Libya after Gaddafi?

IMO, the Gaddafi government will be gone in no more than six months. If nothing else, Tripoli will be starved into surrendering, eventually.

What then? Whatever the Libyans want, presumably. But what do they want? It’s really hard to know the state of public opinion in a country where communication and civil society have been so tightly state-controlled for so long. It’s hard even for the Libyans to know it – remember Iraq, where the Sunni minority were astonished to lose the first post-Hussein national elections, relative to the Shi’ites, because the Sunni had always actually believed they were the majority.

Under Gaddafi, the people have been taught his Green Book ideology. After he goes, will anyone still believe in it enough to fight for it, politically, in the elections? What other political parties and factions and forces might emerge?

Looking at what might divide Libya politically:

Ethnic divisions? Not much. Almost everybody is an Arabized Berber. There are still Berber-speaking groups and other non-Arabs in the southern deserts, maybe they’ll push for greater cultural autonomy or something. I doubt they’ll try to secede.

Religious divisions? I don’t think there are any that matter – yet. Almost everybody is Sunni Muslim. But, a revival of the Senussi movement (very strong in Libya pre-Gaddafi, and still has a massive popular following) is conceivable – and could conceivably be linked to a bid to restore Libya’s short-lived monarchy, since the late King Idris was also the hereditary head of the Senussi Order, the Grand Senussi; and the current Grand Senussi, Mohammed El Senussi, is also the heir/pretender to the throne.

Would revived Senussism leave room for the more up-to-date Islamist conservatism of the Muslim Brotherhood? How would the two relate?

Regional divisions? There must be a reason why Tripolitania and Fezzan were more or less loyal to Gaddafi for a long time while Cyrenaica was always a center of opposition, but I have no idea what it is. If a matter of tribal ties and loyalties, then those will remain relevant after the revolution. The rebels in Benghazi have insisted they want a united Libya with Tripoli as its capital, and I don’t doubt them; but I rather expect that they rather expect that their region will be a bigger political player after the revolution than it was under Gaddafi, and I wonder if the Tripolitanians will have any problem with that.

Class divisions? Hard to know what social classes there are in Libya, in particular what upper class there is independent of (and likely to survive the fall of) the governmental/institutional elites. And is there any permanent underclass? Gaddafi is supposed to be some kinda lefty but I don’t know how redistributionist or welfare-statist he actually has been.

That leaves purely political ideological divisions . . . and in that regard there is just no telling, because it all depends on how individual Libyans (and organizations and groups) end up deciding they feel/think about things they have never even been allowed to discuss in public before. Whatever range of opinions they come up with will surprise Libya no less than the world.

Tribal divisions. You forgot tribal divisions — and they’ve had a more or less defining role in the conflict so far. Expect it to stay that way, since relevant identity groups get stronger in times of conflict. Politics afterward will be focused heavily on cutting deals between the tribes.

A monarchial restoration? The Libyan royal family is popular in the rebellious areas around Benghazi.

I think the whole premise is flawed. I don’t think Khadafy is going anywhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41960775

Avoiding any jokes about “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys”, if the French back out of this, it’s pretty much over. Then again, so might NATO be over, and that might be a good thing.

I don’t know there is any good reason to conclude that Tripoli is really for Qaddafi, since there were major uprisings in the area in the early days. It would seem more than this is where most of his loyalist troops and paid supporters are.

As for the French bit, whatever the silly American stereotypes about the French, they’re pretty damned serious about this and have a long standing axe to grind with Qaddafi. I know from Africa that the French play a long-game in these kinds of wars quite well, rather less “immediate results” driven than the Americans who seem to benchmark results by video games…

I think its going to crack in the end, the Qaddafi regime, since they are losing peripheral areas bit by bit. What comes after, who knows? I’d guess first a transitional unity government but after that is there stability?

Press accounts often emphasize that there are very few societal institutions in Libya apart from the Qaddafi regime, suggesting that there will be little to build around when he is gone. I suspect that the best case is that it will be like Iraq, and the worst case like Somalia.

Err, that is not what I have read in the international press, in fact if what I read in FT and Economist are right, it appears that one thing his crazy regime did manage to do is to leave some barebones “popular democracy” that’s worked out kind of okay in at least the Benghazi region. But I do not believe it is going to be like either of those countries. No one is suggesting there are great ethnic divides like in Iraq and Libya has enough natural wealth to paper over divisions, unlike Somalia.

Of course a civil war following is perfectly plausible, but I suspect waving some petrol dollars around can paper over divisions enough to at least get a unity government going.

Why? NATO is the nearest thing Europe has to a collective armed force. Don’t it need one – with or without the U.S. in it?

The big question hasn’t been addressed yet. Will we be able to spell the name of the new leader?

Sure! Five or six ways! :slight_smile:

This might be off topic, but I don’t think it does.

If the EU wants to merge the armed forces of its member states into a single command, that would be fine.

My problem with NATO is that it relies on the US to do all the heavy lifting. We’re broke, they’re rich, and I guess I have a problem with that.

Most of Euros are also broke such as Greece, Italy, Spain, even countries like Britain.

“Most of Euros” are not broke, do you ever get tired of making nonsense statements Curtis?

NATO relies on the USA to do the heavy lifting because the USA likes it that way. You all like having the dominant vote, and generally driving the decisions, adn then bitching and whinging on about it. Sheer hypocrisy, just like your cries of being broke (rather you just don’t want to actually pay for your wars, like proper countries do, and raise takes to cover). When there was an EU effort for a joint force, Americans lobbied like mad against it being anything more than symbolic. Hypocrisy through and through.

I don’t think that Libyans will stand for a monarchy - they’ve suffered too much and lost too many loved ones to accept anything other than a full Democracy with free elections. That will take some time to set up though, because they’ll have to create entire political parties from scratch. Tripoli will almost certainly remain the capital and Benghazi (and the East in general) will rightly benefit from a greater political voice from now on, and I really don’t think that most Libyans will have a problem with that.

Monarchy and democracy aren’t antithetical. Or at least Spaniards, Britons and many others don’t think so.

A very good point, and I stand corrected, but I still stand by my assertion that Libyans don’t want a monarchy, even a constitutional or limited one. They won’t accept any leader that they haven’t directly chosen themselves based on criteria of merit and experience, so re-installing the Senussi monarchy simply because that what we used to have before Gaddaffi isn’t going to happen.

Sorry mate, suffering and the like are not great platforms upon which to build democracy. While Libyan isn’t sub Saharan Africa, the numerous examples of non-democracy arising out of post-conflict / post-civil war situations are just hard to ignore. I would also doubt a monarchal restoration (without a clue about Libyan society) on the sole basis that several generations have grown up with the current regime’s whacko ideology and it just doesn’t seem likely that the post-conflict barons are going to want to share.

Suffering in and of itself might not be enough, but isn’t the *desire *for democracy a good platform on which to build a democracy? The fact is that Libyans have been denied any say in how they’re governed for over 40 years, and any hint of dissent has been ruthlessly crushed. I’m not a political expert by any stretch of the imagination, but while I certainly don’t doubt that achieving a proper democracy will be difficult, I have every faith that they’ll get there.

Several generations have indeed grown up under the regime, but they’re precisely the ones trying to throw it off. And what “post-conflict barons” are you talking about?

History says no.

History says that whatever one says one wants, it’s damned hard to shake off the habits of dictatorship. Not impossible, but damned hard.

The men with guns, mate, the men with guns. I’m assuming Libyans are just like any other set of human beings here.

Really? Are things really that bleak? Are there no nations that have successfully overthrown a dictatorship to become democracies, even nascent, struggling ones? Any I’m still trying to understand your point about the Barons. You make it sound as if a bunch of petty warlords are going to grab some villages for themselves out in the desert and cling onto them like limpets. But the “men with guns” are actually “the people with guns”. A nation of newly-free Libyans isn’t going to allow any more mini-dictators to carve out their own personal fiefdoms.

Of course you may be completely right and we will just have to resign ourselves to grunting monosyllabically, eating handfuls of dirt and thumping each other over the heads with sticks while scrabbling for survival in a shattered, lawless wasteland.