There are moments in politics when events reveal far more than their architects intended. The recent press conference by Awlihan elders was one such moment. Intended to project authority and demonstrate political cohesion, it instead exposed the limits of traditional political influence in an increasingly competitive democratic environment.
After sustained efforts to persuade Hon. Muhumed Muktar Shidiye to withdraw from the 2027 gubernatorial race, the elders appeared to acknowledge what had become increasingly evident: persuasion had reached its limit. They could advise, negotiate and appeal but they could not compel.
This is not merely a disagreement over one candidacy. It reflects a deeper contest between two competing sources of political legitimacy. One derives authority from inherited communal leadership and negotiated political consensus. The other derives legitimacy from a constitutional democracy in which leadership is determined by the free choice of voters.
For generations, Somali elders have occupied an indispensable place in society. They have resolved conflicts, preserved culture, negotiated peace and maintained social cohesion. Their contribution remains beyond dispute. Yet electoral politics operates under a fundamentally different principle. Public office is not allocated through communal consensus; it is earned through the ballot.
The current political tension in Garissa reflects a broader contradiction. Following the 2022 elections, many political observers understood that Samawadal support for Governor Nathif Jama was accompanied by an expectation of reciprocal support from the Awlihan community in the subsequent gubernatorial election. At the same time, there was a widespread perception that Hon. Shidiye, having stepped aside in 2022, would receive political backing in 2027.
Whether these understandings were formal agreements or informal political expectations is open to interpretation. What is increasingly clear, however, is that both expectations cannot be fully realised simultaneously.
Against this backdrop, calls for Shidiye to withdraw are viewed by some as an effort to preserve political consensus, while others interpret them as an attempt to override earlier political expectations. His decision to remain in the race therefore represents more than personal political ambition; it symbolises the growing assertion of an individual’s democratic right to seek elective office regardless of negotiated political arrangements.
Even more significant is what this reveals about the electorate itself.
Awlihan voters are not merely passive recipients of decisions made in council meetings. They are citizens exercising independent political judgment. Their preferred candidate is on the ballot and they possess the constitutional right to decide for themselves.
Nor is the electoral landscape confined to a single political contest. Other prominent aspirants, including Abdul Haji and Ahmed Ibrahim Abass, are actively seeking the same mandate. In such a competitive environment, the assumption that an entire voting bloc can simply be redirected through elite consensus becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.
Democracy recognises neither communal ownership of public office nor inherited political entitlement. It recognises only the sovereign will of the electorate.
These developments inevitably raise broader questions about the frequently discussed North-South political arrangement. Was it a binding social contract between communities, or merely a political understanding among influential leaders at a particular historical moment? Even if such understandings existed, can they legitimately determine the outcome of a future democratic election?
Democratic legitimacy cannot be inherited.
Political promises do not automatically become perpetual claims to office. Every election renews political legitimacy through the consent of the governed. No previous agreement can substitute for the will expressed by voters on election day.
None of this diminishes the enduring importance of elders within Somali society.
Their authority remains indispensable in reconciliation, conflict resolution, mediation and the preservation of social harmony. Those responsibilities remain central to community stability. However, constitutional democracy assigns a different responsibility in matters of political leadership. Elders may advise, persuade and guide but they cannot exercise the vote on behalf of citizens.
What is unfolding in Garissa is therefore larger than a contest between individual politicians or competing clans. It reflects the gradual evolution of political culture itself.
The county appears to be transitioning from a system where political outcomes were heavily shaped through negotiated elite consensus toward one in which electoral legitimacy increasingly depends on the independent choices of individual voters.
This transition will not be immediate. Traditional leadership structures will continue to influence political discourse and communal negotiations will remain part of Garissa’s political reality. Yet influence is no longer synonymous with control.
Clans will continue to negotiate.
Politicians will continue to build alliances.
Elders will continue to deliberate.
But ultimately, sovereignty belongs to the voter.
The ballot paper does not ask who deserves a turn, who negotiated which agreement or who commands the largest council of elders.
It asks only one constitutional question:
Who do you choose?
The old order may continue to counsel.
The democratic order will decide.
And when Garissa goes to the polls in 2027, political authority will not be determined inside a council chamber but through the collective will of the electorate.
The ballot will be the Sultan
Democratic order will decide