Considering the nation's recent tumultuous history, Federalism with strong member States, and a weak Federal gov't, for now, as in option D, is the only option. Reflecting on phases US Federalism had gone through would benefit the discourse.What are your stances?
A- Strict centralism where all power is concentrated in the capital. Representation within the central gov however is clan diverse where any Somali can take any position including presidency. Regional governance is limited to only the district level or the 18 regions with power being minimal
B- Centralism with aspects of Fedralism based on the 18 regions. The central government is still the strongest entity in every corner of the country however the gobols enjoy a minimal level of local governance and each gobol is given a budget by the federal government based on their populations to handle their internal affaies
C- Fedralism. This is where each of the 6 states (and whatever new ones are made) manage their own affairs similarly but not identical to our system of today. We will maintain an upper and lower house and encompass all forms of modern day federalism. The states will enjoy some autonomy in managing the states as well as collecting a small amount of state tax. We will however have a strong FGS where most things including foreign affairs, education, the military etc will be centralised. The FGS would be much stronger than the states.
D- Fedralism with a weak FGS. This isnβt much different to normal federalism only that the FGS is much weaker than the states. The 6 states handle all their own affairs. Most taxes would go to the states with only the bare minimum being used to maintain the FGS.
E- Confederalism. The FGS practically has no power outside the capital. The states function as independent countries with their owm militaries. The FGS handles only the essential things like foreign affairs and currency.
F- Aan kala yaacno. Independence for all with strict borders
If your thinking something different feel free to add on