LEARNING FROM OUR MISTAKE:

The 1951 Libyan constitution offered expansive political and social freedoms to its people and sections of it wouldn't have been out of place in Western Europe. Article 11 guaranteed the rule of law, Article 21 freedom of conscience, and Article 23 freedom of the press. The parliamentary system was based on universal adult suffrage, at a time when Switzerland--that liberal beacon at the heart of Europe--didn't allow women to vote in federal elections. [...]

What Libya--and Libyans--clearly needs is something or someone--a leader, a government, something--around which to rally.

The 1951 constitution is just that.

While Gaddafi pretended that Libya was a homogenous Arab Muslim state, ignoring important ethnic, linguistic, and religious differences to the detriment of all, the 1951 constitution and the system of government it provided for--a hereditary monarchy with a representative system of government--enjoyed broad support, and continues to do so to this day.

Technocracy--as the 1951 constitution provided for--is an oft-maligned form of rule, yet it certainly has its place, particularly in times of crisis. Witness the appointment of Mario Draghi as Italian prime minister in February, for instance, which was crucial in stabilizing a political system that was teetering on the edge.

This is evidenced by nominal support for the restoration of the 1951 constitution and the monarchy among a broad mix of Libyans. Encouragingly, those campaigning for the "Return of Constitutional Legitimacy" have been genuine grassroots movements. Tribal leaders and politicians, too, are receptive to the idea of re-establishing a constitutional monarchy. Mohamed Abdelaziz, foreign minister from 2013 to 2014, called for the rule of a symbolic monarch--as in Belgium, Britain, and Spain--vowing to "take it upon himself" to push for the return of the monarchy. Far from being, as some have argued, an unviable policy option, Abdelaziz was right to argue that the monarchy's return is the best solution for the restoration of security and stability in his country.

The monarchy acted as a symbol of unity, bolstered by the popularity of King Idris and the Senussi family. It could do so again today. William H. Lewis, a specialist on the region, argued that 'Idris' political primacy was inevitable due to his acceptability among most Libyan political factions and competing groups as a compromise candidate, a political figure without any special axes to grind.

Tweet   @brothersjudd