The pursuit of democracy in Libya has been divorced from the development of a broader democratic culture and reduced to the staging of a controversial vote. Even if rescheduled, Libya’s elections will likely occur under conditions—ranging from a deteriorating security environment to the stubborn
build-up of thousands of foreign fighters, to concerns over voter coercion and intimidation—that the west wouldn’t accept for itself. It is little wonder then that, far from deepening democracy, elections in Libya have the potential to expand instability and herald yet another false dawn.According
to report, days before the vote, Libya’s presidential elections are up in the
air, with no official list of candidates presented to the public and no formal
campaigning underway. The vote is scheduled for December 24 with a potential
run-off in February. It would mark the first time a head of state was directly
elected by 2.4 million Libyans who collected their voter registration cards.
An
examination of the most controversial presidential candidates out of a crowded
field of ninety-eight reveals some of the complications embedded in the
electoral process, and how the polls in Libya could unravel rather than realize
its democratic promise.
Abdul
Hamid Dbeibah: The spender
The first
controversial candidate is the country’s current Prime Minister Abdul Hamid
Dbeibah, 63, who aims to win the elections.
A possible
frontrunner, Dbeibah, wasn’t supposed to run at all. Assuming his position as
prime minister of the temporary Government of National Unity (GNU), a broad
coalition with the international community’s backing (based in Tripoli earlier
this year), Dbeibah pledged not to seek out elected office. However, when he
registered as a presidential candidate in November, an important failsafe for
the transitional process went bust.
The
original idea was that members of the GNU would act as honest, technocratic
brokers between Libya’s divided factions. They weren’t meant to exploit access
to the levers of power or cultivate patronage networks with state resources to
further their political ambitions. Presumably, the aim was also to anticipate a
scenario where a postponement of the elections was necessary, and a
depoliticized caretaker government could steer the ship while problems were
resolved.
In
addition, Article 12 of the election law required all candidates to step back
from their day jobs three months prior to the vote, which Dbeibah didn’t do.
His interest in retaining power surprised few, given the strength and speed of
his government’s spending spree, which included overseeing 372 infrastructure
projects during his ten short months as premier. As Tarek Megrisi of the
European Council on Foreign Relations observed, “He has spent an outrageous
amount of money for somebody whose job is supposed to be to facilitate
elections and to facilitate the unification of the country…He’s unifying the
country through corruption rather than through a meaningful or institutional
sense of the term.”
Dbeibah
has also been accused of failing to stop the dubious association between the
oil and gas ministry, a new body created by his government, and corrupt
interest groups, thus, jeopardizing the technocratic and non-political
character of the Libyan energy sector.
Soon after
securing the role of interim prime minister in February, Dbeibah was forced to
deny bribery allegations that had been detailed in a leaked United Nations (UN)
Security Council report and were said to involve six-figure payments in
exchange for votes to secure the premiership. Rumors of similar malfeasance
have also surrounded November’s judicial decision, which determined that he
was, in fact, eligible to run for president, despite failing to comply with
candidacy requirements.
General
Khalifa Haftar: Legitimacy contester
The second
controversial candidate is General Khalifa Haftar, 78, who likely aims to lose
the elections.
A warlord
from eastern Libya and commander of the self-styled Libyan National Army (LNA),
Haftar would fare well in the country’s east, given the strength of his grip on
power and society there. However, Haftar is reviled outside of LNA strongholds
due to his authoritarian style of rule and his military offensive against
Tripoli in April 2019, where the UN-backed Government of National Accord was
based. The surprise attack torpedoed a United Nations conference aimed at
organizing elections and drew the country into an agonizing year of civil war.
A divisive
figure, Haftar stated in January 2018 that Libya isn’t ready for democracy. A
former resident of the US state of Virginia on the east coast, he also holds
dual US citizenship—a breach of the electoral rules. He is accused of war
crimes in a civil suit in Virginia and one of his senior commanders was
indicted by the International Criminal Court. Given the visceral opposition to
his candidacy in Tripoli and western Libya, it would be implausible for him to
triumph in a national vote. However, one of the red flags of these elections is
that losers have as much to gain as the winners—perhaps even more.
This
spoiler behavior is rooted in the controversy surrounding the elections, as the
process laid out by the UN’s political roadmap wasn’t followed. It was
envisaged that the Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF), a UN-appointed body
of seventy-five representatives from a cross-section of Libyan society, would
collectively decide the constitutional and electoral framework, which two rival
legislative bodies would then sign off on. However, when the LPDF failed to
agree on a constitutional basis for the vote, the speaker of one of those
legislative bodies, the House of Representatives (HoR), unilaterally ratified a
seventy-seven-article electoral law based on amendments to the existing law on
September 8.
The HoR’s
final bill failed to limit the power of Libya’s next head of state and wasn’t
presented to the HoR assembly for a vote. The law also entirely bypassed its
rival, the High Council of State, which warned that results from a December 24
vote “wouldn’t be accepted.” On November 20, HoR speaker, Aquila Saleh, who has
been under US sanctions since 2016 for stalling political progress, submitted
papers to stand in the presidential elections himself. This dramatic switch in
the HoR’s station and role—from rubber-stamping a law reached by consensus
elsewhere to singlehandedly imposing its own electoral decree—was accepted as a
fait accompli by the UN Support Mission in Libya, which insisted that “holding
the elections in Libya, even in a less than ideal situation…is much more
desirable than no elections.”
This is
significant because the HoR is based in eastern Libya and generally aligned
with Haftar and his LNA. However, Haftar benefits more from the contested
legitimacy of the elections rather than the poorly constructed law itself. A
loss would enable him to cry foul and take dramatic action, such as a renewed
attempt to seize the capital through military means or a formation of his own
government in the east.
Seif
al-Islam Gaddafi: Thwarter of democracy
The third
controversial candidate is Seif al-Islam Gaddafi, 49, who aims to upend Libya’s
democratic transition.
The second
son of dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who was ousted in 2011, Seif al-Islam’s
candidacy is geared towards undermining the fragile transition to democracy by
stirring the sleeping beast of Gaddafi loyalism. The so-called “Green
Movement”—a name derived from the political-philosophy book of the former
dictator—is rooted in the southern heartlands of the Gaddafi tribe and
championed by wealthy former regime officials—often from self-imposed exile in
neighboring Egypt.
As Libya
lurches from crisis to chaos, the Green Movement has been empowered by a
growing wave of nostalgia washing over Libyans who yearn for the relative
stability of the Gaddafi era. It was further boosted by the inclusion of Green
Movement figures in the UN-sponsored LPDF convention in October 2020 to agree
on the election’s roadmap, which helped normalize the notion of Gaddafism as a
legitimate political force.
Through
the mere act of registering his candidacy, Seif al-Islam sparked protests by
outraged citizens in Tripoli and shows of force by armed groups in the
northwestern cities of Misrata, Zintan, and Zawiya, with militias in the latter
town declaring that polling stations would be shuttered on election day. More
significantly, however, is that the International Criminal Court wants Seif
al-Islam for suspected atrocities committed as part of his father’s crackdown
on revolutionaries in 2011, crimes he was convicted of by a Libyan court in
2015.
As a
result, on November 24, he was deemed ineligible to run for president by the
electoral commission per Article 9 of the election law, which states that a
prospective candidate must not have outstanding criminal charges against him.
However, this decision was overturned by an appeal on December 2.
Though it
is improbable that Seif al-Islam could sweep the presidency, that is scarcely
the point of his bid. Instead, he is putting the cat amongst the pigeons. Seif
al-Islam and his backers aim to trigger a public backlash against the electoral
process while also attempting to rally the nostalgia vote. By undermining
public trust in the elections and fomenting an atmosphere of confusion,
disaffection, and disorder, the pro-Gaddafi camp seeks to derail the
post-Gaddafi transition and gradually soften the ground for a Gaddafi comeback
down the line.
No comments:
Post a Comment