Somalia needs Farmaajo and centralism!

[Kamaaludeen Al Reewin]

Why Farmaajo Needs to Come Back — Let’s Be Honest

Look, whether you loved Farmaajo or hated him, one thing is clear: he was pushing for a strong central government. And honestly, that’s exactly what Somalia needs right now.

This whole federalism thing? It’s a mess. It sounds nice on paper — give power to the regions, let them develop, everyone gets along. But what’s really happening? Every region acts like its own little country. Presidents of states moving around like they're actual heads of state, ignoring Mogadishu, making separate deals, fighting each other. It’s basically clans running mini governments.

Somalis don’t think like one nation. Let’s be real. We think in qabiil (clan), sub-clan, even sub-sub-clan. That’s the sad reality. So when you tell people "hey, here’s your own federal state, do your thing," they don’t think about Somalia as a whole — they think about how their specific group can win, get resources, get power. That’s it.


---

Why centralism is better (for us)

Under a strong central government, there’s one power, one army, one direction. You can’t just wake up as a regional "president" and start acting wild. You’re accountable to the central government.

When Farmaajo was around, he was trying to weaken these regional warlord-style leaders and bring them under one umbrella. And people hated him for it because it threatened their local power. But if you really care about Somalia as a country (not just your clan), you’d see this was the way forward.

Look at how things were moving under him:

More focus on building a national army rather than clan militias.

Trying to control corrupt regional leaders who just eat aid money.

Trying to make decisions for Somalia as a nation, not just for a few city-states.



---

Federalism is failing us

Federalism is only making Somalia weaker. Instead of creating unity, it’s making people even more tribal. Everyone has their own flag, anthem, and ego. Meanwhile, Al-Shabaab and other enemies benefit from this division because there's no strong unified force to fight them properly.


---

So why bring Farmaajo back?

Because he was one of the few leaders who actually pushed the idea of Somalia as a single nation, not just a collection of clan territories.

He wanted to put an end to the endless qabiil politics.

He wanted to build a real government with authority everywhere, not just in Mogadishu.

He wasn’t perfect (no leader is), but at least he had a vision bigger than just pleasing clan elders and staying in power.



---

Final word

If Somalia keeps going down this federalism road, we’ll keep splitting, fighting, and begging outsiders for help. We need a strong center that pulls everyone together and actually acts like a country. Farmaajo, for all his flaws, understood that.

 

[Chaseyourdreamzz]

Farmaajo was the best leader we’ve had in a while tbh

 

[livinlavish]

Theres nothing wrong with federalism, its just that this form of federalism is deeply flawed which was implemented by foreign powers to divide us. We need to create our own government not this filth in the form of FGS that we have today

 

[Mckenzie]

Farmaajo was very brave to shake the system to bring about change. But he is an autocrat. No amount of centralism will do you good if you must abide by election cycles while you aren't democratic by nature. And if he wants to be an autocrat well there are many who are happy to challenge that who believe they are better.

 

[Kamaaludeen Al Reewin]

Theres nothing wrong with federalism, its just that this form of federalism is deeply flawed which was implemented by foreign powers to divide us. We need to create our own government not this filth in the form of FGS that we have today

I agree, this form of federalism is counterproductive

 

[Kamaaludeen Al Reewin]

Farmaajo was very brave to shake the system to bring about change. But he is an autocrat. No amount of centralism will do you good if you must abide by election cycles while you aren't democratic by nature. And if he wants to be an autocrat well there are many who are happy to challenge that who believe they are better.

Personally I just want peace and stability and unity. Whether that's trough autocracy that's okay. I don't mind a good dictator that puts his people first.

 

[Medeea]

I can’t take you seriously if you support that autistic wannabe dictator. He had only three redeeming qualities:
1.He was one of the first to realize the current system was unworkable.
2.He was less corrupt than others.
3.He chose a great PM.

Meanwhile, His predecessors foolishly followed whatever the midget zenawi and later his foot soldiers in Garowe wanted, aka officially dismantling Somalia for good. That fuker was planning to completely erase the idea of a Somali state.

HSM’s second term was his redemption arc, chance to atone for his absolutely disasters first term.
Are we gonna see the low iq Redlip Sharif’s redemption arc soon? I would love to see it.

That said, extreme centralization is also a bad idea. I believe in a highly decentralized unitary system. Where cities, towns and district councils have real autonomy. Same with governors and gobols. But the central government should have final authority on national and cross-gobols matters.

Who keeps the central government in check? A strong 3 party system, parliament and a strong judiciary. That’s exactly what HSM been trying to do over the last three years(minus the strong judiciary part ofc).

 

[TheLand]

No disrespect but you are a strange character in my eyes. I’ve seen you post a lot of diin-based content but you don’t seem to advocate for amy kind of Islamic state. Here you are talking about centralism and clear nin-jeclaysi. Perhaps I’m the strange one for seeing a disconnect there or perhaps you are…

 

[Afrax]

Farmaajo was very brave to shake the system to bring about change. But he is an autocrat. No amount of centralism will do you good if you must abide by election cycles while you aren't democratic by nature. And if he wants to be an autocrat well there are many who are happy to challenge that who believe they are better.

Farmaajo didn’t do the groundwork that was really needed. His main goal seemed to be controlling the states and filling them with yes-men. That’s not to discredit the way he challenged the existing system—a move that actually resonated with a lot of people who knew the real issue was the flawed structure itself. But the truth is, he had no intention of decentralizing power in the states, which is what we actually needed. Instead, he tried to centralize everything under the FGS, which was already riddled with corruption. Not exactly a smart move—just look at Hirshabelle and K/Galbeed.


The five years he spent in office should’ve been used to strengthen and decentralize the FMS, which had been set up by the previous administration. That’s the main reason people criticize him. People keep bringing up Galmudug, for example. Some people credit its progress to Farmaajo, but that’s not accurate. Galmudug’s relative success is largely due to its demographic makeup—it’s dominated by a homogenous majority (HG), which holds full control over the state’s economic corridor: the North–South highway and the towns along it.


Centralizing power in Galmudug made always sense early on because the structure of the state naturally supported it. But the real test is still ahead(Same with PL). The question is: can Dhusamareb share power eastward toward Ceelbuur, Ceeldheer, and Xarardheere? That region is socioeconomically and politically different from the highway corridor. In my view, that’s where the state’s real challenge lies.


K/Galbeed and Hirshabelle are a different story altogether. There’s no clear majority group in either state, and the main economic corridors are shared by multiple stakeholders and minorities alike. In that kind of setup, centralization just doesn’t work. No matter how much you try to consolidate power, it won’t translate into better services—and that’s why these states continue to struggle.


Hirshabelle, though, has a relatively simple fix: split it into three duchies aligned with the traditional authority of Gugundhabe (including GJ), Xawadle, and Mudulood. For the state to function properly, a fourth unit might be needed as well—possibly covering the riverbank counties, where authority could be drawn from the state constitution itself.

Disclaimer

This is a translation, I hope its coherent. Didn't check!

 

[Afrax]

I can’t take you seriously if you support that autistic wannabe dictator. He had only three redeeming qualities:
1.He was one of the first to realize the current system was unworkable.
2.He was less corrupt than others.
3.He chose a great PM.

Meanwhile, His predecessors foolishly followed whatever the midget zenawi and later his foot soldiers in Garowe wanted, aka officially dismantling Somalia for good. That fuker was planning to completely erase the idea of a Somali state.

View attachment 365805
HSM’s second term was his redemption arc, chance to atone for his absolutely disasters first term.
Are we gonna see the low iq Redlip Sharif’s redemption arc soon? I would love to see it.

That said, extreme centralization is also a bad idea. I believe in a highly decentralized unitary system. Where cities, towns and district councils have real autonomy. Same with governors and gobols. But the central government should have final authority on national and cross-gobols matters.

Who keeps the central government in check? A strong 3 party system, parliament and a strong judiciary. That’s exactly what HSM been trying to do over the last three years(minus the strong judiciary part ofc).

I want you to understand this.

We don’t have a coherent federation; we’ve stitched together two different models. The German one and the American one. Which are at odds.

The American model creates semi‑sovereign states that pre‑date the federation, but it leaves little room for a strong state‑level identity. Take California: the state exists, yet “Californians,” as a political identity, really don’t. Most day‑to‑day services are handled locally—at the county or city level—under Home Rule. On top of that, Washington can always step in to enforce federal law, so a state’s autonomy only goes so far.

The German model is opposite. It would nurture a Californian identity but never tolerate a sovereign California. German states exist because the federal government allows them to, and Article 73 forbids them from challenging that authority. Bavarian, Hamburg, or Saxon identities thrive, but those states aren’t sovereign, and they’re less decentralized than their U.S. counterparts. Most Germans are under watered down version of Dillon’s Rule and the German constitutions Article 28 limits state authority, so municipalities get only the powers the constitutions grant.

German states also administer most federal laws—and that’s fine, because nobody mistakes them for sovereign entities.

Our problem is that we(did we really write it?) cherry‑picked the worst of both systems. We ended up with what’s basically a vague MOU posing as a constitution, trapping Somalia in endless limbo, reframing the tug‑of‑war between center and periphery(I mentioned earlier) as a “constitutional crisis.” What a joke.

So now we have a German‑style federation without the strong judiciary and clear constitution that make the German model work. Our constitution hands out sub‑national identities with autonomy. That's no longer federation but something sinister designed to foster conflict in the future.

Another translation. Hope it makes sense, oh how I hate English the most retarded grammar ever!

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Kamaaludeen Al Reewin]

No disrespect but you are a strange character in my eyes. I’ve seen you post a lot of diin-based content but you don’t seem to advocate for amy kind of Islamic state. Here you are talking about centralism and clear nin-jeclaysi. Perhaps I’m the strange one for seeing a disconnect there or perhaps you are…

I get what your saying and you made a good point. But I'm talking from a realistic perspective right now. Yes an islamic nation would be ideal, but the reality right now is we have nation states. The time of islamic statehood is not right now.

Therefore we need to be realistic and do the best with what we have. And I believe that the best leader we have that would and can take Somalia to prosperity is Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo.

 

[Jaale Ugaas]

I don't we think we centralize any more, sure there a great men like Faarmajo but when a shit president comes along and wields all the power in the country what can everyone do but bend over and take it or rise up and risk restarting civil conflict.


There has to be way to force the FMS to respect the FGS but also ensure the FGS doesn't bully the FMS. Somehow this has to be achieved to bring an end to this nonsense.

 

[TheLand]

I get what your saying and you made a good point. But I'm talking from a realistic perspective right now. Yes an islamic nation would be ideal, but the reality right now is we have nation states. The time of islamic statehood is not right now.

Therefore we need to be realistic and do the best with what we have. And I believe that the best leader we have that would and can take Somalia to prosperity is Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo.

Perhaps, or perhaps you are just making a compromise in the worst sort of way. Isn’t it up to Allah when the time is? Farmaajo is just a man like you or I, but god isnt a man. All I am saying is don’t forget that. Anything else is really just noise.

 

[Hilmaam]

I want you to understand this.

We don’t have a coherent federation; we’ve stitched together two different models. The German one and the American one. Which are at odds.

The American model creates semi‑sovereign states that pre‑date the federation, but it leaves little room for a strong state‑level identity. Take California: the state exists, yet “Californians,” as a political identity, really don’t. Most day‑to‑day services are handled locally—at the county or city level—under Home Rule. On top of that, Washington can always step in to enforce federal law, so a state’s autonomy only goes so far.

The German model is opposite. It would nurture a Californian identity but never tolerate a sovereign California. German states exist because the federal government allows them to, and Article 73 forbids them from challenging that authority. Bavarian, Hamburg, or Saxon identities thrive, but those states aren’t sovereign, and they’re less decentralized than their U.S. counterparts. Most Germans are under watered down version of Dillon’s Rule and the German constitutions Article 28 limits state authority, so municipalities get only the powers the constitutions grant.

German states also administer most federal laws—and that’s fine, because nobody mistakes them for sovereign entities.

Our problem is that we(did we really write it?) cherry‑picked the worst of both systems. We ended up with what’s basically a vague MOU posing as a constitution, trapping Somalia in endless limbo, reframing the tug‑of‑war between center and periphery(I mentioned earlier) as a “constitutional crisis.” What a joke.

So now we have a German‑style federation without the strong judiciary and clear constitution that make the German model work. Our constitution hands out sub‑national identities with autonomy. That's no longer federation but something sinister designed to foster conflict in the future.

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

people submit to govts through trust or shear force. when people dont trust goverments nor fear them u have current stalemate that exists in somalia.

this stalemate may last another 30 plus years. this relation ship between people and govt also exists between states and federal govt , no trust nor power difference between each other so stalemate. Somali politics very boring it’s same stuff for 34 yrs

 

[Aiman12]

what somalia has now is not federalism, its more closer to a confederation

 

[The Oponian Guild]

what somalia has now is not federalism, its more closer to a confederation

HSM is seceding from Somalia

 

[Midas]

This is not the first time ive seen it brought up but People really need to stop talking about an "islamic state" . Its not actually a coherent idea. There's no state people can actually point to as am example of what they mean by an "Islamic state" its just this vague abstract notion that keeps being brought up. Most of governance (siyasa in arabic) has nothing to do with the avg layman's understanding of halal and haaram.

Also even taliban which is now governing Afghanistan according to islam takes loans with interest . And if you tried to tell them loans are haraam they would laugh at you and think your a little retarded becuase there's no way they could develop or build any major project without these loans.

 

[Ugazate]

Farmaajo would have been a good in the 60s he’s a nice guy,not in this era Somalis need a strong, wily , manipulative , aggressive leader like an Erdogan type, Farmaajo was so weak and meek he couldn’t even challenge weakling Madoobe and Kenya imagine battling Puntland and Somaliland with Ethiopian/UAE support

 

[Hassan Garguute Buldanana]

You are insane, speak for your state and people. The corrupt Garguute and Farmaajo before him regularly held DONOR funds for PL iska daa wax kale and you want us to completely go under these tuugos?


God bless autonomy which doesn't go far enough, I would prefer complete chaos than centralize. Balkanization preferably but nothing less than my beautiful autonomy

 

[Espaa_]

No disrespect but you are a strange character in my eyes. I’ve seen you post a lot of diin-based content but you don’t seem to advocate for amy kind of Islamic state. Here you are talking about centralism and clear nin-jeclaysi. Perhaps I’m the strange one for seeing a disconnect there or perhaps you are…

Since when did you become a changed man? Masha Allah though keep it up I support you fully