Libya: Parliament, the Last Elected Institution, and the Dispute over Legitimacy

Libya’s House of Representatives, the last political body elected through a popular and democratic vote, is now facing a contentious debate over the legitimacy of its continued existence. Despite the deep divisions over the legitimacy of the procedures adopted during the session that removed the parliament’s speaker and his two deputies, internal disputes within the Libyan parliament have continued unabated. The parliament had extended its own mandate, which had long since expired under the law, but subsequently regained a degree of legitimacy through a political deal with the High Council of State, an institution that has likewise lost its electoral legitimacy and whose legal mandate has expired.

The disputes within parliament, however, have centered on the management of the next political phase and the restructuring of Libya’s divided institutions, amid a political stalemate, a persistent split between the country’s east and west, and the existence of two rival governments whose legitimacy is contested. This situation has coincided with the emergence of a third government, which entered Tripoli and demanded that power be handed over to it. This new authority has positioned itself in opposition to the governments in Tripoli and Benghazi.

The third government was announced by Mustafa al-Majdoub from central Tripoli after he had been selected to head a supposedly “unified government” by a group of politicians and activists at a meeting in Geneva. The identities of those who elected him—and even the legitimacy of the electoral process itself—remain unclear. This is despite the support he has received from militia-affiliated entities, including groups calling themselves the “Misrata Revolutionaries” and the “Tripoli Revolutionaries,” labels whose organizational identities and representative credentials are themselves unclear.

The removal of the parliamentary speaker has triggered anxiety and tension, as well as concerns about the country’s future. Some have described the move as an illegal coup. A number of lawmakers had accused the speaker of abusing his office and called for his departure after 12 years without a change in the holder of the position.

The removal of the speaker and his two deputies, who had held their positions since the last legislative elections in 2014, followed a series of consultative sessions, all of which were marked by sharp divisions over the legitimacy of convening parliament and the powers of its presiding leadership.

The parliamentary movement—or coup, as its opponents call it—began when 98 lawmakers out of the 102 attending the session voted in favor of the change. Some regarded this procedure as a clear violation of the law, which requires the attendance of 130 members out of the 200-seat chamber to establish a quorum for a session intended to amend the internal regulations, dismiss the parliamentary leadership, and elect a new one.

Parliament Speaker Aguila Saleh rejected the outcomes of the October 5 session, describing it as unofficial and arguing that its decisions carried no legal consequences.

Libya’s Presidential Council also joined the opposition to the change in parliamentary leadership. Its chairman called on all parties to uphold the rule of law and respect state institutions. He further indicated that removing the parliamentary speaker without his voluntary resignation might not be consistent with the applicable constitutional frameworks, potentially deepening the country’s political divisions.

What some have described as an important step toward changing a parliamentary leadership that had remained in place for more than a decade has been characterized by others as a hasty and unconstitutional move that contravenes the law. From this perspective, the action amounts to a coup rather than a change carried out in accordance with the most basic principles of legality.

Another, contrasting interpretation suggests that the change in parliamentary leadership was driven by the wishes of foreign powers intervening in Libyan affairs. According to this view, the ousted speaker was regarded as a major obstacle to projects that these external actors wish to pursue in Libya, including privatization initiatives and developments in the oil sector.

These interpretations remain contested, just as the legitimacy of the leadership change itself remains disputed. Meanwhile, some lawmakers from western Libya have called for a public parliamentary session to be held in Tripoli, arguing that it should guarantee members their “freedom of expression and voting.” I remain unconvinced, however, by the argument that such freedoms can be guaranteed in a capital dominated by armed militias.

Despite the ongoing dispute over whether the leadership change was legitimate, some actors have accepted the outcome of the Benghazi session, which elected a new parliamentary speaker. Among them was Massad Boulos, an adviser to the U.S. president, who welcomed the change, stating:

“Washington welcomes the election of new leadership for the House of Representatives and looks forward to working with it to advance the political process, in a manner that helps unify Libya’s institutions and create the conditions for successful national elections.”

The international mission also indicated that it was monitoring the change in parliamentary leadership. It stated that it had been informed of the election of a new presiding body and reaffirmed its commitment to engaging with the parliament, its new leadership, and all its members, while continuing to work with the institution within the framework of the United Nations-supported roadmap.

Libya today is suffering from competing claims to legitimacy among virtually all its sovereign institutions. These disputes have now spread within individual institutions themselves, threatening to fragment what remains unified and deepen divisions that are already entrenched. The country risks entering an even more prolonged political deadlock, despite previous openings that had offered a faint glimmer of light and hope at the end of a tunnel that has remained dark for years.

Regardless of the legal legitimacy of the procedures, and irrespective of who stands to benefit or lose from the change, the move has stirred stagnant waters in a political landscape that has remained frozen for years. Perhaps it will produce some progress, however modest, in breaking the deadlock.