Cameron Urges Swift Transition To A ‘Democratic And Inclusive’ Libya
Adrian Hilton warns David Cameron about imposing "western style" democracy on the people of Libya, instead they should determine their own destiny.
22 Aug 2011, 13:45
What do you expect to become of Libya?
It has taken a few months, but the end of the 41-year-reign of Colonel Gaddafi appears to be nigh: the fall of Tripoli to the government-in-waiting (aka ‘the rebels’) has put a spring in the step of the Arab Spring. Unlike post-Saddam Iraq, preparations for a stable government and the maintenance of civil order have been political priorities. There has been no ‘clash of civilisations’; no meltdown across the Arab world. Tunisia is still suspended in some sort of dictator-democracy transition, as is Egypt. The monarchs of Morocco, Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia are ‘negotiating’ their futures, and Syria isn’t negotiating at all. But government continues. It may not be by the people for the people, but that form appeared nowhere overnight. Throughout the West, it evolved over centuries, through revolution and bloodshed: we easily forget that some of our EU partners have only been democracies for a few decades. But we ignore at our peril that democracy is a bottom-up system of government: it cannot be authoritatively imposed by external invaders, especially if a sizable indigenous Muslim constituency perceives those invaders to be latter-day Christian crusaders.
Democracy demands that sovereignty should rest in the hands of the people and be exercised by their representatives, to whom the administration should be responsible. It is a fragile system of government, and can only work if people share enough in common to feel part of one community, so that minorities can accept majority decisions and live with the consequences. If political tensions are intensified by differences of language, nationality, religion and culture, then minorities will regard majority rule as oppressive and are likely to rebel against it, and in so doing threaten civil peace. We have seen it time and again in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia – we struggle even to hold the United Kingdom together. The situation in some Islamic countries is fraught with religious, political and historical sensitivities.
States established by treaties are fragile entities, and the geo-political entity called Libya is only a century old; forged out of warring Muslim tribal factions of the east (in Benghazi) and west (around Tripoli). Artificially-created states invariably tend to revert back to their ethno-religious groupings, often with horrific wars of independence in the struggles for nation-state recognition. A ‘democratic and inclusive’ Libya cannot be imposed from without, so it must be inculcated from within. But democracy presupposes free and fair elections; inclusivity demands justice and human rights. Our own parliamentary democracy attained legitimacy in stages over centuries – first through a shift in power from princes and priests to the saints – the priesthood of all believers; then the recognition of equality and the importance of religious liberty; and more recently through the incorporation of human rights. The age of enlightenment was contingent on the preceding ages of reformation, revolution and reason.
The British people own their democracy because they created it and remain sovereign within it. The will of the majority is accepted because tyranny has been abolished by representative democracy and constitutional monarchy. If we were starting from scratch, we wouldn’t arrive where we’re at. But Libya is now starting afresh. While we must hope that democracy and inclusivity are the outcome, I can’t help thinking it won’t be ‘swift’.
The author
Adrian Hilton
Adrian Hilton is a conservative academic, religious and political commentator, journalist and author.
Full profile →
Comments (0)
Subscribe to this posts's comments feed