In Libya's first post-Qaddafi elections, pragmatism trumps ideology

A diverse coalition of parties claiming to eschew a particular ideology and trumpeting its problem-solving skills won with almost half the votes, well ahead of the second-place Islamist party.

A coalition of parties stressing problem solving over polemic appears to have scored a victory in Libya's first vote in more than 40 years, according to final results released today. 

The National Forces Alliance (NFA), led by former interim leader Mahmoud Jibril, captured nearly half of congressional seats reserved for parties and more than double the seats taken by its runner-up, the rival Islamist Justice and Construction party. 

The next round could be a face-off – or negotiations – between the two front-runners over the formation of Libya’s next government, with a wild card in the hands of independent candidates who hold the majority of 200 congressional seats. The NFA took 39 of 80 seats reserved for parties, and Justice and Construction won 17. The rest of the party seats are scattered among over a dozen smaller groups, while 120 seats were reserved for independent candidates.

While the results end a week-long wait for answers, new questions remain.

It is unclear whether Mr. Jibril will succeed in forming the cross-party unity government – including with Islamists – he has called for. Equally unclear is which direction independent candidates and smaller parties might swing.

For now, Libyans have hailed the elections as a landmark step forward. Voters turned out in high spirits on July 7 to elect the national congress, which will name a fresh interim government and may help decide how a new constitution is written.

The new congress was originally to choose a constitutional drafting committee. The National Transitional Council stripped it of that function this month, but that decision might in theory be reversed by the next government.

The July 7 vote was Libya’s first since Muammar Qaddafi seized power in 1969. He banned political parties and threw out the country’s previous constitution in favor of jamahiriya, a system of committees that propped up dictatorship.

As “Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution,” Mr. Qaddafi’s support for armed groups and frequent head-butting with the West ultimately led to more than a decade of international sanctions.

Last year revolution of a different kind overthrew Qaddafi’s regime. Today Libyans are eager to restore stability, improve rickety public services, and bring down high unemployment. 

That sentiment has favored Jibril, a former interim prime minister who campaigned on name-brand recognition and an emphasis on tackling nuts-and-bolts problems. 

While many have called him a liberal, he has rejected both this label and its opposite in Libya, political Islam. NFA leaders stress a make-up they describe as a diverse mix of around 55 parties.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.