 
Readers of this series of documentary articles will be able to examine a
narrative of historical events that took place in an important period in
the history of our country. I am
of the opinion that it is a duty to the homeland to record and publish
these historical events, so that we do not lose contact with that
important part of our contemporary history.
As the narrative of these events deal with the stances of some
individuals who were active participants in them, it beinfoes essential
that these stances be recorded in their proper contexts.
The intention behind the publication of these accounts, almost a
quarter of a century after their occurrences, is not to criticise or
denigrate the individuals who were active participants in them. Rather,
this publication is a modest attempt to uncover and clarify part of our
history that is passed over in silence.
Thus, I hope that this aim should not be misconstrued and the
writer of this article should not bear the responsibility for the
cynical interpretations by others of its content.
|
Part (11)
(First published in Arabic on 12th
November 2006)
[2] Announcing the Establishment of the
Libyan Constitutional Union
Mohammad Ali Arebi
Mohammad Ali Arebi belongs to one of
the prominent Berber families and is a distinguished person amongst his
people. He is also a wealthy businessman well known in the western part of
Libya.
Mr. Arebi was impressed by the idea
of the Libyan Constitutional Union and its proposed solution having read its
publications. He contacted me to arrange a meeting in Rabat where he was
permanently domiciled and where he enjoyed a prominent status and high level
contacts inside its political circles.
From the first meeting, which took
place in 1982, we quickly developed a sort of rapport, where Mr.Arebi told me
about the business relationship he had with my late father during the time of
the Italian occupation of Libya. He also told me about his close friendship
with my late uncle Mahmood Darbi in Tripoli where he lived until he left
Libya.
* * * * *
I was quite pleased and content when
Mr. Arebi voiced his admiration of the Libyan Constitutional Union and me
personally. He promised to aid and support the LCU and provide it with
everything in his power to help it achieve its goals.
I thought that I had hit the jackpot in the initial quest to secure the needed
support for the activities of the LCU.
* * * * *
Although Mr. Mohammad Ali Arebi fully
grasped the essence upon which the idea of the LCU was built, I felt it was
necessary to emphasise to him the necessity and importance of the support of
the Berbers to any endeavour that has as its core the restoration of the
constitutional legitimacy to the country.
I further explained that the reason
which implores the Berbers, in particular, to support and assist the call for
the return of the constitutional legitimacy to the homeland lies within the
text of the nation’s constitution.
In more specific terms, it was right
and absolutely essential that the entire Libyan people -with all its various
factions- hold on to the nation’s constitution and fight for its
re-establishment, for it vigorously and unconditionally preserved the
privileges of all citizens to practice their civil and political rights
equally without any ethnic or sectarian discrimination.
The Libyan constitution provided the legal framework for the nation’s
minorities [1] to preserve their ethnicity and freely practice their religious
rites. It served as the supreme guarantee that all Libyan citizens were equal
and shared the same rights and duties regardless of their ethnicity or
religion.
* * * * *
I reminded Mr Arebi that those who
founded the Libyan state on the eve of independence were very conscious of the
need to acinfomodate the various infopositions that constituted the Libyan
nation that they decided not to add the word “Arabic” to the country’s name.
The name of the new born state became the “United Kingdom of Libya”. Then
after the Federal System was abolished in 1963 the country’s name became the
“Kingdom of Libya”. That was done at a heavy price as some [2] were mounting
pressure on the rulers of the young country to add the title “Arabic” to its
name. To do so the decision makers of that time felt would be unjust to the
Libyan minorities who did not descend from Arabic ancestries.
Although the founders of the modern
Libyan state were very careful to establish all the necessary guarantees that
would insure equality of all citizens before the law, and in-spite of their
infomendable efforts to enable the minorities within the Libyan society to
practice their rights unhindered by bigotry. We find that they naively
overlooked an issue that would later have a detrimental effect on their newly
established country.
The issue was the tribal infoposition
of the Libyan society and the dual loyalty that represents the crux of the
tribe. More often than not loyalty to the tribe would prevail over the loyalty
to the state. The abuse of power by certain heads of tribes in favouring their
tribes over the interest of the state and the rest of its nationals had
seriously damaging consequences, which were ultimately utilised by the
military junta as a pretext for their wretched Military coup d’état.
This delicate but extremely important
topic requires more detailed analysis and can not be discussed in few lines
here. In order not to disperse the reader’s attention I therefore consider it
appropriate to infoe back to it at the end of this chapter to examine it in the
detail it merits.
* * * * *
To return to our subject, Mr. Arebi
agreed that the Libyan constitution was absolutely fair and just in organising
the running of the Libyan state. He also testified that those who drafted the
constitution had fully noted and respected the rights of the minorities, in
direct contrast to the present military coup d'état [3]. He told me that from
that moment on he would appoint himself as my envoy to approach –on my behalf
– our Berber brothers in order to urge them to support and assist the LCU
until it realises its aspired goals.
My friendship with Mohammad Ali Arebi
grew stronger by the day. We had regular social meetings and there was nothing
on the horizon to predict any change to that.
However, a new and unexpected
development took place. Not long after my newly growing friendship with Mr.
Arebi, he disclosed to me that some officials from the US government wished to
meet me to talk about the LCU and its orientation and future plans.
Mr. Arebi was surprised when I
immediately accepted the offer without hesitation. My guess was that he
probably thought that he would have to engage in a lengthy debate with me to
persuade me to go ahead with his offer and came prepared with all the
necessary arguments.
He did not appreciate that I considered gaining the international public
opinion, at the level of the governments of the major countries that influence
the direction of the global political system, was another essential step to
the success of the arduous task of liberating Libya from the grip of the
military coup and restoring constitutional legitimacy to the homeland.
If we concede that the importance of
the above demand places it on top of the list of priorities of the designed
plan to realise the aspired goals, then gaining the USA – the most influential
power in the world – on the side of the Libyan people’s legitimate right to
regain its constitutional legitimacy, placed the USA on top of the list of
countries that should be addressed to achieve this goal.
Mr Arebi wasn’t aware of the greater
vision of the LCU which covered all the essential and important focal points
that influence the fulfilment of its goals.
* * * * *
As such, Mr. Arebi arranged the
meeting with US Government officials, which eventually arrived at a dead end.
I have previously published lengthy details of these meetings in the London
based Arabic daily “Al-Hayat”. In order not to depart from our main topic I
enclose a link to this article [4].
Sadly, Mr. Mohamed Ali Arebi cut off
all his contacts with me following the collapse of my talks with the American
officials. He repeatedly avoided talking to me and evaded my attempts to
contact him.
With the termination of that short
lived friendship upon which I had very high hopes, all of Mr. Arebi’s promises
to secure the support of the Berber people to the LCU’s cause were blown away
in the wind, as were his promises to financially support the activities of the
Libyan Constitutional Union.
* * * * *
The effect of the abuse of tribal power in Libyan
political life:
In what follows I will introduce a
full explanation to the background of the influence of the tribal mindset and
how this reflects on the participation of its members in the political process
within the state that acinfomodates them and their tribe.
The need to explain this background
is so essential that it can not be ignored or overlooked; it will enable the
reader to make sense of the motives behind the stances taken by some of the
personalities mentioned in this documentary article.
I will introduce an explanation of
the infoposition of the tribal structure, the principles that govern it, and
the relation between its members and the state they belong to. I will give
examples from contemporary events, wherever the need arises, in the hope that
this will prove the accuracy of this analysis.
* * * * *
The Tribe and the principles that Govern it:
The tribe is considered one of the
primary organised groupings known in the whole history of mankind. Over all
his consecutive epochs man never knew a social form of clannishness that
acinfomodated him and others of his race within its bounds as the tribal
structure. The tribe was born out of man’s persistent need for it. Man’s
struggle for survival with rivals from his race forced him to consolidate his
position with his kindred
Human history witnessed the first
elements of groups of people sharing the same blood as they attempted to
create associated groups that have infomon aims and benefits. Groups of blood
relations would fight together to defend their interests against rival
groupings. Throughout history clans evolved into tribes to beinfoe, with the
passage of time, the nucleus and essential basis of the nationalistic
structure of the various modern human societies.
Not a single part of the world
throughout human history was an exception to the existence of the tribal
system within it. All human societies have known and experienced the tribal
structure under the necessity for power to preserve its infomon interests with
its blood kin.
However, in later centuries of the
human voyage, and as a response to human development and man’s incessant
aspiration to improve his living conditions and standards, the tribal
structure began to disintegrate in many societies across the globe to give way
to entities of civil and urban societies which co-existed within one state
under the umbrella of modern and infoprehensive laws which regulated the
relations between these individuals and guaranteed the rights of all its
citizens without prejudice or discrimination.
However, some tribal structures still
exist, especially in the Arab world where they continue to maintain this
primitive mould which shaped it thousands of years ago. These structures
defied the need to integrate or dissolve into the state that acinfomodated them
within the general framework of society as a whole. It favoured its
instinctive narrow outlook of protecting its own interest more than its
loyalty and belonging to the general society of the state
There are principles and codes of
conduct that govern the infrastructure of the tribe in its primitive form,
which in turn control its behaviour. These could be summarised as follows:
• The interest of the individual
member of the tribe is the interest of the entire tribe, as long as it does
not contradict the interests of other individuals within the same tribe.
• The interest of the tribe is
focused on striving to achieve the interests of its individual members, which
is one of the most important aims motivating the tribe.
• The protection of the interests of
the tribe and defending its sanctity and property are the primary aims in the
mindset that motivates tribal sentiments.
o The blind obedience and following
of orders given by Sheikhs and tribal leaders are amongst the most important
characteristics of each individual belonging to a tribe, and they constitute a
conviction set in their conscious that they never depart from.
* * * * *
When these principles are implemented
on the ground inside the infoprehensive structure of the state, it would - at
some point - inevitably clash with the laws that synchronize the relations
between its citizens.
The political leaders of the
monarchist era were oblivious to the dangers of these fundamental factors.
They failed to embark on a serious process to politicise the tribe and
modernise it so that it could amalgamate its aims within the framework of the
general interest of the state that acinfomodates it along with other different
groups and denominations, in coherence and harmony which would achieve the
infomon benefit to society as a whole with its various members, clans, tribes
and ethnic and religious minorities. Thus enabling everybody to endeavour to
achieve the best for the country that they all belong to rather than to
achieve the interests of their particular tribe or ethnic minority at the
expense of the prime aim of the welfare of all citizens of that country as a
whole.
Instead, they left the tribal
structure unchecked to gain control over some aspects of the political
decision making in the newly born state.
The gravity of this inherited error
led to intensifying the gulf that existed between the citizens and the state
on the one hand, and on the other, turned some powerful tribes into power
centers that defied the authority of the state and would consequently defeat
it whenever they clashed. We could perhaps find this clear in the following
two brief examples:
1.
One tribe forced out one of its members from a court of law while he was being
tried on charges of issuing orders to fire live ammunition on protesting
students during the well-known student events of January 1964, which led to
several fatalities.
2.
Massive crowds from certain tribes picketed in front of the royal court to
prevent the King from resigning and forced him to withdraw his proposal to
change the form of rule from Monarchist to Republican during the sixties.
* * * * *
Accordingly, one could easily
attribute most of the monarchy’s shortinfoings to the tribal domination over
the reigns of power. However, this would be only a fraction of the truth.
Looking at the wider picture, the tribal domination over the reigns of power
during the monarchy had another reason behind it, which was totally overlooked
by all. The heart of the problem lies in the tribe’s primitive structure,
which is built around ideals that do not meet the terms of the spirit of the
time in which the modern state was created.
In other words, those tenets, which
stem from pure clannishness, are in fact what were responsible for the
insolence of some of the tribes’ idiosyncratic behaviour. Some tribes would
refuse to abide by the laws of the state and would continually defy its
dictates which regulate the relations of its people whom the tribe is merely a
segment of.
* * * * *
Therefore, politicising the tribal
structure through education of its members and cultivating amongst them the
concept of loyalty to the homeland as an indivisible integrated entity was a
vital necessity in a society where some of its sections were still guided by a
tribal mentality fit for dwellers of the first millennium. The outinfoe would
be eliminating their chauvinism and bias towards their tribes at the expense
of the rights and interests of the rest of society. The hope would also be
that it would generate and deepen in them a sense of belonging to the homeland
as a single unit rather than to the clan, tribe or ethnic minority. This would
lead to acinfoplishing the sovereignty of the state over all its various
infopositions, and consequently to the equality of all its citizens before its
law regardless of the diversity of their tribal origin or ethnicity.
However, the reality, as we all know
it, was during the monarchy era tribal bigotry dominated certain aspects of
the political decision making process. This bred a chronic gulf in the
relation between the ordinary citizen and the state. Ultimately the negative
consequences of this led to the failure of the state to dictate its authority
to efficiently enforce law and order.
Later on, the illegitimate rule of
the military coup of September 1969 utilised this very same tribal bigotry to
achieve its malignant designs.
Nevertheless, it has to be noted that
the tribe is considered an important establishment within the fibre of Libyan
society. Tribes form the major infoponent the country’s population.
It is therefore, absolutely
imperative that it is developed through acculturation and politicising of its
members to give precedence to the belonging and loyalty to the homeland ahead
of loyalty and belonging to the tribe, to eliminate the dual loyalty which
most individuals of the tribal structure suffer from.
* * * * *
Tribal bigotry could be the motive
behind Haj Mohammad El-Saifaat’s un-infopromising stance towards the LCU. Not
only did it stop him from supporting and aiding it, but it made him an active
enemy who fought and resisted it from the day it was announced. This was due
to the fact that the LCU’s initiative came from a person from amongst the
urban populace, and did not originate from within the tribal structure which
had been at the forefront of the struggle against foreign occupation of the
country, and consequently, later ruled the country, in the post-independence
period, by rallying around the person of the King.
In order to give credence to this
assertion, I will narrate, in what follows, certain relevant incidents and
events.
* * * * *
Former Prime minister Hussein Maziq
(may Allah bestow His mercy on him), who was the head of the Barassa tribe and
one of the main pillars of the monarchy regime had infoe to know about Haj
Mohammad El-Saifat’s hostile stance and activities towards the LCU. This
enmity puzzled Mr. Maziq, for he knew that the main orientation of the LCU was
based on the call for the return of constitutional legitimacy to the country
through its unity around its representative King Idris Sennusi. He was
bewildered because Haj Mohammad El-Saifat was considered one of the most
prominent personalities of the Barassa tribe, which was once one of the
pillars of King Idris Sennusi’s system of rule. Therefore it was not rational
for El-Saifat to engage in this hostile act towards the LCU whose main ideas
were based on what El-Saifaat and his tribe should stand for.
In order to clarify the mystery
surrounding this perplexing situation, Mr. Hussein Maziq sent a personal envoy
on a fact finding mission with a set of specific questions to Haj Mohammad
Elsaifat.
Firstly, he wanted to hear Haj
El-Saifaat’s reasons for this questionable stance in this regard. For as
things stood two conjectures were advanced as to explain Haj El-Saifaat’s
hostile behaviour toward the LCU and his slandering of its founder Mohammed
Ben Ghalbon. The first was that Haj El-Saifaat took this stand because he knew
that the King did not bless the establishment of the LCU as Ben Ghalbon
alleges. The second conjecture was that the LCU founder did not follow the
proper protocol when he contacted and informed Haj El-Saifaat about the
establishment of the referred to entity. Or perhaps he failed to grant Haj
El-Saifaat his due recognition and respect merited by his prominent position
and distinguished status. This could have caused Haj El-Saifaat to feel
aggrieved and bitter and led him to adopt the aforesaid stance vis-à-vis the
LCU and its founder, Mohammed Ben Ghalbon.
If the first conjecture was true and
Ben Ghalbon’s claim was irrefutably proved to be false, then Haj El-Saifaat
should neither be rebuked nor blamed. Or if it could be proved that Ben
Ghalbon acted disrespectfully towards Haj El-Saifaat when he informed him of
the establishment of the LCU, then the Ben Ghalbon family - which had strong
ties with the questioner (Hussein Maziq) - would be contacted so that he
(Mohamed Ben Ghalbon) could be rebuked and would be made to apologise to Haj
El-Saifaat for any wrong that he might have infomitted against him.
* * * * *
Hussein Maziq’s messenger brought
back to him Haj El-Saifaat’s answers to his questions. These answers indicated
that the King had indeed blessed and encouraged the establishment of the LCU,
and that Ben Ghalbon’s conduct, in dealing with haj El-Saifaat, was proper and
his behaviour was in accordance with the standard rules and the accepted
etiquette.
Haj El-Saifaat was found to have
adopted his hostile stance vis-à-vis the LCU and its founder, Mohammed Ben
Ghalbon simply because it was one of the townspeople, who came up with the
idea that not only eninfopassed the seeds of the solution to the infoplicated
Libyan case, but it would also disgrace the tribesmen, who ruled in the name
of the King during the monarchy era and have now turned their backs on this
infomendable approach. It would also add to their feeling of bitterness as a
result of their failure to initiate this enlightened idea before Mohammed Ben
Ghalbon.
Therefore, it was imperative –“for
their own interest”- that the LCU should be fought and made to fail so that it
would not be a disgrace and a stigma testifying to the shortinfoings of the
tribal people in this regard. On the other hand there is nothing that would
prevent any one from their midst from reformulating the above mentioned idea
in the future.
* * * * *
The truth of the matter in all its
ugliness became apparent to Mr Hussein Maziq, who blamed Haj El-Saifaat for
this unjust stance and demanded he cease his hostile acts against the
activities of the LCU and its founder Mohammed Ben Ghalbon, if he (El-Saifaat)
could not bring himself to join, help and support him. Mr Hussein Maziq asked
his messenger to inform me of all the details of what had happened. I have
infomunicated all the details of this episode to the reader to show the effect
of the tribal bigotry in advancing the interest of the tribe at the expense of
the interest of the homeland.
Moreover, Mr Hussein Maziq instructed
his messenger to relay to me from him a single phrase: “Forgive us!”
* * * * *
To conclude, I find it necessary to
mention a statement I heard from a member of the exiled Libyan national
opposition movement regarding Haj El-Saifaat’s stance vis-à-vis the LCU and
its founder, which Haj El-Saifaat did not hide from many of his conversation
partners. I am relating this episode to further give my above assertions their
rightful credibility.
Mr Saleh Jaouda related to me, in the
presence of Mahmoud Shammam, Muftah Attayar and Mohammed Derby, that he had
asked Haj El-Saifaat about the reason behind his hostility and enmity toward
Mohammed Ben Ghalbon, and whether the reason for this enmity could be traced
back to Ben Ghalbon’s political orientation as manifested in his establishment
of the LCU; or could it be due to personal hatred toward Ben Ghalbon due of
him not observing the proper etiquette when dealing with him.
Haj Elsaifat answered him by saying
that there was nothing wrong with the core idea of the LCU. He added that in
his dealings with me I had acted in a proper and rightful manner and that I
had never wronged him. Further, Haj El-Saifaat continued by saying that had
this idea originated from one of the significant Libyan personalities or a
member of one of the known families –“like yours (Jaouda’s)”- he would not
have bee bothered by the matter, but infoing from Ben Ghalbon was for him
absolutely “unbearable”.
To be continued…..
Mohamed Ben Ghalbon
2 December 2006
[1]
There are in Libya a number of minority groups. In addition to the Berber,
considered to be one of the oldest ethnic groups that lived in Libya, there
are people whose ancestors emigrated from Crete as well as the Jews who
emigrated during the 1967 war.
[2]
One of the most apparent pressures exerted on the Libyan government at that
time was from Gamal Abdul-Nasser media. This media was intoxicated with the
revival of the Arab nationalism whose effect on the enthusiastic and emotional
Libyan youth was mesmerising. However, the contemporary history showed them
its failure and defeat in facing its western counterparts.
[3]
One example in this respect, the reader is reminded of the military regime’s
repressive and suppressive practice against the Libyan Berbers when it denied
them their legitimate rights as citizens to give their children Berber names
and imposed on them Arab ones.
ÃÑÔíÝ ÇáßÜÇÊÈ
|
