The reign of Gaddafi in Libya is practically over. Yesterday, opposition
forces stormed his compound but could not find him. Tripoli has finally
fallen. Though Gaddafi is yet to be seen, it is unlikely that he will
make a come back. Like others before him, the end of his regime has
come. And times have been so generous to him. For 42 years he reigned
over the land of Libya, its resources and the minds of its people.
Opinion is divided on his exit, just as it is divided on his
personality. Is it a loss or a relief? Is Gaddafi a hero or a villain?
To Afro-centric scholars, to proprietors of African unity, to blind
opponents of the West among Muslims, Arabs and socialists, the exit of
Gaddafi is a great loss for many strong reasons.
The Russians, Chinese and socialist regimes in Latin America like Yugo
Chavez and Fidel Castro and socialists around the world the fall of
Gaddafi is a great loss to the left. The capitalist West has again
conspired to overthrow another champion of the people and social
justice. To compound their sorrow, Gaddafi has not allowed the emergence
of another socialist leader after him. Throughout his tenure, he
remained the invincible leader that directed the affairs of his country.
The forces that overthrew him are therefore unlikely to completely
maintain his socialist principles. Like Egypt after Nasser, Libya in the
long run is most likely going to belong to the West, almost forever,
with its loyalty and transactions probably dictated by the quartet of
America, Britain, France and Italy.
To Afrocentric scholars and Pan-Africanists, Africa has lost a brother,
a big brother, someone who stood by its freedom fighters for the past
four decades. His stamp is there on the historical narration of African
independence struggles: Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, Namibia, South
Africa, to count the ones I personally witnessed. He has stood by many
African leaders who recognized his leadership regardless of their
character from Idi Amin to Charles Taylor. He has donated generously to
many continental endeavours, like the African communications satellite
that he almost single-handedly financed to block the exploitation of
African countries by Europe. Finally, he represented the last advocate
of African unity with his dream of United States of Africa project which
other African leaders found too impractical to invest in.
To many Africans who live under corrupt regimes, Gaddafi would be just
the leader they are looking for in their present state of poverty and
regime corruption. His country has the highest per capita income in
Africa, meaning, on the average, his citizens are the richest on the
continent. He accorded Libyans housing, food and decent material living
far better than the dream of many Africans. He did not keep a foreign
account where he will stash any ill-gotten wealth. (Of course, as an
absolute dictator, he did not need one) His government, he said, is for
the Libyan people: a Jamahiriyya. Such Africans would wonder why Libyans
would overthrow such a benevolent leader, until they read the End of
History and learn about thymos.
Gaddafi has sympathizers also among Arab nationalists. After the death
of his mentor, the Egyptian socialist dictator, Gamal Abdel Nasser,
Gaddafi would carry the baton of Arab Nationalism and unity for at least
the next three decades. As Nasser tried to unsuccessfully forge unity
between Egypt and some Arab states like Syria and Iraq in the 1950s and
1960s, Gaddafi also tried to unite Libya with Sadat’s Egypt, Numeiri’s
Sudan, Bouguiba’s Algeria and Hasan’s Morroco. Each effort was met with
failure. He renounced the treaty with Israel and even expelled over
30,000 Palestinians when the PLO, an organization he generously
financed, harboured and trained, signed the Oslow Accord. You can say,
with little fear of contradiction, that he was the last truly Arab
nationalist leader.
To many Muslims, his ouster by a combined power of NATO and rebel forces
is enough to earn him their sympathy either as a result of religious
affinity or the rational calculation that the enemy of my enemy is my
friend. He is a victim of Western conspiracy, they would say, a claim
they share with his socialist supporters.
Now, who would be celebrating the fall of Gaddafi and for what reasons?
The jubilations in Libya clearly indicate the large number of its
citizens is not missing Gaddafi. His supporters did not come out in
large numbers to defend him as he predicted and he had to hire
mercenaries from Europe and Sub-Saharan African to do the dirty job of
suppressing the opposition in his usually brutal way. Even the army he
has built has melted away. The air of freedom, such opponents of his
regime expect, will soon start to breeze over Libya as soon as the new
government stabilizes.
There are groups within Libya that are welcoming the exit of Gaddafi.
The Berbers and Islamist movements are surely the two that will not
miss him. They bore the brunt of his tyranny more than any other. The
Berbers can now continue their struggle for the restoration of their
language just as the Islamists who are conspicuous in the rebellion will
seek the liberty to pursue their cause. They would only pray that
secularist forces do not shortchange them as it happened in the Algerian
revolution.
This is not to mention the Libyan Diaspora that consists of a variety of
its academics, intelligentsia, civil rights activists and political
opponents of Gaddafi. The days they were targets of assassination by
Gaddafi’s revolutionary committee across the world are certainly over.
Those who are still alive can stay peacefully overseas or return home to
partake in the building of new Libya.
The Muslim credentials of Gaddafi are suspect to many Islamist. He
brutally suppressed them, as Nasser did to the Muslim Brotherhood in
Egypt. He gave unqualified support to the war against terror. He
supported the Serbs in the Bosnian conflict against Bosnian Muslims. He
is also accused of assassinating the Iraqi opposition scholar, Musa
Baqir Sadar, who disappeared after leaving Lebanon en route Libya over
two decades ago. Clearly, Gaddafi is not a favourite of Muslim regimes
and organizations, except those that patronize him for material
purposes.
Gaddafi is also not a hero to many Africans. Thousands of families in
Chad, Uganda, Liberia and Sudan will celebrate his downfall. The war he
waged in these countries or the support he gave to their despots did
cause substantial loss of lives. The opponents of dictators like Idi
Amin, Mangestu, Charles Taylor or of genocidal groups like the the
Janjawid would hardly forgive him. Then there are also African
immigrants – from Mali, Niger, Ghana, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, etc – who
were often deported unceremoniously without any right to their
possessions. Many African leaders may also feel relieved of the burden
of handling Gaddafi’s vituperations or unrestrained statements regarding
their internal affairs, like how he often proposes the separation of
Nigeria into Muslim North and Christian South.
Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia have already expressed their happiness
over his overthrow. Their official papers carry titles like “Gaddafi:
The Exit of a Tyrant”. He has been a pebble in their shoes. He is to
them a live specimen of the socialist contagion that overthrew their
counterparts in Iraq and Egypt. He was also the member of the anti-West
group in OPEC, along with Venezuela and Iran.
Finally and surely, the West will feel relieved of a person whom it has
charged of financing many terrorist groups and activities; who is behind
the bombings of civilians in Berlin and Lockerbie; who has limited its
access to Libyan oil; and who is a long standing enemy whose friendship
it cautiously embraced recently.
Gaddafi has therefore been a controversial figure and so is his exit.
Whatever is your opinion about him, the reality is that his regime is
gone. He might try to regroup his loyalists and constitute a security
challenge to the new government, as did Saddam before his capture. Or he
may be caught and handed over, as would be the fate of his son – Saif
al-Islam, to The Hague to face war crime charges.
Amidst the sorrow of his loss and the jubilations of his exit in
different camps, the future of Libya remains unclear until it is
certain. My pessimism arises from the experience of many countries after
the departure of their dictators. Somalia after Barre is a classical
case. Others are Yugoslavia after Milosovic and Zaire after Mobuto. The
key to averting such catastrophes is how the new government would handle
the interest of the diverse groups in the country. If it lives to its
dream of building a free, independent, transparent, prosperous and
all-inclusive Libya, very few Libyans will care to remember the
benevolent Gaddafi. The alternative is bloodshed, like Iraq and
Afghanistan, which we hope will be avoided at all cost.
The West has certainly helped to avert bloodshed in Benghazi and
tremendously assisted the rebels in overthrowing Gaddafi. As I have
always maintained, it does not need to apologize for aiding the
overthrow of leaders who are brutal to their people. However, I am still
skeptical if it will be fully compensated by the Libyans immediately.
Beyond access to oil – that too at reasonable price – a puppet regime is
very unlikely. Though they may have been tired with the Gaddafi’s
Libyans may not be in haste to abandon his egalitarian principles.
Exit the republican, Arab, Socialist, Islamist, African Gaddafi. Exit
controversy.