Split on the ground, intact on paper: Libya’s enduring limbo

More than a decade after Libya fractured into rival administrations, the country remains split in practice—but not on paper. What prevents this fragile de facto partition from solidifying into a formal division, and why have external powers quietly accommodated it? As Libya drifts between paralysis and managed dysfunction, the real question is no longer whether it is divided, but whether it could ever be officially—and why that outcome remains unlikely.

Libya’s endurance as a formally unified state is less a product of national consensus than of mutually reinforcing constraints. None of the competing authorities—the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU), the eastern government aligned with the House of Representatives, nor Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA)—can afford the political or economic cost of openly declaring a break. Each relies on a narrative of national legitimacy while foreign sponsors themselves prefer a fragmented but nominally intact Libya that protects their interests without forcing them into the responsibilities of state-building. 

Yet the persistence of this limbo also reflects the deeply interdependent nature of Libya’s political economy. The country’s oil wealth—its only functioning national glue—cannot be cleanly divided without triggering financial collapse for all sides or even war. The Central Bank, the National Oil Corporation, the judiciary and the public salary system still operate in a national framework. Even when blockades or shutdowns occur, they serve as bargaining tools rather than steps toward secession. In effect, Libya’s factions survive by holding the state hostage while remaining dependent on its unified institutions.

READ: Libyan parliament condemns Greek call to cancel 2019 maritime border agreement with Turkey

While historical and geopolitical forces kept Libya formally unified, internal leadership dynamics have shaped the country’s contemporary limbo. The small nationalist elite that pushed for a united, independent Libya in the 1950s believed the country could only survive and progress as a single state. Even King Idris I, often considered a co-founder of modern Libya, at one point accepted the idea of Cyrenaica becoming an independent state before changing his mind under local pressure. Later, Muammar Gaddafi, who deposed Idris in 1969, maintained a strong national rhetoric in which a unified Libya was a central theme, emphasising territorial integrity and national cohesion. Libya’s historical regions—Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and Fezzan—were imposed by colonial powers for administrative convenience and never developed into autonomous, state-like entities. After the 2011 revolution and the civil war of 2014, however, no equivalent leadership emerged. In their absence, a new generation of actors—driven more by personal and regional interests than by national cohesion—rose to power. These actors find it more advantageous to maintain the de facto partition: the country is divided in practice, yet none dare to formalise separation constitutionally. This arrangement allows them to control resources, leverage institutions, and negotiate with foreign patrons while avoiding the full responsibility of independent statehood. In effect, Libya’s modern “status quo” reflects a balance of fragmented ambitions and shared dependence on national frameworks—a delicate limbo that persists because no domestic or international force finds it expedient to challenge it.

Libya’s de facto partition persists not only because of internal fragmentation but also due to the cautious calculations of external actors. Foreign powers engage selectively with rival authorities, securing influence and access to resources without committing to the risks of full unification or formal recognition of separation. Domestic actors, in turn, exploit this tacit tolerance to maintain control over and negotiate with international patrons.

Public sentiment further limits any move toward formal partition. A small unofficial poll of 100 Libyans, conducted last month, found that nearly 90 percent opposed splitting the country and expressed suspicion of the muted, yet persistent, calls for a federalist system. Even proposals for highly decentralized federalist structures—intended to better manage wealth and regional development—are widely feared as steps toward permanent partition, which explains why advocates of such models have yet to gain significant national legitimacy. Libya’s social fabric reinforces this preference for unity: the population is overwhelmingly Sunni Muslim, largely Arab, with only small minority communities, and family networks are spread across regions. These deep social ties mean that, despite the realities of de facto division, most Libyans prefer a half-functioning, unified state over formal separation.

READ: Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria urge all Libyan parties to engage in political settlement process to end rift

While Libya’s de facto partition continues, the risk of formal separation remains low, in part because secessionist ambitions are extremely limited. Certain minority communities, most notably the Berbers, have long advocated for greater decentralisation and recognition of their cultural and administrative rights. At times, symbolic gestures—such as raising the Berber flag alongside the national one at the Ras Jdeir crossing with Tunisia—have fuelled speculation about separatist intentions. Yet these elements represent only a small fraction of the population, and even when some foreign powers tacitly support greater autonomy for strategic reasons, there is little likelihood of a formal split driven by such minority aspirations. For the majority of Libyans, the de facto partition remains an inconvenient reality, not a desired outcome, and the broader social, historical, and geopolitical constraints continue to favour a single, if partially dysfunctional, state.

The longevity of Libya’s current limbo is reinforced by both domestic inertia and external calculations. Internally, rival factions and regional authorities are cautious about provoking a constitutional crisis that could spiral into outright war; the costs of formalising partition far outweigh the limited gains any actor might hope to secure. Externally, foreign powers continue to treat Libya as a single entity for diplomatic, security, and economic purposes. Even those who might benefit from a divided Libya—through local alliances, resource access, or strategic footholds—prefer the predictable uncertainty of the current arrangement over the unpredictable consequences of official fragmentation. As a result, the de facto partition has become a self-sustaining equilibrium: Libya remains formally united, socially interconnected, and internationally recognised as one state, even as rival administrations govern in parallel and compete for influence.

Foreign involvement, while a constant factor in Libya’s crisis, has so far opposed formal partition, because such a move offers no major strategic gain for regional or global powers. Even during the 2011 NATO intervention—which, under the prevailing circumstances, temporarily made the possibility of partition more tangible—separating the country would have faced serious obstacles. Families from Western Libya living in the East, and vice versa, briefly returned to their ancestral regions, creating the appearance of repatriation along regional lines. Yet this trend quickly disappeared after the civil war ended in October 2011, illustrating that Libyans themselves remain bound by deep social, cultural, historical and familial ties. The combination of domestic cohesion, historical precedent, and calculated external interests continues to favour a single Libyan state, however fragmented it may be in practice. In short, Libya’s de facto partition persists as a manageable stalemate, but the forces that might formalise it remain weak, dispersed, or disinterested, making official division unlikely for the foreseeable future.

OPINION: Beyond jargon: Tripoli’s ‘Supreme Authority’ is a self-preservation plot, not a co-ordinating framework

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.