Support us Sign in

Aus

News Opinion Sport Culture Lifestyle

Opinion

This article is more than 13 years old

Muammar Gaddafi's violent death leaves Libya at a crossroads

Simon Tisdall

The dictator's legacy is a broken country with no political parties, no

tradition of civil rights and democracy an idea without roots
Fri 21 Oct 2011 07.57 AEDT

0:00 / 4:46

Simon Tisdall looks back at the life of the man who had led Libya since 1969 guardian.co.uk

Muammar Gaddafi, who dominated Libya with merciless single-mindedness for 42 years, was a liar, a murderer and a cheat. But
in one respect, at least, he stayed true to his word. When the Libyan uprising began in February and led swiftly to Nato's military
intervention, Gaddafi vowed to fight to the death.

He would not give himself up to his pursuers like Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi declared in radio addresses, nor would he flee,
like Tunisia's ousted president, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, the first "victim" of the Arab spring. There would be no capitulation, no
surrender, no private jet into pampered exile.

On Thursday, amid the ruins of his home town of Sirte, the insurgent fighters of the National Transitional Council, backed by
Nato bombers, took him at his word. Gaddafi had pledged a last stand, so he stood and fought. And he was, it transpired as the
smoke cleared, no invincible behemoth – but ordinary flesh and blood after all. He died painfully, beaten with a pistol according
to some reports, then shot at close range. But die he did.

And after all the waiting, the killing and the tears, the wheel of history turned inexorably, and all who watched knew it would
never turn back. The Arab spring had claimed another infamous scalp. The risky western intervention had worked. And Libya
was liberated at last.
When it comes, the fall of a famous despot sends a shiver that is felt across the world. Thus it was with the Shah of Iran in 1979,
Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania in 1989 and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt earlier this year. And thus it was with Gaddafi: no longer
feared or fearsome, no longer the brash, bragging villain, no more the showman turned monster – just another slain tyrant hitting
the dust with a thud.

Jubilation across Libya will be matched by relief among western governments that, in recent days, have fretted over the prospect
of an ongoing insurgency by forces, Libyan and foreign, mercenary and otherwise, loyal to the old regime. Now they will
congratulate themselves that Libya has been "saved for the west" and may be moulded to western political and free market
paradigms. Their confidence may be misplaced.

"We hope he can be captured or killed soon so that you don't have to fear him any more," Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of
state, said in Tripoli on Tuesday. "The most important thing now is to make sure that Gaddafi and his regime are finally prevented
from disrupting the new Libya. We want to do everything we can to prevent him from causing trouble."

State department officials quickly explained that Clinton's words did not mean that US policy had switched in favour of
deliberately eliminating Gaddafi. Washington wanted him brought to justice, they said.

But there is no disguising the fact that, for governments including those in London and Washington, Gaddafi's sudden, final
departure must be vastly preferable to the prospect of a prolonged desert guerrilla war, costly Nato engagement, continuing
instability affecting Libya and neighbouring states, a lengthy, high-profile trial, wrangling over the jurisdiction of the
international criminal court, or any of the other possible scenarios that might have played out should he have lived on.

Conspiracy theorists are bound to wonder at the apparent neatness of the Osama bin Laden-style solution implemented in Sirte.
Others may see in Gaddafi's death the creation of a martyr to the cause of Arab and African independence from colonial-style,
external oppression. But these, for the most part, are unpersuasive concerns, of minority or peripheral interest.

The larger point of interest for Libyans and a watching Arab world – driven home by Thursday's videos and photos apparently
showing Gaddafi's bloodied body – is that the dictator is dead and that Libya and its people are finally free to move on.

What direction they will go is the next big question. The answer will not be quick in coming, in no small part due to Gaddafi's
poisonous legacy.

Gaddafi leaves behind a country with no proven governmental institutions or political parties, little or no independent civil
service and civil society, no tradition of civil rights, free speech or free media, a one-track economy almost wholly dependent on
oil export revenues and a system of national administration based on the fickle favour of the "Brother Leader", family ties,
patronage and corruption.

Its army broken, its borders defiled, its sovereignty outraged, Libya's future direction is, as of this moment, more a matter of fond
hope than settled policy. Democracy in Libya is an idea. It has as yet no roots and no substantive presence. Islamism, of various
shades, and tribalism are, on the other hand, vibrant forces that may now feed on the power vacuum.

Much of this dysfunctionality is a direct result of Gaddafi's personal style, which was as open to power-sharing as Caligula was to
reasoned debate. During his 42 years in power, following the overthrow of King Idris in 1969, Gaddafi sought to be all things to all
men, thereby negating the need for any other man at all. Thus he was, variously, a Bedouin tribesman, a colonel and self-styled
revolutionary, an Arab and an African, a nationalist and a socialist, a Muslim, a poet and a would-be philosopher king.

Gaddafi awarded himself various titles, including Brother Leader, Supreme Guide, mentor of the masses, patriarch and uncle. As
his confidence grew, so too did his arrogance and his eccentricity. This was manifested by his famous Bedouin tent, pitched in the
parks of foreign capitals, his heavily armed all-female bodyguard and speeches so apparently endless and rambling as to put
Fidel Castro to shame.

As if following a deliberate, self-aggrandising policy of splendid isolation, Gaddafi managed to alienate nearly all his fellow
African and Arab counterparts, with telling exceptions, such as Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. His plan to preside over a new EU-
style union of African states went down particularly badly. Even as he handed out wads of petrodollars to impoverished
developing countries, their leaders mocked him behind his back for being a buffoon and a clown.

But it was Gaddafi's malign, murderous side that isolated him, and Libya, in the eyes of western governments. His backing for
groups such as the IRA and Eta, his links to numerous terrorist attacks, and his crowning atrocity – the 1988 Lockerbie bombing –
ensured his pariah status. Ronald Reagan declared him the "mad dog of the Middle East" and bombed Tripoli in 1986 in a
calculated attempt to kill him.

Even after Gaddafi supposedly turned over a new leaf in 2003 and surrendered his weapons of mass destruction, he was never
really trusted (except perhaps by Tony Blair, who held a friendly tent summit with Gaddafi outside Tripoli in 2004). Recent
reported finds of chemical weapons in the southern desert seemed to confirm his reputation for double-dealing.

When the Arab spring uprising in Libya took shape in February, Britain and France, who had suffered more than most western
countries from his depredations, saw a chance to settle with him. They took it – and the indirect result was yesterday's bloody
mess on the road out of Sirte.

The post-Gaddafi road ahead for Libya is fraught by any estimate. Tens of thousands may have died in the war; the numbers
could take years to verify. Many more again have been wounded, both fighters and civilians caught up in the violence. Already
these maimed survivors are attacking the NTC for its failure to bring them speedy relief.
Much of the country's infrastructure is damaged or in need of repair, including vital oil installations on whose services Libya's
short-term salvation rests. Heavily armed militias, manned by young men with no obvious allegiance to anything other than
their own idea of freedom, dominate in Tripoli and other cities.

Already there are reports, from Amnesty International and others, of violent score-settling, revenge killings, human rights abuses
and the mistreatment of detainees. With luck, it will all settle down. Without luck, some analysts foresee a mini-Iraq in the
making, a new miasma of civil war, fragmentation and sectarian conflict.

Much depends now on the NTC's ability to get a grip, first and foremost, on security – and then move quickly to form a
transitional government, before greater freedom leads to an ever greater taking of liberties.

Despite its recognition by the great powers, the council's authority is open to question and challenge. Some fear Islamists hold
too great a sway. Its leaders seem divided and unconvinced by their own success. Prominent figures such as the acting prime
minister, Mahmoud Jibril, are eager to throw in the towel and leave the job of nation-building to hardier souls.

Aware of the size of the challenge, Clinton and William Hague have been at pains to stiffen backbones and offer helpful advice.
"Of course we do want to see the various militias all brought under one central system and central control and I think that will
happen when a transitional government is formed," Hague said this week. In a reference to the mistakes made in Iraq after
Saddam fell, Clinton said: "From long experience, one factor we know has to happen … is unifying the various militias into a
single military … Getting a national army under civilian command is essential." Like the US, Britain is offering a range of practical
security-related assistance measures, including tracking down Gaddafi's vast missile stores.

But only Libyans can decide what happens next. The euphoria of the day obscures the fact that hatred of Gaddafi, while he lived,
united most of them in a single cause. Democracy-building provides a less certain glue.

The conflict in the Middle East continues to destroy countless lives. The scenes since 7 October from Gaza and Israel have
haunted millions around the world and the crisis is being felt with an increasing intensity in Lebanon and the West Bank.
As the war reaches a new stage, understanding what is happening – and what comes next – is more important than ever.
With correspondents on the ground and reporters providing live updates around the clock, the Guardian is well-placed to
provide comprehensive, fact-checked reporting, to help all of us make sense of a terrible war which has already reshaped global
politics.
We appreciate that not everyone can afford to pay for news right now. That’s why we choose to keep our journalism open for
everyone. If this is you, please continue to read for free.
But if you can, can we count on your support at this perilous time? Here are three good reasons to make the choice to fund us
today.
1. Our quality, investigative journalism is a scrutinising force.
2. We are independent and have no billionaire owner controlling what we do, so your money directly powers our reporting.
3. It doesn’t cost much, and takes less time than it took to read this message.
Choose to support open, independent journalism on a monthly basis. Thank you.

Support $10/month

Recommended
Support $20/month

Unlock All-access digital benefits:

Unlimited access to the Guardian app
Unlimited access to our new Feast App
Ad-free reading on all your devices
Exclusive newsletter for supporters, sent every week from the Guardian newsroom
Far fewer asks for support

Support with another amount

Continue Remind me in December

More on this story

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi Burial of Muammar What will happen to After Gaddafi, exhaustion Gaddafi loya
obituary Gaddafi delayed Gaddafi's body? and elation on the streets torture, hum
of Tripoli groups warn
20 Oct 2011 21 Oct 2011 21 Oct 2011 21 Oct 2011 21 Oct 2011

 

Most viewed