Libya: He who mobilises the society will win

By African Bulletin on June 24, 2011

Alexis de Tocqueville said “Socioeconomic change lies behind any revolution”. Once the populace has tasted development, its expectations rise. Of course, poverty in itself does not immediately and directly lead to conflict, because the majority of people do not respond to deprivation by assaulting the rich. But there are some exceptions, like the one going now in Libya.

The Rebels are for the populace what the “Osmosis phenomena” is for the body. The first will exploit the mistakes and failures to mobilize the people against the state; the second enriches the body, as far as the alimentation is good, equilibrated and controlled; so should do and behave the regime. Unfortunately, the incumbent regime has totally failed in Libya. Thus, the tempo-game engaged, between the Libyan regime and the rebellion, and depending on the acquisitions owned on the terrain, the final race will be then crucial for the winner. This is to say that efficiency (anticipate on what the enemy is going to do) must reign in both organization to maximize the outputs (activities) within a cost minimization. The Libyan regime’s System, even it is performing, is more isolated geographically, structurally and functionally from the populace. The management of “information and intelligence” and “proximity” of the representatives is absent. This environment is providing more “macro conditions” to the rebellion to grow up and benefit of more support from the international community. In short, the regime and the rebellion are two Systems functioning in opposition, because of their interest: the first has the power, and the second wants to take over this power. In between, the population became the field of operations – violence, harm, demonstration, coercion, reprisal, provocation, generosity, threatening, and promising.      Now, does the legitimacy for power lies behind the authority or rebellion? In case it does for the rebellion, the damage and coercion, might be devastating, with the risk that the NATO coalition support might slow down and give more improvement to the regime in power to neutralise the rebellion, gain predominance, and achieve social control again because of the recipients of interest and calculations of “best profit”.