Libya was better under Muammar Qaddafi

Thank you for accepting. I look forward to a good debate! I will take Pro. Since you stated you’d like to focus on #5 of my values, let’s begin there. I titled it “Libya’s development: Equality, Democracy, Freedom and Liberty,” so let’s take a quick peek at how Libya is doing there. Frankly, Libya under Muammar Qaddafi was not “free” as we know the term in the developed world, and not really in many senses of the word at all. To start, let’s look at the “Democracy Index”, compiled by The Economist’s Intelligence Unit that measures the state of democracy in 167 nations around the world. We will look at the latest statistic (usually after Muammar Qaddafi) and one during his rule. In 2006, Libya was ranked 161st, in 2008, 159th, in 2010, 158th and in 2011, 125th (when the Libyan civil war was underway), which pretty much categorizes it as an authoritarian regime, with low civil liberties, ineffective government and little freedom. According to the Index of Economic Freedom compiled by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal, which measures 10 factors of economic freedom in nations, Libya was ranked 176th out of 179th in 2012 and 173rd in 2010. According to the Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders, Libya was ranked 154th out of 179th in 2011-2012, 160th in 2010 and 156th in 2009. In 2002 when the Press Freedom Index was first published, Libya had a rank of 129th. I think it is clear that Libya under Qaddafi had a dismal human rights record and a dismal ranking on equality, freedom and liberty. Of course, according to the UN’s Human Development Index, which, instead of measuring more abstract things like freedom, liberty and justice, measures human development, gives a more nuanced view of Libya. Libya under Qaddafi had a “high” human development index, higher than both the average of the high development indice and the Arab States. Libya has a low gender inequality index, a high GNI per capita (in PPP terms), a high life expectancy and a high education rating, showing that while Libya under Qaddafi may have been authoritarian, it was no Somalia. The majority of Libyans rejoiced at Qaddafi’s death, eager that his reign of terrifying brutality had seemingly come to an end. Unfortunately for them, what has been replaced in Libya is a far cry from freedom and democracy, and much closer to a failed state such as Somalia or Afghanistan. Instability, corruption, brutality and the breakdown of the rule of law now grip Libya tightly, choking its citizens and making them wary of what they were previously so hopeful for. Both this Reuters article (http://reut.rs...) and this CNN article (http://bit.ly...) perfectly underscore this “power vacuum.” From Reuters: [START QUOTE] “Last month's attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, in which U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died, underlined the fragility of a state struggling to emerge from the legacy of Gaddafi's 42-year rule... Discontent is rife across Libya, not just in Benghazi, the cradle of the revolt. Gun culture has taken hold, residents say, citing carjackings, kidnappings, armed robberies and disputes leading to shootouts between rival groups. The latest fighting around the former Gaddafi stronghold of Bani Walid shows deep divisions persist. Tripoli often accuses Gaddafi loyalists of trying to destabilize its democratic path. The government has failed to control the militias, most of them ex-rebels. Even worse, it relies on them for security, with the fledgling police and army unable to stamp out militia feuds, control Libya's borders or rein in hardline Islamist militants. "Ultimately, the longer these groups continue to perform security tasks which should be the responsibility of Libyan state security forces, the more difficult it will become to demobilize them or integrate them into the army," said Torbjorn Soltvedt, senior analyst at risk consultancy Maplecroft. Many are technically part of the Supreme Security Committee (SSC), set up in September last year to try to regulate armed groups that saw themselves as guardians of Libya's revolution. Tripoli local council official Sadat Elbadri, who previously handled fighters' affairs, said the SSC was conceived as a temporary solution to organise armed civilians who were suspicious of Gaddafi-era security institutions. But corruption and mismanagement of public money took their toll as people scrambled for the weapons, cars and privileges accorded to supposedly frontline fighters, Elbadri said. "In Tripoli, we started with 30,000 revolutionaries. Now there are 100,000. Where did these people come from?" he asked. "Even women signed up, saying they used to cook for the fighters so they must be considered revolutionaries and get salaries." Apart from draining public finances, the SSC has also become a security headache, threatening to eclipse its creator and paymaster, the Interior Ministry, Elbadri said. SSC members, still loyal to their brigade leaders, have been involved in kidnappings and intimidation, even allowing armed Islamic militants to smash a Sufi shrine in broad daylight.” [END QUOTE] From CNN: [START QUOTE] “The deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi underscores the gaping power vacuum across Libya since the toppling of Moammar Gadhafi's regime last year. Fighting groups that battled Gadhafi have stepped in to maintain law and order after the fall of the regime, an expert on post-Gadhafi Libya told CNN. Most of the groups are simply neighborhood watch entities. But some include hard-line Muslim Salafis and have "a very Islamist orientation," said Frederic Wehrey, a senior associate in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The group accused of being behind the consulate assault, the Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades, is said to be pro-al Qaeda. "The problem is that the Libyan army and the Libya police forces effectively disintegrated," Wehrey said. "These groups are basically running the show" throughout much of Libya... "The strategy of trying to dismantle the regional militias while simultaneously making use of them as hired guns might be sowing the seeds for the country's descent into warlordism," he warned. "It has also given local brigades and their political patrons leverage over the central government. Emboldened by the writ of state authority, brigade commanders have been free to carry out vendettas against rival towns and tribes, particularly those favored by ... Gadhafi," Wehrey said. Violence between warring militias and attacks against Western and moderate Sufi Muslim targets erupted in recent months, Wehrey said. In Benghazi, there was a "rapid deterioration" of security before the U.S. Consulate attack.” [END QUOTE] The “gaping power vacuum” in Libya has led to not more stability, reconciliation, and peace, but instead begun the country’s steep descent into warlordism. There is not more peace, cooperation and safety now then there was under Qaddafi. In fact, exactly the reverse has happened. Libya’s future is now in jeopardy because of the revolution and the stability we experienced under Qaddafi is now gone. The reign of Qaddafi’s state funded terror has been replaced with various militias reign of terror, and it is undoubtedly worse now. Of course, this is only for value #5. Expect to see other values introduced in rounds #3 and #4.Libya was also more stable and on balance better under Qaddafi in the fields of Libya’s economy, path forward, state of society and international relations, not just development as a nation. I await your response.