Does The Future Reside In The Past ...?|
Greetings to all:
One doesn't help to notice there's a spate of articles and opinions the gist of which is to channel -if not to force- history into prescribed course! Some call such a move revisionism, others, the in-your-face types, call it pure reactionism. However one calls it the name wouldn't give justice to the insidious intentions that lie behind such a move. For the implications are quite disturbing.
The resurgence of the monarchists under various disguises is a reminder that the virus which once wrecked havoc of our body politic had never been elimintated completely but rather is still lurking somewhere in the many cracks that are undermining the structural intergrity of the social edifice.Just as a sick body earns of the days of vigor, it seems, a sick culture is stuck into mythological past. History, or as some call it the sum of human follies, while has always been manipulated to suit the purposes especially of the unscrupulous lot, it's not completely one-sided figure nor is one dimensional system. If pocked around enough it can take the veil that some had wrapped around its body off and show its true face.
And what Ms. history will reveal? That the monarchy was never a legitimate affair in Libya, that it was never a sincere and genuine expression of the general populace's will, that the majority of Libyans never desired such a long forgotten relic from their likewise long forgotten past, that it was imposed by outsiders as their lackeys to serve their purposes, that it was never "constitutional" or itself gave much credit to that other fake document, that it discreted itself by its own practices -from being a puppet regime, to its clanish and tribal connections, to its hypocrasy and corruption, etc.- that its legacy has long been discredited, burried, and forgotten to be resurrected again as a spooky and disturbing ghost to add to our present confusion...That experiments once tried and failed better not to be repeated again rather to learn from their mistakes - as the saw goes, if we don't want to be bitten from the same hole twice! And, finally just to remind ourselves with what had been long discovered in this kind of use of history: That those who don't absorb its lessons are prone to repeat its mistakes.
Indeed historical events seem to obey that old axiom:That if and when do occur twice, the first as a farse and the second time as a tragedy. Tragedy it's and will be this time around. When some unknown individual claims to have God's or just a damn stray sperm, given right to install himself on our necks and rule us as "his subjects" in clear day light in the beginning of the 21st century. What to make of that? If not as Dostoyevsky put it, "They've their Hamlets and we've our Karamazovs" and worse still! That's what Libyan history seem to suggest if the monarchists, revisionists, and all eactionaries in general have their say and way. For how can we explain, that just because we were forced to walk for a relatively short period and distance under the banner of an imposed regime we're "ethically and morally" bound to join its tatterd and lost caravan after all those years of wandering lin the desert. And since both the defunct regime and the present one lack popular legitimacy then the question which begs an answer: Haven't 34 years more moral weight than 17? And why change a devil with a jinn?
Some would argue because the first regime was brought at the end of a long dark period of our history, it was willed by her majesty's governement with the UN and the rest of the self-appointed benevolent powers, that it had a "constitution", and that it being a scion of an illusrious family which claimed descendence from the Prophet's line, that it paid dearly in its struggle against the occupier, etc., etc. In their face-value all these reasons may appear compellent until one starts deconstructing them then the parts, not only weren't bigger than the whole, but also are as fragile and tattered as the lies of Qaddafi and most of all don't fit together to form a credible narrative let alone to make a meaningful whole.
Suffice for the purpose of showing the spuriousness of the claims to just take apart one of the urban legends through which these slicks and spinmasters attempt to dupe us into believing that just because there was a myth of an existence of a "constitution," we've to believe that it was real document in flesh and blood and with teeth too, which whern it lived amongest us or we lived in its fold we fit each other like hand in glove, and we got not only used to it but aslo adicted to its lure. What a white lie. There was never such a thing. It was true some schmocks came from the UN with the help of Her Majetsy's and the U.S. governements to pick and chose some individuals which for convenience were called "the constitutional commission" to re-write what had already been decided for the country. The bulk of the population in the western part of the country, which by all statistics amounted to more than two-thirds of the country's population- was not only under represented but was never listened to its greivances and taken account of its desires. Tripolitania was represented by the same number of chosen and appointed delegates as Fezzan which in the most had a couple of dozens for inhabitants! In retrospect one fact can be sure most of those "notables" had no clue to what constitutes and goes into a Constitution and what instititions were necessary to safgeguard it and carry its dictates out. And, with all the tricks that went into the writing of that piece of paper, as soon as the newly appointed "king" found himself seated in his invented throne he threw the document out into his trash bin and ruled as any oriental dispot happy to be a Wesrtern lackey. So, for 17 long years there was no political life to speak of except make-belief theatrics and fake or fixed electionsTribes and clans with the blessings of both the king and his sponsors ran the country in a semi-feudal state.
Now some disllusioned lot, naive and misguided others want to bring through the window what had been clearly kicked out of the door. For some to remember, most of the huppula and celebrations that occurred during the military take-over were not for love of the army or however led it but rather because they were tired of an antiquated tyrant who ruled in no different manner than of those of Beni Ummyia and Beni al-'Abbas.