Somalia’s federal experiment: between reconciliation and fragmentation – the elusive quest for national unity

This study explored the perceived influence of federalism on reconciliation, national unity, clan and regional identities, and susceptibility to foreign interference in Somalia, a country struggling with decades of conflict and state fragility. Federalism was first proposed in 2004 and fully enacted in 2012 to resolve political instability and clan-based conflicts. However, its effectiveness remains debatable. A qualitative study design was employed, using semi-structured interviews with 36 key informants drawn from all federal member states and the federal government of Somalia. The findings reveal a prevailing view among political and civil elites that federalism has not achieved its intended goal of fostering reconciliation. Instead, it exacerbated existing clan-based divisions and sparked new conflicts over power and resources at both the state and federal levels. The study found that establishing federal member states along clan lines reinforced regional and clan identities at the expense of national identity. Moreover, informants indicated that federalism arrangements, combined with unresolved historical grievances, have heightened Somalia’s vulnerability to foreign interference, as regional leaders often bypass the central administration by engaging directly with external actors. These findings suggest that federalism alone cannot substitute for genuine reconciliation and inclusive dialogue in fragile post-conflict contexts such as Somalia. Minimizing the perceived risks of societal division and external interference requires leaders at both the federal and state levels to prioritize structured reconciliation, clarify constitutional power-sharing arrangements, institutionalize intergovernmental coordination, and uphold federal authority in foreign affairs to promote national unity.