Libya.

[ParadiseFound]

So, yet another oppressive regime looks set to topple (the third in as many months). This time it's the Arab world's answer to Tom Jones, Muammar Gaddafi, who's in trouble.

So, what do we all think of this? How long until Gaddafi steps down, if at all? If he does go, who will replace him? And will there be more revolutions throughout the Arab world?

[Nihil Obstat]

Gaddafi is a different sort of crazy. I don't expect him to act very rationally. I expect Libya may be the most violent of the unrest we've seen thus far.

[CatherineM]

He's been threatening to blow up the oil pipelines. That tells me that he doesn't care about the welfare of his people. A lot of the foreigners who are leaving are the workers building a big water pipeline. He'd leave his people without an economy and without water.

[kujo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299177111' post='2217512']
Gaddafi is a different sort of crazy. I don't expect him to act very rationally. I expect Libya may be the most violent of the unrest we've seen thus far.
[/quote]

Exactly.

He's crazy, his government his crazy, and his military commanders are crazy. He will definitely NOT just "step away" because, as he recently said in an interview, he doesn't even believe he holds an office of leadership. "Libya has no leader," were his exact words. Removing him from power is going to involve killing him, his sons and a whole bunch of his "people." Before that happens, he will unleash some serious terror on his people.

But before we start celebrating the will of democracy, consider this: Libya is a conglomerate of competing, opposing tribal factions. While their may be consensus about a desire to rid the country of Gaddafi, there's little else these people do agree on. There is no history or culture of democracy present, and it is unlikely that this uprising, should it succeed, create or encourage any. More likely than not, a post-Gaddafi Libya would have similar problems to Iraq, who, 8 years later, are STILL struggling to create an environment of democracy and legitimacy to their government.

[ParadiseFound]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1299182613' post='2217533']
But before we start celebrating the will of democracy, consider this: Libya is a conglomerate of competing, opposing tribal factions. While their may be consensus about a desire to rid the country of Gaddafi, there's little else these people do agree on. There is no history or culture of democracy present, and it is unlikely that this uprising, should it succeed, create or encourage any. More likely than not, a post-Gaddafi Libya would have similar problems to Iraq, who, 8 years later, are STILL struggling to create an environment of democracy and legitimacy to their government.
[/quote]
This is exactly what I was thinking, but put far better than I could ever put it.

[kujo]

What needs to be remembered is that these are not democratic movements. They're social uprisings directed towards authoritative regimes who have espoused varying levels of oppressive policies. As a result of years of suppression and stagnation, people in these countries are rising up, calling for the ouster of their leaders. They're being called "people's power" movements, a term which originated in the Philippines during the 1986 revolution in that country. During the PPR, protesters took to the streets and demonstrated in peaceful, prayerful ways. This nonviolent revolution resulted in the restoration of democracy in the country and was seen as an inspiration for the myriad revolutions which occurred in Eastern Europe in 1989.

Yet, it's important to note that there is nothing essentially democratic about what has happened in Egypt and Tunisia, and what is currently occurring in Libya and elsewhere. Sure, people are talking about having a government that represents "the people." But that doesn't create the institutions that need to be present within a stable, functional democracy. And while any or all of these countries could craft a constitution and elect a new government, this will tell us nothing about whether or not "democracy" has been achieved. The true test for any democracy is not when it elects its first leader, but when that first leader willingly and peacefully abdicates his or her position of power after a predetermined period of time. So many countries in the developing world have histories of "electing" leaders who stay on until they die or are killed or kicked out of office. Just as George Washington did after his first 2 terms, the heads of state who assume leadership roles in Egypt, Tunisia and perhaps Libya will have to gracefully and willingly step aside after they've served their term, eschewing any pressure or public desire for them to stick around. Peaceful transition of power is the most remarkable component of the American political system. No matter what, the winner of the election every 4 years expects to be sworn in on January 28th of the following calendar year, and enter the White House as his predecessor exits graciously.

So don't get too caught up with the media coverage of these liberation movements. What comes next might be just as bad. The clamor for power is likely to be chaotic and just as unruly.

[CatherineM]

When they say they want a government of "We the People" they usually mean "my people."

[kujo]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1299187670' post='2217573']
When they say they want a government of "We the People" they usually mean "my people."
[/quote]

That's kinda the way it goes everywhere, not just in the Middle East.

[Nihil Obstat]

Are there flaws in the idea of democracy?

[kujo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299188127' post='2217576']
Are there flaws in the idea of democracy?
[/quote]

Is the pope Catholic?

[Nihil Obstat]

So then why not try something new? We've been trying various forms of democracy for a lot of years now. It's obvious that there are flaws. We cling to it because it's better than most of what came before, but why are we afraid to move forward?

[ParadiseFound]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299188663' post='2217583']
So then why not try something new? We've been trying various forms of democracy for a lot of years now. It's obvious that there are flaws. We cling to it because it's better than most of what came before, but why are we afraid to move forward?
[/quote]
'It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.'

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1299189692' post='2217603']
'It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.'
[/quote]
Maybe we need to rethink social authority.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299190282' post='2217610']
Maybe we need to rethink social authority.
[/quote]

Bastiat called it. "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

~Sternhauser

[kujo]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1299188663' post='2217583']
So then why not try something new? We've been trying various forms of democracy for a lot of years now. It's obvious that there are flaws. We cling to it because it's better than most of what came before, but why are we afraid to move forward?
[/quote]

Well, they could definitely try something new. If it worked for them, it might even have a high level of domestic legitimacy. But considering the fact that the U.S. has a pretty firm idea of what makes a government "legitimate," so we might not like it or recognize it.