There can be no doubt that the death of Gaddafi, and leading members of his regime, held a symbolic meaning that cannot be ignored. This represents an end the collective fears that were held by the Libyan people in general and the rebel fighters in particular that there was any chance of Gaddafi returning to power or harming the Libyan revolution. There can be no doubt that the manner in which Gaddafi ruled Libya, not to mention the manner in which he built his image in the public’s imagination, played a strong role in creating such fears. This led to a kind of belief that Gaddafi possessed exceptional or extraordinary capabilities and abilities, which led to fears that he could harm the Libyan revolution or prevent or delay the complete liberation of Libya. However in the midst of this revolution and the revolutionary battles against remnants of the Gaddafi regime in Bani Walid and Sirte, it was clear to observers that Gaddafi was nothing more than a symbol, and that for the majority of the Libyans, his rule was over since the February Revolution gained a foothold in different parts of the country. In this way, Gaddafi’s death represented nothing more than the symbolic death certificate of his era and regime.
The Libyans have confirmed that they are a people that deserve life, and they have expressed their aspiration and desire for freedom. This can be seen in the thousands of Libyans who sacrificed themselves since the outbreak of the Libyan revolution. However even though Gaddafi has been killed, this revolution is not over! When the revolution first began, it possessed specific goals and objectives, namely freedom, democracy, development, human rights, and a state of law based on equality.
The Libyan people today will require a long period of time to deal with the consequences of Gaddafi’s rule and address the damage he did to the country. Gaddafi destroyed the very concept of the state and state institutes, waging a war on Libyan society and its political and civil institutes. However the worst thing that Gaddafi did was not his brutal suppression of the revolution which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Libyans, but rather his crimes against Libya’s system of values and political culture, his destruction of Libya’s development, and the manner that he distorted Libya’s image of itself and its people. This represents a huge challenge to the Libyan people who need to be patient and employ all of their energy and ability to overcome this and achieve development.
The February revolution, particularly during the early days, was leaderless and did not express any political or ideological orientation. This granted the Libyan revolution a positive ability to be free from the constraints and vulnerabilities associated with ideological and partisan affiliations and restrictions. However this initial strength can become a source of weakness if it prevents the establishment of political organizations and effective civil movement which are capable of countering the threats against the revolution and the blood of the revolution’s victims being exploited by political agendas, forces interested in maintaining the status quo, or foreign parties seeking to intervene in shaping the new Libyan political scene.
There can be no doubt that the revolution in Libya was a truly popular revolution. The Libyan people entered into this revolution without possessing any previous political experience, or even a culture of politics or mass movement, which is something that would strengthen their ability to protect the shape and form of their revolution. The Libyans had no choice but to accept NATO intervention in the face of Gaddafi’s brutality. Gaddafi’s killing machine committed its brutal crimes in different Libyan regions, and the Libyan people believed that their country was on the verge of a genocidal war that there was no escape from, and that there was therefore no choice but to invoke the conscience of the world [and call for foreign intervention].
The international community responded to this, for various reasons, and there can be no doubt that one of these was on humanitarian grounds. The world was not ready to see a repeat of the Rwandan tragedy in Libya, or a second Srebrenica in Benghazi. The Libyans were not able to find any escape from this, particularly as the Arabs were unable to do anything but provide the necessary cover to legitimize NATO’s operation in Libya. Therefore, the Libyans appealed to the West [for intervention], whilst still committed not to accept the presence of foreign troops on Libyan soil.
The Libyans were committed, particularly the rebels, to preventing direct foreign military intervention, fearing that this could lead to the corruption of their whole operation [revolution]. Despite the situation and the intensification of the operation of Gaddafi’s killing machine, and the dramatic increase in the death toll, the Libyan people still did not accept the presence of foreign troops on their soil, fearing that this could represent the advance force [of a western military force] that would see Libya being transformed into Europe’s petrol station, or Tripoli being controlled by western embassies. They Libyans who fought fascist Italy for decades served as examples of heroism for the unarmed Libyan people who confronted Gaddafi, silencing the voices of those who called for direct foreign military intervention.
Today, following Gaddafi’s death, and the inherent meaning of this, it is clear that the results of the transitional stage are strongly related to what can be described as the institutional weakness that Libya suffers from at various levels. This weakness has had clearly negative effects on Libya. Traditional experience and wisdom says that the most important requirement for the success of political transition and democracy-building is the presence of political leaders and individuals who embrace democracy as a strategic choice and national pledge. Our leaders are facing a difficult challenge, and this is related to their ability to make the process of democratization a success, in the same manner as the Founding Fathers of the US. By looking at everything that happened in Libya, and what is happening today, and the clear role played by foreign forces, the door is wide open for the possibility of foreign parties supporting or advocating one [political] party or another. Even though all foreign parties have stressed that they respect the will of the Libyan people and their [political] choices, as well as their support for the process of democratization in Libya, questions still remains regarding the extent of their support in this regard.
If there are questions that are being raised during the current circumstances, these are regarding the rising influence of extremists [in Libya], regardless of political orientation or ideological belief. This is not to mention the potential actions taken by organizations that were created by Gaddafi, and which have been left behind as sleeper cells following his death. Such organizations could attack the stability of the country, or even carry out assassinations. The worse possible future scenario could see the political fight for power develop into armed conflict between different political groups and parties, which could have the disastrous result of foreign parties intervening in the situation to support one party at the expense of another.
If the Libyans fails to achieve stability, rebuild the country, establish democracy, and liberate the economy, this could serve to increase the risk of political division and national instability. This, in turn, could urge foreign powers to try to impose a peaceful transfer of power in Libya. Although this would, most likely, not occur via military force, it may result in the deployment of a peace-keeping force. Whilst the Libyan political forces growing use of political exclusion, seeking to exclude all those that are not affiliated to them by describing them sometimes as religious extremists or secularists or remnants of the Gaddafi regime, opens the door to this moving beyond a political war, and we have seen calls for certain parties or regions or tribes to be excluded from political participation under the pretext of their support for the Gaddafi regime, or their lack of support for the revolution.
This is all taking place at the same time that the residents of a certain region on the Libyan coastline have been displaced from their homes, whilst no national reconciliation or even political agreement has been achieved between the different Libyan parties. Indeed, there has not even been an agreement on a code of political conduct or political participation! Furthermore, this could open the door to the possibility of tribalism, foreign interference, or the corruption of Libya’s political scene. The transitional phase will be crucial, and the policies adopted by the National Transitional Council [NTC] will determine the nature of the game. The guarantees for success are based on the ability of the Libyans, particularly the youth, to understand the current situation in the country, and pursue direct action, on all levels, towards achieving a modern democratic society.