Jumah Boukleb
As an old Arab proverb goes: “With your people, you won’t perish.” Without the protection and support of one’s people, ruin becomes inevitable. A small problem arises, however, when we seek to determine who counts among “your people”, especially to those in power. Does the term refer strictly to one’s kin (family, clan, or tribe) or does it encompass all citizens? The difference between the two is clear: the former is defined by blood ties alone, while the latter definition is broader.
In the summer of 1975, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi settled the power struggle within the Revolutionary Command Council by eliminating his rivals and thwarting the coup they had been plotting against him. He then managed to fully dominate the council, the army, and the country, monopolizing power and becoming the country’s only eagle.
Reflecting on this bloody episode, one gets the impression that Gaddafi had been following this proverb. He turned to his people for support, placing his cousins in key positions to consolidate power and ensure his survival. Later, he was compelled to widen the circle slightly, bringing in other regions and reviving old kinship networks. That is how Gaddafi chose to fortify the foundations of his rule.
This perverse approach plunged Libya into a dark period of regionalism and factionalism: alliances that had been formed under Italian colonial rule (and that had made it easier for the Italians to crush the resistance movement in the west of the country) were revived. Since 2011, history has seemingly been repeating itself. After Libya had come close to becoming a country for all Libyans without exception, it was captured by militias and terrorists who split the spoils of the nation’s wealth among themselves. Corruption exploded, chaos broadened, and fuel, medicine, and food were smuggled across the borders. The entire country fell to these gangs that made people’s lives miserable.
Anyone following developments in Libya can clearly see that the same vile and futile game is now being repeated in both the East and the West.
One could even argue that Gaddafi’s actions in Libya were also mirrored by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, albeit in an iteration of the British context, which is of course different from Libya’s. In other words, regional loyalties replaced partisan commitments in similar ways in Britain. I recall that British journalist Hugo Young was the first to point this out in his book One of Us, which caused quite a stir and won several awards.
In post-Gaddafi Libya, history seems to be repeating itself in a dramatic fashion, as we noted earlier. The new political elites chose to follow Gaddafi’s path.
This is evident in both Cyrenaica and Fezzan and even more so in Tripoli.
The government in Tripoli cannot overpower its rivals and take full control. That is why its prime minister recently sought to compensate for its weakness by turning to regional loyalties, allying with armed groups from Misrata. During a visit to the city shortly after Eid al-Adha, he and these factions agreed to cooperate on a joint military campaign to eliminate rogue armed factions in Tripoli. The irony is that the head of Tripoli’s government plans to expel armed groups by bringing in other armed groups from outside the city.
Pulling Misrata in, through this alliance with some of its militias, will engender animosity between the city and Tripoli. Overcoming the grudges could be impossible. The implicit goal of this operation is, first, to ensure the survival of the Government of National Unity. Second, it aims to generate a state of chaos and instability to prevent the UN from forming a new interim government tasked with organizing parliamentary and presidential elections.
_____________________
