Corrupt and crony as the Tunisian and Egyptian dictatorial regimes might have been, they left behind creaky but existing institutions that worked in their own quirky and bent manners
In Libya’s case, by design Gaddafi left behind a country without any institutions, without any structures, as well as a mock representative democracy based on tyranny. The more he spoke of People’s Committees, the more he consolidated power in his hands and those of his children.
In spite of aspiring to build an ideal state based on his own self-delusional dreams he left behind a country without the semblance of a normal state – by any criteria.
What started off as a bloodless coup that had a dash of admirable adventurism to it, ended in a blood bath that he could have easily avoided.
After years of waging terrorist war on many countries through his financing of organisations like the IRA and ETA, he finally ended up waging war on his own people.
The body count in the country he left behind in proportion to the meagre population of his country is alarmingly high and disproportionate compared to the lives lost in neighbour countries Egypt and Tunisia.
He might have ruled by fear but he was one of the longest lasting dictators in the region. A leading Mediterranean specialist who served and still does serve with a key British think tank had once told me during a visit to London in the 90s that apart from becoming predictable in his unpredictability his was ironically one of the most stable regimes in spite of its inherent instability. Due to its staying power.
Prophetic attributes were never one of my qualities but I first got wind that the process under way in Libya would prove to be irreversible when I started meeting Maltese workers who had operated in Libya for years – mainly during my home visits.
While in the past Libyans used to fear ‘opening up’ in conversations out of suspicion that they could be planted Gaddafi spies, they told me how the grumbling, dissent and anger had began to swell in recent months. Even before the Arab Spring sprung into life.
When the Arab Spring spurred these folks to externalise their dissent and muster the courage that many felt that they did not have as an ostensibly ‘passive’ people, it was evident that come what may, regardless of the length of the struggle – their day would come.
It was within this spirit that only days after the civil uprising in Libya I had predicted and augured during an early March Inkontri edition on One TV that the aspirations of the Libyan people would be finally addressed.
Particularly as the Gaddafi family ran riot in their own self indulgence and excesses at the expense of Libyan civil society.
The handsome and dashing figure in dark glasses had suddenly become a self parody and mockery of himself.
This explains why he never really carried any respect or favour in the Arab world.
From Egypt to Saudi they used to mock him in private conversations. So much I can testify personally.
His appearances at Arab League summits made many an other leader cringe with embarrassment.
The people’s anger grew because of the inherent anachronism of his rule – on one hand he built housing estates, hospitals, irrigation, infrastructure and educational networks but on the other hand he left more than a third of the population in abject poverty.
His family went far beyond merely snapping up elite military posts.
It actually secured practically all key lucrative business positions.
His son Seif’s attempts to project himself through the influence of money as THE moderniser of his country who might have managed a transition to a sort of market-based economy, was instantly undermined by Seif’s own irrational behaviour the moment the uprising took root; through his violent actions and public pronouncements.
Whether this was of his own being or forced upon him by his father, will remain a secret buried in the sand. Part of a complex story that still needs to be told in full.
Although the Libyan uprising would have got nowhere without external support – particularly since the fall of Benghazi could have easily turned the cards on the revolution – at the end it was a popular uprising. By a civil society that was not allowed to breathe, exist and find its own space until recently.
Arab League backing was crucial in ensuring that the important UN Resolution was passed. Because even if most of the League leaders had old scores to settle with the Libyan dictator through their actions, they gave western intervention in this ostensibly Muslim country an unprecedented and unconditional level of support.
Many are still intrigued by the extent and nature of Qatari support, particularly since some claim – rightly or wrongly – that it was funnelled more towards certain particular militias than the transitional council itself.
No doubt in the coming months new leeches will emerge, as the scramble for Libyan oil, lucrative business contacts and ‘other potential spoils of war’ will surface.
But what intrigues me most is whether Libya will manage to rebuild itself by rebuilding its own society.
Will the potential influence of radical Islamists strengthen itself and even pose a threat to western interests in a future Libya?
What impact will they have on Libyan society itself?
Although some tried to imply that we were being cynical when we talked of the difficulties ahead, Obama himself spoke of a long and winding road still to be taken, while US Secretary of State Clinton spoke of the hard tasks that were still to commence when she met the temporary Libyan leaders when flying out to Tripoli from Malta.
The whole issue of what aid flowed from where and to whom in Libya remains very much of a mystery particularly since the US media itself argued that the way it flowed through back channels had actually undermined the TNC’s authority and fuelled divisions further.
The country is admittedly still in a volatile period of its revolution.
Only time and good will will help things settle down and stabilise.
Some TNC officials have – according to Western reports – already started being criticised by regional leaders and militia commanders on various counts which may also include allegations of new forms of corruption. All this as part of a still on going power struggle.
But as in the case of Tunisia – whichever way the latter’s future may evolve – the Libyan uprising was in no way ideological. It was deep down the work of ordinary people.
It was basically a saga about people who wanted jobs and even more… respect and dignity.
In Tunisia, Ben Ali projected an image of prosperity and enlightenment while other Arabs and Westerners did not even realise the depth of the prevailing despair.
With the Tunisian economy at a standstill some claim that the Jasmine Revolution ‘tore the veil of stability at the expense of accountable government’.
But in Libya’s case things took a different turning.
The Arab Spring itself suddenly woke the Libyans up to the fact that the Arab revolts next door could also happen on their own shores. By allowing them as part of the region itself to not only suddenly imagine but also aspire for and mould a different future.
The Transitional Council’s vision statements of months back which struck me as a desirable economic model that almost looked Scandinavian, might be far too ambitious for these people even in the long term as it spoke of sustainable development, the greening of the economy and low carbon growth, but as I personally see it, before these people can even dream of economic opportunities they need stability and security.
Whether democracy will manage to coexist with the application if Islamic law still has to be seen, as it is still not yet certain whether Libya will go down a purely secular route or even tinge itself with Islamic leadership.
The moment Gaddafi fell, I tried to analyse the comments of various leading think tanks and institutions (mainly American and European) none of which held the Libyan regime in high esteem.
And yet they all came up with their share of concerns. From Day One they approached the subject without the aura of triumphalism that unfortunately coloured some of our own media and politicians’ outbursts. Possibly primed for purely domestic political gain.
Their main points run as follows:
• The struggle for Libya continues, and that ousting a regime still leave the task of installing a viable entity in place;
• History suggests there is a fair likelihood that those who joined to oppose Gaddafi will soon find themselves at odds how best to organise and rule the country they have inherited;
• Much needs to be done to help the new Libyan authorities to work together. Be it to impose and maintain order or to stand up for a functioning economy and government;
• Libyans now have a chance to be at peace with each other and at ease with their region. Reconciliation will only make this possible;
• There is now a real risk of conflict around the question of who governs Libya with legitimacy;
• The head of the military council in Libya is a prominent figure of a strong Islamist trend. How will they respond to a secular government in Libya?
• The combination of extensive caches of weapons in Libya along with Nato-trained fighters who were united against Gaddafi but now have no unifying cause could result in disintegration of the strength of purpose that led to Nato backing the TNC by posing new risks.
Readers might be intrigued to find out that most of these observations hail from the very same COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS with whom the newly designated US Ambassador to Malta is associated.
I am sure that many a Western leader and diplomat feels more comfortable that Gaddafi is dead since many secrets of covert co-operation not only in the economic but also in the intelligence sectors will now be buried with him. Apart from the kickbacks some internationally known PMs are known to have benefited from. All tinder boxes that could have exploded had he stood for trial.
Meanwhile my personal wish is that strenuous efforts should be made to prevent the revolution from getting bogged down in internecine conflict.
This can only be addressed by ensuring that a truly conciliatory outreach will be adopted together with a unified approach as part of the strenuous efforts to see in place an interim government that will prove to be truly inclusive and geographically representative.
On my part, I find the EU’s initial response most commendable, cautious and highly prudent – particularly when it urged the transitional government for a broad based reconciliation policy in practice.
[email protected]
www.leobrincat.com
Leo Brincat is the Shadow Minister for the Environment, Sustainable Development & Climate Change