Blog 8: Categorizing Political Violence

The Libyan Revolution

            As defined by David J. Samuels, political violence is “the use of force by states or non-state actors to achieve political goals” (Samuels 2013, 258). Due to the various causes of political violence, and the different results that such violence brings about, political scientists have created several categories of political violence. Many instances of violence fit neatly into these categories and the Libyan uprising of 2011 is one such example, albeit with one inconsistency.

            The Libyan uprising began in February of 2011 when a human rights campaigner was arrested, which sparked many violent protests calling for Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Libya’s head of state, to step down. Gaddafi came to power in a military coup in 1969, and had since been the autocratic leader of Libya. The opposition groups were backed by NATO, and while at first they were unable to compete with pro-government troops, they eventually began to achieve victories over Gaddafi’s forces. In July, various countries and international groups began to recognize the main opposition group, the National Transitional Council, as the legitimate government of Libya. In August, opposition forces broke into Gaddafi’s stronghold in Tripoli, and Gaddafi himself fled and went into hiding. Finally, on October 20, 2011, Gaddafi was found and killed, and the NTC declared Libya to be officially liberated (“Libya profile”). Since Col. Gaddafi’s death, Libya has held democratic elections, but the various opposition forces have not consolidated, violence has continued, and the new government has had very little authority (“Libya”).

           

            I believe that this case of political violence in Libya most closely aligns with the definition of a revolution. A revolution is defined by David J. Samuels as an “armed conflict within a sovereign state between insurgents and the state, in which both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population; authority over the state is forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents, and the insurgents subsequently bring about wholesale political change” (Samuels 2013, 269). The Libyan conflict fits this definition in several ways. First, the two sides of the conflict were anti-Gaddafi insurgents and the state, headed by Col. Gaddafi himself. Second, both sides claimed the allegiance of large numbers of the population. Third, the authority of Libya was forcibly transferred from the Gaddafi regime to the National Transitional Council when the insurgents took control of Tripoli and then killed Gaddafi several weeks later. For these reasons, I feel that the Libyan conflict should be classified as a revolution.

            However, the Libyan revolution is not yet finished. According to Samuels’ definition, a revolution ends with the insurgents bringing about wholesale political change. The Libyan insurgents have created the base for a new democratic government, but various militia groups are still fighting for recognition and power. Only when this rebellion ends and the new regime is accepted (i.e. wholesale political change has occurred) will the revolution be complete.

            In conclusion, the Libyan conflict of 2011 is a solid example of revolution, which has been very frequent among Middle Eastern countries in the beginning of the 21^st century. Once this instance of political violence is finally complete, it will have accomplished its goal of bringing about great political change.

 Sources

“Libya.” The New York Times. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html?8qa (accessed November 8, 2012).

“Libya profile.” BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13755445 (accessed November 8, 2012).

Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2013. (accessed November 8, 2012).