ID :
206477
Sun, 09/11/2011 - 11:05
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://oananews.org//node/206477
The shortlink copeid
The predictable fate of the hated dictator
TEHRAN, Sept. 11 (MNA) -- The suffering of the Libyan people during 42 years of dictatorship finally ended when the freedom fighters captured Tripoli and Muammar Gaddafi experienced the same fate as the dictators of Tunisia and Egypt.
However, the battle for Libya was totally different from what happened in the two neighboring countries. The tribal structure of Libyan politics and the sensitivity of issues such as oil reserves and their potential impact on regional equations in the future created a different atmosphere, resulting in a longer battle to depose the regime.
Under these circumstances, the Western powers devised a military intervention, ostensibly to help the rebels, but in fact to protect their own interests and to take advantage of developments in the country.
The protracted nature of the war in Libya was a clear sign of the structural differences between the country and neighboring Egypt and Tunisia.
In Libya, Gaddafi’s 42-year rule had blocked the formation of political parties and there was no room for civil institutions. In contrast, in Egypt and Tunisia, the political and civil infrastructure was quite ripe for a popular uprising. But in Libya there were no political parties or movements, and thus no one outside of the ruling circle had a say in the decision-making process.
Another reason that the war in Libya dragged on for months was Gaddafi’s control of the oil revenues, which was an efficient tool for reinforcing the country’s tribal culture.
The distribution of oil money created discrimination inside the country and also caused insecurity in many parts of Africa. Indeed, many people regarded Gaddafi’s system in Libya as similar to the apartheid system in South Africa.
However, like all other dictatorships, after the collapse of its security and intelligence apparatuses, it became quite clear that the Libyan regime had no legitimacy in the eyes of its own people.
It should also be noted that the Libyan National Transitional Council faces a long road ahead in their efforts to establish a fully democratic system. Issues such as disputes between opposition groups, the old tribal system of politics, the emergence of counter-revolutionary movements affiliated to Muammar Gaddafi and his loyalists, and the distribution of weapons among the people could give rise to serious threats to the interim governing body.
The role of the Western powers in the future of Libya is another sensitive issue which must be carefully analyzed. Over the past six months, NATO has devoted a huge amount of its military budget to the war in Libya and now Western oil companies believe it is time to recoup the losses.
Western political leaders are also attempting to take advantage of the new situation, as is evidenced by the recent stances adopted by the United States and its European allies.
However, the battle for Libya was totally different from what happened in the two neighboring countries. The tribal structure of Libyan politics and the sensitivity of issues such as oil reserves and their potential impact on regional equations in the future created a different atmosphere, resulting in a longer battle to depose the regime.
Under these circumstances, the Western powers devised a military intervention, ostensibly to help the rebels, but in fact to protect their own interests and to take advantage of developments in the country.
The protracted nature of the war in Libya was a clear sign of the structural differences between the country and neighboring Egypt and Tunisia.
In Libya, Gaddafi’s 42-year rule had blocked the formation of political parties and there was no room for civil institutions. In contrast, in Egypt and Tunisia, the political and civil infrastructure was quite ripe for a popular uprising. But in Libya there were no political parties or movements, and thus no one outside of the ruling circle had a say in the decision-making process.
Another reason that the war in Libya dragged on for months was Gaddafi’s control of the oil revenues, which was an efficient tool for reinforcing the country’s tribal culture.
The distribution of oil money created discrimination inside the country and also caused insecurity in many parts of Africa. Indeed, many people regarded Gaddafi’s system in Libya as similar to the apartheid system in South Africa.
However, like all other dictatorships, after the collapse of its security and intelligence apparatuses, it became quite clear that the Libyan regime had no legitimacy in the eyes of its own people.
It should also be noted that the Libyan National Transitional Council faces a long road ahead in their efforts to establish a fully democratic system. Issues such as disputes between opposition groups, the old tribal system of politics, the emergence of counter-revolutionary movements affiliated to Muammar Gaddafi and his loyalists, and the distribution of weapons among the people could give rise to serious threats to the interim governing body.
The role of the Western powers in the future of Libya is another sensitive issue which must be carefully analyzed. Over the past six months, NATO has devoted a huge amount of its military budget to the war in Libya and now Western oil companies believe it is time to recoup the losses.
Western political leaders are also attempting to take advantage of the new situation, as is evidenced by the recent stances adopted by the United States and its European allies.
