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.