Just as the popular axiom illustrates, ‘for
whatever has a beginning there is an end,’ it is the end of the climax of the
Libyan revolutionary struggle against the regime of Gadhafi. It is also the
stall point in the sense that the people of Libya have achieved what they
fought for in the wake of several months of the uprising against Colonel Muammar
Gadhafi, a leader loathed so much by the West and praised abundantly by the
African Union and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Chavez seems charmed by Gaddafi’s
arrogance in keeping the opposition at bay at home and hauling over the coals the Western
condemnations against his regime. In any nous, they share dictatorial
arrogance and bravery – blind bravery.
The West hated Gaddafi for his eccentric and
enigmatic support of Al Qaeda activities in the Arab world and most
disturbingly, the bombing of the Pan American World Airline flight 103 – known
tragically as the Lockerbie Bombing – over Scotland in the UK in 1988. Gadhafi
had also made Europe lived with the awful experience of bitterness through
internal meddling. This was evident in Libya arming the IRA in Northern
Ireland.
The African Union on the other hand is a baby
of Gaddafi. He was adored and almost nearly worshipped by its leadership so
that he could keep the organisation sufficiently funded thereby eliminating unscrupulous processes of soliciting aid from the Western World. This near-total
dependence on him made him hoped and believed that he could one day become the
president of Africa. This commitment was clear in Libyan offering of huge financial
support to the weak AU that did so little to stop the killing in Darfur
by the Sudanese government through their counter-insurgency unit - the Janjaweed. His
personal attires, festooned with maps of Africa are overt scenes of his deep
admiration for the continent. He saw himself as a model and yearned to be
recognised as its father- father of Africa.
Realistically, many African leaders who
rejected Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) in its initial stages of
the war appeared like parodies on Gadhafi’s highway to a very long reign in
power. Others like Chadian president, Idris Derby, had their own motives in
supporting him all the way through. But why is Libya, under the auspices of a
well-crafted Green Book that led her to relative stability and a strong economy
in both Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa not satisfied with Gadhafi?
It is a question that will always linger
around. In African political demagogue, leaders pledge many developmental and
social reforms when seeking and biding for power; a stepping stone to be
democratically elected into the office and after which a ruthless crackdown on
oppositions ensues. Constitutions eventually become menus that could be changed
overnight to solidify grip on power. This is a politico-ideological disease
that has infested the Arab world and perhaps, the Arab world, too, does not look very different from Africa in this regard.
One wonders if the Arab Spring, as the uprising
throughout the Arab world is referred to, is not moulding other dictators to
replace the incumbent ones whom they seek to overthrow through mass protests.
In the Libyan case, an armed insurrection was the fundamental tool because all
other political persuasions to introduce democracy never moved Gadhafi. He
viewed such attempts as cheap shenanigans. The question, therefore, remains as to
whether the NTC will not stall and a hard-won liberation handed over to other
dictators in waiting, as is the case in Egypt. Libyans should be quizzical with
the NTC leadership and these leaders too must show that they are immune from
power hunger and demonstrate that they will not turn against the very civilians
who look upon them for change as exhibited by Bashar in Syria.
It all starts with resources. The government of
the people must use the country’s resources to the satisfaction of the populace.
Irregularities and desire to amass country’s resources for one’s ethnic,
religious sect and regional affiliations cannot redeem the country, rather, they
will jettison it into a free fall in the direction of the abyss of
corruption and other socio-political degeneracies.
It is in light of this question that one is
forced to reflect on the situation in South Sudan. The wind of independence is
abating and the country is beginning to be habituated by her
erstwhile-displaced population, trickling in from the diaspora and from the
Sudan. The imperfective meditation that the two Sudans will remain a
single entity or under a convoluted confederacy even after the breakaway of
South Sudan is now an obvious past. Or was it an academic twist to the war possibly
orchestrated by South Sudanese? It needs time to be fully
comprehensible. But one thing is clear, Sudan will always remain a foreign
land. Today, South Sudanese citizens are looking up to the tutelage of
their leaders to transform their homeland into a liveable community. But will
this thought intercommunicate with the desire of the flamboyant leaders who see
the national cake as something to grab for oneself and one’s own people?
A recently formed government of president Kiir
has a minister who thinks that regional enrichment will answer the quest for
development. All across South Sudan, states that felt happy for having been
awarded sufficient ministerial positions went out in celebration and called for
fancy thanksgiving parties, not to the president but to their elected ministers
for having made it to the top. It started with Western Bahr El Ghazal, then
Western Equatoria before the deprived state of Northern Bahr el Ghazal wiped
out tears of disquietude and misrepresentation in the national government and
held a party for their two sons who were appointed ministers in the
national government.
In all these parties, comments made by various
leaders were supportive of the presidential decision to appoint ministers within
rank and files of their capable colleagues. Praises to the president were not
considerate of calculated forthcoming elections manoeuvres in 2014. Others
thought a cumbersome Dinkanisation of the national leadership had finally been
broken.
Then came promises and tribal attitudes from
the leaders. And none other than Alison Manani Magaya uttered the comments that
jerked some patriots who might have illusions that a long time serving
professional of that calibre had a key to proper and equitable development
knowledge for the country. Manani urged a fellow minister in the foreign
ministry who comes from W. Equatoria to fill the books of staff with West
Equatorians. 'We are not asking you to put our people there but you must do
it.' He elaborated more, 'we have to grab for ourselves too because others are
doing it.'
The comments, if put into action unreservedly
as in the words of the pundit himself, would have long term results akin to the
precursory grievances that led to the Arab Spring in the Middle East and North
Africa. If it starts with grabbing for our regions, what will stop South
Sudan from following in the footsteps of Libya? We are at the corner turning
left onto the 'Arabian Highway.'
