Why Are Elections Accepted in Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Uganda—But Delayed in Somalia?
- Somali Elects
- May 25
- 2 min read
While Somalia continues to be told that it is not "ready" for direct elections, neighboring countries like Ethiopia, Djibouti, Uganda, and Kenya regularly conduct elections — without being subjected to unrealistic standards of perfection. This contradiction highlights a troubling double standard in international engagement with Somali democracy.
Elections Without Perfection: The Regional Reality
Ethiopia: Despite complex internal conflicts and disputed regions, Ethiopia holds regular elections. The electoral board is not free from government influence, and the judiciary lacks full independence. Yet, Ethiopians vote.
Djibouti: President Ismaïl Omar Guelleh has ruled since 1999. Elections are held routinely with no real opposition. There is no constitutional court overseeing electoral fairness, and yet, no one questions Djibouti’s readiness for elections.
Uganda: President Yoweri Museveni has been in power since 1986. The Electoral Commission is appointed by the President. International observers have long cited irregularities, but Uganda holds elections.
Kenya: Though seen as relatively more democratic, Kenya’s elections are still marred by claims of fraud, violence, and court disputes. Yet the democratic process is never halted — because the right to vote is seen as a basic expectation.
In none of these countries are elections stopped due to the absence of a perfectly “independent” electoral commission or constitutional court. Why then is Somalia, with comparable or even stronger safeguards, being told to wait?
Somalia: A Manufactured Delay
Somalia’s lack of elections for 35 years is not due to an absence of public readiness — it's due to elite resistance and international indecision.
In fact, Somalia:
Has a Provisional Constitution that allows for universal suffrage.
Has established electoral bodies at both federal and state levels.
Has a politically engaged youth population demanding direct elections.
Has demonstrated peaceful civic participation in past voter registration drives.
What Somalia lacks is not the “mechanism” for elections — it lacks the political will and international support to implement them.
Direct Elections Are Not Optional — They Are Essential
Somalia cannot afford to maintain a system where political leaders are chosen by clan-based delegates behind closed doors. This model rewards patronage, fuels corruption, and excludes the majority of citizens from governance.
If Ethiopia and Uganda can vote amid conflict and political challenges, so can Somalia.If Djibouti can hold elections without an independent judiciary, so can Somalia.If Kenya can organize national elections despite its own challenges, so can Somalia.
Conclusion: Stop the Double Standards. Let Somalis Vote.
The international community must stop treating democracy as a privilege Somalis must earn — and start treating it as a right they already possess. Somalis are not asking for anything more than what their neighbors already have: the right to vote, directly and freely.
Comments