Post-revolution Libya is faced with tremendous challenges. The premature optimism shown by Libya’s new leaders has now come to haunt them, with imminent issues such as weapons and security as well as the upcoming elections. Recent developments in Libya highlight a dark side to the revolution’s aftermath. Libya’s new leaders completely lack experience in running a country, let alone a country in transition. However, this comes as no surprise, as Gaddafi’s rule was characterised as an autocracy lacking any civil society institutions. Gaddafi ruled Libya with an iron fist, and this is the first experience of freedom and democracy to many in Libya, while many are still finding their way.

The situation in Libya is further complicated by the apparent power struggle between different factions of society on tribal, regional and ethnic levels. Also, the lack of a coherent, inclusive and charismatic leadership is causing the situation in Libya to deteriorate even further. There is a sense that many of the people behind the turbulence taking place in Libya are the same people who could put an end to these turbulent events. However, many are using their bargaining chips in exchange for more influence in the country’s new political sphere. The power struggle has now led to the exploitation of the legitimate demands and rights of the majority by an influential minority as a means to achieve their ambitions.

The recent developments in Libya highlight many issues that are instrumental in any future governing system. There is a clear struggle for power, and there are many legitimate rights and demands by all parties involved in this struggle. In order to prevent exploitation, measures must be put in place to respond positively to the demands posed by different parties.

When such a struggle for power exists, the governing system that would easily address the challenges posed by the Libya’s new environment would need to include a robust mechanism for power sharing on geographical basis. The only system that would ensure such an arrangement would be a constitutionally decentralized system or a federal system.

There have been calls for federalism in the relatively stable and secure eastern region of Libya, known as Cyrenaica. However, these calls were condemned and attacked by Libya’s new leaders, and also fiercely attacked by the Muslim Brotherhood. All possible resources were mobilized to attack the move by tribal and political leaders in eastern Libya, and such mobilization resulted in bloody clashes in a recent pro-federalism rally in Benghazi.

One of the main issues raised by the leaders in Cyrenaica was that if one part of the country is suffering from a security vacuum and is destabilized due to historical or inherited fissures, it should not in any way affect the regions that are calmer and more secure, otherwise the destabilization of part of the country would divert the attention of the central government and would cause delays in the government’s response to other issues in different parts of the country.

This argument and others in favor of federalism are very valid in the case of Libya. There has to be a mechanism by which local ownership and political participation is guaranteed for all throughout Libya. People need to appreciate and value their role in running their own lives, and the culture of Tripoli, in which the central government controls everything, has to diminish, and must be replaced with local ownership.

Many in the anti-federalism camp would argue that federalism means the breaking up of the country and would result in the resumption of civil war, and some have even gone to the extent to accuse anyone who calls for federalism as a traitor. The fear of the concentration of the country’s wealth in Cyrenaica is another driving factor behind the fierce attack on federalism.

The contrary can be strongly argued in the wake of recent developments in Libya. The government realized the importance of decentralizing its role, and is working to establish a road map for an effective local governing system. However, this proposed decentralization can only be safeguarded if protected by the constitution; otherwise, it could be fiddled with and changed by any future government with a working majority in the Libyan parliament.

In a decentralized system,  the Libyan people would not feel that decisions affecting their lives locally are made elsewhere. They would instead practice ownership over local governing issues and general political experience and human resources would be developed in local capacities. If political and human resources are developed throughout Libya and local ownership and political participation is encouraged, stability and security would be restored in the troubled regions and all Libyans would practice their rights properly in the newly established decentralized democracy.

Only through a public debate can the political discourse mature so that Libyans can reach an understanding and consensus. Libyans need to at least consider the possibility of federalism to share power between the different regions and groups in order to restore stability and security. A limited form of regional autonomy will ultimately be the best way to maintain the unity of the country, which is being threatened by the continuing clashes of armed groups and the weak response by the authorities.

A centralized government in the case of Libya would be bad enough, but a weak centralized government would be the worst for the future stability and security of Libya.

Mohamed Eljarh is a UK based Libyan academic researcher and political, social development activist. He is from the city of Tobruk in Eastern Libya.