Libya is amongst the most repressive countries in the Middle East.
Freedom House, a US-based democracy monitoring group, rates its political and civil liberties at the worst possible score, and freedoms of expression, assembly and belief are given short shrift (kort snor), BBC online writes in an analysis Monday.
So neither the blaze of discontent that swept into the capital, Tripoli nor the state’s ruthless counterpunch were particularly puzzling. But the pattern differs from that seen in Egypt and Tunisia.
In both of those countries, the military judged that it would swing against the regime when the alternative – shooting at fellow citizens – appeared unpalatable (uspiselig) as it would threaten the militaries’ status in their respective societies and risk a disintegration of military command.
Young Saif Gaddafi’s rambling television speech indicated the last stand of a regime bereft of (berøvet) alternatives to brutality
In part, this rests on the regime’s assumption of loyalty from the security forces, bound tighter to the regime than their Egyptian counterparts and lacking the same prestige amongst their people that served as a check on the young officers in Tahrir Square.
Even so, reports indicate that the Libyan regime has been compelled to rely on special forces units and foreign mercenaries.
Police and army units in Benghazi have been defecting, and the military is likely fractured along tribal and other lines.
There is an observation circulating in the Arab world that if Mubarak survived five American presidents, then it is all the more remarkable that Mr Gaddafi has outlasted three Egyptian ones. Maybe, his time is up now.
