The rush towards elections in Libya might be a gamble no one can afford

The non-binding accord signed by rival Libyan factions at the Paris Summit last month cast doubts on the feasibility of securing early elections, making it premature to envisage a path toward stability or any change in the migration situation in lawless Libya.

What’s been presented in the media as a diplomatic breakthrough—more so internationally than locally—Libyan leaders committed to a roadmap to parliamentary and presidential elections in the North African country before the end of the year.

The summit brought four Libyan leaders to the table; Fayez al-Sarraj, head of the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli and chairman of the Presidential Council (PC); eastern Libya commander Khalifa Haftar; Khaled Al-Mishri, president of the High Council of State (HCS); Aguila Saleh, speaker of Tobruk-based House of Representatives (HoR). Representatives from around 20 neighboring countries and regional powers involved in the Libya crisis were also in attendance.

The plan was ambitious, and risky, for a country that has been gripped by chaos since the uprising that toppled Muammar Gaddafi in 2011. A plethora of armed groups and two administrations today vye for power and the UN special envoy for Libya, Ghassan Salame, has given up trying to implement a 2015 political agreement to form a unity government, instead focusing on holding elections this year.

The latest in several international efforts to bring order out of Libya’s chaos, the French-led initiative started with a conference last year that did not consult powerful local forces and as a result achieved little. It is uncertain whether this new push will differ from the several false outsets since the fall of Gaddafi.

Competing actors

European leaders want to stabilise the country and stop the flow of sub-Saharan Africans to Europe. However it is too soon to anticipate whether the Paris communique will change anything, let alone pacify the oil-rich state that has led to more than 400,000 people being trafficked through to Italian shores.

Italy has the most invested in curbing migration. France, on the other hand, isn't dealing with arrivals from Libya. Both claim to support Libya’s stability, but President Emmanuel Macron's rush to broker an agreement for elections implies that he is ready to “gamble”, as Libya expert Jalel Harchaoui suggested. 

France can live with the risks from a failed accord including destabilisation, he continued, whereas Italy genuinely fears Libya’s destabilisation could generate new spikes in migrant numbers crossing the Mediterranean.

Ordinary Libyans will of course bear the brunt of any destabilisation and violence.

On one hand the Italians, Turks, and Qataris (and the Americans to a large extent) believe the constitution comes before elections whereas the French, Egyptians and Emiratis are for elections first.

Some in western Libya suspect that the Macron-led push is an attempt to strengthen Khalifa Haftar as the key power broker in Libya. Haftar, commander of the self-proclaimed Libyan National Army (LNA) in the east, has presented himself to the west as a military strongman who can bring order to the country. He enjoys support from France as well as Egypt, the UAE and Russia.

Notwithstanding his endorsement of the roadmap agreed upon in Paris, the Libyan strongman is expected to continue his often brutal anti-Islamist campaign under the banner of "fighting terrorism". That may well extend from the recent fighting in Derna (embarassingly during the summit) to other cities. The elections will determine if Haftar's brand has appeal beyond Libya’s east.

Many analysts doubt that the Paris initiative to invite four senior figures representing most, although not all, of Libya's rival factions can lead to real progress. Despite French efforts to convene all of the key players, leaders of the powerful militias that control the capital, and of militias in and around Misrata, were absent leaving western Libya under-represented at the talks.

Gathering individual personalities and granting them international legitimacy without ensuring there is any will to compromise may reward potential spoilers in a corrupt, fractured environment that provides opportunities to actors who are keen on eluding political compromise.

No end in sight 

Geopolitics scholar Harchaoui argued that the real problem in pressing Libyan leaders to commit to an early election schedule in Libya’s mayhem is that the different players won't be motivated enough and will indulge in scapegoating and the blame game. In his view, the election will be used in this context as a political tool to avoid dialogue or reconciliation.

Libya remains too chaotic for elections with armed groups across the country indulging in extra-judicial killings, attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure, and abducting and disappearing people. On top of that, terrorist groups like ISIS (Daesh) have gained a foothold that threatens to disrupt any peace or rebuilding of the Libyan state. On 2 May, ISIS militants struck the electoral commission headquarters in Tripoli in an apparent move to derail efforts to organise elections in Libya.

Migrants and asylum seekers passing through Libya face risks of beatings, torture, extortion, sexual violence, and forced labour in unofficial detention centres nominally under the state control, run by guards, militias and smugglers.

To get an idea of the extent of the lawlessness oneshould look no further than the video released last year showing Africans being sold in a "slave market" of sorts,

What further complicates efforts to stabilise Libya are the diverging interests among regional countries, that back opposing sides and competition between European powers.

France and Italy are pulling in opposite directions as Rome stands behind Sarraj, hoping he can find a solution to the migration issue, whereas Paris supports Haftar, viewing his army as an effective counterterrorism measure.

Italy and the rest of the EU are sadly dumping migrants and asylum seekers on Libya. The EU has been stubbornly pushing back its borders through dirty deals and other Europe-wide efforts to stem migration.

Some Western countries even suggested that Libya can accommodate millions of sub-Saharan Africans who want to leave their countries of origin, essentially forcing them to live in unsafe, unacceptable living conditions. A permanent resettlement of migrants in Libya would cause dramatic demographic changes and eventually lead to more instability, poverty and violence thus pushing desperate people across the Mediterranean again.

Bad, 'dumping’ deals could further destabilise Libyan politics, resulting in an even worse situation, forcing thousands to make it to Europe through more dangerous smuggling networks.

Accelerating elections in a divided country, in addition, could undermine efforts to achieve peace and stability making reconciliation much more difficult to achieve in the absence of a full Libyan consensus.

Little is expected to change for migrants in Libya’s status quo while the country remains a hub of drug, human and arms trafficking.