The political conundrum that is Libya...

"All Libyans are to blame for the utter failure of the political leadership..."  This is an oft repeated phrase I have seen when people discuss the disastrous state of politics as practiced in Libya.  While this sounds poetic and democratically valid it is also wrong.  If everyone is to "blame" then no-one is to "blame."  While it is possible that all Libyans are at fault, some bear more guilt than others.  For example, most Libyans didn't vote and the ones that did were total novices when it comes to the democratic system and its concomitant processes.  They faced a bewildering array of candidates and political parties during the brief run-up to the July 2012 elections.

Choice is a must when it comes to Democracy, however too much choice is not the ideal way to foster good electioneering and the actual voting process.  Not enough time was given to voter education and campaigning was haphazard which might have been heavily impacted by the lack of civic groups, voter forums, or town-hall debates to introduce candidates and their respective platforms.

Modern political campaigns use both art and science to help sway voters and educate them at the same time.  Libyan society is not used to democratic political tricks, advertising, or even how the media has an influence on voter turnout and voting patterns.  This will take some time to develop among the populace but the political parties themselves shoulder the majority of the blame for the state of anarchy that exists in Libya.  As a Libyan-American, I care most about what happens in both nations.  Also as a person who has grown up and spent the majority of my life in the USA, I have grown to admire and respect the political system created to serve the citizens of the USA.  I think it serves as a good model for Libya and something we should learn from.

Let me give you an example:  Why is it that the USA, which allows for many different political parties, is dominated by only two?  The short answer is that this is the most stable and efficient system.  Historically Democrats have pandered to the lower classes and Republicans to the Middle and Upper Classes.  However, both parties, especially after the demise of the Communist alternative, now have relatively similar economic platforms.  Whether or not that is due to external manipulation by Corporate interests is debatable but that is beyond the scope of my article.  Socially, they are very dissimilar.  One is very liberal and the other is much more conservative.  One is associated with racial minorities and the other has in the past been associated more with WASPs and other religiously oriented groups.

Libya would benefit by having social conservatives/nationalists unite into one party and liberals and secularists into another.  They can compete for votes and prepare and communicate their vision and goals to the Libyan nation and let the voters decide for themselves what course they'd like to take.  The important thing to remember is social change or "evolution" is not a linear progression.  It can zigzag and be more of an oscillation between liberal and conservative poles.  The main reason fanatics of either stripe are especially poor leaders of a polyglot society is that they are too stubborn or stuck to their one way or the highway type of thinking.  Pragmatic approaches must be found that allow for flexibility, innovation, and ethics to predominate among leaders of the New Libya.

Political parties serve a critical function by vetting and organizing candidates so that there is a coherent choice that voters can make.  Who wants to see fifty candidates for president each represented by a symbol and the cutest logo or symbol is the one that gets the most votes.  Political parties also craft their own platform and have the means to keep their party members in line or kick them out of the party as the case may be.  There are many ways to solve the political crisis in Libya and my hope is that steps are taken to remedy the problems as soon as possible.

Benghazi suffered under Gaddafi

There, I said it. I will also say that to varying degrees, Tripoli, Misratah, Zintan, Zawia, and all Libya suffered under Gaddafi. In fact, many families were forced to live in exile and countless others suffered due to the regime of Gaddafi. Why is this almost self-evident and obvious point important, because to this day, this is the most cited reason for Barcan semi-separatists when they are asked why they want Federalism. Sure they will also say that centralization hasn't benefited them and that's probably also true to an extent. But is the central authority they are referring to during Gaddafi time or the “central” authority post-Qaddafi? Because this, like too many things in the current Libya is as clear as mud.

Federalism is a wonderful system of government because it allows for customization of local rules and provides organizational flexibility. However, this is best suited for a nation that requires flexibility. The best example is the USA which resembles an empire more than a classically defined republic. For example, the USA has the territory of Puerto Rico which is not a state but its residents enjoy most of the benefits of statehood without the need to blemish the flag of the USA by adding an imbalance to the field of fifty stars. Federalism is more easily ramped up to accommodate territorial expansion which as any reader of history knows, is exactly the policy the original thirteen colonies pursued.

The proponents of Federalism face a quandary, they need the central authorities to lose legitimacy and be seen as inept and distant. But at the same time they are walking the razor's edge due to the need to pay lip service to their current stated aim of “semi-independence.” They in effect gain support and adherents each time the leadership in Tripoli lose face or suffer another calamity. The federal faction can passively or actively place roadblocks to the unitary trend and therefore gain more impetus for their federalism agenda.

I believe that federalism is the wrong political doctrine for Libya at the present time. Federalism is also a clear and present danger to the integrity of the state of Libya. The proponents of federalism must make the case for the need to radically change the political dynamic for Libya and prove that their demand for experimental radicalism will benefit the Libyan nation. 

The Anti-Federalist Paper(s)

From Federalist No 1 of “The Federalist Papers”

“It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force."

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, I want to lay out why Federalism is wrong for the Republic of Libya at the present time. Second, I wanted to respond to a recently published article written by Mr. Mohamed Eljarh of Libya.

Regarding the declaration of Federalism in Barca, one of the three main historical regions of Libya. The other two being Fezzan and Tripolitania. The unilateral declaration of “semi-independence” on the face of it is ludicrous. For one state to decide, without a national, or even regional vote that it would pursue a federal structure defies reality. Why do I say this? Because how can you have a federal republic with only one of the three regions embracing federalism? Are the other two states going to be forced to also practice federalism or can they remain unitary?

Many federalism supporters point to the USA as a prime example of the wonders of federalism and it is, however the USA is a nation of 300 plus million with various time zones in what amounts to a modern day empire if you include their overseas bases, territories, and protectorates. Libya apparently has one time zone and a population of 5,613,380 (July 2012 est.) and a Median age of 24.8 years according to the CIA World Factbook. With such a small and young population it would seem to be more reasonable to have a modern unitary government in lieu of an overly complex and redundant one.

Especially with modern technology, government can more rapidly respond to local issues and no longer can one argue that central authorities are too distant or uninformed about unique local issues and concerns.

Federalism fosters often overlapping and contradictory laws, rules, regulations, and entities. For example, there is federal police and state police. A federal ministry or department of health and then a state health department. Federal legislature and state legislature and the list goes on and on. Of course one can argue that due to regional differences, local rules made by locals may be better suited to provide for the unique situation of the specific locality. However this inevitably leads to conflict and contradictory policies which some entity has to normalize such as a Federal Supreme Court.

Many of the recently converted Federalism supporters may have noble intent, but there are likely among them actors who wish to wrest control or financial resources for their own tribes or agendas. Some have argued that the primary impetus is not actual federalism but that public announcements are merely bargaining tools designed to maximize concessions or provide cover for those in the central authority who wish to devolve authority and know that they lack a public consensus to do so. This declaration of federalism by the Barcan renegades is therefore simply a tool to further the goals of Barcan loyalists in the central government.

The utter failure of the central authorities to provide basic services such as security, education, healthcare, transportation improvements, or lessen the horrific auto accident deathrate are all scandalous in their own right. However, the failure to prepare a reasonable and rational Constitution is the largest impediment to proper politcial development in Libya. There are numerous reasons for the delay in the production of a workable constitution and they are beyond the scope of this paper. However, creating the consensus for a new Libyan Constitution is extremely important and this delicate process, more art than science, must be done as quickly as possible. The reason for the lack of central authority will and action in this regard has not been explained publicly as far as the author knows.

Part II: my response to Mr. Eljarh

Mr. Eljarh is a prolific writer and bon vivant active in the blog-sphere and apparently the darling of certain western media entities. I have read a couple of his pieces and what struck me is that he has a slant designed for western audiences rather than a Libyan one. In any case, I am a proponent of the concept of free speech and will exercise mine to rebut Mr. Eljarh. This critique is regarding his blog entitled “Federalists in Libya up their game ahead of the constitution” Posted By Mohamed Eljarh on Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - 11:30 AM

The slant on this piece is pro-Federalism and I wouldn't waste time on it but he apparently is the official Libya blogger for Transitions which I guess falls under the aegis of Foreign Policy magazine. So I decided to try and dissect his arguments.

Here are two quotes: “provinces, which have often enjoyed considerable powers of self-rule at various moments throughout Libyan history” and “local identities have reasserted themselves with a vengeance.” The problem I have is that the average reader has no idea if that is true or not. Mr. Eljarh makes two bold statements and doesn't back them up at all. Are we to take the meaning and subtext of those words at face value? But maybe he's trying to guide the reader to a certain destination.

There is also a subtle attempt to equate anti-Federalist thinking with the former ruling madman by saying, “Muammar Qaddafi did his best to stamp out memories of strong regional power” This is arguably incorrect because Qaddafi allowed Misratah to be a regional economic powerhouse. The port there is still one of the busiest, if not the busiest in Libya. Steel, cement, and other commercial enterprises were permitted by the former dictator and the reputation of Misratah as the Gangnam or business center of Libya persists to this day. In addition, Sirte, the reputed base for Qaddafi's tribe and the location of his inglorious demise was built up as the alternate capital of Libya. He lavished resources on Sirte so the supposed centralization of power, prestige, and money under Qaddafi is quite possibly a specious argument if one takes the effort to dig deeply and try and understand the often contradictory policies of the former regime.

Now on to the next point made by Mr. Eljarh, he writes, “On Saturday, June 1, Ahmed Zubair al-Senussi, the leader of the self-proclaimed government in the eastern province of Cyrenaica, issued a declaration of semi-independence.” Semi-independence? Really?!? Was full independence too much too soon or did they not want to hurt the feelings of non Barcans?  Mr. Eljarh elects to overlook the fact that Zubair is a self-proclaimed leader of Barca, he was never elected to his post as visionary scion of the “royal” family of the House Senussi. By what authority does Zubair get the legitimacy to rally Barca to semi-independence? He apparently wants to distance his region from a temporary entity in the form of the General National Congress (GNC). Rather than take the reasonable path and allow for the ratification of a constitution, Zubair wants to force all Libya to accommodate his factional demand for semi-independence.

Then Mr.Eljarh states, “He [Zubair] made his proclamation in front of a big, jubilant audience gathered in the city of El Marj” I enjoy the emotive use of the word “jubilant” and wonder how jubilant they were? Also how big was the crowd? Alas, Mr. Eljarh ignores these questions and leaves it fully to the readers imaginative faculties. He also doesn't mention even an estimate for the amount of support Zubair actually has. I think he omits this because there has not been any public poll or vote in Barca regarding Zubair or his support among the populace of Barca.

Next Mr. Eljarh glosses over the supposed resume of Zubair, “The Cyrenaican leader served for a while on the post-Qaddafi National Transitional Council before resigning to run the regional government in Cyrenaica.” But to be fair, Zubair apparently spent a considerable amount of time in detention under more than one Libyan regime if my memory is correct.

In the following paragraph, Mr. Eljarh apparently makes the case that tribal leadership is superior to militia leadership. He writes regarding the Zubair led Barcan council, “The Council does, however, enjoy the support of powerful tribal factions who are concerned about maintaining the rule of law in a country awash in weapons and rival militias.” He never explains why tribal factions are preferable to his bogeyman of choice: militias. 

Mr. Eljarh apparently has an issue with militias, as do many Libyans. He writes, “Over the past few weeks, armed militias affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and the city of Misrata demonstrated their muscle by taking over government ministries in Tripoli and pressuring to pass the controversial Political Isolation Law.” This statement is a bit misleading, Mr.Eljarh provides no citation or proof that the gunmen were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or Misratah and they did not “take over” the Ministries. They did surround them and lobby very forcefully for a vote on the PIL. Thankfully nobody was killed and the gunmen withdrew once they were assured that their representatives in the Congress understood the gravity of the situation.

I wish Mr. Eljarh well but hope that he refines his writing style to the extent that he understand that Libyans like me who oppose the imposition of federalism at this time also have a voice in this debate. Thank you for reading my analysis of this controversial topic as it relates to Libya.

http://transitions.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/04/federalists_in_libya_up_their_game_ahead_of_the_constitution

The Conflicted Libyans

Editorial Note:  This was written prior to the passage of the PIL and the resignation of Mr. Mgarief

I often turn my thoughts to my relatives and countrymen and women back in Libya.  I was ecstatic when Gaddafi was finally brought down to earth from his self-delusional and morally bankrupt role as leader of the Libyan people.  I witnessed, as did the whole Libyan nation and indeed the world, the self-sacrifice and supreme struggle of the fighters of Free Libya.  Then in July of 2012 we all saw the voting for the General National Congress(GNC) and there was real hope that our country was on the right path to democracy.

In spite of the national elections there was still some turmoil and many groups in Libya were not going to readily go along with the plans made by anyone, let alone 200 amateur congressmen and women.  Then the tragedy of Benghazi in September of 2012 highlighted for all that the security situation inside Libya was tenuous at best.  Libyans, unaccustomed to the vagaries of democracy also added to the delay and confusion in the GNC by storming the hall on an almost regular basis.  This led many, myself included, to give the GNC some slack for the lack of concrete action on the most important piece of legislation of any nation: the constitution.

Then we had the fiasco of the selection of a Prime Minister of Libya which was handled with as much finesse as an itinerant ditch digger.  Libya seems to be like a drunken sailor, staggering and lurching from one near crisis to another without the chance or even need to sober up and take care of serious business.  I realize that major decisions have to be made in haste and that the Libyan culture is such that everyone has an opinion and most think that their opinions are the only ones that matter.  This type of mentality doesn't lend itself to reasonable political discourse, especially when billions of dollars are spent as if it was water. 

And as time continued to flow, my empathy turned to dismay for it seemed the members of the GNC were infiltrated by former Gaddafi acolytes and supporters.  During and after the revolution I was pleased that many finally saw the light and renounced Gaddafi but I don’t want them helping to shape the constitution for the New Libya. 

The creation of the Constitution cannot be helped by the fact that the acting Head of State of Libya and the President of the GNC is often heading off on foreign excursions.  One person should not hold both those titles.  I understand the temptation to travel to exotic locales and meet foreign heads of state and get some contracts signed and be the guest of honor at dinners and social gatherings.  This type of thing is normal in diplomatic circles but while Libya is in such dire need of attention, the frivolity of things such as improving "bilateral" relations pales in comparison to the urgent and pressing need to repair the society and structure of Libya itself.

Many inside and outside Libya argue that we have a failed state on our hands.  I strongly disagree with those who hold such a position.  We do have a nearly failed GNC to worry about but it is not all their fault, the armed militias, and apathetic public do share some of the blame.  The GNC must immediately abolish secret voting, and should continue to televise all their deliberations.  I realize that might put many Libyans to sleep but that might actually help matters.  The GNC must try and explain their actions and inaction clearly and truthfully to the nation.  We don't need slick politicians who lie and know to tell a different lie depending on the audience.

Here are some other suggestions for the GNC.  We must, for the time being, curtail all foreign travel except emergency travel for all GNC members.  This ban can be lifted once the constitution and date of election for the new government is determined.  The Foreign Minister or Prime Minister should still travel as befits their roles.  Decisions made by the Integrity Commission must be immediately implemented.  Take a fixed number of men from each reputable militia and task them with guarding the GNC while they perform the most important task carried out in generations.  That way, the GNC can no longer claim that they are constantly harried and interrupted in their duties to the nation. 

All Libyans have the freedom to express their desires and hopes for a better Libya.  Any Libyan who wants to do so should participate in some way in the democratic process.  The GNC serves the people, the people don't serve the GNC.

Those are my thoughts and God bless the good people of Libya

Concerned Libyan Citizen

May 2, 2013

Recently returned from Libya...

I got back from Libya a week ago, need to write a new post and will do so soon.  Libya has changed a lot and is still in transition to a new system.  Much has been done but even more is needed to make Libya a place I can truly call home for my family.  God willing, the new government will make the necessary changes as soon as possible so the majority of Libyans can and will have the nation they deserve.