From Federalist No 1 of “The Federalist Papers”
“It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force."
The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, I want to lay out why Federalism is wrong for the Republic of Libya at the present time. Second, I wanted to respond to a recently published article written by Mr. Mohamed Eljarh of Libya.
Regarding the declaration of Federalism in Barca, one of the three main historical regions of Libya. The other two being Fezzan and Tripolitania. The unilateral declaration of “semi-independence” on the face of it is ludicrous. For one state to decide, without a national, or even regional vote that it would pursue a federal structure defies reality. Why do I say this? Because how can you have a federal republic with only one of the three regions embracing federalism? Are the other two states going to be forced to also practice federalism or can they remain unitary?
Many federalism supporters point to the USA as a prime example of the wonders of federalism and it is, however the USA is a nation of 300 plus million with various time zones in what amounts to a modern day empire if you include their overseas bases, territories, and protectorates. Libya apparently has one time zone and a population of 5,613,380 (July 2012 est.) and a Median age of 24.8 years according to the CIA World Factbook. With such a small and young population it would seem to be more reasonable to have a modern unitary government in lieu of an overly complex and redundant one.
Especially with modern technology, government can more rapidly respond to local issues and no longer can one argue that central authorities are too distant or uninformed about unique local issues and concerns.
Federalism fosters often overlapping and contradictory laws, rules, regulations, and entities. For example, there is federal police and state police. A federal ministry or department of health and then a state health department. Federal legislature and state legislature and the list goes on and on. Of course one can argue that due to regional differences, local rules made by locals may be better suited to provide for the unique situation of the specific locality. However this inevitably leads to conflict and contradictory policies which some entity has to normalize such as a Federal Supreme Court.
Many of the recently converted Federalism supporters may have noble intent, but there are likely among them actors who wish to wrest control or financial resources for their own tribes or agendas. Some have argued that the primary impetus is not actual federalism but that public announcements are merely bargaining tools designed to maximize concessions or provide cover for those in the central authority who wish to devolve authority and know that they lack a public consensus to do so. This declaration of federalism by the Barcan renegades is therefore simply a tool to further the goals of Barcan loyalists in the central government.
The utter failure of the central authorities to provide basic services such as security, education, healthcare, transportation improvements, or lessen the horrific auto accident deathrate are all scandalous in their own right. However, the failure to prepare a reasonable and rational Constitution is the largest impediment to proper politcial development in Libya. There are numerous reasons for the delay in the production of a workable constitution and they are beyond the scope of this paper. However, creating the consensus for a new Libyan Constitution is extremely important and this delicate process, more art than science, must be done as quickly as possible. The reason for the lack of central authority will and action in this regard has not been explained publicly as far as the author knows.
Part II: my response to Mr. Eljarh
Mr. Eljarh is a prolific writer and bon vivant active in the blog-sphere and apparently the darling of certain western media entities. I have read a couple of his pieces and what struck me is that he has a slant designed for western audiences rather than a Libyan one. In any case, I am a proponent of the concept of free speech and will exercise mine to rebut Mr. Eljarh. This critique is regarding his blog entitled “Federalists in Libya up their game ahead of the constitution” Posted By Mohamed Eljarh on Tuesday, June 4, 2013 - 11:30 AM
The slant on this piece is pro-Federalism and I wouldn't waste time on it but he apparently is the official Libya blogger for Transitions which I guess falls under the aegis of Foreign Policy magazine. So I decided to try and dissect his arguments.
Here are two quotes: “provinces, which have often enjoyed considerable powers of self-rule at various moments throughout Libyan history” and “local identities have reasserted themselves with a vengeance.” The problem I have is that the average reader has no idea if that is true or not. Mr. Eljarh makes two bold statements and doesn't back them up at all. Are we to take the meaning and subtext of those words at face value? But maybe he's trying to guide the reader to a certain destination.
There is also a subtle attempt to equate anti-Federalist thinking with the former ruling madman by saying, “Muammar Qaddafi did his best to stamp out memories of strong regional power” This is arguably incorrect because Qaddafi allowed Misratah to be a regional economic powerhouse. The port there is still one of the busiest, if not the busiest in Libya. Steel, cement, and other commercial enterprises were permitted by the former dictator and the reputation of Misratah as the Gangnam or business center of Libya persists to this day. In addition, Sirte, the reputed base for Qaddafi's tribe and the location of his inglorious demise was built up as the alternate capital of Libya. He lavished resources on Sirte so the supposed centralization of power, prestige, and money under Qaddafi is quite possibly a specious argument if one takes the effort to dig deeply and try and understand the often contradictory policies of the former regime.
Now on to the next point made by Mr. Eljarh, he writes, “On Saturday, June 1, Ahmed Zubair al-Senussi, the leader of the self-proclaimed government in the eastern province of Cyrenaica, issued a declaration of semi-independence.” Semi-independence? Really?!? Was full independence too much too soon or did they not want to hurt the feelings of non Barcans? Mr. Eljarh elects to overlook the fact that Zubair is a self-proclaimed leader of Barca, he was never elected to his post as visionary scion of the “royal” family of the House Senussi. By what authority does Zubair get the legitimacy to rally Barca to semi-independence? He apparently wants to distance his region from a temporary entity in the form of the General National Congress (GNC). Rather than take the reasonable path and allow for the ratification of a constitution, Zubair wants to force all Libya to accommodate his factional demand for semi-independence.
Then Mr.Eljarh states, “He [Zubair] made his proclamation in front of a big, jubilant audience gathered in the city of El Marj” I enjoy the emotive use of the word “jubilant” and wonder how jubilant they were? Also how big was the crowd? Alas, Mr. Eljarh ignores these questions and leaves it fully to the readers imaginative faculties. He also doesn't mention even an estimate for the amount of support Zubair actually has. I think he omits this because there has not been any public poll or vote in Barca regarding Zubair or his support among the populace of Barca.
Next Mr. Eljarh glosses over the supposed resume of Zubair, “The Cyrenaican leader served for a while on the post-Qaddafi National Transitional Council before resigning to run the regional government in Cyrenaica.” But to be fair, Zubair apparently spent a considerable amount of time in detention under more than one Libyan regime if my memory is correct.
In the following paragraph, Mr. Eljarh apparently makes the case that tribal leadership is superior to militia leadership. He writes regarding the Zubair led Barcan council, “The Council does, however, enjoy the support of powerful tribal factions who are concerned about maintaining the rule of law in a country awash in weapons and rival militias.” He never explains why tribal factions are preferable to his bogeyman of choice: militias.
Mr. Eljarh apparently has an issue with militias, as do many Libyans. He writes, “Over the past few weeks, armed militias affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and the city of Misrata demonstrated their muscle by taking over government ministries in Tripoli and pressuring to pass the controversial Political Isolation Law.” This statement is a bit misleading, Mr.Eljarh provides no citation or proof that the gunmen were affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood or Misratah and they did not “take over” the Ministries. They did surround them and lobby very forcefully for a vote on the PIL. Thankfully nobody was killed and the gunmen withdrew once they were assured that their representatives in the Congress understood the gravity of the situation.
I wish Mr. Eljarh well but hope that he refines his writing style to the extent that he understand that Libyans like me who oppose the imposition of federalism at this time also have a voice in this debate. Thank you for reading my analysis of this controversial topic as it relates to Libya.