Islam, tribes and democracy: Libya’s difficult future
by Francesco Zannini
Yesterday the proclamation of liberation, Jalil claims sharia as the basis for the New Libya. The ambiguities of the constitution: it promises religious freedom to non-Muslims, but affirms sharia as the source of all laws. The unity of the state is likely to crumble because of the 3000 and more tribes, local interests clash with international stakes.
Rome (AsiaNews) - A crowd of about one million yesterday celebrated the proclamation of the liberation of Libya in Benghazi, where the revolt against Gaddafi began. The leader of the National Transitional Council (NTC), Mustafa Abdul Jalil, has asked all Libyans to be "one flesh, one nation. We have become brothers like never before". Abdul Jalil, who had bowed with devotion to God before making his speech, also explained that the new Libya has as its foundation in sharia: the interests of the banks will be limited and the limit on the number of wives that a Libya can marry will be removed.
Meanwhile, the controversy over the summary execution of the Rais continues to rage. An autopsy has confirmed that Gaddafi was killed by a blow to the head. Moreover the revolutionaries of Misurata remain divided, between those who want to keep the body of the former dictator exposed and the Sirte tribe that wants to bury its "martyr."
The next steps for the future of the new Libya include the elections for a National Conference which in turn will choose an interim government and a Constitutional Commission for the new constitution within eight months. The text will be submitted to referendum, and if it passes, a general election within a further six months. But there are already problems on the horizon: first, how to integrate the various tribes, and then how to disarm the armed groups who led the revolution, as well as the coexistence of modernity and Sharia.
AsiaNews sought the opinion of Prof. Francesco Zannini, Islamologist at the Pontifical Institute of Arabic studies in Rome, on the future prospects of the country.
The shocking images of the physical end of Geddafi regime, is putting a black shadow over the future of possible new democracy in Libya, where the claim for justice, democracy and human rights seem to be mixed with local and international interest over a petrol blessed and rich country.
Here, in fact, the industrialization and the urbanization promoted by Geddafi, has not fully limited of the ancient tribal tradition, their social and family structure which also linked with the Sufi orders that have not only great influence on the society but have played also, in several occasions, an important political role.
The authoritarian position of Geddafi has established a sort of Muslim socialism where both Islam and socialist principles have been twisted for the sake of power. His political control, however, based on a sort of deal both with the tribal groups and with the urbanized population seems not to had been put under full control some areas like the Cyrenaica where the revolt started and where Islamic fundamentalist groups, which seemed to have been banned from the country, showed their small but significant presence.
At this point, the weakness of Geddafi political power which was not taken with a real democratic consensus but by the way of a populist self-made leadership, emerged leaving no room for dialogue and consequently resorted into violence. During the uprisings the unwillingness of Geddafi to accept the people’s demands and the consequent the outbreak of brutal fighting led to foreign intervention in a sort of war, where interest for petrol resources, tribal conflicts, immigration issue and internal tensions within the opposition government made the whole revolt uncertain. In fact, we should not forget that the military success of the rebels’ government in the struggle against the Geddafi has been more the fruit of foreign intervention than of the strength of the local troops and the final decision on the sort of the rebels government seem still to be in the hand of the 2,335 tribes in Libya and their pledging allegiance, particularly in a moment when tension seem to emerge among rebels.
The fact that Mustafa Abdel Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council was compelled by the events to dismiss the executive committee, after the assassination of the army commander General Abdel-Fatah Younes, is another sign of confusion in the rebel’s leadership. This will make more uncertain and complicate their further steps in a post- Geddafi era and put a question mark on the whole democratic process. The text itself of the new Libyan Constitution draft seems to show some problems.
In fact, in its Article 1, if from one side spells out the desire for democracy which has been at the base of the uprising: “Libya is an independent Democratic state, the people are the source of authority” and it is clearly stated that “The state shall guarantee for non-Moslems the freedom of practicing religious rights and shall guarantees respect for their system of personal status”, on the other side the “Draft” contains the typical contradiction present in most of the Arab constitutions, as evidenced by statement present in the same article, which states: “Islam is the Religion of the State and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)”. It is then not clear what will be the real “the source of authority” and this reference to sharî‘a will certainly limit the call for a modern secularized society, a full realization of equality among citizen and full implementation of human rights and will certainly hamper a full democratic evolution of the country that for most of the western observers has seen as one of the main characteristics of the Arab uprisings.
There is also the question of the capacity of a population that for years has not have not seen an election to choose properly those who are going to represent them in the National Congress. It is a new challenge that will show how the Libyan people will be able to go on in the path toward democracy, free from tribal alliances, religious pressures and private interests. Though it is true that secular and liberal elements are part of what we can certainly call a “Libyan Revolution”, which is clearly different from the rest of the uprisings that characterized the so called “Arab Spring”, is not yet clear whether the free Libya will be able to capitalize on the early principles of the people’s revolt or leave to the local factions and tribal element as well as local and international political interests, the future of the country.
Meanwhile, the controversy over the summary execution of the Rais continues to rage. An autopsy has confirmed that Gaddafi was killed by a blow to the head. Moreover the revolutionaries of Misurata remain divided, between those who want to keep the body of the former dictator exposed and the Sirte tribe that wants to bury its "martyr."
The next steps for the future of the new Libya include the elections for a National Conference which in turn will choose an interim government and a Constitutional Commission for the new constitution within eight months. The text will be submitted to referendum, and if it passes, a general election within a further six months. But there are already problems on the horizon: first, how to integrate the various tribes, and then how to disarm the armed groups who led the revolution, as well as the coexistence of modernity and Sharia.
AsiaNews sought the opinion of Prof. Francesco Zannini, Islamologist at the Pontifical Institute of Arabic studies in Rome, on the future prospects of the country.
The shocking images of the physical end of Geddafi regime, is putting a black shadow over the future of possible new democracy in Libya, where the claim for justice, democracy and human rights seem to be mixed with local and international interest over a petrol blessed and rich country.
Here, in fact, the industrialization and the urbanization promoted by Geddafi, has not fully limited of the ancient tribal tradition, their social and family structure which also linked with the Sufi orders that have not only great influence on the society but have played also, in several occasions, an important political role.
The authoritarian position of Geddafi has established a sort of Muslim socialism where both Islam and socialist principles have been twisted for the sake of power. His political control, however, based on a sort of deal both with the tribal groups and with the urbanized population seems not to had been put under full control some areas like the Cyrenaica where the revolt started and where Islamic fundamentalist groups, which seemed to have been banned from the country, showed their small but significant presence.
At this point, the weakness of Geddafi political power which was not taken with a real democratic consensus but by the way of a populist self-made leadership, emerged leaving no room for dialogue and consequently resorted into violence. During the uprisings the unwillingness of Geddafi to accept the people’s demands and the consequent the outbreak of brutal fighting led to foreign intervention in a sort of war, where interest for petrol resources, tribal conflicts, immigration issue and internal tensions within the opposition government made the whole revolt uncertain. In fact, we should not forget that the military success of the rebels’ government in the struggle against the Geddafi has been more the fruit of foreign intervention than of the strength of the local troops and the final decision on the sort of the rebels government seem still to be in the hand of the 2,335 tribes in Libya and their pledging allegiance, particularly in a moment when tension seem to emerge among rebels.
The fact that Mustafa Abdel Jalil, chairman of the National Transitional Council was compelled by the events to dismiss the executive committee, after the assassination of the army commander General Abdel-Fatah Younes, is another sign of confusion in the rebel’s leadership. This will make more uncertain and complicate their further steps in a post- Geddafi era and put a question mark on the whole democratic process. The text itself of the new Libyan Constitution draft seems to show some problems.
In fact, in its Article 1, if from one side spells out the desire for democracy which has been at the base of the uprising: “Libya is an independent Democratic state, the people are the source of authority” and it is clearly stated that “The state shall guarantee for non-Moslems the freedom of practicing religious rights and shall guarantees respect for their system of personal status”, on the other side the “Draft” contains the typical contradiction present in most of the Arab constitutions, as evidenced by statement present in the same article, which states: “Islam is the Religion of the State and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia)”. It is then not clear what will be the real “the source of authority” and this reference to sharî‘a will certainly limit the call for a modern secularized society, a full realization of equality among citizen and full implementation of human rights and will certainly hamper a full democratic evolution of the country that for most of the western observers has seen as one of the main characteristics of the Arab uprisings.
There is also the question of the capacity of a population that for years has not have not seen an election to choose properly those who are going to represent them in the National Congress. It is a new challenge that will show how the Libyan people will be able to go on in the path toward democracy, free from tribal alliances, religious pressures and private interests. Though it is true that secular and liberal elements are part of what we can certainly call a “Libyan Revolution”, which is clearly different from the rest of the uprisings that characterized the so called “Arab Spring”, is not yet clear whether the free Libya will be able to capitalize on the early principles of the people’s revolt or leave to the local factions and tribal element as well as local and international political interests, the future of the country.
.png)
See also
