Libya’s post-2011 turmoil exemplifies the fallout from foreign intervention gone wrong. Calls for partition ignore complex ties among regions, which would only exacerbate the situation. Instead of fostering peace, dividing the country would empower militias and entrenched corrupt officials, leading to greater instability rather than resolution. A unified governance approach is essential for lasting peace.
Since the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, Libya has experienced a significant decline in governance, shifting from a democratic uprising to a fragmented power struggle. Rival factions, supported by foreign governments and militias, contend against one another, resulting in a precarious state of affairs marked by stability, confusion, and breakdowns of law and order.
The notion of partitioning Libya into separate eastern and western regions has emerged as a supposed solution to unite competing factions. However, this proposal simplifies the country’s complex political landscape, ignoring intrinsic societal ties that link different regions economically and culturally.
The intense competition stems largely from the conflict between the UN-backed government in Tripoli and rival Khalifa Haftar’s forces in the east, both backed by foreign players. As these factions operate more as proxies than national entities, any division would further solidify these issues.
Moreover, militias, smugglers, and other entities have woven themselves into the fabric of local governance, complicating prospects for traditional reforms. With frequent elections being postponed, this trend has perpetuated a system in which new elites exploit their positions for personal gain rather than national stability.
Proponents of partition argue that it might reduce violence and allow for governance structures to emerge. Still, Libya’s socio-economic networks resonate through its history, and simplistic divisions fail to align with its existing ethnicities and tribal affiliations.
Partition could ignite further conflicts over resources and citizenship rights, weakening Libya and empowering local warlords. It arguably risks a transition into a governance structure dominated by local militias who would then operate as state actors rather than isolated groups.
Rather than clearing up the crisis, border changes would merely legitimize local authorities, converting guerrilla groups into state-like entities. This, in turn, invites corruption and patronage resembling the issues previously witnessed in Somalia.
With fragmented governance, external powers would exploit the situation for their own interests, driving unprecedented competition for influence, reminiscent of past geopolitical conflicts. Consequently, rival factions would abandon cooperation, leading to potential authoritarian rule as ruling elites concentrate power.
The anticipated division into eastern and western factions would not necessarily lead to stability. Local authorities may seek autonomous control while neglecting national unity. This lack of cohesion could result in regional fiefdoms that undermine any potential for a unified governance structure.
Efforts by the UN to encourage national dialogue have repeatedly faltered, creating distrust in any new proposals. Repeated failures have led to parallel legislative bodies claiming authority without the genuine power to govern through consensus, as existing factions resist relinquishing control.
A shift to a looser federation may be suggested as a way to accommodate political condition, yet this strategy replicates existing divisions. Autonomous regions could exploit their positions, further marginalizing trust and cooperative governance within a fractured political climate.
Ultimately, partition can be viewed as a superficial fix, and not a sustainable resolution to Libya’s crises. Without dismantling the structures enabling chaos and re-engaging the populace, surface-level solutions will fail to address the root issues plaguing the nation.
Partitioning Libya is a misguided solution that would solidify divisions and empower warlords while destabilizing the interconnected socio-economic frameworks that currently exist. Genuine resolution will require reform and the creation of a unified state that engages all Libyans in governance, without relying on surface-level tactical changes to borders or power structures.
Original Source: www.arabnews.pk
