Contrary to popular belief, Libya, which western media described as “Gaddafi’s military dictatorship”, was in actual fact one of the world’s most democratic States.
In 1977 the people of Libya proclaimed the Jamahiriya or “government of the popular masses by themselves and for themselves.” The Jamahiriya was a higher form of direct democracy with ‘the People as President.’ Traditional institutions of government were disbanded and abolished, and power belonged to the people directly through various committees and congresses.
The nation State of Libya was divided into several small communities that were essentially “mini-autonomous States” within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, People’s Congresses, and Executive Revolutionary Councils.
In 2009, Mr. Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. Even the New York Times, which was always highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that “everyone is involved in every decision…Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.” The purpose of these committee meetings was to build a broad based national consensus.
One step up from the Local Committees were the People’s Congresses. Representatives from all 800 local committees around the country would meet several times a year at People’s Congresses in Mr. Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte to pass laws based on what the people said in their local meetings. These congresses had legislative power to write new laws and formulate economic and public policy, as well as ratify treaties and agreements.
All Libyans were allowed to take part in local committees meetings, and at times Colonel Gaddafi was criticized. In fact, there were numerous occasions when his proposals were rejected by popular vote and the opposite was approved and put forward for legislation.
For instance, on many occasions, Mr. Gaddafi proposed the abolition of capital punishment and he pushed for home schooling over traditional schools. However, the People’s Congresses wanted to maintain the death penalty and classic schools, and ultimately the will of the People’s Congresses prevailed. Similarly, in 2009, Colonel Gaddafi put forward a proposal to essentially abolish the central government altogether and give all the oil proceeds directly to each family. The People’s Congresses rejected this idea too.
One step up from the People’s Congresses were the Executive Revolutionary Councils. These Revolutionary Councils were elected by the People’s Congresses and were in charge of implementing policies put forward by the people. Revolutionary Councils were accountable only to ordinary citizens and may have been changed or recalled by them at any time. Consequently, decisions taken by the People’s Congresses and implemented by the Executive Revolutionary Councils reflected the sovereign will of the whole people, and not merely that of any particular class, faction, tribe, or individual.
The Libyan direct democracy system utilized the word ‘elevation’ rather than ‘election’ and avoided the political campaigning that is a feature of traditional political parties and benefits only the bourgeoisie’s well-heeled and well-to-do.
Unlike in the West, Libyans did not vote once every four years for a President and local parliamentarian who would then make all decisions for them. Ordinary Libyans made decisions regarding foreign, domestic, and economic policy themselves.
Several western commentators have rightfully pointed out that the unique Jamahiriya system had certain drawbacks, inter alia, regarding attendance, initiative to speak up, and sufficient supervision. Nevertheless, it is clear that Libya conceptualized sovereignty and democracy in a different and progressive way.
Democracy is not just about elections or political parties. True democracy is also about human rights. During the NATO bombardment of Libya, western media conveniently forgot to mention that the United Nations had just prepared a lengthy dossier praising Mr. Gaddafi’s human rights achievements. The UN report commended Libya for bettering its “legal protections” for citizens, making human rights a “priority,” improving women’s rights, educational opportunities and access to housing. During Mr. Gaddafi’s era housing was considered a human right. Consequently, there was virtually no homelessness or Libyans living under bridges. How many Libyan homes and bridges did NATO destroy?
One area where the United Nations Human Rights Council praised Mr. Gaddafi profusely is women’s rights. Unlike many other nations in the Arab world, women in Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property, and have an income. When Colonel Gaddafi seized power in 1969, few women went to university. Today, more than half of Libya’s university students are women. One of the first laws Mr. Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law, only a few years after a similar law was passed in the U.S. In fact, Libyan working mothers enjoyed a range of benefits including cash bonuses for children, free day care, free health care centers, and retirement at 55.
Democracy is not merely about holding elections simply to choose which particular representatives of the elite class should rule over the masses. True democracy is about democratizing the economy and giving economic power to the majority.
Fact is, the west has shown that unfettered free markets and genuinely free elections simply cannot co-exist. Organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy. How can capitalism and democracy co-exist if one concentrates wealth and power in the hands of few, and the other seeks to spread power and wealth among many? Mr. Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya however, sought to spread economic power amongst the downtrodden many rather than just the privileged few.
Prior to Colonel Gaddafi, King Idris let Standard Oil essentially write Libya’s petroleum laws. Mr. Gaddafi put an end to all of that. Money from oil proceeds was deposited directly into every Libyan citizen’s bank account. One wonders if Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum will continue this practice under the new democratic Libya?
Democracy is not merely about elections or political parties. True democracy is also about equal opportunity through education and the right to life through access to health care. Therefore, isn’t it ironic that America supposedly bombarded Libya to spread democracy, but increasingly education in America is becoming a privilege, not a right, and ultimately a debt sentence? If a bright and talented child in the richest nation on earth cannot afford to go to the best schools, society has failed that child. In fact, for young people the world over, education is a passport to freedom. Any nation that makes one pay for such a passport is only free for the rich but not the poor.
Under Mr. Gaddafi, education was a human right and it was free for all Libyans. If a Libyan was unable to find employment after graduation the State would pay that person the average salary of their profession.
For millions of Americans, health care is also increasingly becoming a privilege not a right. A recent study by Harvard Medical School estimates that lack of health insurance causes 44,789 excess deaths annually in America. Under Mr. Gaddafi, health care was a human right and it was free for all Libyans. Thus, with regards to health care, education and economic justice, is America in any position to export democracy to Libya or should America have taken a leaf out of Libya’s book?
Muammar Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa. However, by the time he was assassinated, Libya was unquestionably Africa’s most prosperous nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy in Africa and less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands. Libyans did not only enjoy free health care and free education, they also enjoyed free electricity and interest free loans. The price of petrol was around $0.14 per liter and 40 loaves of bread cost just $0.15. Consequently, the UN designated Libya the 53rd highest in the world in human development.
The fundamental difference between western democratic systems and the Jamahiriya’s direct democracy is that in Libya citizens were given the chance to contribute directly to the decision-making process, not merely through elected representatives. Hence, all Libyans were allowed to voice their views directly—not in one parliament of only a few hundred elite politicians—but in hundreds of committees attended by tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. Far from being a military dictatorship, Libya under Mr. Gaddafi was Africa’s most prosperous democracy.
Thank you most American and European as well as Asian people, were too illiterate to know what
you have written. Well Appreciated
Its not that we’re illiterate, its that the materials available to read are mostly curated by the ruling class of the country. And even when we know whats right and wrong, “our” govt will do as they please regardless
Democracy????
What sort of asswipe calls a dictatorship a democracy?
this is specious bullshit
Please point me to the evidence which backs your rejection of the article.
start with the evidence that every member of every local council served at the pleasure of Gaddafi.
This article is a standard example of naive scholarship or scholar naivety. Critical analysts do recognize the gap between espoused theory and the theory of practice, as regimes and people do not apply the rule of “say what you do and do what you say”. Real life differs from what is printed. when I started reading the article, I expected a critical analysis to split what is true from what is not. I urge the author to go further in comparing the claims with actions.
“Under Mr. Gaddafi, health care was a human right and it was free for all Libyans”.If this was true why are private clinics and hospitals in Tunisa are constantly overcrowded with lybians?
The author must be missing the warm consensus at Harvard…
The Jamihirya will be back sooner than you think… Long Live Green Libya!
‘democracy’….yeah and the Libyan people loved him!!!
This article examples the complete intellectual honesty of the author, Garikai Chengu, and given that he is a Fellow of Harvard University’s Du Bois Institute for African Research, the integrity of that institution.
In the article he cites the New York Times, and quotes it as seeming to approve of Gaddafi’s Libya “everyone is involved in every decision…” The author doesn’t provide a link, for good reason as we shall see, but with the help of Google, I was able to track it down http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/world/africa/20libya.html
This article that the above piece cites, completely contradicts it. The complete sentence cited read rather different “In Libya, the theory goes, everyone is involved in every decision.” It begins:
People can read the rest for themselves, but for you to cite this article as through the NY Times was backing your rosey picture of Gaddafi’s Libya is the height of bankruptcy. I question why your relationship to Harvard is allowed to stand.
The author does not suggest the Times offered uncritical praise of Libya’s government. On the contrary, the statement you are criticizing beings “Even the New York Times, which was always highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi…” And the Times did say what the author says the Times said.
The Times did not say what the author says the Times said. If I say “I dreamed the world was free” you can’t quote me as saying “the world was free.” You also are applying lying logic.
How hypocritical, given how you just quoted the author thusly: “In the article he cites the New York Times, and quotes it as seeming to approve of Gaddafi’s Libya ‘everyone is involved in every decision…'”, when what the author actually wrote was “Even the New York Times, which was always highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that ‘everyone is involved in every decision…'” So, in fact, the author did not suggest that the Times was expressing its approval of Gaddafi’s government.
Thus, the only “lying logic” here is your own.
“was” or “is”? Here is more of what that NY Times article that this author cited did say:
“The administration has failed and the state economy has failed, enough is enough,” Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi said in a recent speech that made no mention of his own role as the man in charge for the last 40 years.
Libya recognizes its problems and is trying to respond, after a fashion. But
whatever Libya does, it must stay within the boundaries of a system
created by Colonel Qaddafi, or Brother Leader, as he is called. And that
is the country’s Achilles’ heel: by nearly every practical measure, the
system has failed Libyans, but it is his system, so it is above reproach.
As eager as Colonel Qaddafi and Libyans are to rejoin the contemporary
world, to just become a normal country, they are likely to be frustrated
as long as it remains impossible to fundamentally reform the system
imposed by Libya’s absolute ruler.
“It is all him, because there are no institutions in Libya to share his
power or challenge his behavior,” said Attia Essawy, an Egyptian writer
with expertise in Libyan affairs. Continue reading the main story
In many ways, Libya is a case study in how power tends to corrupt. Last
month, Colonel Qaddafi offered a formula for fixing his hobbled state.
His idea was to abolish the government altogether and give all the oil
proceeds directly to each family. Abdul Mahjeed el-Dorsi, director of
Libya’s foreign media department, explained: “The government will be
demolished, it will disappear. You will take your share of the wealth
and you can go to private schools, universities. They will have to
manage everything themselves.”
The idea frightened many Libyans, who said they wanted a more permanent,
professional government but were not ready to blow up the current one.
But there was no indication that the transformation would be happening
anytime soon.
The minister of economics, Ali Abd Alaziz Isawi, took the most optimistic
view. He said the only way to build an effective, accountable government
would be to start over, even if that meant a period of chaos. A week
after making those remarks, he was fired.
The New York Times was invited to Libya to spend about two weeks observing
what officials here bill as direct democracy. Colonel Qaddafi’s idea is
that representative democracy is inadequate because it involves citizens
assigning their rights and responsibilities to someone else. In Libya,
the theory goes, everyone is involved in every decision. People meet in
committees and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building
schools.
Authoritarian leaders all over the world take steps to create a veneer of democracy.
In Egypt, for example, there are elections, though there is never any
doubt that the governing party will win.
If you have a point, you’ll have to state what it is. Just pasting a lot of text won’t obfuscate the hypocrisy evident in your criticism.
Wow. LIES. He clearly says the NYT was HIGHLY CRITICAL but “conceded that in Libya, the intention was that “everyone is involved in every decision…”. So why are u misrepresenting so blatantly? What is the motive here?
The same “asswipe” who believes that America is one! :)
Dubinsky – you obviously can’t read!
My countries leader Amilcar Cabral was trying to do the same unfortunately imperialism assissinated him …… As did it Maurice bishop as it is doing to Venezuela…… For the simple fact that the average person is actually involved in the daily running of their country Qaddafi and others knew Westminster democracy won’t work in Africa look at Libya under western democracy today
If you do not agree with the author then, I suggest you write your own perfect article and share it with us. Otherwise, your comments sounds so unprofessional.
There is a lot of truth if you go to Libya ?? and ask citizens. You will be shocked with what you will hear. Mind you, the media only exaggerates and is run by the world powers. They do anything to make the country look good, but often times they make it look worse.
Thank you for a good article and fair protrait of a side of Libya many people do not realize because they have been sheilded from the truth either because they have been impiping western media version of the world as presented by Washington or London, and in the cafes of ignorance of CNN, Fox news, or Nationa propaganda Radio ( NPR). The other factor of ignorance is driven by the ingraind racism and white supermisist colonial condescending vew of Africa and the third world. The article presented facts and accoplishments that many people strive for and which to have because the concept gives real power to the people and can deliver tangible results for the struggling g class. The western democacy is in a real crises and people are distchanted with the lack of progress and impact on the average person who is struggling to make ends meet. If any one disagree with the article please point to the section and provide evidence to the contrary and compare the results to other systems of governments and the gridlock tecnology of multi parti systems.