Monarchy debate returns, but many Libyans see it as a step backward

Libya’s prolonged political deadlock has pushed many citizens to reassess ideas once considered settled. Among these ideas is the place of the former monarchy in the country’s political imagination.

The renewed attention is not driven by a coordinated campaign, nor does it signal a national shift toward a single model of governance. It reflects something more fundamental: a society still searching for stability after years of uncertainty.

Mohammed El Senussi, grandson of the late King Idris, has been referenced frequently in this ongoing debate. Several statements he made in earlier interviews have resurfaced, prompting renewed discussion about Libya’s historical trajectory. In those remarks, El Senussi emphasised that any consideration of the monarchy’s relevance today rests entirely with Libyans. His position is one perspective within a much broader national conversation.

What has given these discussions momentum is not the figure of El Senussi himself, but the environment in which these ideas have reappeared. After years of political fragmentation, parallel administrations and a stalled electoral process, many Libyans are revisiting different periods of the country’s history. This reassessment includes, but is not limited to, the era of the monarchy.

Interestingly, much of this renewed curiosity comes from younger Libyans who did not live through the monarchy or the early decades of the Gaddafi era. They are encountering historical sources, personal accounts and archival material for the first time. For some, this information offers an alternative lens through which to understand Libya’s political evolution. For others, it simply raises questions about what models have worked, what failed and what might be worth reconsidering.

A moment of critical reflection

The monarchy that governed Libya between 1952 and 1969 remains a contested period. Some view it as a time of constitutional structure and relative political order. Others argue that its limitations and the conditions of the period make it an unsuitable reference point for modern Libya. This diversity of opinion is not a weakness but a reminder of how complex Libya’s political memory has become.

El Senussi, in earlier interviews, has disputed narratives that portrayed the monarchy as aligned with foreign powers. He has pointed to the role of the Senussi movement in resistance efforts, and highlighted the state-building steps taken in the early years of independence. These claims form part of the historical conversation, but they do not close it. Libya’s past is multilayered, and no single perspective can encompass the full range of its experiences.

His personal recollections of the 1969 coup offer insight into the upheaval that reshaped his family’s life. They also serve as a reminder that political transitions inevitably carry personal stories, losses and interpretations that continue to influence how different generations understand the same events.

What the debate reveals

The renewed discussion of the monarchy is less about the past and more about the present. When citizens begin to revisit older political models, it often reflects uncertainty about the current options. Libya’s institutional paralysis has created a space in which old ideas, new proposals and hybrid models are all being examined.

El Senussi has suggested that a constitutional monarchy could, theoretically, offer a neutral framework capable of reducing political polarisation. Many Libyans disagree, preferring republican systems or new arrangements shaped by today’s realities. Others believe that examining past models is necessary but not a roadmap for the future. These differing views make one thing clear: Libya is still searching for a governing system that can withstand political pressure and foster national unity.

At this stage, the conversation about the monarchy remains exploratory. There is no broad political movement behind it, no unified agenda and no mechanism through which such a system could be reinstated. What exists is a debate, and debates of this kind often emerge when societies are trying to understand where they are headed.

A country still choosing its future

Libya’s path forward will not be determined by the memories of a bygone era or the opinions of a single individual. It will be shaped by Libyans themselves, through the difficult process of building consensus around a system that can deliver stability, legitimacy and accountable governance.

The monarchy is only one topic in a much larger national conversation. Whether it fades again or continues to resurface depends on how Libyans choose to interpret their history and apply its lessons to their future.

What the current debate shows, above all, is a country still in search of a political structure capable of serving its people. And in that search, no idea is too old, too new or too unconventional to be reconsidered.