Federalism & post-conflict statebuilding: The case of Somalia

Abstract

The use of federalism as an integral component in post-conflict statebuilding processes is becoming increasingly common (e.g. Iraq, Yemen & Sri Lanka). The current academic literature, however, is divided between those that argue that federalism in such fragile environments will increase the likelihood of secession and ‘balkanisation’ and that those that argue that only federalism can provide the periphery with constitutionally protected rights against the centre. However, currently there is little empirical evidence to support either view. This research seeks to contribute to this gap by assessing whether the recent introduction of federalism in Somalia since 2013 has led to the delivery of tangible governance and peacebuilding outcomes. This thesis specifically focuses on the federalism process in Jubaland, a state which formed in 2013. Data was gathered across the region using a statistically significant perception survey and was supplemented by Key Informant Interviews. The surveys were designed to assess public opinion towards federalism and understand how its introduction was perceived to have impacted local governance and conflict dynamics. This analysis was further extended to assess the impact of federalism in other federal member states including Puntland, Galmadug and Southwest based on a review of available secondary literature. An analytical framework assessed the strength of Federal Government-Federal Member State, intra-state and inter-state relations and the extent to which a particular state had undertook tangible governance reforms. The key findings of the research indicate that the population in Jubaland is strongly supportive of federalism in principle and the manner in which it has been implemented. Federalism was seen by the majority of the population as a way of maintaining Somali unity whilst protecting local interests and meeting ocal needs. The approach of the Jubaland authorities to adopt a consociational approach to governance led to the establishment of a sustainable political settlement and the inclusion of minority groups for the first time. However, these successes have not been experienced more widely across Somalia. Other federal member states have experienced poor relations with the federal government. Internally, some states also have weak and violent relations with groups who are competing for influence and poor external relationships with other federal member states. In general, there is a low commitment to governance reform at federal-state level. These findings underpin the final conclusion that whilst federalism in Somalia has enabled improved governance and peacebuilding outcomes in Jubaland, it is the manner of how federal governance has been implemented in other federal states that explains the disparity in results across the country as a whole. More widely, this research suggests that federalism in post-conflict contexts is neither a panacea for peace and stability, or in of itself, a catalyst for inevitable fragmentation.