The Samawade Election Model: A Framework for Direct Elections in Somalia’s 4.5 Power-Sharing Formula

Introduction

For years, Somalia’s parliamentary elections have run on a simple but corrosive logic: clan elders and state assemblies choose the members of parliament, and voters are told afterward who represents them. The 4.5 formula (Ahmed, 2019; Shire, 2022; Hussein & Nalugala, 2022) made that arrangement bearable in the aftermath of state collapse — it gave every major clan family, and the minority clans grouped under the “.5,” a guaranteed share of power at a moment when nothing else could be guaranteed. However, a formula built to stop a civil war is not the same thing as a formula built to earn public trust indefinitely, and the absence of direct voter participation has steadily worn down both the legitimacy of parliament and its accountability to the people it is meant to serve (Elmi, 2019; Elmi, 2021).

That corrosive logic has a specific history. The 4.5 formula emerged from the Arta and Mbagathi reconciliation conferences of 2000 and 2002–2004, at a moment when Somalia had no functioning central government and clan elders were the only actors able to credibly vouch for who represented whom. It was written into the 2012 Provisional Constitution as a bridging arrangement, not a permanent one (Ahmed, 2019). Every parliament since — 2012, 2016/2017, and 2022 — has been seated through steadily narrowing indirect electoral colleges rather than a widening franchise, and each cycle has produced the same complaint from citizens and international partners alike: the model was supposed to be temporary. The Samawade Model takes that unmet promise as its starting point rather than treating it as background noise.

This paper’s purpose is to set out a workable answer to that problem. The Samawade Model introduces genuine, direct voting while operating within the current 4.5 framework instead of opposing it. It maintains a long-term aim of a fully district-based system. However, each element of its design is tailored to today’s political landscape rather than to the Somalia that may exist a decade from now. One of its most significant structural changes is a clear division of electoral responsibility between the national level and the Federal Member States (FMS): each state gains genuine authority over its own election processes while still adhering to shared national standards. This division strengthens the federal arrangement rather than undermining it.

It is worth being explicit about why full multiparty competition and proportional representation are not simply plugged into the existing system. Inside a 4.5 architecture, clan quotas cap how open party competition can be, which makes a clean proportional outcome difficult to achieve without either elite capture of the process or fragmentation of the vote (Affi, 2020b). Proportional systems also tend to produce powerful national parties and national candidate lists — exactly the kind of centralized, Mogadishu-facing politics that would undercut the local accountability that Somalis still expect from their representatives.

There is also a current opportunity for political collaboration. Recent talks among the Federal Government, the Somali Future Council, Nabad & Nolol, and the Somali Unity Council have produced broad agreement on two points: that direct elections are desirable, and that the 4.5 formula will remain in place for the next electoral cycle (Somali Public Agenda, 2026). What remains unsettled is everything downstream of that agreement — the electoral formula itself (FPTP versus open- or closed-list PR), how constituencies should be drawn, who should manage the process, and how voters should be registered. The Samawade Model offers a coherent response to those unanswered questions, rather than adding another proposal to the pile awaiting reconciliation.

In short, this paper presents a purpose-built transitional framework that retains 4.5 seat allocation, introduces direct FPTP voting in single-member constituencies, keeps formal political parties out of the transition, and sets a clear three-phase path toward the eventual end of clan quotas. The paper proceeds as follows: it describes the method used to develop the model, presents the model’s institutional design together with comparative evidence from other power-sharing transitions, discusses the political and operational challenges of implementation, and closes with concrete recommendations for near-term action. An appendix sets out, in full, the ten operational, security, financial, and legal frameworks that support the model, and a glossary defines the institutions and acronyms it introduces.

Method

The framework was developed using an institutional-design method that integrates three distinct lines of research: a comparative study of electoral systems in post-conflict and power-sharing contexts (Farrell, 2011; Lindberg, 2009); federalism theory as it pertains to Somalia’s constitutional framework (Ali et al., 2019; Kong, 2025); and the tangible constraints of biometric capacity, security, and administrative preparedness that are currently shaping political discussions (Burt, 2024). The primary objective throughout was to achieve legitimacy swiftly while remaining politically viable within the current 4.5 settlement — a reform that can realistically be implemented in this electoral cycle, rather than merely admired in theory.

Concretely, the design process moved through four steps. First, published negotiating positions and communiqués from the Federal Government, the Federal Member States, and opposition-aligned platforms (2025–2026) were reviewed to identify where genuine convergence already existed, rather than starting from a blank slate. Second, the comparative electoral-systems literature was screened for cases that combine fixed group quotas with some form of direct competition, so that lessons could be drawn from systems facing a structurally similar problem rather than from unrelated democracies. Third, the federalism literature was used to test whether the proposed division of federal and state electoral authority was consistent with Somalia’s constitutional trajectory rather than an ad hoc administrative convenience. Fourth, each design choice was checked against publicly reported biometric, security, and logistical capacity constraints, so that the model’s phasing reflects what is administratively achievable rather than what would be ideal in the abstract.

Analytical Framework

The central design problem this model has to solve is how to introduce real popular choice into a parliament whose seats are still allocated by clan formula. Comparative experience points clearly in one direction: First-Past-the-Post voting in single-member constituencies is simple to administer, produces a clear local winner in every seat, and — crucially — works cleanly alongside fixed seat quotas.

Proportional representation (PR) and Somalia’s 4.5 clan-quota system clash because they are built on opposite logics. PR requires national party lists, uniform vote aggregation, and ideological competition, while 4.5 requires clan-based seat allocation, elder-driven selection, and negotiated quotas. Merging the two produces technical contradictions, political disputes, and institutional paralysis.

That is why FPTP in single-member constituencies was chosen as the operating mechanism (Farrell, 2011). It is not a novel proposal for Somalia specifically: it matches the preference the lower house itself expressed back in 2019, when it rejected closed-list PR in favor of an FPTP model built around 4.5.

One additional intentional limitation was to exclude formal multi-party competition during the transitional period completely. The presence of party hierarchies would introduce additional veto points to an already complicated settlement. It would increase the likelihood of elite capture within a fixed quota system designed to safeguard minority representation rather than serve partisan interests. As a result, the model employs open candidate lists, enabling individuals to campaign based on their own qualifications and local matters instead of a national party agenda.

Comparative Lessons from Other Power-Sharing Systems

Somalia is not the first country to try to reconcile a fixed formula for group representation with a functioning electoral process, and the comparative record offers cautionary lessons as well as encouraging ones. Lebanon’s confessional system reserves parliamentary seats by religious sect but has long combined that quota with direct, multi-member district elections; it demonstrates that fixed-quota seats and direct voting are not inherently incompatible, but Lebanon’s experience also shows the downside of leaving a supposedly transitional formula permanently in place — the sectarian quota, adopted as a temporary compromise in 1943 and reaffirmed in 1989, is now widely blamed for entrenching the very elite bargains it was meant to outgrow. The Samawade Model’s phase-out clause is designed precisely to avoid that outcome.

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s post-Dayton constitution offers a related lesson from the opposite direction: its ethnic power-sharing provisions were paired with direct elections from the outset, but the absence of a credible, binding phase-out mechanism has left the ethnic quotas in place for three decades and made subsequent reform politically and legally difficult, since incumbents elected under the quota system have little incentive to dismantle it. This is why the Samawade Model treats the phase-out sequence itself — not merely the introduction of direct voting — as the load-bearing feature of the reform, and why the Legal and Constitutional Transition Framework (Appendix, Section A.6) proposes binding it to a constitutional-review sunset clause rather than to ordinary legislation that a future parliament could simply repeal.

Burundi’s experience with constitutionally fixed ethnic quotas alongside direct legislative elections shows a third pattern: quotas can coexist with direct voting and even outlast the conflict that produced them without collapsing, provided they are paired with strong, independently enforced candidate-eligibility rules. That reinforces the Samawade Model’s emphasis on an independent National Independent Election Commission (NIEC) with sole authority over eligibility and biometric verification, rather than leaving those functions to clan structures or to the states themselves. Finally, Northern Ireland’s power-sharing institutions under the Good Friday Agreement illustrate the importance of pairing direct elections with dedicated, well-resourced dispute-resolution machinery — a lesson reflected in this model’s proposal for independent electoral dispute-resolution tribunals with mixed membership (Appendix, Section A.6; Discussion, “Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms”).

Read together, these cases point to three conditions under which a fixed-quota system can support, rather than block, a later transition to full territorial representation: the quota must be explicitly framed as temporary from the start; the phase-out must be locked into binding law rather than left to future political will; and independent institutions — not the quota-holders themselves — must control eligibility, verification, and dispute resolution. The Samawade Model’s six design principles, set out next, are built to satisfy all three conditions simultaneously.

Design Principles

Six linked principles shaped every design choice that follows. Together they explain not just what the model does, but why each feature is load-bearing rather than optional.

1. The transitional allocation of 4.5 seats will be maintained for the time being, ensuring that minority clans have representation as the nation develops the security, institutional capacity, and unified national identity necessary for a comprehensive territorial electoral system in the future.
2. Direct, constituency-based elections. Single-member constituencies tie every parliamentary seat to a defined geographic or community area, so voters choose their own representative rather than having one chosen for them.
3. First-Past-the-Post voting. Simple to run, decisive in its outcomes, and fully compatible with fixed seat quotas — unlike proportional alternatives.
4. No official parties; open candidate lists. Competition stays local and merit-based, avoiding a collision between multiparty dynamics and clan quotas before the institutions exist to manage that collision.
5. Strong institutional safeguards. The National Independent Election Commission (NIEC) runs federal elections; biometric registration and verification are mandatory; voting happens on a single nationwide day; ten polling centers per Federal Member State plus dedicated Benadir centers serve Somaliland seats; and 30 percent of seats are reserved for women.
6. Decentralized federal–state architecture. Each Federal Member State runs its own Independent State Election Commission (ISEC) for state and municipal elections, adapting the core principles to local conditions while still meeting national standards for biometrics, integrity, and interoperability.

Scope and Limitations

This analysis is normative and design-oriented rather than empirical — it does not rely on original survey data or experimental findings. Its validity rests on how well it aligns with Somalia’s federal constitutional structure, the insights it draws from comparative electoral reform in post-conflict settings, and a transparent evaluation of existing capacity gaps. The assumptions regarding biometric systems, logistics for a single-day national election, and incremental security improvements are stated explicitly so they can be scrutinized and adapted in practical application rather than accepted unquestioningly. The analysis also draws on experience: Somalia’s initial democratic efforts under Aden A. Osman and Abdirazak H. Hussein (Samatar, 2016), and the deliberative state-formation process in Somaliland (Walls, 2011) — two episodes that show homegrown democratic institution-building is not foreign to Somali political history.

A further limitation follows from the method itself: because the model was built through institutional-design synthesis rather than fieldwork, it has not been tested against direct interviews with clan elders, party organizers, or election administrators, and its phase benchmarks (set out in full in the appendix) should be treated as a starting point for empirical calibration rather than as fixed thresholds. Subsequent work that incorporates household surveys, elite interviews, or pilot-district data would strengthen the evidentiary base underlying the design choices set out here.

Two further boundaries are worth stating plainly. First, the model does not attempt to resolve the underlying question of whether the 4.5 formula’s clan definitions themselves are fair or fixed correctly — that is a separate, prior political settlement the model deliberately takes as given rather than re-litigates. Second, the model’s cost and timeline assumptions (Appendix, Section A.5) are presented as planning estimates rather than budget commitments; actual figures will depend on donor coordination, security conditions, and the pace at which biometric infrastructure already under deployment (Burt, 2024) becomes fully interoperable across Federal Member States.

Model Architecture

Core Architecture at the Federal Level

At the federal level, the model keeps the 4.5 formula for seat allocation but replaces indirect selection with direct FPTP elections in single-member constituencies. Candidates stand as individuals on open lists, not as party nominees. The National Independent Election Commission holds sole responsibility for federal parliamentary elections and uses biometric registration and verification throughout. Voting takes place on one nationwide day, with ten centers in each Federal Member State and additional dedicated centers in Benadir for Somaliland seats. Thirty percent of seats are reserved for women. Each of these features tracks a point of feasible compromise that has already emerged in the political negotiations — particularly the preference for FPTP, the continued use of 4.5, and the insistence on independent federal management of the process.

Decentralized Administration at State and Local Levels

Each Federal Member State establishes its own Independent State Election Commission, responsible for state assembly and municipal elections. These commissions may adopt direct voting, FPTP or hybrid systems, open candidate processes, and gender quotas suited to local conditions — provided they meet national standards on biometrics, integrity, and coordination. This division of labor respects Somalia’s federal arrangement, builds administrative capacity at the state level, and reduces the risk of over-centralization that has undermined earlier reform efforts.

Phasing Plan

The model moves through three sequential phases that turn today’s transitional 4.5 arrangement into a fully district-based system over time. The table below summarizes the focus and objective of each phase; the appendix sets out the measurable benchmarks that govern progression from one phase to the next.

This sequence is consistent with the broader nation-building goal of moving from clan-mediated power-sharing toward a system grounded in individual citizenship, territorial districts, and competitive but regulated political participation. The Samawade Model supplies a workable system for the 4.5 period while actively preparing the ground for its own eventual replacement — it is designed to be outgrown, not preserved.

Implementation Work-Streams

Delivering this architecture requires six work-streams to move forward together, since a delay in any one of them stalls the rest. Table 2a assigns lead responsibility and an indicative timeframe to each, consistent with the Phase 1 benchmarks set out in the appendix.

Expected Benefits

Taken together, these design choices are expected to deliver six concrete gains:

• Immediate gains in legitimacy and inclusion, because every registered voter casts a direct vote for a specific representative.
• A sequenced, transparent path from the present 4.5 settlement to a post-4.5 order, reducing the risk of sudden institutional collapse.
• Federal consistency combined with local discretion: national standards on integrity and biometrics sit alongside state control of state and local elections.
• Avoidance of premature multiparty or proportional experiments that would clash with clan quotas and raise the risk of elite capture or fragmentation.
• Systematic capacity-building at both levels, so a cadre of trained election administrators is ready for a future district-based system.
• Stronger accountability, because representatives answer to geographically or community-defined constituencies rather than to elders or party hierarchies.

Discussion: Managing the Transition

The Samawade Model treats the 4.5 formula as a provisional stabilization device — one meant, eventually, to be replaced by a district-based electoral system grounded in one-person-one-vote. It keeps 4.5 only for seat allocation, while delivering direct elections through single-member constituencies and open candidate lists. The transition is carefully sequenced so that institutional and security capacity can be built up over time, allowing the move from clan quotas to territorial representation to happen without abrupt disruption.

The Transitional Character of 4.5

It is worth stating this plainly: without the eventual removal of 4.5, there can never be a full multiparty system or a proportional election that produces genuine one-person-one-vote outcomes (Hashi et al., 2025). The model is built for the transitional reality as it actually stands today. It retains 4.5 for seat distribution; it delivers direct voting through FPTP in single-member districts; it uses open lists and keeps formal parties out so that multiparty dynamics do not collide with quotas before the institutions exist to manage that collision; and it supplies clear local representation without the added complexity that proportional representation would introduce under clan constraints.

In the longer run, Somalia should abolish clan-based seat allocation entirely and replace it with districts based on population, geography, and one-person-one-vote. The 4.5 formula is a necessary but temporary tool, and it must be phased out as institutions mature, security improves, and a shared national identity takes firmer root.

Challenges and Mitigations

No transition of this scale is without friction. Four obstacles stand out, along with the concrete response the model builds in for each.

A fifth risk, not fully captured in the table above, is fiscal: a single-day, biometrically verified national election is expensive, and funding shortfalls could force delays that themselves become politically destabilizing. The Funding and Sustainability Framework (Appendix, Section A.5) is designed specifically to manage this risk through diversified financing and transparent quarterly reporting, so that funding gaps are visible and addressed early rather than discovered close to polling day.

Implications for Nation-Building

By treating 4.5 as a bridge rather than a permanent settlement, the model turns a stabilization device into a structured pathway toward individual citizenship and territorial representation. At the same time, separating federal and state electoral administration strengthens the federal bargain itself and builds the administrative capacity a pure district system will eventually require. The three-phase approach lowers the risk of sudden institutional rupture and gives both elites and ordinary citizens time to adjust their expectations as the system evolves.

Placed in comparative perspective, the Samawade Model follows a pattern visible in other post-conflict and power-sharing states: a fixed formula for allocating power is retained just long enough to let direct electoral competition take root, and is then phased out once administrative and security capacity catch up (Farrell, 2011). Somalia’s federal arrangement adds a further layer to that pattern, since federalism theory suggests that durable power-sharing settlements tend to survive the transition away from group-based quotas only when subnational units retain real administrative authority throughout the process rather than having it withdrawn at the center’s convenience (Ali et al., 2019; Kong, 2025). The division of federal and state electoral administration built into the Samawade Model is therefore not only a technical convenience; it is also what comparative federalism research suggests is necessary for the transition to hold politically once the 4.5 formula itself is gone.

Securing the Elections

Direct elections under this model will only succeed if a credible, independently managed security architecture is in place before the first ballot is cast. Somalia’s past peace processes show clearly that agreements alone are not enough when armed actors retain the capacity to disrupt outcomes. Clan-based protection remains the basic social safety net for many Somalis. However, it does not automatically protect an electoral process from organized violence or ideological spoilers, especially in key urban centers. A multi-tiered security plan — covering institutional command, dedicated electoral security units, risk zoning, candidate and voter protection, material security, civil-military coordination, and contingency measures — is therefore a precondition for the model, not an afterthought. The full framework is set out in Appendix, Section A.2.

Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms

Electoral reform in Somalia cannot be separated from the broader project of conflict resolution. Earlier mediation efforts at Arta and Mbagathi showed both the value and the limits of elite-driven peace conferences (Elmi & Barise, 2006; Schlee, 2008). Property disputes, displacement, and unresolved grievances continue to fuel local conflict today and raise the risk of electoral violence tomorrow. Traditional institutions such as xeer and councils of elders remain in use, but their reach has narrowed after decades of conflict and the rise of armed Islamist movements.

The model therefore calls for additional instruments beyond the electoral machinery itself: independent electoral dispute-resolution tribunals with mixed membership, expedited property-restitution processes where they affect constituency delimitation, and strengthened local mediation capacity that can be deployed before, during, and after voting. These mechanisms have to be shielded from dominant armed factions and properly resourced, so that technical integrity on paper is matched by social legitimacy on the ground.

Gender Equity and Women’s Participation

Women face heightened vulnerability in both conflict and electoral settings, yet they have repeatedly shown themselves to be drivers of change in Somali political life (Affi, 2020a). Gender considerations have to be built into the design from the start rather than added afterward, which is why the model includes a 30 percent women’s seat reservation as a core principle, not a supplementary target (ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, n.d.). Making that commitment real requires enforceable reserved seats or candidate quotas, specific safeguarding protocols for female candidates and voters, targeted capacity-building, and gender-balanced composition of electoral management bodies themselves. Appendix, Section A.3 sets out the concrete measures needed to deliver on this principle.

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Samawade Election Model supplies a practical transitional framework suited to Somalia’s present political and institutional conditions, while also laying out a structured pathway toward a district-based, one-person-one-vote system that moves beyond clan allocations altogether. By combining direct First-Past-the-Post elections, decentralized electoral governance, and a defined phase-out strategy, the model aims to strengthen democratic practice at every level of government while protecting the political settlement that has, so far, prevented a return to large-scale conflict.

Recommended Steps

1. Create a National Electoral Reform Commission with complete representation of the Federal Member States to refine the model, arrange detailed timelines, and oversee the transition.
2. Write explicit transitional and phase-out provisions into the forthcoming electoral law and the broader constitutional review.
3. Launch inclusive national and regional dialogues on the move from 4.5 power-sharing to territorial districts based on population and geography.
4. Make early, substantial investments in electoral infrastructure, biometric systems, and civic education, so the technical and cultural foundations for direct elections are in place before political space expands further.
5. Design and fund a comprehensive, multi-tiered electoral security plan, including specialized security units, coordination with national and international forces, protocols to protect candidates and voters (especially women), and contingency arrangements for high-risk areas.
6. Create independent electoral dispute-resolution bodies that include traditional elders, legal professionals, and women’s representatives, and accelerate property-restitution processes that affect constituency boundaries.
7. Implement the gender quota through enforceable candidate and seat provisions, capacity-building for female candidates and staff, and gender-balanced representation inside every electoral management body.

If the model is adopted and carried through with discipline, it can help Somalia build institutions that place the individual citizen, rather than the clan, at the center of political life. The choice ahead is not between stability and democracy, but about how deliberately Somalia sequences the move from one to the other — and the Samawade Model is offered as that sequence.

Appendix: Detailed Supporting Frameworks

Delivering the Samawade Model requires ten supporting frameworks covering operational, security, financial, legal, and governance detail. These were developed alongside the main model and are set out here in full, one framework at a time, with the concrete mechanisms, responsible institutions, and sequencing that turn each design principle into an implementable program. A condensed summary table (Table A1) follows the ten sections for quick reference.

A.1. Voter Registration and Voting Operations

Voting infrastructure is organized around ten fixed, biometrically verified centers per Federal Member State, supplemented by dedicated Benadir centers that serve Somaliland’s allocated seats given the region’s separate administrative status. All voting takes place on a single nationwide day to reduce the window of exposure to security threats and to keep the count synchronized and auditable.

• Fixed biometric registration and verification at every polling center, cross-checked against the national register maintained under Section A.4 (Federal–State Coordination Framework).
• Accessibility measures for voters with disabilities and older voters, including priority queuing, ground-floor or ramped access, and assisted-voting protocols that preserve ballot secrecy.
• A temporary districting protocol for Northeastern State, pending the joint delimitation study described in Section A.9, so that seat allocation there is not held hostage to an unresolved boundary question.
• Standardized chain-of-custody procedures for ballots and biometric devices between polling centers and NIEC counting facilities.

A.2. Electoral Security Plan

Electoral security is organized as a distinct command structure, separate from ordinary policing, so that responsibility for protecting the vote cannot be diffused across agencies with competing priorities. A coordination committee chaired by the NIEC brings together federal security agencies, Federal Member State authorities, and international partners under a single operational picture.

• Dedicated, lightly armed electoral security units assigned specifically to polling centers, biometric registration sites, and counting facilities, distinct from general-purpose security forces.
• Risk-tiered zoning that classifies constituencies by threat level and adjusts the security posture, polling-day timing, and contingency planning accordingly.
• Candidate and voter protection protocols, including threat reporting channels and rapid-response arrangements for credible threats against candidates, especially women (see Section A.3).
• Secure chain-of-custody procedures for ballots and biometric data, with tamper-evident materials and independent witnesses at each handover.
• A defined, subordinate role for AUSSOM and other international security partners, in support of Somali-led command rather than in place of it, funded through the Funding and Sustainability Framework (Section A.5).

A.3. Gender Equity, Participation, and Security

This framework turns the model’s 30 percent women’s seat reservation from a stated target into an enforceable and protected entitlement, recognizing that formal quotas without safeguarding measures tend to produce token candidacies rather than durable political participation.

• An enforceable 30 percent seat reservation across both houses, implemented through candidate-eligibility rules rather than left to voluntary compliance.
• Candidate mentorship and campaign-skills training for women standing in single-member constituencies, delivered in partnership with civil-society and women’s organizations.
• A Gender Electoral Security Sub-Committee, reporting to the main electoral security coordination committee, responsible for gender-specific risk zoning, protection details for female candidates, and polling-center safeguards such as separate queuing and female staffing at registration points.
• A 24/7 gender-based violence (GBV) incident-response system covering the full electoral cycle, from candidate nomination through post-election dispute resolution.
• Digital-harassment monitoring, given the documented pattern of online intimidation targeting Somali women in public life.
• Independent gender audits conducted after each phase, with findings reported to the Transition Readiness Review Board (Section A.10).

A.4. Federal–State Coordination Framework

Because the model deliberately splits electoral authority between the NIEC and the state-level ISECs, a standing coordination mechanism is required to keep the two levels aligned on shared standards while respecting each state’s genuine authority over its own elections.

• A Federal–State Coordination Council, with representation from the NIEC and every ISEC, that sets shared technical standards for biometrics, data management, and logistics.
• A clear division of NIEC and ISEC responsibilities, documented in a public memorandum of understanding, so that jurisdictional disputes can be resolved by reference to an agreed text rather than negotiated ad hoc during an electoral cycle.
• A two-stage dispute-resolution process — mediation first, followed by binding arbitration — for disagreements between federal and state electoral authorities.
• A shared, real-time operations dashboard tracking registration numbers, polling-center status, and security incidents across all Federal Member States on election day.

A.5. Funding and Sustainability Framework

A single-day, biometrically verified national election carries substantial fixed costs, and funding uncertainty is one of the more likely reasons an otherwise sound reform could stall. This framework is designed to diversify funding sources and make shortfalls visible early.

• A Multi-Year Electoral Financing Framework combining federal budget allocations, state co-financing for ISEC operations, and a unified donor basket fund administered under a single set of fiduciary standards.
• An annually updated cost model covering biometric infrastructure, polling-center operations, security, and civic education, revised as actual Phase 1 costs become known.
• A cost-benefit analysis comparing the financing framework’s costs against the legitimacy and stability benefits of direct elections, to support continued donor and domestic political buy-in.
• Quarterly public financial reporting, so that funding gaps are identified and addressed months before they could force a delay to the election calendar.

A.6. Legal and Constitutional Transition Framework

Comparative experience — including Lebanon’s and Bosnia and Herzegovina’s difficulty in ever phasing out ostensibly temporary quota systems — shows that a transition framed only in political communiqués is vulnerable to reversal once the immediate crisis that produced it has passed. This framework is designed to give the transition legal force that outlasts any single government.

• A proposed Transitional Electoral Act that gives the NIEC and ISEC mandates, the 4.5 seat-allocation rules, and the biometric-registration requirement the force of binding federal law.
• A phase-out clause, sequenced with the broader constitutional review, that commits Somalia to the timeline in Table 2 rather than leaving the end date to future political negotiation.
• A constitutional-review sunset clause specifically covering the 4.5 formula, so that the transition to territorial districts cannot later be reversed by ordinary legislation alone.
• Independent judicial review of NIEC and ISEC decisions, to ensure electoral administration remains subject to the rule of law rather than to executive discretion.

A.7. Voter Access and Multi-Tier Polling

Somalia’s mix of urban centers, remote rural areas, and a large internally displaced population means that a single polling-center model would leave significant numbers of eligible voters effectively disenfranchised. This framework sets out a tiered approach to reach them.

• A three-tier polling architecture: fixed centers in population hubs, mobile registration and voting units for harder-to-reach communities, and temporary satellite stations for election day itself in areas without permanent infrastructure.
• A dedicated registration protocol for internally displaced persons (IDPs), recognizing displacement status without requiring proof of permanent residence that many IDPs cannot produce.
• GIS-based mapping to identify under-served areas and route mobile units efficiently rather than on an ad hoc basis.
• Coordination with humanitarian actors already operating in IDP settlements, to avoid duplicating outreach infrastructure.

A.8. Elite Incentive and Resistance-Management Framework

Any credible phase-out of 4.5 withdraws a guarantee that specific political and clan elites currently rely on, and pretending that resistance will not materialize would be naïve. This framework treats managing that resistance as a design problem in its own right rather than as a matter of political will alone.

• Guaranteed minority protections that persist even after 4.5 itself is retired, so that minority clans are not asked to give up their only safeguard without a durable replacement.
• Time-limited transitional roles for elites whose current influence depends on the indirect-selection system, giving them a stake in an orderly transition rather than an incentive to obstruct it.
• Performance-based rewards — including priority access to capacity-building resources and technical assistance — for Federal Member States that lead on transition benchmarks rather than lag behind them.
• Recurring inclusive dialogues, modeled on the 2025–2026 talks that produced initial convergence on direct elections, designed to convert potential spoilers into stakeholders throughout the transition rather than only at its outset.

A.9. Federal Boundary Delimitation Commission

The eventual move from 4.5 seat allocation to population-based districts (Phase 3) depends entirely on having a credible, depoliticized process for drawing district boundaries. Without one, districting itself could become as contentious as the clan quotas it replaces.

• An independent Federal Boundary Delimitation Commission, insulated from direct political appointment, tasked with drawing population-based districts using published, rule-based criteria.
• Use of biometric registration data as an interim population proxy pending a full national census, with clear rules for how discrepancies between the two are reconciled once census data becomes available.
• A dedicated Boundary Appeals Tribunal to hear disputes over proposed district lines, kept separate from the main electoral dispute-resolution tribunals described in Section A.6.
• Pilot delimitation in the most stable regions first, consistent with the Phase 2 pilot-districting approach in Table 2, so that methodological lessons are learned before boundaries are drawn in contested areas such as Northeastern State.

A.10. Transition Timeline and Readiness Framework

The three-phase sequence in Table 2 is only credible if progression from one phase to the next is tied to measurable conditions rather than to a fixed calendar that ignores whether the underlying capacity actually exists. This framework supplies that gate-keeping mechanism.

• Measurable benchmarks covering biometric-coverage thresholds, security readiness, and administrative capacity that must be met before the transition can advance from one phase to the next.
• A Transition Readiness Review Board, with federal, state, and independent civil-society representation, that reports publicly every 18 months on progress against these benchmarks.
• A defined consequence structure — partial progression in some Federal Member States, or a temporary system-wide freeze — that applies automatically when benchmarks are not met, so that missed targets are addressed rather than quietly waived.
• A standing feedback loop between this framework and the Funding and Sustainability Framework (Section A.5), so that financing decisions and readiness assessments inform each other rather than proceeding on separate tracks.

Summary Table

Table A1 condenses the ten frameworks above into a single reference table. It is intended as a navigational aid; the full mechanisms, responsible institutions, and sequencing for each framework are set out in Sections A.1 through A.10.

Together, these frameworks turn the model’s six design principles into an implementable program: they specify who runs what, how it is paid for, how disputes are resolved, and what must be true before the transition can advance from one phase to the next.

Glossary of Key Terms and Acronyms

References

1. ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. (n.d.). Legislated candidate quotas. https://aceproject.org/
2. Affi, L. (2020a). Excluding women: The clanization of Somali political institutions. Chr. Michelsen Institute.
3. Affi, L. (2020b). “The old men who hold us back”: Clan elders, elite bargaining and exclusionary politics. Journal of Somali Studies, 7(2).
4. Ahmed, N. (2019). Somalia’s struggle to integrate traditional and modern governance systems: The 4.5 formula and the 2012 Provisional Constitution. Journal of Somali Studies, 6(1), 41–69.
5. Ali, A. Y. S., Dahir, A. H., & Hersi, Z. D. (2019). Federalism in post-conflict states: Assessing Somalia’s challenges and the way forward. Perspectives on Federalism, 11(2), E-54–E-92.
6. Burt, C. (2024, May 7). Somalia unveils DPI tools for biometric verification, ID issuance and service access. Biometric Update.
7. Elmi, A. (2019). The politics of the electoral system in Somalia: An assessment. Bildhaan: An International Journal of Somali Studies, 19, 99–118.
8. Elmi, A. A. (2021). The politics of the electoral system in Somalia: An assessment. Journal of Somali Studies, 6(1), 1–25.
9. Elmi, A. A., & Barise, A. (2006). The Somali conflict: Root causes, obstacles, and peace-building strategies. African Security Review, 15(1), 32–54.
10. Farrell, D. M. (2011). Electoral systems: A comparative introduction (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Hashi, M. B., Abdi, A.-N. M., & Oo, Y. H. (2025). Beyond the 4.5 clan quotas: Evaluating the feasibility of a merit-based and inclusive federal power-sharing model in Somalia. Cogent Social Sciences, 11(1).
12. Hussein, A., & Nalugala, R. (2022). The influence of the Somali clan system on electoral governance in Somalia. International Journal of Political Science and Public Administration.
13. Kong, L. (2025). Federalism: A comprehensive review of its evolution, typologies, and contemporary issues. Encyclopedia, 5(4), Article 156.
14. Lindberg, S. I. (2009). A theory of elections as a mode of transition. In S. I. Lindberg (Ed.), Democratization by elections: A new mode of transition (pp. 314–341). Johns Hopkins University Press.
15. Samatar, A. I. (2016). Africa’s first democrats: Somalia’s Aden A. Osman and Abdirazak H. Hussein. Indiana University Press.
16. Schlee, G. (2008). Conflict resolution: The experience with the Somali peace process. In How enemies are made: Towards a theory of ethnic and religious conflicts. Berghahn Books.
17. Shire, M. I. (2022). The 4.5 clan model: A Somali-owned solution. Kormeeraha Magazine.
18. Somali Public Agenda. (2026, July). Finding common ground: Towards a compromise electoral framework for Somalia’s future federal elections (Governance Brief 48).
19. Walls, M. (2011). State formation in Somaliland: Bringing deliberation to institutionalism [Doctoral dissertation, University College London].