Between Abu Minyar al Gaddafi, David Mark's mad man comment & disintegration(1)

[Nuruddeen]

BETWEEN MU'AMMAR ABU MINYAR AL GADDAFI, DAVID MARK'S MAD MAN COMMENT AND QUEST FOR DISINTEGRATION (1)

By
Jibo Nura
African Climate Change Research Centre (ACCREC)

E-mail: jibonura@yahoo.com
(27-04-10)

In protest to the turn of events in Nigeria and its leadership style, back in 2003, I wrote a piece titled "Lugard's dual mandate and leadership experimentalism in Nigeria" (Daily Trust Newspaper, November 19th 2003), in which I made reference to two Libya's great leaders: King Idris Muhammed el-Mahdi el Sanussi and Mu'ammar Abu Minyar al Gaddafi who stepped down King Idris in a bloodless coup de'e'tat while he was in Kamena Vourla, a Greek resort, for medical treatment.
Mu'ammar Abu Minyar Al Gaddafi therefore becomes a Guide and Brotherly Leader of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Indeed, elsewhere in that November 2003 write up, I posited that Libyans will ever live to remember these two great national icons because of their immense contribution to the arabisation of Libya.

When Libya, was occupied by the Italians in 1912, its people were subjected to demographic colonization.  They were very close to losing their identity by the time World War II broke out, but King Idris gave them new life, new hope and circumstances. Also, when Libya was taken over by the then slim – 27 year old Gaddafi in 1969, it turned into a haven for anti – western radicals that fight western imperialism. The Italian population in Libya under Gaddafi's new nationalism policy, almost disappeared after he ordered their expulsion in 1970. Recently, he secured a colossal amount of compensation, from the Italian Premier, Silvio Berlusconi for Italy's colonial subjugation and unwholesome treatments that were meted on Libyans since 1912. The Italian government apologized to Gaddafi for conceding the bitter truth about the ill-treatment of Libyan people that made them look at imperial powers without impunity. Because of this, Gaddafi based his regime on blend of Arab nationalism where Libyans welfare is discharged through popular democracy and Islamic socialism. This system permitted private control over small companies, but the government controlled the larger ones.
His economic and education liberalization policy imposed some kind of morals, outlawing alcohol, gambling and lottery. And education is now given to any average Libyan free-of-charge. Like previous revolutionary Africanists figures such as Kwameh Nkrumah, Murtala Ramat Muhammad, Nelson Mandela, and Gamel Abdel-Nesser, and the 20th century revolutionaries such as Mao and his little Red Book, Gaddafi outlined his political philosophy in his Green Book to reinforce the ideals of socialist – Arab Islamic State and published it in three volumes in 1975 and 1979.
Sincerity of Intention:
Ghadafi's love for popular democracy and equal opportunity made him to change Libya's form of government from a republic to that of "Jamahiriya", meaning; government of the masses by the masses. He did this to give direct governance through local popular councils and community people. The idea of "General People's Congress" brought up a new egalitarian philosophy where he followed Gamel Abdel Nesser's ideology of Pan-Arabism and became a fervent advocate of the unity of all Arab states into one Arab nation. Gaddafi up to today lives with the idea of "Federation of Arab Republics" whereby Libya, Egypt and Syria are supposed to become a pan-Arab State since 1972, but they could not arrive at a common standpoint over the specific terms of the merger and agreement.
His engagement with Chad Republic over Aouzou strip territorial dispute of 1973, was peacefully settled as result of self discipline and respect that he has for the rule of law. Gaddafi withdrew his troops from Chad due to a judgment of the international court of justice issued on 13 February 1994. Even though, he was an ardent supporter of self-styled liberation movements, but Gaddafi's s support is always looked at with suspicions by western world. They believe he supported rebel movement in West Africa- an approach that as always confuses the international community. That is why his regime was previously implicated by the West in subversion and terrorist activities. The West widely regarded Gaddafi as the principal financier of "international terrorism". Hence, tension between Libya and the West reached its peak during the Ronald Reagan administration that even tried to overthrow Gaddafi. Reagan administration it was, that labeled Libya as a belligerent rogue State because of its uncompromising stance on Palestinian independence and its support for revolutionary Iran in the 1980-1988 war against Iraq.  In fact, Ronald Reagan was the first person in history that accused Gaddafi by calling him the "Mad dog of the Middle East".  And this brings us to the main theme of this discourse i.e. the Senate President, David Mark's uncharitable and disrespectful comment on Gaddafi, which was carried by Nigerian Dailies including Daily Trust of March 18, 2010 where Mark was quoted as saying "President Muammar Gaddafi of Libya is a mad man who should not be taken seriously by any right thinking person". Mark further said during the debate on a motion over the recent bombings in Warri by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) that "Gaddafi has said the same thing about Switzerland, England and about any other country. I don't think he deserves attention at all.  It is not worth it"
Actually, going by the above statements, one can say that Mark and Reagan are entitled to their own opinion(s), but certain level of speech decorum ought to have been exercised by the duo( Mark and Reagan), because freedom of speech and good expression of interest is the life blood of any democratic system (Nigeria and Libya inclusive). Canadian Patrick Wilson, an originator of a television series "The Struggle for Democracy" highlighted that we can only solve our common problems and forging a common destiny by talking to one another politely. He believes that before people can govern themselves they must learn how to respect others' views, and must be free to intelligently express themselves. It is through this virtue that open exchange of ideas and opinions will allow truth to prevail and win out over falsehood. What one is trying to get at is: the cure for free speech is accepting other peoples' views by carefully analyzing their more free speech. It may seem a paradox to others, but in the name of  free speech, any sensible democratic system needs not to, most of the time, defend the rights of individuals and groups who themselves advocate such non- democratic policies through utterances. Such people should be seen as those that are repressing free speech.

What Gaddafi said about Nigeria in one's view, is nothing but the absolute truth, especially when one looks at Nigeria's current comatose situation where massive killings of innocent souls in the name of religious intolerance, ethnicity and identity struggle become highly unprecedented! 
In fact, we must begin to thank Gaddafi for the personal temerity that he has for at least, expressing his care and concern over the loss of lives and properties that now become the order of the day in Nigeria. One wonders why people such as David Mark was not heard loud and clear on the air when our Muslim and Christian brothers in Jos, Bauchi and Maiduguri lost their lives all in the name of religious dichotomies and unnecessary fight over tribal and regional barriers. That is why Professor Femi Ajayi in his "Towards Muammar Abu Minyar Al-Gaddafi's United States of Africa", described David Mark's comment as regretful and amateuristic in the use of language. Prof Ajayi urged David Mark to kindly spare some time and attend the use of English word course by calling Gaddafi a mad man. This course according to Ajayi, has been arranged for Mark, but he developed a thick skin towards it. Indeed, the likes of Profs. Wole and Ajayi believe that Senator David Mark's belt is not tight enough to lead the Senate to come up with laws to avert religious and ethnic challenges facing Nigeria.
However, going by Femi Ajayi's assertion, even Prof. Wole Soyinka, in one's view, has no moral justification and educational authourity to teach Senator David Mark how to mind his language. Because, I believe, Prof. Ajayi has definitely forgotten Wole Soyinka's view about Nigeria's disintegration along religious and tribal leanings. One therefore has to revisit certain speeches that were done by the Nobel Laureate over Nigeria's division and succession bid.
Hear him:
"If it is going to cost millions of lives to keep an entity together, I don't want any part of it.  It is better that you break peacefully".