Libya's rival political factions have agreed on a road map for long-delayed national elections, but the deal may do little to overcome the divisions and entrenched interests that have brought previous attempts to a halt.
The agreement, signed at the UN Support Mission in Libya (Unsmil) in Tripoli, calls for presidential and parliamentary elections within 24 months and seeks to settle disputes over electoral laws and restructure the country's election commission.
It is the latest effort to break a deadlock that has kept Libya divided between rival institutions and left voters without a national election since 2014.
Claudia Gazzini, a senior Libya analyst at the International Crisis Group, said the four-page document contains areas of consensus but does not provide a clear path through the country's most difficult political disputes.
“Nothing in this agreement makes us think that we are anywhere closer to holding elections,” Ms Gazzini, who has also served as policy adviser to a former UN special representative for Libya, told The National.
The document allows military personnel to vote and run as candidates, permits Libyans with dual citizenship to run for president if they renounce their second nationality before taking office, and calls for presidential and parliamentary elections to be held simultaneously.
It also says elections should be held under a single executive authority and unified national institutions. If that is not possible, the parties will work with the UN mission on an alternative mechanism to reach the electoral milestone.
Ms Gazzini said the provision was problematic because the agreement does not explain how the rival authorities are expected to form a unified executive in the first place.
That creates a key obstacle: the same political divisions that have prevented elections are also being treated as an issue that must be resolved before elections can take place.
“The representatives of the Tripoli and Benghazi sides who took part in these negotiations have not referred back to their assemblies,” added Ms Gazzini.
“The two assemblies are in disagreement with this negotiating format because they were not involved and did not have a say in who was selected. So there is already a certain attitude of non-co-operation between the assemblies and the individuals who signed this agreement.”
Familiar road map
Libya has been through several attempts to solve that problem.
A UN-backed political process led to an election scheduled for December 2021, but the vote was postponed indefinitely after disputes over the legal framework and the eligibility of candidates.
Since then, competing institutions have endorsed various political initiatives without resolving the question of who ultimately controls the state.
Libya has had little stability or security since the uprising against Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, which was backed by a Nato-led military intervention. The North African nation split in 2014 between warring eastern and western factions, but there has been little major warfare since a ceasefire was struck in 2020.
Othman Ben Sassi, a political analyst and former member of Libya's post-2011 National Transitional Council, said he did not expect the latest agreement to produce a different result. “They are only trying to gain time,” he told The National.
Libyans have been waiting for national elections for years, he said, while political leaders continue to hold meetings and reach agreements without producing a lasting settlement.
“There is a huge contradiction between the reality on the ground and the meetings held at the highest level and their outcomes,” said Mr Ben Sassi.
He highlighted worsening problems with electricity and energy as evidence of what he described as the gap between political negotiations and the concerns of ordinary Libyans.
“People won't care about such a project,” he said, referring to the political process. “There are more pressing issues for them.”
Problem with electoral laws
For parliamentary elections, the new UN-backed deal uses Libya's 2014 election law as a template rather than the electoral legislation produced by the 6+6 committee, a body formed by the House of Representatives and the High Council of State.
This change could lead to new legal and political challenges before a vote is held, said Ms Gazzini.
Another unresolved issue is Libya's divided judiciary.
Ms Gazzini said the agreement makes no provision for addressing the split within the judicial system, which could complicate challenges to electoral decisions and further undermine the legal basis of a national vote.
“I wouldn't be surprised if parties or individuals start filing legal challenges to this agreement in the upcoming days and weeks,” she said. “The potential for non-implementation is huge,” she added.
Separately, Mr Ben Sassi argues that presidential elections should not take place before Libyans settle the country's constitutional framework.
“Holding a presidential election without first agreeing on a constitution would create serious uncertainty over the powers of the presidency, the length of its mandate and the form of government,” he said.
The UN process has recognised the constitutional and legal framework as one of the central obstacles to elections. Its current road map seeks to resolve outstanding differences over the constitutional and legal basis for presidential and parliamentary elections rather than requiring a separate constitutional settlement before the electoral process can proceed.
Who benefits from another delay?
For Mr Ben Sassi, the obstacles are not primarily technical. He says that Libya's political and military elites have little incentive to hold elections that could cost them their positions.
In western Libya, several armed groups retain significant military power, while political figures in both eastern and western institutions have remained in office well beyond the terms originally associated with the country's transitional arrangements, said Mr Ben Sassi.
“Those groups and officials fear that a genuine election could remove them from power,” he added. “Members of parliament and the High Council of State have been in place for the past 15 years.”
His assessment is echoed, in a more limited form, by a Libyan politician who spoke to The National on condition of anonymity.
The politician rejected the outcome of the 4+4 committee and opposed power-sharing arrangements among the political and military forces that dominate Libya.
Libya's future, the politician said, “should not be decided in negotiating rooms, but through the will of the people”.
The eight-member 4+4 committee comprises two members from the House of Representatives, two from the High Council of State, and two each from Abdul Hamid Dbeibah’s Tripoli-based government and Gen Khalifa Haftar’s eastern-based forces.
The deal comes as the US steps up efforts to move Libya's eastern and western administrations towards unification.
Massad Boulos, US President Donald Trump's senior adviser for Arab and African affairs, has been leading a separate diplomatic initiative aimed at encouraging a rapprochement between the camps.
On Monday, Mr Boulos welcomed the 4+4 agreement as an “encouraging step forward” and urged the parties to move quickly on implementation, national elections and the creation of unified institutions.
“Now is the time to build on this momentum,” he said in a post on X.
The US initiative and the UN-backed electoral agreement are separate processes, but they are unfolding against the same backdrop: an international push to end Libya's institutional division and establish a unified government.
