The proposed election regulations put forth by the Somali government have sparked significant debate due to their potential implications for political freedom and party autonomy. These regulations impose stringent controls on political parties, mandating rigid structures and normative frameworks that threaten to stifle political diversity and independence. These proposals align with an authoritarian mindset, aiming to centralize power and suppress dissenting voices by creating formidable barriers to emerging political alternatives.
The primary objective of these regulations is the consolidation of power within a single ruling party. By setting excessively high thresholds for party registration and operation, the proposal creates a challenging environment for diverse political views to emerge. This strategy effectively discourages the formation of independent parties that might oppose the government’s stance. The regulations are designed to marginalize or exclude parties that cannot meet these stringent requirements, thereby paving the way for a singular dominant party and silencing potential opposition.
In a democratic system, election laws are expected to safeguard the autonomy of political parties, allowing them to operate without undue interference from the government. Democratic principles demand that political parties be free to establish their own rules, regulations, and internal structures. The role of government bodies such as the National Election Commission, State Election Boards, and the National Election Assistance Commission is to ensure fair and transparent elections, not to regulate or dictate the internal affairs of political parties.
Fair democratic election laws respect the independence of political organizations and avoid unnecessary interference in their internal affairs. They focus on creating robust structures for election administration rather than micromanaging party regulations. Government agencies responsible for election oversight are tasked with ensuring transparency, managing voter registration, and maintaining the integrity of the voting system. These bodies guide election procedures and compliance with legal standards but do not involve themselves in regulating the internal workings of political parties.
Political parties, in a democratic context, are independent entities formed by groups of citizens who share common ideological beliefs. They function as public services, free from government control, manipulation, or financial burdens imposed by the state. Party members are responsible for creating and maintaining organizational structures and implementing internal rules and regulations. The government’s role should not extend to approving or interfering with these internal processes.
For example, if a political party’s national commission decides to dissolve the party during a convention, this decision should be respected without government intervention. Similarly, if the government contributes to a party’s operational costs, it should not dictate how these funds are used. The funds become the property of the party and must be managed according to its own financial rules and priorities.
The proposed regulations by the Somali government introduce several controversial elements that raise concerns about their impact on political freedom and democratic principles. These include:
- Disregard for Political Immunity: The proposal undermines the immunity of political party leaders, potentially exposing them to the government harrassments, legal, and political risks that could stifle political engagement and innovation.
- Transparency of Party Information: Requiring the public disclosure of party member identities and donor information could infringe on privacy rights and deter individuals from participating in political activities.
- Mandatory Inclusivity Requirements: The regulations mandate the inclusion of minority groups, disabled individuals, and women in party leadership positions. While these requirements aim to promote diversity, they could also be seen as government overreach into the internal governance of parties.
- Restrictions on Party Types: The proposal accepts divisive religious faction parties while excluding tribal and militant parties, potentially skewing the political landscape in favor of certain ideological groups.
- Stringent Structural Guidelines: Parties are required to follow detailed structural guidelines, including having at least a thousand delegates at conventions and making internal elections open to the public.
- Financial and Operational Controls: The regulations impose a hefty registration fee of $100,000 and make parties non-dissolvable. They also require the presence of police at all party assemblies and mandate that party documents be surrendered to government authorities.
- Government Oversight of Party Finances: Government auditors would have control over party finances, and funds provided by the government cannot be used for employee wages or benefits.
- Government Intervention in Internal Conflicts: The government would be responsible for resolving internal conflicts and lawsuits within parties, and non-compliance with the regulations could lead to disbandment.
- Criminal Penalties for Non-Compliance: Failure to adhere to the regulations could result in severe penalties, including up to five years in prison. Additionally, government and military officials are prohibited from participating in political campaigns or expressing political views publicly, even though not holding any duties in elections.
In a democratic society, officials of elections at both the national and state levels are expected to remain impartial during elections. They should avoid participating in party campaigns, fundraisings, or holding leadership positions within parties. Their sole right in the electoral process is to vote privately. Other government officials, including civil servants and military personnel, should not be restricted from supporting their parties or publicly expressing their views, as this would infringe upon their constitutional rights.
The proposed election regulations by the Somali government do not align with democratic principles of civil governance and fair election practices. Rather than focusing on improving electoral systems and ensuring transparency, the proposal seems designed to entrench the power of a single party and marginalize other political entities. By setting high barriers for party registration and imposing stringent controls, the proposal effectively excludes ordinary citizens and smaller parties from participating in the political process.
The regulations appear to favor religious faction parties and larger, well-funded entities, which could lead to an oligarchic system where only those with significant financial resources can participate meaningfully in politics. This approach undermines the democratic ideal of a level playing field where all parties, regardless of size or financial strength, have an equal opportunity to compete.
To promote a healthy democratic process, the national legislature needs to develop election laws that enhance the electoral system, ensure transparency, and uphold democratic values. Rather than imposing restrictive measures that stifle political diversity and party autonomy, the focus should be on creating a fair and inclusive electoral environment that supports the participation of a broad spectrum of political views and organizations.
Dr. Said Mohamud (Sacim)
Chair of the Somali People’s Democratic Party
saciidciise258@aol.com
