Libya: The case of a sit-tight leader

Once upon a time, Libya was ruled by King Idris. A group of junior military officers toppled his administration in 1969. Muammar Gaddafi was their leader. And he had fancied himself the “Che Guevara of the age.”  Twenty seven year old at the time, Gaddafi made a home anyone from anywhere who mouthed ‘anti-Western’ slogans, […]

Once upon a time, Libya was ruled by King Idris. A group of junior military officers toppled his administration in 1969. Muammar Gaddafi was their leader. And he had fancied himself the “Che Guevara of the age.”  Twenty seven year old at the time, Gaddafi made a home anyone from anywhere who mouthed ‘anti-Western’ slogans, and he supplied them needed weapons and financial assistance to fight imperialism in line with his Guevara views.  At home, he put in place a Revolutionary Command Council; he served as its chairman, took the title of prime minister in 1970, and dropped it later. He accepted the ceremonial promotion to the rank of colonel and maintained it till date, since in his own words, Libya is “ruled by the people”.

Part of the reason this man lasted this long could be found in the international situation of his time.  In the cold war period, anyone could be a messiah on the African continent by mouthing anti-western slogans. And, of course, the monarchs of that time ruled into becoming unpopular with their people. A Gaddafi was a welcome air in his country in 1969, as he based his regime on a blend of Arab nationalism, aspects of a welfare state, and his own version of “popular democracy”. He would go on to combine all of this under the name “Islamic socialism” in which he permitted private control over small companies, while the government controlled the larger ones. He placed emphasis on welfare, “liberation” and education, while he also imposed a system of Islamic morals. The sum total was that while the rest of Africa experienced mismanagement of resources by their leaders, Gaddafi provided a relatively safe haven (a welfare state) for his people, and they loved him for it – at the time.  In 1977, he said his country would no longer be a republic but a “jamahiriya” – which means “government by the masses”, an extension of which means Libya was governed by the people through local popular councils and communes. At the top of this structure was the General People’s Congress, with Gaddafi as secretary-general. He later abandoned his governmental posts in keeping with his evolving classless philosophy.

For years, Gaddafi presented a controversial image to the world. He was largely seen as a violent man, with his support for groups that engaged in bombings, skyjacking, kidnapping and terror in its diverse shades. He was a source of concern to African leaders too, among whom his real pals were few especially with his war against Chad, support for rebellious forces in Sierra Leone and Liberia, his call for a United States of Africa for which he had self-styled himself “King of kings;”  and his call for the splitting  up of Nigeria. With a series of bombings in Europe and elsewhere in the 1970s and 80s that were linked to Libya, Gaddafi had a head on collision with the United States of America whose President, Ronald Reagan, had a section of Tripoli bombed in a reprisal attack in 1986. A series of occurrences would lead to his becoming friendlier with the West especially after he agreed to pay compensation to the families of the victims of the Lockerbie plane disaster. The post cold war period also made his rabid anti-western stand unprofitable; it was a new world in which he discovered he had to change his dealings on the international stage. Even in the Arab world, leaders had ever been cautious dining with this Libyan leader whom Reagan once called the “mad dog of the Middle East”.

The protest in Libya was sparked by its type in Tunisia, and Egypt. These are places, like Libya, where leaders sat in power for long. Incidentally, these countries, as well as Libya, were for years touted as the paradise of Africa, example for many places on the continent where the state catered for its citizens. But there is a pattern to this. Leaders give citizens bread and butter, pamper them to a fault, while the leaders sit tight, often engaging in massive looting of the treasury as Egypt’s example has shown. In places where looting is not attributed to leaders, the institutional structures are such that, when the strongman is removed, the system is shown for what it is – fragile, collapsible.  Even outside the continent, experiences in South Asian countries with sit-tight leaders (though credited with economic miracles) have shown this to be the case. And there is Cuba, where, with the departure of Fidel Castro, a country that was once praised as a miracle has revealed an economic and political fragility that only a strong arm could have shielded from view for so long. North Africa and the Middle East are characterized by monarchs or leaders such as Gaddafi who have been in place for long and whose people are noted to be relatively well-off.  Yet current uprisings are concentrated in this same axis. That says a thing.

Over the years, some commentators had justified the means by its end in Gaddafi’s Libya. Yes, people enjoy the comfort of a welfare state that a government makes available. But it is the same comfort or lack of it that makes citizens demand change and freedom – where it is lacking. People will always turn around to demand change, no matter how much they are pampered. An example is Saudi Arabia where the younger generation go to the West, acquire education, return to highly paid jobs, good cars and homes. But there are rumblings now, a demand for the next thing that follows comfortable living – exercise of popular will through the ballot box. In spite of whatever Gaddafi had done for his nation, or had not done, the same cycle has now come to roost at his feet. He gave his people a welfare state, but now they demand for their right to choose for themselves. People get tired of leaders, Libyans are tired of Gaddafi – it is in the human nature. Now Gaddafi’s men have been mauling Libyans, the same way they had forcefully put down the slightest pro-democracy rumblings in the past one decade. But not even a Gaddafi can bribe his people with ‘welfare’, or shoot them to the extent that they will give up, forever, their right to select who they want as leaders. As people fall under gun fire on Libyan streets in the anti-Gaddafi protests, it serves as a reminder for leaders across the African continent, that popular will always prevails – it is a matter of time –  however long a sit-tight leader sits over it.

Ajibade, a Consultant, lives in Abuja      [email protected]