Will Libya Return to Its Monarchy After Gaddafi's Fall?

[winterknight]

^ The only statements I've seen from him in English are the usual platitudes along the lines of "Whether the monarchy is restored is a matter for the Lybian people" and "The Sennusi family considers itself at the service of Lybia"

He actually has quite a lot more to say, but unfortunately it's all in Arabic.

If anyone feels like translating this, I'd be quite interested in what he's saying.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDs3VC6klw[/ame]

ETA: His official website is at http://mohammedelsenussi.org/home.html -- It contains more info but I still can't find a translation of the video. What is clear, however, is that although he ants Gahaffi gone yesterday he will only return to be king if the Lybian people expressly invite him to.

 

[Lostlover]

The question is a good one, but the poll is about as useful as blindfolded fingerpainting.


There are a lot of Libyans hauling around royal flags as they oppose Qaddafi. I don't know what the current heir has to say about the whole business, but I would guess he's not interested in being an autocrat. If he's into a limited monarchy, he could well be a useful person to pull things together. And if he took up where the monarchy left off, with the intent of transforming it into a rights-based democratic republic, with or without a monarchy, it could provide a feeling of continuity that would be beneficial for stability.

Will the Libyan people go that way? I think they're too focused on the present for any outsider to make a decent guess. But I would guess that they would reject, as I do, the lie in the poll: that democracy is incompatible with monarchy. I truly doubt that they will bow down and worship at the altar of mob rule that the OP drools over.

We'll see how far the monarch gets in Libya. Iran and Afghanistan got rid of theirs. I'd hate to think of these two countries as progressive, but in some cases they're more contemporary than western countries.

I think the weak and absent responses from the pro-monarchists shows how pathetic their defense of this garbage is. They, I, and the Libyans know damn well that they're not fighting for any leadership that includes succession by birth right.

Admitting the obvious only shows these countries' weakness. It also shows you how nationalistic people are. America got shit for the Iraq war and no American poster that I can remember acted like a pussy, running in and out of threads dodging questions that didn't support America.

Some guys just need to act like a man, every now and then.

 

[rareboy]

No.

The fact is, it was a stupid question, posed to the wrong people.

It presupposes that respondents have a fucking clue what the Libyan people would do.

And none of us do.

So, structurally, the premise of the thread is so weak as to merit being ignored.

 

[jayoTN]

We'll see how far the monarch gets in Libya. Iran and Afghanistan got rid of theirs. I'd hate to think of these two countries as progressive, but in some cases they're more contemporary than western countries.

Not that the two are linked together, but when one compares a monarchist Iran and Afghanistan to the current theocratic Iran and failed state Afghanistan, most people could argue that both countries were better off under their respective monarchies.

The rule of King Mohammed Zahir Shah was, I believe, the longest period of peace that Afghanistan has ever experienced as an independent nation.

 

[JayHawk]

Didn't follow the thread but is Gaddafi gonna fall? Shouldnt that be the first question?

 

[Kulindahr]

Didn't follow the thread but is Gaddafi gonna fall? Shouldnt that be the first question?

Too many people have too much invested to let him stay -- unless a partition is done... setting up decades of turmoil.

 

[Lostlover]

The pro-monarchists' silence is the biggest indictment against a "constitutional monarchy."

They know people don't want that sh!t. They can't bring themselves to admit it without making themselves look bad. Boo-hoo. Embrace democracy. We'll support you.

 

[hotatlboi]

Another pointless thread by LL just to bash Britain's royal family as if they were some kind of tyrants. Join the 21st century already and educate yourself. This shit is getting old.

 

[Lostlover]

Another pointless thread by LL just to bash Britain's royal family as if they were some kind of tyrants. Join the 21st century already and educate yourself. This shit is getting old.

Grecian, what's getting old is your hating.

Why not quote me on things instead of lying? I said they don't belong in any country in 2011.

All the bitches that made a lot of noise in past threads can't bring themselves to even suggest that the Libyans would want a return to a monarchy.

By the way, why don't you vote on the poll?

 

[hotatlboi]

Based on what you have said, your poll is a false dichotomy. You don't believe people can have a democratic form of government with a constitutional monarch, which is false. So your choice of "democracy or king" is not a real one. A government can be democratic or not whether the leader is called king, president, premiere, prime minister, chancellor, or whatever.

 

[Lostlover]

It's even simpler than that. This revolution in Libya is the people's revolution. And they're heading straight for a full democracy if their wishes are respected. I'm just curious if people think the Libyan monarchy will play a role in the future? I don't think so. And I'm willing to make a bet on that.

The men that came in this thread know damn well that a "constitutional monarchy" (whatever) is not a real option for a country thirsty for democracy.

Why does it seem so counterproductive to oust Gaddafi only to put a king in his place?

 

[hotatlboi]

Why does it seem so counterproductive to oust Gaddafi only to put a king in his place?

If it was a constitutional monarch, it would not counterproductive, it would be a huge step forward compared to what they have now. That's what you keep failing to understand and why you look silly bashing the "monarchists" as you call them, just because they don't feel the UK has to change its government to suit your liking.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why does it seem so counterproductive to oust Gaddafi only to put a king in his place?

This question contains the same falsehood the poll does. It's very shallow and two-dimensional.

 

[rareboy]

I have to say, this thread is just baiting.

I can't believe it hasn't been closed yet.

But I would point out that the last and only time that Afghanistan enjoyed tribal unity, some prosperity and relative peace was under their last monarch.

But I don't get LL's obsession with what the Libyans might do. How the fuck would any of us know? Unlkess we happen to be Libyans or have some idea of how they want their country to be ruled. There is no indication that there is even any grassroots support for a constitutional monarchy in Libya and the OP has offered no evidence that there is a monarchist army waiting to seize control, so the entire premise of the thread is utterly stupid beyond belief.

But check out my other thread.

 

[Lostlover]

This question contains the same falsehood the poll does. It's very shallow and two-dimensional.

I'm asking them what they think the Libyans want. I guess I could have put another dictator as an option to add a dimension.