Maravi

Lessons from Libya

Lessons from Libya
By The Post
Fri 26 Aug. 2011, 08:30 CAT

Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the man who at one time seemed so powerful and unchallengeable, is today in hiding. Gaddafi thought he had power. Yes, he had power but was that power real? No, it was not real power; it was power in form only; it was fictitious power. There was no real power in the hands of Gadaffi.

And it is fortunate that there was no real power in his hands! Real power did not rest in his hands. Real power cannot be usurped in that fashion. It cannot be circumvented in that way. Real power lies with the people. And we hope our politicians here in Zambia are learning something from what is going on in Libya.

Not even the millions or billions of dollars Gaddafi controlled are of any value to him today. The money he used to flash around, corrupting all sorts of weak souls on our continent with, is not there today to save him. Gaddafi was corrupted by power. Gaddafi abused power.

Gaddafi was intolerant and tyrannical. But everything has got a time. That type of government can survive decades but cannot continue forever. And history has shown that the ending of any corrupt, intolerant and tyrannical regime is always disastrous.

It is clear that it is a waste of time for any politician to try to hang on to power through abuse of power, corruption, intimidation and manipulation. These things have no roots. It took very few months to bring Gaddafi down.

And who brought him down? The people who are leading the revolt, the rebellion or the revolution against the Gaddafi regime are people who once served as his ministers, diplomats or generals.

The chairman of the National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, was in February this year Gaddafi's Minister of Justice. The people who have led the revolution against Gaddafi are people who were working for him not very long ago. Gaddafi thought he owned them because he was the chief dispenser of all jobs and favours in Libya.

We are seeing similar behaviour in our country today. People don't learn. Some of our politicians, like many others on our continent, were recipients of briefcases of money from Gaddafi. And when the deals of the Gaddafi regime are investigated, we will not be surprised to hear that even the sale of our own Zamtel here was characterised by corruption. These things will come out.

We will know how Gaddafi exported his corruption to other African countries. Gaddafi had no respect for anyone or for rules - he got what he wanted. Today things have changed. Those who used to receive money from him are quiet; they are not there to defend him. They have chewed his money in the ‘Don't kubeba' style and fashion.

We only hope that our politicians who try to survive by intimidating opponents, abusing state institutions to harass those who oppose or question what they are doing, and who abuse our judicial process and electoral system to keep themselves in power will soon end up the same way.

It is better to have a country with citizens who are independent, questioning and are analytical in their outlook. The best way to govern and preserve power is the democratic way. Democrats don't end up the Gaddafi way.

And democracies have also demonstrated remarkable resilience over time, and have shown that with the commitment and informed dedication of their citizens, they can overcome severe economic hardship, reconcile social and ethnic division, and, when necessary, prevail in time of conflict. It is the very aspects of democracy cited most frequently by dictators and tyrants that give it resilience.

The process of debate, dissent and compromise that some point to as weaknesses are, in fact, democracy's underlying strength. Whenever there is a problem, the best way to solve it is to subject it to debate, dissent and compromise. If people have issues, for instance, with the conduct of elections, the best thing is to let them freely air their views and strive for a compromise.

To some, this is not necessary, it is a waste of time and decisions have to be made only by those in power and purportedly mandated by law to do so. If it is printing ballot papers with a company that is corrupt, that shall be so and no one can change this if those in power feel it is okay to proceed with that company.

They say allowing other people to participate in such decision will be time-consuming, costly, and so on and so forth. Certainly, no one has ever accused democracies of being particularly efficient in their deliberations: democratic decision making can be a messy, gruelling and time-consuming process.

But in the end, a government resting upon the consent of the governed can speak and act with the confidence and authority lacking in a regime whose power is perched uneasily on the narrow ledge of force or a government elected through fraud and manipulation of the electoral process.

This is why it is necessary to construct a system of governance that is founded on the deeply held belief that government is best when its potential for abuse is curbed, and when it is held as close to the people as possible.

Democracy keeps a society from becoming stagnant and unprepared for the stresses and strains that work to tear all its achievements to pieces. There never used to be protests in Libya like we see or witness in many other more tolerant societies.

But the day the protests started in Benghazi, that marked the beginning of the end of Gaddafi's regime and that entire system of government. And this is why it is said that protests are a testing ground for any democracy.

The ideals of free expression and citizen participation are easy to defend when everyone remains polite and in agreement with the basic issues. But protestors - and their targets - do not agree on basic issues, and such disagreements may be passionate and angry.

The challenge then is one of balance: to defend the right to freedom of speech and assembly, while maintaining public order and countering attempts at intimidation or violence. To suppress peaceful protests in the name of order is to invite repression; to permit uncontrolled violent protests is to invite anarchy. There is no magic formula for achieving this balance.

In the end, it depends on the commitment of the majority to maintaining the institutions of democracy and the precepts of individual rights. Democratic societies are capable of enduring the bitterest disagreement among its citizens - except for disagreement about the legitimacy of democracy itself. Democracy is in many ways nothing more than a set of rules for managing conflict.

At the same time, this conflict must be managed within certain limits and result in compromises, consensus or other agreements that all sides accept as legitimate. An overemphasis on one side of the equation can threaten the entire undertaking. If groups perceive democracy as nothing more than a forum in which they can press their demands, the society can shatter from within.

If those in government exert excessive pressure to achieve consensus, stifling the voices of the people, society can be crushed from above. Democracy is not a machine that runs by itself once the proper principles and procedures are inserted. A democratic society needs the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance.

This is what our politicians in government and those they have employed to manage public institutions like the Electoral Commission of Zambia should learn. Today it is Libya burning; tomorrow it can be Zambia burning. The only way to avoid what is going on in Libya is to respect others and listen to the voice of the people and learn to negotiate with others, to compromise and work within the constitutional system.

Labels: LIBYA, MUAMMAR AL-GADDAFI

posted by MrK @ 6:20 PM