Ask people what they expect from government, and the answers are always practical: water, security, schools, sanitation. A study of more than 400 Mogadishu residents confirmed what people say on the street – citizens are more likely to trust their local authorities when they are included in decisions. And only when that involvement leads to something tangible, like a repaired road or a grievance resolved, does that trust deepen.
Somalia’s political landscape has traditionally been shaped by high-level negotiations and agreements among elites. However, evidence suggests that lasting stability depends on conditions established through inclusive processes rooted in trust. Such trust is cultivated gradually, beginning at the grassroots level and reinforced by tangible improvements in everyday life.
We see this clearly in the work of the Somalia Stability Fund (SSF). In Baidoa, the Fund created space for district councils and communities to sit together. People saw their concerns reflected in decisions, and that shift mattered more than any major pronouncement. In Warsheikh, the Fund supported collaboration between district and state authorities that reformed revenue collection and management. These technical changes indicated that local government can operate in a responsive, accountable, and transparent manner. Such changes address issues related to unorthodox and predatory taxation practices by non-state actors, which may contribute to broader stability. For donors, the implication is that minor adjustments in local governance can result in observable improvements in stability, with long-term consolidation potentially achieved through multi-level engagement between states and citizens.
Research reinforces this. The Mogadishu study also found that the strongest driver of trust was responsiveness: how quickly and effectively the local administration acted on citizen concerns. Not the kind of performative transparency where reports are just published on websites, but responsiveness that people can see and feel they are benefitting from.
The way local authorities are chosen also matters. In many contexts – and not just fragile ones – local officials are usually appointed from above and remain accountable to political patrons, not citizens. In Southwest State, Puntland and Jubaland, the Fund supported processes where communities participated in informing how local government’s work in their own district councils. Because the councils’ mandate came from the people, they enjoyed greater acceptance and influence. In one district, when a councillor was unfairly removed, public outcry was so strong that the state president had to intervene. That kind of downward accountability is rare, but it shows that citizens know where real authority lies. For donors, this demonstrates that participatory governance is not just a procedural reform – it is a visible anchor of stability.
Services themselves are part of the social contract and can contribute to stability. When governments deliver fairly and consistently, trust follows. In Xero-Jaale, addressing water access disputes at essential water points facilitated opportunities for collaborative management of scarce critical resources. Implementing localised approaches to water governance established direct connections between resource sharing and community peacebuilding initiatives. SSF’s infrastructure projects across the country – new roads, bridges, even airstrips – did more than improve access. Government-supported initiatives signalled that government was present and interested in people’s lives. In Bahdo, facing insecurity and humanitarian challenges, the Fund supported resilience-building initiatives that brought together community actors and local government. These efforts gave real meaning to the idea of a social contract, even under difficult conditions. For donors, this highlights how projects that communities are impacted by can strengthen both capacity and stability at the same time.
But trust is not built by services alone. It is about fairness, access, and inclusion. If a new road benefits some groups while excluding others, trust erodes. Citizens care about whether services are delivered equitably and whether pathways for their inputs to resolving grievances are available. SSF’s support for participatory governance at both state and local levels continues to be critical. The Fund intentionally prioritises inclusion, ensuring that women, displaced populations, and minority groups are meaningfully represented. In Herale, this approach demonstrated how transparent and inclusive local governance offers agency to communities long affected by insecurity and vulnerability.
For donors, the message is clear: inclusion is not a peripheral concern – it is central to stability. Yet local governments cannot succeed in isolation. They require adequate resources, political backing, and protection from interference to function effectively and sustain public trust. They rely on state and federal governments to provide frameworks that support navigating its application to sustain stability. Without this support, fragile trust at the local level is easily undermined.
Elite deals may be necessary, but alone it is not enough and should be incorporated to governing for stability. It is anchored in everyday trust. Backing local governments and their communities with resources, legitimacy, and protection from interference is the surest way to ground Somalia’s future. Donors must stay the course, support local voices, and ensure that trust is built where it matters most – in the daily lives of Somali citizens.
Suvojit Chattopadhyay
Head of Africa
Ayan Mohammed
Democratisation and Local Governance Technical Lead
—
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ASI (Adam Smith International).
