Following extensive meetings, engagements, and prolonged consultations, the Advisory Committee has put forward four strategic options to resolve the protracted Libyan crisis. Given the profound importance of these proposals and their potential to fundamentally alter the current situation and the nation’s future, journalist Zeinab Terbah conducted a comprehensive interview with Advisory Committee member Abeir Imneina to illuminate various aspects via the social media platform Facebook. This interview will be broadcast in a series of episodes on “Al-Manassa”
The first proposed track by the Advisory Committee involves holding simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections within a two-year period. These elections are presumed to commence immediately upon reaching a political settlement regarding the legal status of the National High Elections Commission (NHEC) and introducing necessary legislative amendments to the constitutional and legal framework for elections, as well as forming a new government and agreeing on the adoption of a permanent constitution for the country.
The implementation of this track appears contingent on several other points of consensus, which raises numerous questions about potential risks, especially as the specified timeframe is lengthy. This could potentially lead to a recurrence of procrastination and obstruction tactics by current parties. Furthermore, the condition for reaching elections is tied to agreements on the constitutional and legal framework, consensus on the new government, and the adoption of a constitution.
In this context, Imneina clarified that any process involving these diverse tracks would necessitate political negotiations and settlements, incorporating dialogue with internal parties, alongside external pressure. She attributed this to the fact that the current Libyan situation suffers from a powerful influence of external forces that, unfortunately, significantly impact local actors.
Imneina added that the political process must lead to agreements concerning specific details, including the selection of a new government. Some have queried in this regard: Is it an executive authority comprising a government and a presidential council, or merely a new government?
Imneina responded to her question by stating that this matter was also put forward for political settlement, with a tendency towards forming an entirely new government.
Imneina continued that the first track encompasses many contentious issues, noting that the Advisory Committee is tasked with resolving these issues or proposing solutions for them. These issues were presented by the UN envoy, Abdullah Batili, in a briefing to the Security Council, specifically relating to the synchronisation of the parliamentary and presidential elections.
She affirmed the critical importance of this issue, considering the linkage or synchronisation between the two elections “unjust” and a “booby-trapped connection” for any political process. She explained that if presidential elections were held, parliamentary elections would appear as if they were not occurring concurrently, meaning the election of representatives would continue as if a president had not been chosen. She added that if emergency circumstances delayed the presidential selection process for any reason, parliamentary elections would persist.
From this perspective, the need for guarantees to reassure the public that politicians will not obstruct the political process again, and that the process will not require more than two years, becomes clear. The journalist asked: Do you mean that parliamentary elections will not take place?
Imneina replied: “No, the parliament will be elected, and the current parliament will cease to exist. There will be a legislative authority represented by a National Assembly and a Senate.”
Regarding the reactions from political circles on this point, Imneina stated: “Of course, we observed and fully anticipated the reactions. Laws 27 and 28 from the 6+6 Committee have thoroughly discussed the matter. Therefore, they want a guarantee for the continuation of the current House of Representatives, as they are fully aware that presidential elections will not occur, and thus they do not obstruct them.” She considered there to be a “contracting” aspect to the matter.
Concerning the incumbent authority’s handling of the Advisory Committee’s opinion, Imneina remarked: “I wouldn’t say sarcastically, but it can be considered a slight disapproval, because ultimately, the decision rests with the existing authority, especially here, the process is tied to legislative amendments, regardless of what the Advisory Committee has done or proposed.”
Imneina stressed that if a genuine political settlement is reached, there will be more effective pressures. And definitely, the party whose mandate is threatened will not welcome these solutions and tracks as they imperil its existence.
Is Electoral Synchronisation Linked to Results?
Imneina responded that the issue of synchronisation is related to the technical aspect of the National High Elections Commission (NHEC). It is difficult to envision organising elections for three institutions simultaneously: the two councils and the presidential authority or president.
She added that the 6+6 Committee had discussed the synchronisation issue with the head of the National High Elections Commission (NHEC), Emad Al-Sayah, who explained that having three ballot boxes in one polling station or centre confuses the voters themselves, in addition to the logistical impracticality of implementing such a system.
She indicated that synchronisation aims to guarantee results, but once the linkage was severed, it became possible to achieve synchronisation related to the timeframe, the same day, or the same specified time for the election of each council.
Dual Nationality Candidacy and the Condition of Renunciation
The committee proposed allowing dual nationals to run for office despite their previous exclusion, as this was a popular demand based on fundamental rights present in the draft constitution. The journalist posed a question: Which political parties are desperately clinging to this clause? Imneina stated that views suggest dual nationals should not be excluded from the political process. Another perspective held that this opportunity could be granted because it pertains to their rights, as a large proportion of those with additional nationality are “a product of displacement,” whether voluntary or involuntary, by the previous regime.
Conversely, another viewpoint suggests that the field should be open to everyone as long as the country remains in a transitional phase, especially during conflicts, to allow for fluidity in electoral regulations or organisational measures.
Ultimately, a consensus was reached that as long as the committee’s objective and outputs are to address issues, not allowing dual nationals to run would be detrimental to the electoral process. This implies that the 6+6 Committee agreed that the constitution should define this matter, as it will be a decisive and clear distinction on this and other points.
Asked whether this was a form of appeasement between council members, and why four tracks were proposed instead of focusing on a single issue and track, Imneina affirmed: “Yes, it is a form of appeasement, because not doing so or not presenting them would hinder the political process. Therefore, accepting some concessions is essential, and this is what happened with both committees, and this was the approach adopted regarding the issue of dual nationality.”
Imneina added that the matter was not left open-ended. Instead, the committee ultimately stipulated that if evidence is not provided that the winner does not possess another nationality, the elections for the two councils would be considered null and void. However, in presidential elections, the matter appears as a granted right, but in reality, it is a restricted right because it is linked to the necessity of providing proof that one does not hold another nationality. If such proof is not provided, the Speaker of the Senate would manage the state until a president is chosen.
This means that candidacy for elections was not linked to providing proof of not having another nationality, but winning was linked to providing proof that the nationality had been renounced. And because this process is difficult, it was tied to winning, which might affect the winner.
Military Candidacy and the Army’s Role in the Electoral Process
Regarding the condition for military personnel to run for office, Imneina was asked: What would be the chances of a civilian politician competing against a military leader running for president, who might face the votes of all army personnel as a voting bloc? Is this why you stipulated the need for a guarantee against using the army as a voting bloc, and does this mean you will prevent the army from voting at the expense of military candidacy, is this the meaning of this point?
Imneina responded: “For military voters, they can vote individually as citizens without displaying any military affiliation, at least at the polling station.”
As for the military candidate, they must submit their resignation from the military sector. This issue was a subject of much discussion within the committee’s work. She confirmed that the resignation must occur a period before candidacy and be by force of law, not merely a stepping down. This means that the issue of returning to military service is not subject to discretion but to the arrangements of other laws, and therefore, their return might not be approved.
Imneina added that, fortunately for the electoral process, voting is conducted individually, even if there is guidance from some to their followers, whether military or civilian, or guidance from a city or tribe. The voter must choose the appropriate person, as there is freedom and privacy in the voting process.
When discussing the candidacy of military personnel, this brings us to Marshal Khalifa Haftar, who enjoys popular support, endorsements, and loyalty within the military establishment, compared to another political candidate who does not possess a voting bloc like the army.
Imneina responded that “all army personnel doesn’t need to vote for him, just as there are civilian figures whose popular base might be larger. Why then surrender to this pressure? Therefore, the process should be left to the ballot box, and whoever wins, whether Marshal Haftar or someone else, the winner is the one with a popular base. The decisive factor is the ballot box, and whoever it brings, whether military or civilian, we must accept them.”
Imneina emphasised the necessity of providing guarantees to ensure that the electoral process is safe, reflects governance and transparency, and is subject to monitoring, so that candidates, whether civilian or military, are confident that the ballot box results are genuine and free from manipulation, and that no one has been subjected to pressure in any way.
Track Two to follow…