[/caption]
Like other countries in the region, Libya has embarked on the long process of rebirth, and, as rocky as it is, defining its national identity is of utmost importance.
The National Transitional Council’s (NTC) recent decision to ban religious, sectarian and tribe-based political parties in Libya raises the age-old issues of separation between religion and state, and the role of sect and tribe in political mobilization.
The fact that the legislation also included the outlawing of foreign funding suggests that pan-Islamist groups operating inside the country were its primary targets, considering their growing power to destabilize internal politics by capturing what might otherwise be national allegiance to the state.
It is the responsibility of the public to give leaders the space and legitimacy to lead, while monitoring the intentions and possible effects of policy. In this case, it appears to be an instance in which Libya’s leaders are trying to lead.
When taken at face value, the legislation is liberal in character in that liberalism, offers no place for religion, sectarianism and some aspects of tribalism in the political sphere. It is based on consensus, not identity politics.
The legislation seeks to minimize divisions, prevents any one group from having a monopoly on power, limits outside influence, and is ultimately a step in the direction of institutionalizing liberalism in Libya.
The question of whether it signifies the NTC’s actual commitment to liberalism is a different story, and will be debated until the day the council dissolves.
So far, so good.
Where the problem lies is in the context of Libya and other countries in the MENA region, in which religion, tribalism and sectarianism have for many decades been distinctly tied to politics, whether leaders have liked it or not.
Criticism has reflected this. Nizar Kawan, a prominent figure in Libya’s Muslim Brotherhood, told AFP: “We would prefer if Salafists and other radical groups were given a chance to participate in this political experience so that they are initiated into democracy and dialogue, which will help them renounce violence,” he said.
Ironically, Fathi Baja of the NTC pointed out to AFP that the law aims to exclude those groups wishing to participate by excluding others. Contradictory? Yes. But liberties must always be limited if liberalism is to succeed.
Even so, the law itself does not exclude anyone. It simply redefines the parameters for political mobilization in a way that individuals can be judged for the value of their ideas rather than the groups that they belong to.
