Unreciprocated love: did people love Kaddafi and Mubarak?

I have just listened to Muammar Kaddafi’s interview to BBC and some US agencies. He insisted there were not demonstrations against him and Libyan people love him, and the armed people are incited by El-Qaeda. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12604760

 

This reminded me last moves by Mubarak. He could not believe that people did not want him stay in power. I think he might have been ready to make concessions and take a lead to respond to concerns. He could not imagine that somebody else might take his place of Egyptian Leader.

And that explains the last moves, when the expected statement of resignation did not come from President Mubarak on February 12 in the evening, but his love to Egypt and its people was reiterated, his fatherhood of the nation was manifested.

Protests continued and unexpectedly President Mubarak resigned with no fatherhood words to people. And he could not, because, I believe, it was his last will to appeal to people and their sentiments towards him before finally succumb to pressure from outside and inside to go. When he had got an answer from Tahrir square he was stuck down. He might have loved his country and people, but the people seemed not in love with him anymore.

There is one reality about the people’s love towards their rulers – it is limited in time and rested on current deeds not the past. The past used to legitimize only monarchies. Mubarak may have understood how far he was of that status, but does Kaddafi do? In his interview he referred to British Queen to replicate that people simply love him and he does not have any other source of his status in the country. Does Kaddafi in his turn love his people and what is he going to do once realise that people do not love him anymore?

UK PM Cameron visited Near East: more on morality of governance.

It turns out that Mr. Cameron’s round trip to Egypt and Gulf has not been just in response to changes and about support he communicated to young Arab citizens’ aspirations to democracy.  People dealing with arms sales were in his train. And that made many British citizens to raise an issue of moral responsibility in governance once and again. Many people questioned reasonability of promoting arms deals at the time when dictatorships use military to suppress their people resentments.

The time was chosen to boost clashing motivation but all to serve for Great Britain interests in the region: take up a lead and be first government delegation after Egyptian resurgence in support to democracy and be first to offer weapon to rulers of the Gulf who have certainly been worried by sweeping uprising in Arab world.

One young female student asked Mr. Cameron at the meeting in Qatar University, if it is a time for Great Britain to be “Great” indeed? The answer was eloquent and sincere: that is PM’s dream! He is proud of his country, its history and people who served for the progress in the whole world, but he has a biggest challenge to settle a devastating budget deficit to ensure the growth.

However are arms deals to boost the British economy what the majority of British citizens want their government to do? Views are clashing: selling weapon to governments is legal, because every government according to UN charter have a right to defend itself, it is reasonable because otherwise other governments with little accountability can take the market - but it does not bring much benefits to reconcile with democracy and humanity concerns, and it can damage the reputation and have a backlash effect on economy and business.

The world still does not live according to common set of rules and values. In doing such moves and speaking openly PM might lose the popularity and involve a risk of leaving the office in next election term. However his openness and bold actions articulate and demonstrate what are pressing challenges for governments and people, and his country practices guarantee that mistakes and miscalculation can be corrected by successor.  The proof of pudding is eating, and in order to make a mistake evident you should take up a risk of action.

UK Prime Minister: The US should be committed to promote Palestinian Conflict Settlement.

Conservative Party Leader has been demonstrating the remarkably innovative moves of his government engagement in Near policy in the last few days. Put aside detailed analysis of British government responses to turmoil and uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain, and cast a glance on the recent Mr Cameron’s visit to Egypt and Gulf countries. It has been a first ever visit by any country leader in Egypt after Mubarak. The visit demonstrated a great concern as well as dedication to support the growing democracy aspirations of news generation of Arab citizenry.

Especially indicative was a today meeting at Qatar University. Questions from audience were in widest range of Arab people concerns: from Libya turmoil to Palestinian conflict. Open discussion and very open responses from Mr. Cameron have brought much to his credit. On Palestine the answers were both thoughtful and concisely clear.

-         All actors should be committed to two state solution in Palestine.

-         UK has accepted such approach and voted in UN security council to condemn illegal construction of Israeli settlements

-         Palestinians should stop attacking civilians, Israel should stop settlement policy and US should also be similarly committed.

Notice about the US policy has been especially stringent in the evidence of the US vetoing of Palestine resolution on settlements at the last Security Council meeting in the UN.

  

Does it tell something about radical discrepancy of the UK and the US approaches to Near East challenges – still requires deeper insight. However what is evident that the UK government has been as flexible as pertinent to emerging new challenges and expectations in Arab world.

Egypt and Libya: Two Adjoining Countries and Two Poles in Arab World?

Hardest testing has come for authoritarian Arab regimes.  The challenge is single and common for all – people tiredness of long lasting supremacy of narrow group of people, strive to democracy and dignity.

Given this similarity what has made countries from Egypt to Bahrain and Libya still different and consequently the uprising outcomes drastically controversial about the best way to pursue for the governments in crucible?

The first answer is in the different nature and legitimacy of power in those countries.   Monarchies certainly have traditional proves of their legitimacy, and that affected the rigor of protesters and their agenda. However the good way to keep the legitimacy is adequate response to sounded demand of liberalization. Reluctance to do that might change a track of developments to the time of anti-monarchic revolutions of 50-es and 60-ies of the last century. In contrary elected government needs regular re-approval of legitimacy, which might be crucial testing in case of pressing  social problems – poverty, quality of public services, security and national dignity challenges.

The second answer is the leverage the Wes t has had on regimes. Rulers of Egypt and Bahrain have been undoubtedly affected by their dependence on international reputation and views on their responses to protests. Libya has had less links to international community than any others in the region, and even used to challenge the significance and respect to western partnerships.

The third answers is  longevity of regimes. This indicator is more applicable to non-monarchic regimes. Even formally elected governments differ of monarchy by  being actually temporary establishments by nature.  Egypt regime has made its record of 32 years, Libya has made 42 years. The more an allegedly elected regime stays in power the more the sense of impunity is. Succession challenge is a testing crucible. President Mubarak has gone the succession much less way than Libyan ruler Colonel Kaddafi.

The fourth answer is social structure and cultural differences. Libya is considerably rested on tribal relations and thus the ruler was supposed to be responsible with those traditional institutions. Once he was not formally crowned, unlike traditional monarchies, he desperately needed alternative proves of legitimacy. His democratic rhetoric was much louder, but practice much poorer.

Finally we should mention personal characteristics of leadership, which in essential extent derived from objective factors, mentioned above, but still reflected personal tracks and links in political history of respective countries.  Kaddafi has developed the regime as personal invention; he has been intolerant to any diversity and political alternatives. Mubarak has emerged from national movement under the leadership by  Nasser, whose reputation has been always special in national consciousness of Arab people.

Those factors defined final decisions of rulers. Those differences indicated to two opposing poles  on the political scale of Arab world. Libya demonstrates extreme manifestation of resistance by tested authoritarianism. Mubarak has felt still more responsive to external and internal demands. The destiny of Libya leadership might serve either a warning or encouragement for resisting autocracies. However for Egypt it is extremely important to escape the hatred and squabbles and develop effective dialogue for the sake of future of Egypt and for the leadership role Egypt used to play and should play furthermore in Arab world.