Exceptional massacre

[muckefuck]

For me, one of the most striking aspects of the horrible slaughter in Libya is how much our expectations have changed. When did we start believing that authoritarian dictators could be unseated with a minimum of bloodshed? It's tempting to see 1989 as the watershed year in this regard, though I don't know if that's giving too little attention to the wave of democratisation in Latin America that preceded it. And even then the thrill of seeing Communist regimes topple like deck chairs before a gale was tempered by the bloody mess of Tiananmen Square.

Four years later, a civil war was in full swing in Algeria in the wake of a de facto military coup; within a decade, perhaps 200,000 died, most of them civilians. And what we have now in Libya is rapidly coming to resemble an old-fashioned civil war more than a people power revolution. Despite the flurry of recent trade agreements, Gaddafi is clearly no more amenable to outside pressure than he ever was. If anything, he's only become more delusional--one glance at his recent pair of appearances is enough to confirm that.

All things considered, I'm amazed that the confirmed body count isn't already above four figures. It's a stark reminder, as fengshui pointed out recently, of just how badly the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt could've gone. Here's hoping it's a powerful example to the remaining dictators of What Not To Do. Already Bahrain seems to be leaning back from the abyss, though the damage already done may prove the ruling family's undoing. (Making martyrs out of Shi'ites--what could go wrong with that plan?)

Comments

A bit random, but

[arkanjil.livejournal.com]

There was a chart floating around recently showing that the number of people actually dying in violent conflicts has been going down steadily for at least several decades. Seemed a bit counter intuitive to me, as the number of conflicts was supposed to have risen for the last 2 decades, but I imagine both number runs are a bit selective.

Mostly I've been following the Arab revolts through NPR, Andrew Sullivan, and some big chunks of Al-jeezera, but its hard to feel sanguine about how all it's going to be in the long term. Ukraine, the Palestinian Authority, & Lebanon (just to name a few) all show that 'democracy' is a very messy process indeed, to put it bluntly.

Re: A bit random, but

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, we're getting a better look at the consequences of an overriding desire for "neatness" (a.k.a. "political stability") and they're hardly any prettier. I recognise that the record of past revolutions demonstrates that they often end in tears, but at least they offer a chance of improvement in situations where the status quo is an open-ended succession of strongmen. As bloody as Iraq is, is anyone out there really willing to argue it's worse off than North Korea (once again primed for another catastrophic famine)? Somalia is even less of a poster child, but there's no question that parts of it (notably Somaliland) are doing far better than than they were under Siad Barre. If, say, Libya splits and only the eastern half the country transitions to a civil regime, at least that's another million and half people who have escaped tyranny.

oh yeah

[arkanjil.livejournal.com]

They deserve every chance that they can get (or make), and it shames me that our country will do so little to help them in the here & now, tho what can be done? They are rioting in Kurdestan to bring down their own cabal of corrupt old men, plus in other places all throughout the country. Messy indeed, but what else can they do?

Wikileaks has spread light into some very dark corners, which I think helped to galvanize at least some of this seasons’s fires. But commodity prices are still climbing worldwide, and the biggest fuse is still burning: grain production this year is actually declining due to Russia's drought & Australia’s floods, even as we pull more of the crop into fuel for our cars...

When that paticular price shock hits the heavily subsidized markets all across the third world, all hells gonna break loose

Re: A bit random, but

[flawsofur.livejournal.com]

Having lived in Libya pre- and post-Gaddafi, I have my own, personal and no doubt highly un-politic opinion of how much a tyrant the man is. I would call him a dictator; an egomaniacal autocrat who has engaged in international terrorism, but I saw many positive social changes instituted by his regime as well. I think the economic oppression imposed by his predecessor King Idris' hand-in-glove relationship with the oil companies was more squarely "tyranny". I'm certainly not a Gaddafi apologist, and I hope the country's current unrest is a sign of positive change, but I am wary of the unbalanced picture we get when painting the man with too broad and black a brush.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

It might well have been different when you were there, but I don't think "tyranny" is too strong a term for the current situation. Anyone can become a tyrant if they stay in power too long. Look at Mugabe in Africa--from liberator and well-respected statesman to paranoid thugocrat in only twenty years.

[flawsofur.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you're right. There's no excuse for his actions. I guess my point is more that the current revolt is only possible because of the reforms in education and social welfare he has instituted. I don't believe there could have been a popular revolt before Gaddafi, in '69. I think dictatorships are often the segue between absolute monarchy and a more democratic system.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I don't know--our own history kind of speaks against that, doesn't it?

[flawsofur.livejournal.com]

It does. And often doesn't mean always.

[mollyc-q.livejournal.com]

I can understand this, but India, Canada, certainly the U.S. (as Muckefuck has pointed out) have had other paths and generally in the break up of the Commonwealth nations it hasn't been absolute. Mubarak actually claimed credit for the freedom of speech he allowed in his initial response to the protests - implying that the protestors should be grateful that he allows them internet access and educations etc.

In many other instances transitional democracies were undermined by our cold war tactical fear of communism, not that there was cause for concern, but over a long period of time, the U.S. has undermined a lot of nascent democracies - and perhaps distorts what we might think of as unfortunate (but necessary) stages in comparative socio-political development. And as Gorkabear and Arkanjil have pointed out other countries have dictator-laundered Libya.

[flawsofur.livejournal.com]

I see. I certainly didn't want to imply, ala Mubarak, that the people should be grateful.
Perhaps Gaddafi and his regime have been fully evil, with no positive characteristics at all, but that would be a first, wouldn't it, at least outside of fairy tales.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

No reason to indulge in either-or fallacies. We all agree that the regime is more bad than good at this point, we just differ on how to weight the improvements Gaddafi brought to Libya against his longstanding and ongoing violent suppression of the populace.

Molly's point about the Cold War distorting the record of previous attempts at democratisation is well taken. Historically, we've much preferred pro-US dictators to even the possibility of a left-leaning popular government. After all, who helped secure King Idris' domination of Libya in the first place?

[flawsofur.livejournal.com]

True. And, I find that demonization, whether of Gaddafi or US imperialism, is one of the most potent and well-used tools of distortion we have when looking at political events of any size. All these forces are admixtures of good and bad in their intent and execution. I sure hope that the good prevails, on the balance, in this instance as in all others.