Observers: These are the reasons for the failure of the democratic path in Libya after the February 2011 revolution

Observers attribute the failure of the democratic path in Libya after the February 2011 revolution to several factors, the most important of which are political money, weapons, and tribal and regional diets. Without overcoming these phenomena, the country will not leave the category of dictatorial states.

Al Arab London – Libya has maintained its position in the club of dictatorships despite the passage of 13 years since the launch of the popular uprising that overthrew the regime of the late leader Muammar Gaddafi after raising the slogan of building democracy and breaking with individual rule and the era of political tyranny.

According to the Democracy Index for 2023, recently issued by the Intelligence Unit of the International Economist Group, Libya ranked 157th in the world alongside Algeria, which indicates the failure of the political elites to form a realistic plan to establish a democratic path in the country.

The head of the Change Party, Gomaa El-Gamati, considered that the February Revolution succeeded in the mission of ending dictatorship, while the Libyans did not succeed in the most important project, which is building a democratic state.

The United Nations Support Mission in Libya says that it is harnessing its efforts in support of unified, elected, legitimate and effective government institutions, and in an effort to achieve political stability and reconciliation in Libya by supporting the Libyan-Libyan dialogue and enhancing work with regional parties to help Libyan leaders overcome their differences and work towards the reunification of Libyan institutions. .

However, since 2011, the international community has been at a standstill in talking about a pluralistic democratic path in Libya, a path that has turned into military, political, governmental and social division, to the point that the international goal has become to work to avoid further division instead of achieving the democratic equation in a society that was not Ready for it.

Observers cannot bypass the Libyan scene without considering a number of important facts, including the emergence of emerging dictatorships that rely on money, weapons, and tribal and regional diets, which now possess all the elements of control over society through alliances from within and around it with those with financial, economic, and political interests, whether on the internal or external levels. On the regional and international scales.

In part, it relies on militias, mercenaries, and external interventions, which further complicates the situation in the country.

It seems clear that dictatorships are based on socially influential forces, such as notables and notables of cities and tribes, as well as religious institutions that control society and work to form its closed image, block the way to attempts to open it up, and stifle public and individual freedoms, especially those related to the religious, spiritual, and cultural aspects.

On the occasion of the 13th anniversary of February 7, the Fatwa House, led by Sadiq Al-Gharyani, banned the organization of a large artistic ceremony in Martyrs’ Square and prompted Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Al-Dabaiba to go out in person to announce the organization of “Night of Praise” events, which recall a horrific massacre in the Abu Salim Al-Dahra area.

A study prepared by the “Democracy Now for the Arab World” organization believes that elections, despite their suggestion of democracy, have led, over the past twelve years, in Libya to fuel violence, division, and more conflict due to their defects.

However, the United Nations and Western powers still see it as the solution to the endless political crisis in Libya, while uncertainty looms over the feasibility of holding truly free and fair elections in the country, given doubts about the political and democratic commitments of key figures; On the one hand, Abdul Hamid Dabaiba, Prime Minister of the UN-backed national unity government in Tripoli, and his allies in the Supreme Council of State, and on the other hand, the military forces led by Khalifa Haftar and his allies in the House of Representatives in the east.

The study concludes that, instead of being an effective solution, elections may lead to more instability, deepen existing divisions, and fall prey to spoilers, thus hindering the elusive path to national reconciliation.

Observers say that holding elections with the participation of conflicting (and armed) forces competing for advantages before the elections would lead to intensifying divisions between factions and unrest in Libya.

Obstructionist parties stand ready to obstruct and undermine any electoral process, while facing limited international pressure. The ongoing divisions internationally regarding Libya, between global and regional powers, reduce the possibility of the international community imposing an agreement on a unified and acceptable executive authority in the country to supervise any elections, according to the study.

Based on this vision, the Western powers, which rushed in 2011 to overthrow the Gaddafi regime in the context of their project to change the region as an extension of what happened in Iraq in 2003, were not aware of the nature of society from within, but were dealing with the surface by relying on the data promoted by the opposition. Both religious and liberal, the effectiveness of which ended after the fall of the masks and the emergence of real challenges.

Analysts point out that most of the missionaries of Western democracy have disappeared, and a wave of people riding on events and talented in exploiting opportunities has emerged, whether in the east or west of the country, to lead the centers of governance, decision-making and the political scene, a class that is not interested in democracy and does not promise to adopt it, but rather promises to guarantee the interests of influential forces internally. Externally, and enabling it to have its share of the spoils in a wealthy country located in an important location on the world map.

This situation has led to the failure of all attempts to organize elections, whether in 2017 and 2018 in light of the Skhirat Agreement signed in December 2015, or in 2021, 2022, and 2023, based on the outcomes of the political dialogue that began in Tunisia in November 2020 and later came to the current authorities in very ambiguous circumstances, especially in A relationship with political money and corruption from within the system formed by the United Nations, which turned out to be infiltrated by those competing for power outside the will of the masses.

Libyan political analyst and academic researcher Abu Bakr Khalifa Abu Bakr believes that the equation for achieving stability in Libya is linked to the success of the democratic process according to the vision of the international community, through presidential and parliamentary elections, which unites institutions, bestows legitimacy on them, lays the foundations for political, economic and social stability, and unifies the military and security establishment.

He added that the obstacles to the transition towards democracy in Libya can be limited to a number of points, including the lack of reaching a real consensus: The lack of consensus among societal and political actors in Libya regarding the political and economic future of the country hinders the success of the transition to democracy, between Two executive authorities, two legislative authorities, militias distributed throughout the country, and regional and international interference, which greatly contributes to obstructing the success of the transition to democracy.

Abu Bakr points to tribal, regional and ethnic divisions, as these divisions in Libya have led to the deepening of the rift and the rift between the people of one nation, and thus to the lack of consensus on democratic values ​​and practices, and the weakness of civil society, which makes it difficult to hold government officials accountable and promote values ​​and practices. Democracy, leading to the failure to achieve comprehensive national reconciliation, which requires great efforts in the Libyan case, and also requires the presence of a real political will to achieve this goal.

Since 2011, the international community has been at a standstill in talking about a pluralistic democratic path in Libya, a path that has turned into military, political, governmental and social division.

The emerging dictatorships in Libya currently, whether in military or civilian uniform, have proven their ability to evade and obstruct all political solution projects that might pave the way for the people to choose their rulers through the ballot boxes, so that the greatest concern becomes preserving the country’s unity.

The UN envoy to Libya, Abdullah Batili, was not wrong when he said that “the continuation of the current situation constitutes a major threat to the unity of Libya,” as he affirmed on the occasion of the 13th anniversary of the February 17 Revolution that “it is necessary for Libyan leaders to bear their responsibility and for their decisions and actions to be subject to accountability, as they directly affect On the lives of the Libyan people,” he called for a meeting “on a unified word in order to settle all politically disputed issues, and agree on a way to move forward towards building a strong and united Libya.”

A few days before that, Batelli said during his briefing before the Security Council, “It appears that the main institutional parties are unwilling to resolve politically controversial issues, to pave the way for the long-awaited elections in the country.”

Observers indicate that Batelli will leave office like his predecessors without reaching a radical solution, as what most threatens the interests of the current rulers is the democratic project, starting with the electoral process that can return the word to the people.

Those in power, their supporters abroad, and those who benefit from them at home believe that their interests will be harmed by their departure from centers of influence, and they were not prepared for such conditions.