Summary: The organizers of the Geneva initiative raised the slogan of "Libyan-Libyan dialogue" away from external guardianship, but the announcement of a new government opened the door to questions about its legitimacy and timing, and its ability to turn from a political initiative into an implementable reality.

At a time when Libyan political circles were awaiting the outcome of an initiative that the United States is shaping to unify executive and security institutions and end the transitional period, a group of activists and politicians surprised the scene by announcing the formation of a "unified Libyan government" from the Swiss city of Geneva. This move shifted the course of debate from waiting for a forthcoming international initiative to a wide-ranging controversy over a local initiative that seemed, in the eyes of many, a preemptive attempt to impose a new political reality, and even to block any arrangements being prepared behind the scenes.

From the heart of the Swiss city, whose name has been associated with Libyan dialogue sessions in recent years, the participants in what they called the "Libyan Political Dialogue Forum" emerged to announce the appointment of Mustafa al-Majdoub to head a new government, stressing that their project stems from a pure Libyan will far from UN sponsorship or any external guardianship.

A Vortex of Controversy

The announcement of the new government came as a great and surprising shock to the political circle, starting with the name of the head of government himself, who is not known for prominent political roles at the national level and has never held known executive or legislative positions, raising questions about the criteria for his selection to lead the government announced from Geneva.

As for the announcement itself, which at first glance seemed an attempt to break the political deadlock, it soon sparked a wave of questions about its causes and repercussions. Does this step represent the beginning of a new political path reflecting the state of discontent with existing institutions, or is it just a new headline added to the list of initiatives that never came to life? Did it come in response to a real political vacuum, or does it reflect a frantic race to impose new facts before any international settlement of the Libyan crisis crystallizes?

Read More

Libyan cultural life revives with the Arab "Season" festival

Carcinogenic agricultural pesticides alarm Libyan health authorities

Dismissal of Libyan intelligence chief opens door to disagreements

In the Libyan issue... intelligence advances and diplomacy fades

Anticipating these expected questions and criticisms, the group organizing the dialogue said in a statement that "its project is based on a preparatory committee comprising 60 figures evenly distributed across the three historical regions, representing parties, civil society organizations, and women figures, with the aim of formulating a political project led by Libyans themselves away from external interference."

It was clear in the statement that the initiative does not target only the Libyan interior, but also carries a message to the international community that there are Libyan parties that reject continued management of the file through external initiatives. This was indicated in a statement by Abdulhakim Bayou, one of the candidates for head of the new government, who affirmed that the participants came to Geneva to say that Libya is "not a file to be shared among states" and that national decision-making must remain in the hands of Libyans alone.

Bayou also called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces and mercenary groups, whether Russian or Turkish, within a period not exceeding two months, while at the same time emphasizing economic openness to all countries and welcoming Turkish and Russian companies to contribute to reconstruction in accordance with Libyan laws.

Bayou explicitly announced his rejection of the initiative of US Presidential Senior Advisor Massad Boulos, considering that "any path that bypasses the national will will not gain acceptance," while welcoming the tripartite agreement between the House of Representatives, the High Council of State, and the Presidential Council as a step that can be built upon to reach elections.

Why Now?

Despite the attempt to present the initiative as a comprehensive national project, its timing raised many question marks, especially as it coincides with increasing international political movement led by the United States and a number of regional parties to find a new formula to end the transitional period.

Libyan journalist Fateh al-Khashmi suggested that "the choice of timing for the announcement was not spontaneous, but came amid a growing feeling among some political and civil forces that the scene is heading towards new arrangements for power-sharing between specific parties cooked up outside the Libyan will, which pushed this group to try to present itself as a national alternative that rejects the reproduction of international guardianship."

The initiative also reflects, according to al-Khashmi, "the extent of frustration prevailing among sectors of the Libyan elite after years of faltering UN paths and successive transitional governments without reaching elections that end the state of division."

He added, "But this motive, however valid it may be, does not necessarily mean that the initiative possesses the necessary ingredients to turn into a viable political project, especially in light of the absence of recognition from official institutions and active military forces."

As for political researcher Abdulaziz Aghnayeh, he summarized his position on the initiative by saying that what happened recalls the experience of the Khalifa al-Ghawil government, considering that it is nothing but a new political maneuver by parties that participated in draining the country.

Political analyst Ahmed al-Mahdawi goes further, describing what is happening in Geneva as a "pathetic political farce" that reproduces the same faces and mechanisms that led Libya to division.

Al-Mahdawi believes that "reducing the Libyan crisis to closed meetings to choose a head of government away from popular will and legitimate institutions will not produce a solution, but will add a new layer of loss of trust, affirming that Libya does not need governments manufactured in hotels and meeting halls as much as it needs institutions that derive their legitimacy from the ballot box."

Changing the Rules of the Game

In contrast, political analyst Fawzi Najm warned against underestimating political movements of this kind, saying: "Practically, the chances of the government announced in Geneva turning into an effective executive authority appear limited, in light of the absence of local and international recognition, and its lack of implementation tools or field influence, but that does not mean the step is without impact."

He continued: "The mere announcement of a new government reflects the extent of restlessness within the Libyan scene, and confirms that the state of political blockage has pushed different groups to search for alternative paths outside the traditional frameworks led by the United Nations in recent years. It may also complicate the scene further if it turns into a platform attracting new figures or political forces, adding another actor to a map already crowded with competing bodies and institutions."

He explained: "The Geneva initiative reveals, before anything else, the widening gap between the aspirations of sectors of Libyans to restore national decision-making and a political reality still governed by complex internal and external balances. It carries slogans that resonate with part of public opinion, such as rejecting foreign guardianship, demanding the withdrawal of foreign forces, and ending the transitional period through elections, but at the same time it collides with a fundamental question: who has sufficient legitimacy to turn these slogans into institutions and recognized authority?"