Middle East Policy has been one of the world’s most cited publications on the region since its inception in 1982, and our Breaking Analysis series makes high-quality, diverse analysis available to a broader audience.
Karim Mezran
Senior Fellow
Qaddafi’s death and Abd el-Jalil’s declaration on Sunday to apply Sharia in the new Libyan state have raised doubts and pessimism over the future of the country, particularly in the European press. It is still too early to write objectively about the forty years of Qaddafi’s rule and Qaddafism but it is important to put these doubts and objections in the right contextual framework.
To begin with, the puzzling attempt to portray Qaddafi as a hero by stating that he “never surrendered” and that he died in battle “fighting” must be addressed. Qaddafi did not die in battle. He did not spend one day with his troops at the front. He was never seen running through the lines of his loyalists in Tripoli or in any other battlefield. He has always been hiding, ranting weird and delusional speeches, escaping from one place to another until he was dragged from a hole in Sirte. This by no means justifies the violence accompanying his death and the lynching that took place in the moments following his capture. But Qaddafi did not die a hero or martyr and he is not going to have a place with them in the history of Libya.
But who was Qaddafi in his last months of life? How could he be captured relatively easily and without protection while his chief of intelligence and right hand man escaped undetected throughout the conflict? Some rumours from the past regime’s elite have suggested Qaddafi’s total detachment from reality, his complete estrangement from his own people and even his ignorance of what really was going on in the country. In other words, it has been a while since Qaddafi lost control of his surroundings in favour of Abdallah Sanussi and some other personalities of the old revolutionary guard.
It is indeed the fear of losing control of the situation after the beginning of the riots in Benghazi that forced the heavy repression that caused the indignation of the world and the de facto beginning of the revolution. Telephone tapping was broadcasted on the web of Qaddafi talking to commanders in the field ordering them to be careful not to hit civilians. Hopefully, history will uncover the truth about Qaddafi but for the moment it is fair to say that at best in his last year of life he might have been a victim of those around him but definitely not a hero.
Abd el-Jalil’s proclamation about Sharia should not surprise anyone abroad just as it did not surprise anyone in Libya. To begin with, the country itself has never had a well defined national identity. Libya is an invention of Italian colonialists. It was given independence by the United Nations after much mediation between factions, regional allegiances, and ideological visions. Forty years of Qaddafism with its pan-Arabism, pan-Africanism and Jamahiriya decentralization have further weakened the process of identification with the idea of a Libyan nation. Therefore, it was inevitable that in Libya, as in many other Arab countries, the opposition to dictatorship (and to the West) was carried under the banner of Islam and its strong identity framework. The Libyan population underwent a strong process of re-islamization in religious as well as in political terms.
By expressing his wish that Sharia becomes the law of the country and Islam the religion of the state, Abd el-Jalil simply acknowledged the reality on the ground. By no means should this be read, as some have done, that Libya will undergo an “Iranization” process. The religiosity of the Libyans does not clash with the enthusiasm for freedom, self-determination and democracy. The world just has to acknowledge that political Islam cannot be pushed aside as it has been done by the brutal dictatorships that are falling one after the other and should be included in the political process and held to the same standards of behaviour as any other movement.
Karim Mezran is a senior fellow at the Middle East Policy Council. On October 21, 2011, he was featured on the New York Times’ Room for Debate forum in a segment titled “Watch Libya’s Neighbors.”
Middle East Policy has been one of the world’s most cited publications on the region since its inception in 1982, and our Breaking Analysis series makes high-quality, diverse analysis available to a broader audience.
Partner with the Council
We appreciate any support towards the Middle East Policy Council to help educate Americans on the political, economic and cultural issues that affect U.S. interests in the Middle East.
One of the most frequently cited journals on the Middle East in the field of international affairs, Middle East Policy has been engaging thoughtful minds for more than 40 years with high-quality, diverse analysis on the region.
Karim Mezran
Senior Fellow
Qaddafi’s death and Abd el-Jalil’s declaration on Sunday to apply Sharia in the new Libyan state have raised doubts and pessimism over the future of the country, particularly in the European press. It is still too early to write objectively about the forty years of Qaddafi’s rule and Qaddafism but it is important to put these doubts and objections in the right contextual framework.
To begin with, the puzzling attempt to portray Qaddafi as a hero by stating that he “never surrendered” and that he died in battle “fighting” must be addressed. Qaddafi did not die in battle. He did not spend one day with his troops at the front. He was never seen running through the lines of his loyalists in Tripoli or in any other battlefield. He has always been hiding, ranting weird and delusional speeches, escaping from one place to another until he was dragged from a hole in Sirte. This by no means justifies the violence accompanying his death and the lynching that took place in the moments following his capture. But Qaddafi did not die a hero or martyr and he is not going to have a place with them in the history of Libya.
But who was Qaddafi in his last months of life? How could he be captured relatively easily and without protection while his chief of intelligence and right hand man escaped undetected throughout the conflict? Some rumours from the past regime’s elite have suggested Qaddafi’s total detachment from reality, his complete estrangement from his own people and even his ignorance of what really was going on in the country. In other words, it has been a while since Qaddafi lost control of his surroundings in favour of Abdallah Sanussi and some other personalities of the old revolutionary guard.
It is indeed the fear of losing control of the situation after the beginning of the riots in Benghazi that forced the heavy repression that caused the indignation of the world and the de facto beginning of the revolution. Telephone tapping was broadcasted on the web of Qaddafi talking to commanders in the field ordering them to be careful not to hit civilians. Hopefully, history will uncover the truth about Qaddafi but for the moment it is fair to say that at best in his last year of life he might have been a victim of those around him but definitely not a hero.
Abd el-Jalil’s proclamation about Sharia should not surprise anyone abroad just as it did not surprise anyone in Libya. To begin with, the country itself has never had a well defined national identity. Libya is an invention of Italian colonialists. It was given independence by the United Nations after much mediation between factions, regional allegiances, and ideological visions. Forty years of Qaddafism with its pan-Arabism, pan-Africanism and Jamahiriya decentralization have further weakened the process of identification with the idea of a Libyan nation. Therefore, it was inevitable that in Libya, as in many other Arab countries, the opposition to dictatorship (and to the West) was carried under the banner of Islam and its strong identity framework. The Libyan population underwent a strong process of re-islamization in religious as well as in political terms.
By expressing his wish that Sharia becomes the law of the country and Islam the religion of the state, Abd el-Jalil simply acknowledged the reality on the ground. By no means should this be read, as some have done, that Libya will undergo an “Iranization” process. The religiosity of the Libyans does not clash with the enthusiasm for freedom, self-determination and democracy. The world just has to acknowledge that political Islam cannot be pushed aside as it has been done by the brutal dictatorships that are falling one after the other and should be included in the political process and held to the same standards of behaviour as any other movement.
Karim Mezran is a senior fellow at the Middle East Policy Council. On October 21, 2011, he was featured on the New York Times’ Room for Debate forum in a segment titled “Watch Libya’s Neighbors.”