<![CDATA[Muammar Qaddafi’s critique of parliament and political parties in The Green Book argues that modern representative democracy fails to realize genuine popular sovereignty. However, his Jamahiriya system in Libya has been criticized for its authoritarian character, raising questions about the academic validity and internal consistency of his political thought. This study aims to analyze Qaddafi’s critique of parliament and political parties within modern representative democracy, evaluate it from the perspective of fiqh siyasah, particularly the concept of shura, and examine its consistency with his political practices in Libya. This study employs a qualitative library research method using content analysis. The Green Book serves as the primary source, complemented by secondary literature on democratic theory, fiqh siyasah, and relevant scholarly journals. Data were collected through documentation and analyzed descriptively and comparatively. The findings indicate that Qaddafi’s criticism of parliament and political parties reflects concerns also discussed by Schmitt, Manin, Pitkin, Duverger, and Michels. Nevertheless, his proposed alternative, implemented through Popular Conferences and People’s Committees, fails to satisfy Dahl’s institutional prerequisites for democracy and Montesquieu’s principle of separation of powers. From the perspective of fiqh siyasah, Qaddafi’s rejection of consultative and representative institutions conflicts with the collective and participatory character of shura, which emphasizes consultation in political decision-making. This contradiction becomes more evident when his political theory is compared with the authoritarian development of the Jamahiriya system. The study concludes that although Qaddafi’s critique raises relevant questions about the limitations of representative democracy, his proposed political model lacks adequate institutional safeguards to ensure genuine popular participation, accountability, and the distribution of political power.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
