Building an effective democratic solution for Libyans is not an easy task. Over the course of a decade, the Libyan people toppled an authoritarian regime, found themselves embroiled in a brutal civil war, and endured what then turned into a proxy war between several foreign powers seeking to promote their own. national interests.

The post-authoritarian, post-conflict and post-intervention periods are always difficult to navigate, let alone when they all occur at the same time. Such legacies foster mistrust and discord, risking a sudden return to instability. Of course, with an estimate 20,000 foreign soldiers still in Libya, a definitive end to the proxy war is a goal to be achieved. However, it is necessary to question the institutions and political mechanisms that could promote the reunification of society and the economic reconstruction of the country, in particular with a new draft constitution expected before the elections scheduled for the end of this year.

Building an effective democratic solution for Libyans is not an easy task. Over the course of a decade, the Libyan people toppled an authoritarian regime, found themselves embroiled in a brutal civil war, and endured what then turned into a proxy war between several foreign powers seeking to promote their own. national interests.

The post-authoritarian, post-conflict and post-intervention periods are always difficult to navigate, let alone when they all occur at the same time. Such legacies foster mistrust and discord, risking a sudden return to instability. Of course, with an estimate 20,000 foreign soldiers still in Libya, putting a definitive end to the proxy war is a goal to be achieved. However, it is necessary to question the institutions and political mechanisms that could promote the reunification of society and the economic reconstruction of the country, in particular with a new draft constitution expected before the elections scheduled for the end of this year.

Although few citizens alive today can remember it, it was a time before the fall of Libyan strongman Muammar al-Gaddafi in 2011, when Libyans were united. The country’s constitution of 1951 mixed democratic practices with a figurehead capable of ensuring the interests of the diversity of Libyan citizens. Despite its colonial influences, its inefficiencies in the redistribution of wealth, and the limitations of certain democratic processes (the monarch had dominant power over the lower house of parliament), the constitutional monarchy of this era at least provided a powerful response to many. challenges facing the country today. .

Libyans have not become more divided over time; rather, the glue that held them together was dissolved by a man who co-opted the nation for his own interests and prospered by playing those he saw as enemies against one another. Now is the time to navigate past the damage caused by Gaddafi and shape a real future for Libya as a unified nation.

It is no coincidence that, when the protests of the Arab Spring swept through the region in 2011, countries with a strong monarchical tradition, such as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, remained stable. Indeed, none fell, and only Bahrain in the face of demonstrations contesting the regime. These monarchies are relative anchors of stability that are more able to respond to economic, social and political factors than many of their neighbors.

Unlike the oil-rich Persian Gulf monarchies who have eased internal unrest by deploying multibillion-dollar development programs – as well as security forces – the poorer kingdom of Jordan has relied on closer consultation with its citizens and Free modest monetary concessions, constitutional changes and new elections. An EU poll published in 2020 found that around 74 percent of Jordanians considered their life to be generally good.

With its recent history of fragmentation and continuous divisions running through the fabric of society, Libya urgently needs such a symbolic leading figure. The separation of a monarch from party politics would ensure that Libya’s identity as a single nation – divided by the different economic interests of the main regions of the country, the distinct identities of its tribes and the bad blood that resulted of a decade of war – is through different political administrations and parliamentary mandates.

Unity under one flag, in turn, could be vital in enabling the consolidation of a new democratic system. It often takes years, even decades, for the democratic participation of citizens and the consensual attitudes of elected officials to take root. But a monarch could help ensure that a system persists long enough for this to happen and that participating in it, rather than overthrowing it, would be the wisest choice. And while free from partisan questions, the monarch could play a crucial role in spreading ideas of peace, compromise, inclusion, and trust.

Moreover, by providing a means of arbitration, a constitutional monarch could prevent new democratic systems from retreating and creating what French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville has so aptly defined as a “tyranny of the majority” which actively ignores certain groups. minority. If worded correctly, constitutional monarchs could play the same role in curbing governments or individual rulers who would otherwise trample on the human and political rights of individuals or attempt to undermine the constitutional provisions that guarantee them.

A constitutional monarch would benefit more than domestic politics. In societies emerging from conflict, economic development is as important as political progress. And here, a constitutional monarch could prioritize protecting the basic laws needed to improve Libya’s economic health.

Soon, investments from abroad could start to return, the stability of the country being assured. (Indeed, this process has already begun in its most fleeting moments of stability, which encouraged such investments in the Libyan economy over the past 10 years.) This in turn would stimulate overall economic growth and lead to a noticeable increase in living standards, once again contributing to overall democratic stability.

For many Libyans, the reintroduction of democratic practices since 2012 is a continuation of the reforms initiated by King Idris. Under Idris, the constitution divided parliament into a Senate and a House of Representatives and guaranteed the protection of personal and political freedoms. However, even more important than the institutional arrangements, the king’s decision wide acceptability among many factions in the country.

In recent years, the Movement for the Return of Constitutional Legitimacy has become the most important popular organization in Libya. spread the potential benefits of the 1951 constitution and its amendments to stabilize the country. Although no reliable opinion poll has been published on support for the reestablishment of a monarchy among Libyans, low satisfaction rates with the work of the Government of National Accord and the House of Representatives testifies to the desire of the Libyans to have an alternative thought.

Yet if the last decade of chaos in Libya has taught the world anything, it’s that solutions imposed by foreign entities just don’t work. This was underscored by a decade of failures in the Middle East, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Libya has a model which in the past has provided internal stability and facilitated economic prosperity. With the next general elections scheduled for December 24, the resumption of discussions on the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is timely. Such a system could be a recipe for a more successful democratic future in Libya.