Why Libya Fell after Uprisings and Algeria Did Not - Essay Example

DRAFT. Please that this is a draft, final copy coming up shortly Why Libya Fell after Uprisings and Algeria Did Not Libyaand Algeria are neighboring countries in North Africa that were prone to the effects of the Arab spring. The two nations among other Arab nations like Egypt and Tunisia have a long history of authoritarian rule. Notably, these Arab nations experienced the Arab Spring uprisings that hit the region in 2010-2011. Indeed, because of the Arab Spring uprisings the governments of such nations like Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt fell as the citizens revolted against the government while seeking for democracy, equality, and respect for human rights. As rebel groups in Libya overthrew the Libyan government, the Algerian government remained stable and experienced barely any unrest at all. Since the two nations are in the same region and the Arab Spring uprisings occurred at the same time in the two nations, there are fundamental factors that led to the diverse outcomes of the Arab Spring in Libya and Algeria. This paper will explore these factors and explain why Libya fell after the Arab Spring uprisings and Algeria did not. It is factual that the happenings at the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan regimes could have been applicable to the Algerian regime. The Algerian regime remains as one of the few regional powers that did not suffer from the Arab Spring. Notably, there were early protests in Algeria as the Arab Spring uprising started in North Africa. However, the protests ended within a short time as the Algerian regime indicated that it is not ready to give in to the protesters demands. Moreover, it was clear from the offset of the protests that the Algerian public did not envy the confrontations witnessed in other North African nations since they were yet to recover from the effects of 1990s brutal civil war. Indeed, the Algerian Foreign Policy indicated that the sad memories of the civil war that resulted to 100,000 or more deaths scared the Algerians during the Arab Spring. The Algerian government and the citizens related the civil war to the Islamist parties where they banned the main Islamist party after the civil war. As a result, the Islamists performed poorly in the elections and hence lacked the capacity and public support to foster a revolution in Algeria. Indeed, the ruling party therefore overpowered the opposition Islamists. This was unlike the rise and strength of Islamist parties in Libya that powered the fall of the Libyan regime. Specifically, the fears of the civil war and the complexity of political configuration in Algeria convinced Algerians that a revolution was impractical and seemingly ineffective in addressing their problems. These factors relate to the history of Algeria, which entails the sad memories of the civil war and the government’s capacity to address societal issues in an effective manner. The lack of awareness of the consequences of a revolution led to the fall of Libya as Algeria used its history to avoid the effects of the Arab Spring uprisings. Furthermore, the Black Spring of 2001 by the Berbers in Algeria led to huge fatalities thus serving as a warning against participating in any future revolt. As such, the Algerians were aware of the consequences of any political move subject to their experience on the dangers of politics. Moreover, the residual terrorist attacks by Islamist groups warned the opposition and the citizens against political changes, which demotivated the regime to take a revolution gamble. In exchange, the citizens preferred to express their grievances through strikes and localized protests that had no capacity of promoting the fall of Algeria. On the other hand, Libyans were eager to adopt the wave of the Arab Spring and express their discontent through a revolution, which led to the fall of the regime. Moreover, the Algerian government had ultimate respect for freedom compared to the Libyan regime. Indeed, the Algerian regime promoted the freedom of speech where the media had a leeway and an independent right to get and transmit information on the violent criticisms against the government. This acted as outlet to discard hard feelings thus reducing the risks of a spontaneous mass protest in the streets. As such, there was no motivation to continue with the revolution. Indeed, the regime’s respect to the freedom of speech led to the lifting of the emergency rule announced in 1992. This was contrary to Libya where the emergency was still in force prompting the citizens to revolt against the government leading to the fall of Libyan government. Unlike his counterpart in Libya, the Algerian president lifted the emergency rule in February 2011 to avoid any revolts. Although the presidents of Libya and Algeria maintained a firm grip on power for many years, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria was willing to offer various concessions unlike his counterpart in Libya who maintained his authoritarian rule. Indeed, the Algerian government controlled oil and gas revenues that offered economic concessions to the civilians. Moreover, the president promised to amend the constitution to enhance democracy in the country unlike the Libyan president who had no respect for democracy. While the Libyan regime was forbidding all radio and television stations from broadcasting the violent protests, the Algerian regime permitted private radio and television stations in 2011 to broadcast the state of the nation thus reducing the risk of a revolt. This ensured that the civilians enjoyed their right of information and hence no motivation to revolt. However, by limiting the radio and television broadcasts in Libya, the rebels and protesters turned to social media where they propagated the revolution in large scale leading to the fall of the Libyan government. Just like Libya, the Algerian government boasts of huge economic resources like natural gas and oil. The Algerian regime uses its oil and gas resources to address the needs of the public and quench and public discontent. The Algerian regime increased the public spending by more than 50 percent since 2011 when the President launched a spending program. Notably, the spending program sought to diversify the economy and curb the high unemployment rate in the country. Furthermore, the spending program allocated additional resources to food subsidies and increased the salaries of civil servants. This increased the purchasing power of the Algerians and hence the motivation to avoid the activities of the Arab Spring. Moreover, in an effort to improve the economic standards of the young people, the Algerian government offered interest-free loans to young businesspersons, which enabled them to establish and expand their businesses. Furthermore, the government reserved a quota of local public contracts for the youth and offered them tax exemptions, which promoted their economic stability. These mitigation factors ensured that the youths in Algeria did not have the time and reasons to engage in protests thus enhancing the survival of the Algerian government in the Arab Spring. This contradicted the Libyan approach where the country had a young population and high unemployment rates. Indeed, despite having huge oil resources, the Libyan youth revolted against the government citing inequality in the distribution of resources and high unemployment rates. The Libyan regime encountered numerous complaints of unequal regional development, unemployment, and a lack of government transparency since the government was extremely corrupt according to the international standards. These factors prompted the civilians to revolt against the government as defined in the Arab Spring, which led to the fall of the regime. On the hand, by allocating huge resources to social transfers that included unemployment insurance, health care system, subsidies, and food price reductions, the Algerian regime was able to survive the Arab Spring uprisings. Indeed, the mode of investing economic resources in the two nations defined the diverse impact of Arab Spring uprisings. The political configuration in Libya and Algeria defines the diverse effects of the Arab Spring uprisings in the two nations. Indeed, while President Bouteflika and the ruling party, National Liberation Front won parliamentary elections in 2012, they allowed for the establishment of elections 23 new political parties, which marked a great step towards democracy. Moreover, Algeria had the capacity to emerge from the Arab Spring as a regional power because its security forces were integrated into the political system than in Libya. At the same time, the fact that Algeria enjoys a well-equipped military with counter-terrorism expertise enabled the nation to respond to the Arab Spring is a better way. Indeed, the country’s police force increased from 50,000 in the mid-1990s to 170,000 today. The Algeria regime pays its security forces very well and professionalism enabled the forces to contain the flames of the revolution by avoiding killing large numbers of protesters. The idea of handling the initial protestors in a civilized manner enabled the security forces to prevent the escalation of the Arab Spring uprising in the country and hence the survival of Algeria. The country is still fighting the 10-year-old Islamic insurgency using its strong military. Indeed, in Algeria, the army has more political powers than the president unlike in Libya where leadership was a one-man show. Unlike his Libyan counterpart who spread hate, the Algerian president shared his power with the military and other institutions and promoted cohesion. The unity of purpose in the leadership enabled Algeria to survive the Arab Spring. Moreover, Algeria is more stable than Libya where the nationalist party, the National Liberation Front has been in power since 1962 and enjoys unchallenged supremacy over the country. In fact, since the Algerian political system controls power and resources, the opposition had little chance of advocating for revolution in a country where most citizens identify with the government. This led to the survival in the Arab Spring. The political system in Algeria adopts a clan-like system, which is very rigid. According to this system, the President is not the system’s leader and hence the rebels knew that the ousting or resignation of the president would not undermine the regime. Indeed, the Algerian regime proves that the military can sacrifice the president where necessary. The military junta controls the means of power and the natural resources in Algeria unlike in Libya where the president controlled the means of power. As such, the revolution was impractical in this system. In this political system, various dignitaries that subdivide into rival groups possess power. As such, unlike in Libya where the Arab Spring targeted an individual political leader, this was impractical in Algeria and hence its survival. Since, the political system in Libya allowed for the targeting of one political leader, the impact of the Arab Spring was so dominant in the country that it led to the fall of the Libyan government as the rebels fought the president. On the other hand, the political system in Libya allowed the army and the security services to take over the reins of power in case of a political revolt. Indeed, since the army depicted tribal loyalties and had the power to take over the country, they positioned themselves for the same during the Arab Spring, which led to the fall of the Libyan government and the establishment of the government led by the military. Indeed, the Arab Spring uprising took foot in Libya after the army and security agents started killing protesters at Benghazi in 2011. This act propelled the uprising and the subsequent fall of the regime as the revolution heightened subject to the unorthodox ways of dealing with the protesters. Indeed, the anti-government demonstrations spread from Benghazi to other cities simultaneously after the shootings. The protests then changed to an armed revolt seeking to oust Muammar Gaddafi. Notably, the unprofessionalism and greed for power among the army led to the fall of the Libyan regime. The peaceful civilian takeovers in Bayda and Benghazi and the support of more than 8,000 military mutineers and top-ranking political defections confirm that the Libyan regime was a one-man show and everybody was now craving for power. Moreover, the resistance of the Libya independently minded industrial and commercial locality derived the hardcore rebels and future power brokers who rejoiced in the fall of the Libyan regime. At the same time, the effect of the international community led to the fall of Libyan regime as the UN Security Council sought to protect the civilians, NATO powers targeted government offices, and the military assistance from the West to the rebels guaranteed the fall of the Libyan regime. Notably, the factors were not present in Algeria where the regime cooperated with the international community. Works Cited Brahimi, A. (2011). Libyas Revolution. Journal Of North African Studies, 16(4), 605-624. Gaub, F. (2013). The Libyan Armed Forces between Coup-proofing and Repression. Journal Of Strategic Studies, 36(2), 221-244. Zeraoui, Z. (2012). Algeria: revolution, army and political power. Language & Inter cultural Communication, 12(2), 133-145. Volpi, F. (2013). Explaining (and re-explaining) political change in the Middle East during the Arab Spring: trajectories of democratization and of authoritarianism in the Maghreb. Democratization, 20(6), 969-990. Read More