian administration, expectations were high for an inclusive, accountable, and development-focused era. Seven years on, the region presents a mixed picture—marked by clear signs of progress, tempered by ongoing challenges.
This article seeks to move beyond polarized discourse and examine the current governance landscape in the Somali Region in a measured way. The aim is neither to idealize the post-2018 leadership nor to dismiss its achievements. Rather, it is to encourage a culture of governance where self-reflection and critical engagement are seen as strengths—not threats.
To begin with, it would be unfair not to recognize the positive transformations that have taken root since the political changes of 2018. Most notable among these is the dramatic shift in political tone. Gone are the days when dissent was punished and civic space severely restricted. The region has since seen a resurgence of public dialogue, community organizing, and civil society engagement.
The absence of political prisoners, reports of reduced extrajudicial arrests, and the increase in media outlets operating with relative freedom all signal a move toward a more open political culture. Citizens, particularly youth, have found greater room to voice their opinions, organize, and participate in local initiatives.
Institutionally, there have been notable steps toward transparency. The establishment of a procurement agency, restructuring of regional bureaus, and public announcement of tenders and contracts are important shifts away from the opaque, centralized control of the past. The current administration has also placed visible emphasis on expanding public infrastructure, particularly in urban areas, with new roads, health centers, and administrative buildings taking shape.
On the economic front, the region has witnessed improved trade flows, particularly with neighboring countries, due in part to relative security stability. This has helped support a growing service sector, including the expansion of transportation, telecommunications, and microfinance initiatives.
Importantly, these gains should not be overlooked by observers, analysts, or critics. Reform is often non-linear, and the context in which these changes are unfolding—including broader national transitions, periodic instability, and resource constraints—must be factored into any fair evaluation.
Yet, reform cannot rest solely on symbolism or relative improvement. The daily experiences of many communities in the Somali Region reflect a gap between policy pronouncements and tangible delivery. For reforms to take root, they must move beyond high-level shifts and be felt at the grassroots level.
Despite institutional restructuring, concerns remain about the merit-based nature of appointments and the degree of political interference in public service recruitment. Local feedback, especially from zonal and district officials, often points to perceived favoritism and informal patronage networks—albeit less overt than in the past.
Procurement practices, while improved in transparency, still face questions around fairness and consistency. Recent internal audits from select bureaus have flagged irregularities in contract awards and resource utilization, suggesting a need for deeper institutionalization of checks and balances. Without independent oversight bodies that are empowered and resourced to investigate and act, reforms remain vulnerable to reversal. Leaders who embrace critique signal confidence in their governance; those who reject it outright risk insulating themselves from reality.”
Service delivery also remains uneven. While urban centers like Jigjiga have seen visible development, many rural and pastoralist communities continue to lack basic services—clean water, electricity, healthcare, and education. Several districts in the Dollo, Fafan, and Erer zones continue to struggle with understaffed clinics, unpaved roads, and under-resourced schools.
Moreover, resilience to climate shocks, such as drought and conflict-related displacement, remains weak. Although the region has developed contingency plans and early warning systems, their implementation has been inconsistent. The region still relies heavily on federal agencies and international NGOs for emergency response—an indication that local capacity and coordination mechanisms need reinforcement.
Justice sector reform is another area requiring sustained focus. While political detentions have decreased, access to legal aid and the independence of lower-level courts remain limited. In many areas, traditional mechanisms continue to dominate dispute resolution, which can marginalize women, youth, and minorities.
Balancing Reform, Critique, and Accountability
Amid these developments, the political and public response to criticism remains a sensitive issue. In a maturing democratic setting, feedback—especially from citizens, media, researchers, and civil society—should be seen as a cornerstone of effective governance, not as an attack on authority.
Too often, critical perspectives are dismissed as uninformed, politically motivated, or nostalgic for past regimes. This defensive posture stifles meaningful dialogue and risks alienating constituencies who feel their concerns are not heard. Leaders who embrace critique signal confidence in their governance; those who reject it outright risk insulating themselves from reality.
The way forward is not in silencing concerns or framing criticism as disloyalty. Rather, it is in responding with evidence, engaging in respectful dialogue, and using feedback to recalibrate programs, improve service delivery, and build trust. Genuine accountability is not about avoiding mistakes—it is about how institutions respond when those mistakes are brought to light.
In this sense, the Somali region has a critical opportunity. By fostering a culture where transparency is not just procedural but participatory, the region can position itself as a model for other parts of the country. Encouraging open debate, supporting watchdog institutions, and strengthening media freedom are investments in long-term stability—not threats to power.
As the Somali region moves into its seventh year of post-2018 governance, the question is no longer whether reform has begun—it has. The question now is whether that reform is evolving into a sustainable, inclusive, and accountable governance system.
This requires shifting from a reform narrative focused on contrasting with the past to one grounded in present-day metrics. It means defining success not only by what has been avoided but also by what has been achieved. And it means viewing citizen engagement not as a political liability but as a necessary component of resilient governance.
The most enduring legacy of the current administration will not be its break from the past but its openness to shape the future collaboratively—with its citizens, critics, and institutions. A mature political environment allows space for both praise and challenge, for recognition and rethinking.
The Somali region, with its unique history and demographic vibrancy, has the tools to lead such a transition. What’s needed now is the political will to move from defensiveness to dialogue, from reform language to reform outcomes, and from central narratives to inclusive governance.
