Portraying Libya as 'tribal' is not only wrong ? it dismisses the
notion that our uprising has anything to do with national dignity
Alaa al-Ameri
Wednesday March 30 2011
guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/30/libya-tribal-myth-national-dignity
In the last few weeks, the word "tribalism" has been used extensively
in the context of the Libyan democratic uprising ? a spectre looming
over the country, embodying the devil we don't know. This was first
introduced into the public mind by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi during his
address last month [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2011/feb/21/
saif-al-islam-gaddafi-civil-war-libya-video" title="Guardian: 'Saif al-
Islam Gaddafi warns of civil war in Libya - video'] in which he
threatened the bloodshed and destruction that his father's regime has
let loose on the Libyan people.
Disappointingly, this image of Libya as a backward tribal society with
no real national identity has been picked up and amplified by many
western pundits [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/libya-
gadhafi-future_b_826718.html" title="Huffington Post: 'Why Libya Will
Not Be Democratic'] and politicians ? often as part of their reasoning
why military and material support for the Libyan revolution is a bad
idea.
The regime has two main aims for this repeated yet baseless claim.
First, people in western Libya are largely cut off from outside media
and so the assertion that the Gaddafi regime has the allegiance of
regional leaders is intended to crush the confidence of those wishing
to rise up in their own cities. Second, it aims to confuse outsiders
into believing that the Gaddafi regime is all that's holding together
a fractured and disunited people. Images of Iraq are the desired
effect. Among some in the international press and anti-interventionist
movements, Gaddafi's aims seem to have been met without much
resistance.
So what is the reality and importance of tribes in modern Libya? For
much of Libyan history, tribal groupings were indeed a prevalent
social phenomenon. However, when we refer to tribes in today's Libya
we are simply talking about a historical structuring of regional
communities in a massive country. These are not the same as distinct
sub-national groupings that supersede people's national identity as
Libyans ? an identity defended at great cost against fascist Italy and
postwar attempts by the British to divide the country.
Tribal leaders traditionally served more or less as local magistrates,
arbitrating disputes over land and commerce and presiding over family
law. Once Gaddafi came to power, he introduced the revolutionary
councils, which he used as a means of incentivising splits between
regions and even families. Whereas previously your tribal identity was
unlikely to make you rich or powerful, it could now be used as a
stepping stone to a position of national authority, wealth and power
through election to a revolutionary council.
The big picture, therefore, is not one of long-established tribal
conflict. Most recent instances of disputes based on tribal loyalty
have been fomented and engineered by Gaddafi's national policy of
divide and conquer. As long as people squabbled among themselves, they
were far less likely to unite against him. Well, now they have, and in
a desperate attempt to survive, Gaddafi, his son and his close circle
are repeatedly attempting to raise the ghost of a rejected system of
patronage which they used to maintain power for decades.
Some of those opposed to the international military intervention seem
to have unwittingly taken up this call as the defining characteristic
of modern Libya. This handy bit of received wisdom, however, needs to
be tested against actual events. If there is any genuine tribal
separatism among the democratic movement, why are they still fighting
to liberate the west of the country? They now have air cover, they
control oil-producing areas and have an interim government with
international recognition and support.
If tribalism were at the heart of this effort, why risk it all to
liberate towns in the west? Why have towns such as Misrata, Zawiya and
Zintan, all a short drive from Tripoli, chosen to join the National
Transitional Council ? a fledgling government on the other side of the
country that has so far been powerless to support them or come to
their aid?
Is this a tribal act or the brave statement of people taking a stand
against a tyrant in solidarity with their fellow Libyans?
One must also remember who sparked this revolution ? it was young
people, mostly under 30 years of age, who've lived their entire lives
in urban centres. How many Glaswegians under 30 know or care from
which clan they originated? On what basis, other than cultural
stereotyping, do commentators presume that the young people of
Benghazi, Misrata and Tripoli are any different? Which tribal
allegiance was Mohammad Nabbous ? a citizen journalist who established
the independent internet television station Libya Alhurra [http://
www.livestream.com/libya17feb" title="Libya al-Hurra TV website] in
the early days of the revolution ? serving when he was shot dead by a
sniper [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/19/mohammad-
nabbous-killed-libya" title="Guardian: 'Mohammad Nabbous, face of
citizen journalism in Libya, is killed'] at the age of 28 while
reporting on the bogus ceasefire [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/
mar/18/libya-ceasefire-response-un-resolution" title="Guardian: 'Libya
calls ceasefire in response to UN resolution'] cynically announced by
the Gaddafi regime on 19 March?
I'd like to ask those who are regurgitating and magnifying the
"tribal" propaganda of the Gaddafi regime through the international
press ? how many Libyans have you consulted about this? How many
Libyans who are not members of the Gaddafi regime, not in the middle
of a pro-Gaddafi rally in Green Square or some fortified suburb of
Tripoli, not under the watchful eye of a pro-Gaddafi minder, have
expressed the views you're repeating in your articles and interviews?
As we struggle to liberate ourselves from this horrific regime, you
brand us with names hastily acquired from last-minute reading.
Tripolitania [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripolitania"
title="Wikipedia: Tripolitania] and Cyrenaica [http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Cyrenaica" title="Wikipedia: Cyrenaica] ? find me a Libyan who's
ever used those terms to describe their country.
By labelling us as "tribal" you effectively dismiss the notion that
our uprising has anything to do with freedom, democracy or human
dignity. Do you place narrow regional loyalties above these values?
I'm sure you would reject any such characterisation, and naturally so.
Please do us, as Libyans, the courtesy of allowing us the same human
characteristics you attribute to yourselves.
guardian.co.uk Copyright (c) Guardian News and Media Limited. 2011
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment