Somaliland is faced with a serious constitutional crisis due to the haranguing and squabbling over the timing of the long-awaited parliamentary elections. The blame of such a crisis can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the current administration that insists on holding such elections on a date that is so close without any infrastructure in place.

Dahir Riyaale Kaahin Pres. of Somaliland

The constitutional crisis started when Riyaale's administration prematurely announced that the long-awaited parliamentary elections would be held on March 29 th, 2005. The administration made this unrealistic announcement only 6 months prior to the date of the election. This was a unilateral arbitrary decision. Referring this contentious issue to the Supreme court for adjudication was also ill advised. The competent organ to settle a case like this one was the constitutional court which has not yet been legally established.

Riyaale's government from the outset failed to put in place all the administrative structures and the procedural framework required for a fair and free elections to take place. For example, neither the promised census nor the voter registrations were completed prior to the election date. Moreover, it seemed all along impossible to conceivably prepare all the necessary requirements in the short time frame prescribed by the administration, especially in light of the current stalemate in eastern Sanaag, Buuhoodle and Sool regions.

Furthermore, the electoral districts that were crucial and were the source of most of the disagreements in the House of Representatives (Golaha Wakiilada) were not demarcated and agreed on. None of these contentious issues were resolved to the satisfaction of either the voters or the legislature.

Yet the Administration, with a seemingly calculated mischief, falsely blamed the delay of the parliamentary elections on both houses of the legislature by accusing them of having an ulterior motive.

In his recent press conference on March 9th , 2005, the chairman of the senate (Golaha Guurtida), Mr. Suleyman Mohamoud Aden, has boldly illustrated the details of that bill that sought the postponement of the elections.

Suleyman M. Aden Chairman of the Senate

As Mr. Aden said in his press conference, the senate bill of April 21, 2003 extended the term of the House of Rep. members for two years so that the government would have time to complete the election process and procedures inorder to allow these long-awaited elections to take place in a transparent and accountable manner.

For any good election to successfully take place, consultations with and consensus reached between all the branches of the government must be realized. None of the issues, which were central to a fair and free election, were observed by the administration in its decisions regarding the setting of the date of the election. The Riyaale administration can't dictate for everyone involved as to how the election takes place without involving all interested political forces that are poised to participate in the election.

In general, competitive elections are a hallmark of all democratic systems of government. When electoral votes are conducted, the ensuing results give the wining side a wider legitimacy in the eyes of its people and outside observers. To achieve these goals, elections without exception should be governed by ostensible policies of transparency, a measure often expected from current administration.

Besides, transparency is a phenomenon acknowledged worldwide as the threshold for assessing whether a given election is free and fair. In the final analysis, the legitimacy of any parliamentary government that has won national elections is dependent on the conditions under which voters cast their ballots.

It is important, therefore, to underscore that lack of true competitive edge and transparency in the electoral process has led international and local election observers to reject the outcome of several elections in many countries in Africa and elsewhere and deny them legitimacy. For example, Zimbabwe 's presidential elections, held in March 2002, were declared not free and fair by some international observers.

Having said this, however, most elections held in Africa and Somaliland for that matter, have been sloppily conducted and have consequently either barely met the minimum criteria required for transparent processes or failed to do so.

Not surprisingly, a major cause of conflicts and civil wars in Africa are elections arising from disputed results. Cases in point are the Angolan civil war, which resumed after the 1992 elections; Madagascar's last political turmoil, which eventually led to the ousting of the president; and the current problems being experienced in Ivory Coast are all examples of disputed election results . Also, the stubborn refusal of Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) and Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) in Ethiopia to come to the negotiating table is due to the absence of fair and free elections in that country.

And Somaliland would not fair better if elections with a potentially disputed outcome were held as the administration and the opposition parties are arguing and haranguing over the timetable and the requirements for such an election.

We at wardherNews believe that the legislative branch is right for passing a bill that forces the government to finish the process and meet certain minimum requirements before any elections take place. Riyaale's administration needs to stop being recalcitrant and pay heed to the calls of the leadership of the parliament, the opposition parties, elders and the public at large and start a process of consultation that leads to an agreement on the most practical date for elections to take place. By so doing, a brief period would be at hand to permit all involved sides to lay down the foundation of the required conditions for transparent and fair elections to take place.

Following this path ensures that all stakeholders are heard and accommodated, and, even if everyone can't have their own way, a process that maximizes citizen participation on a level-ground is set in motion. In passing, we may add that, as a matter of good governance, election laws that curtail the practice of using public funds and government media by the ruling side must strictly be adhered to.

Finally, good elections do not just mean having good laws and a sense of peace, which the elders collectively worked out. Good elections also require a realistic timetable and an agreed game plan. The administration's date of March 29, 2005 is neither feasible nor agreeable to the opposition parties, to the legislator or to the elders.

Therefore, unless the Riyaale administration wants to have a disputed post election results, which could possibly trigger an internal strife and foment a constitutional crisis, there is no sense of stubbornly insisting on its timetable for the elections. A more practical date for the long-awaited elections be designated and agreed upon. This can only be resolved through dialogue, consultation and national consensus- A process in which all interested political groups should be actively involved inorder to reach a final harmoniuos settlement.

Please send comments to: editorial@wardheernews.com

Copyright © 2005 Wardheernews.com