The King of Kings

King of Kings is the way Gaddafi defined himself last Tuesday during his two hour long speech on Libyan state television. What is happening right now in Libya however shows that he is far detached from reality especially when it comes to the way he thinks that he is perceived by his own people. Many people have called the person mad or lunatic. Personally, I do not think that this is the case at all. What we are seeing here is a person who has managed to cling to power for the last 42years who will do anything in his power to die in power.

The main difference between the revolution in Libya and what happened in Tunisia and Egypt is in my opinion Gaddafi himself. First of all one Gaddafi has been in power for a much longer time that either Ben Ali or Mubarak. Thus he is much more entrenched in the state mechanisms than both of them. Secondly, Gaddafi is originally an army official who got into power through a revolution. The other two were politicians who basically inherited dictatorships from their predecessors. Being an army official who got into power through a coup means that he is not afraid of using violent tactics in order to keep his power. Also it means that there is more loyalty within the army towards him than in Tunisia and Egypt. This is perhaps why the Libyan army has been slower in its repudiation of Gaddafi.

And despite everything that is happening there is no guarantee that the revolution si going to be successful. Libya, unlike Egypt and Tunisia, has no civil society to speak of and no real common identity. It is more of a tribal nomadic society. Also there is no unifying figure up till now around which the opponents of the revolution can rally around. By prolonging the whole issue, Gaddafi is hoping that the movement against him will start infighting and people will start turning back to him. A ' better the devil you know' strategy.

More interesting than the internal mechanisms of the Libyan revolution has been the international response to the situation. The reaction has up till now not been as forceful as many people expected. Indeed, it seems that the biggest concern for 3rd countries is to get their citizens out of the place and also the expected flood of refugees that usually follow such conflicts. Whilst these are real concerns and must be rightfully dealt with, I actually believe that the world's reaction up till now has been spot on. Why?

1. by not intervening militarily it is made clear that this is a revolution by the people for the people. Gaddafi's suggestions that these events are part of the West's grand strategy to topple him would not sound so ridiculous if there was actual militarily support. Also any western involvement in the region especially through military intervention/sanctions, would almost definitely be used as a propoganda by Islamic extremists which are lurking in the shadows
2. it is not yet clear who will exactly win this battle. Although this is an extremely cynic way of looking at things it is also pragmatic. The world has during the last two decades invested heavily in Libya. If by any chance Gaddafi manages to retain power, all these interests would certainly pay a consequence.
3. Linking with this issue is the fact that countries today have a choice. Let's say that Gaddafi survives all this. And international sanctions are imposed on Libya. Libya would still managed to survive. How - China. The Chinese frankly do not give a damn about human rights and all this stuff. A country like Libya would certainly be quite appealing to them. So the West has to thread this carefully. It is better to engage with an enemy sometimes and hope you can influence change than just leave him to do whatever he wants.

Although it seems that Gaddafi's days are numbered it is all far from over. NO leader in the world has survived more than Gaddafi and this wait and see approach by the West is a clear indication of this. My hope is that when all of this is finished we will find ourselves with a number of clear functioning democracies in the south of the Mediterranean