In politics, granting a leader the benefit of the doubt is not weakness. It is a reasonable and principled starting pointโespecially in fragile states, where governing is difficult and institutions are weak. Somalia has extended this generosity repeatedly, often in the hope that patience and restraint might eventually produce responsible leadership and national recovery.
But the benefit of the doubt is not unconditional. It is limited by time, evidence, and conduct. When actions consistently contradict constitutional duty, public commitments, and basic standards of leadership, that benefit expires.
After more than four years under President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, it is no longer honestโor responsibleโ to presume good intentions.
Evidence Over Rhetoric
Good intentions are not proven by speeches, religious language, or diplomatic assurances. They are demonstrated through actions:
โขRespect for constitutional limits
โขProtection of independent institutions
โขAccountability and restraint in the exercise of power
โขCommitment to inclusive politics and national cohesion
Measured against these standards, the record is clear.
Somaliaโs current alarming condition is not the result of unavoidable mistakes or reforms blocked by circumstance. It reflects a consistent pattern of deliberate political choices that prioritize narrow interests over constitutional order and the public good.
Violations have not been corrected; they have been defended. Institutions have not been strengthened; they have been reshaped to serve political survival. Dialogue has not been pursued in good faith; it has been invoked publicly while undermined in practice.
Why the Claim โSomalia Is Better Than Yesterdayโ Fails
A common argument offered in defense of the current leadership is that โSomalia is better than yesterday.โ This claim does not withstand scrutiny.
Whatever limited progress Somalia has experienced in recent years has occurred largely because of international support, oversight, and pressure, not because of disciplined, constitutional leadership. Gains in security coordination, humanitarian response, public finance controls, and basic service delivery have been driven primarily by external funding, conditionality, and international strategic interests.
Where national leadership mattered mostโconstitutional order, elections, federal relations, judicial independence, land governance, public finance management, and political inclusionโthe trajectory has worsened, not improved.
Progress that depends on foreign pressure is not proof of good leadership. It is proof of institutional fragility. When external constraints loosen, governance repeatedly drifts toward power concentration, manipulation, and exclusion.
This is not a story of steady improvement. It is a cycle of repeated regress, violations, repackaged with new justifications but producing the same outcomes.
When Intent Can No Longer Be Excused
When unconstitutional actions are normalized rather than reversed;
When manipulation becomes routine governance practice;
When institutions are bent to protect political power instead of public trust;
When dialogue is promised but systematically hollowed outโโ intent must be judged by results, not declarations.
At this stage, failure can no longer be explained as good intentions undermined by circumstance. What we are witnessing is success according to a different, private political logicโone focused on control, self-preservation, and self enrichment, regardless of the long-term cost to the Somali state.
A Warning to Somalis and International Partners
This is not a personal attack. It is a warning grounded in evidence.
To Somalis: continuing to suspend judgment in the face of repeated violations deepens national damage and delays accountability.
To international partners: stabilizing Somalia while overlooking the character and conduct of leadership produces fragile, reversible gains that collapse the moment external pressure eases.
The benefit of the doubt has been exhausted. Continuing to grant it is no longer prudenceโit is complicity.
For Somalia, the cost of repeating this misjudgment is not abstract. It threatens the possibility of a constitutional, unified, and self-governing state.
Dr. Mohamud Uluso
