Why Did Negotiations Collapse?

Talks initially stalled disputes over advance security details and meeting venues before hitting a wall on the real issue: Who controls the next election?

Federal Government Position

• Pushes for a direct “one-person, one-vote” election. While framed as democratization, opponents view it as a centralized power grab to extend current terms.

Somali Future Council (Puntland, Jubaland, and opposition leaders) Position

• Insist on the “indirect” clan-based system, which preserves their ability to influence MP selection, leverage they would lose under the direct model.

In short: This is a battle over political survival, not just electoral policy.  

 Two scenarios now appear most likely:

 1. The Status Quo Compromise (Likely)

A familiar middle ground: a return to the 2012–2022 model, where federal and state governments co-manage indirect elections.

Trade-offs

• The opposition manages MP selection in Puntland and Jubaland, while the Federal Government oversees the remaining three member states and receives a 6–12 month technical extension to prepare for the election.

Northeast State

• This scenario hinges on resolving a critical dispute: the status of the new “Northeast State,” which Puntland considers part of its territory. The key question is who oversees the election of MPs from this state. If the Federal Government manages the process alone, the opposition would lose influence over a large bloc of seats. Without agreement on this issue, even a broader compromise could collapse.

2. Parallel Government (High Risk)

• If no compromise is reached, the opposition may form a parallel administration at the 10 April Garowe conference. This would likely trigger an immediate constitutional crisis, with competing claims of legitimacy and institutional paralysis. Such a trajectory would deepen political fragmentation and increase the risk of violence.