Libya is suffering as a result of political divisions. Its fragmentation and geographic disintegration threaten its political and territorial integrity and unity. All parties heavily rely on vetoes, and there is a complete absence of consensus, or even basic agreement, on serving the national interest, which has been replaced by narrow partisan considerations that hinder the emergence of democracy. Democracy is, after all, a mode of collective action and a culture centered on respect for others and the rule of law.
The current Libyan political scene is obscure and being shaped by a struggle of the will amid explicit partisan conflict and the absence of genuine popular representation within a functional party framework. This impasse is largely the result of the absence of any real political presence on the ground. Libyan society, structured along tribal lines, renders any party-based framework ineffective within a social fabric grounded in tribal, not partisan, legacies. Yet, politicians have managed to disguise themselves as independents, as happened in the first elections after 2011 for the General National Congress (the first elected parliament), tilting the balance decisively toward partisan domination. This rendered partisan politics itself the core problem and the main culprit behind the institutional dysfunction that has led the country down a dead end and removed the possibility of building a civil state free of conflict.
The West promotes partisan democracy in Libya in every proposed solution. However, leading political theorists acknowledge that it is not easy to consolidate democracy in tribal societies. Defining the politics of Libya through- and subordinating the will of its people to- a narrow partisan framework is a grave mistake. Parties can import ideas and visions that have already failed in their countries of origin, making attempts to replicate them in Libya wholly unacceptable, as it is an exercise in reproducing failure and chaos. Free will, as reflected in behavior and action, must arise independently and without foreign interference. Partisan democracy has requirements and a transformation in social culture is needed to allow parties to proliferate. Now numbering over a hundred, many parties in Libya have no real members, and this is a country of only a few million people where tribal affiliations run deep. This points to democratic illiteracy that can even become dangerous, particularly after forty years under the slogan: "Whoever forms a party is a traitor."
The solution to Libya's crisis is prioritizing the national interest and territorial unity. That is the only path toward building a homeland for all that is free of exclusion and marginalization. At the same time, political institutions must be built, and a national project suited to the demands of transition must be launched: from revolution to state and from tribe to state. It also requires accelerating the finalization of a constitution rather than the repeated delays that merely keep the flow of salaries and benefits going. The homeland is not an ornament worn by a party. Dialogue is not a window through which those shown the door should be allowed to slip back in; it is reaching consensus within a framework that respects legitimacy and the people's democratic choice.
The failure- due to a variety of factors, including parties and the shelter of partisanship- of those in power has led them to practice a politics of collision, leaving the ship of state to sink as they prioritize the interests of their factions over those of the nation. This has fragmented the country, eroded national cohesion, and generated broad frustration.
In light of this unacceptable division, it may be in the country's interest to adopt a consensual form of democracy given the failure of the so-called ideological party "elites" to lift the state out of the morass of chaos and violence engendered by partisan discourse. These actors often serve their own agendas, which have produced nothing but confusion, disorder, and political immaturity. The national interest must be shielded from the noise of self-serving disruptions. All of this amounts to opportunism and partisan authoritarianism, leading the people to lose faith in freedom itself.
Differences of opinion are valuable to society in as much as they create a diversity of ideas and solutions. Society is inherently diverse that is not made of carbon copies, and disagreement is healthy for democracy. It prevents the dominance of a single opinion and the emergence of dictatorship born of fear of the other.
To move from conflict steeped in hostility to difference enriched by diversity, we must first understand disagreement as the plurality of opinions rather than a permanent source of antagonism to be exploited. As Mahatma Gandhi said: "Differences of opinion should never mean hostility. If they did, my wife and I would be sworn enemies of one another..." Only when we understand this can we build a democratic culture grounded in accepting others- the homeland is "you and me," not "me or you."
