INFLUENCE OF CLAN-BASED RECONCILIATION MECHANISMS ON CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN MOGADISHU SOMALIA

The collapse of the Somali state in 1991 created a governance vacuum, elevating clan-based reconciliation mechanisms comprising traditional elder authority, Xeer customary law, and the Diya compensation system as the primary instruments for conflict resolution. However, their effectiveness in fostering sustainable peace in the face of modern conflicts remains inadequately understood and documented. This study therefore aimed to examine the influence of these traditional mechanisms on conflict resolution in Somalia. Guided by Traditional Justice Theory, the research pursued three specific objectives: to assess the role of traditional elders' authority, to evaluate the effectiveness of Xeer, and to analyze the contribution of the Diya system. A mixed-methods research design was employed, collecting quantitative data through questionnaires and qualitative insights via interviews from 85 purposively sampled stakeholders in Mogadishu, including government officials, elders, and civil society representatives. The findings revealed that these traditional mechanisms collectively explain 61.2% of the variance in effective conflict resolution (R² = 0.612). Regression analysis confirmed that each component is a significant predictor: traditional elder authority had the strongest influence (β = 0.356, p<.001), followed by Xeer effectiveness (β = 0.312, p<.001), and the Diya system (β = 0.278, p=.005). Qualitatively, elders are highly respected for their wisdom and lineage, Xeer is valued for its restorative approach, and Diya is crucial for preventing revenge killings. However, significant challenges were identified, including the marginalization of women and youth, difficulties adapting to urban and modern conflicts like terrorism, and debates over the fairness of Diya compensation. The study concludes that clan-based mechanisms are indispensable for conflict resolution in Somalia due to their cultural legitimacy and effectiveness. It recommends a hybrid approach that formally integrates these traditional systems with the formal judiciary, modernizes their application to be more inclusive and adaptable, and provides structured support to enhance their capacity to handle contemporary conflicts