How does a small group of persons take over an entire region and make a territorial State and government to rule it? No two cases are exactly alike in the details. The U.S. government is a prototype, formed with a Constitution that has some typically murky claims to legitimacy. There is a large element of assertion and bluster. There is the presence of armed forces to enforce it. There are large masses of passive people and local governments that go along with it.
The Libyan case is of interest. Some details are here. The vehicle (like a Continental Congress) is the Interim National Transitional Council. The national character of the new government that this body wants is presumed by it from the outset and will be engraved into any constitution, if the rebellion succeeds in dislodging Gaddafi. This body claims legitimacy from local councils having selected representatives to it on Feb. 17. I question this legitimacy. How much chance did individual Libyans who are unversed in these matters have to consider alternatives for their future? Very little, in the heat of war. Very little in the speed with which this was done. How much local control was lost simply by some subsets of people selecting one person to be on the interim council? How much wide participation and knowledge was actually present? Being against Gaddafi, if that sentiment was indeed widespread, is not the same as being for some new national government.
So now a rather small group of persons declares themselves to be in charge. They declare that they will guide the entire people to a new government and a new constitution. Of course, they call this democracy. They seek recognition from foreign governments. And they get it from other states that have an interest in the matter. States help give birth to a new government for Libya that maintains a national territorial structure, as opposed to other possible structures. It is unclear that the masses in Libya gain from this process by which the country comes under (or may come under) so-called representative democratic rule.
This council seeks aid, including military aid, so that it can conduct the civil war.
Of interest is the degree of advancement of the techniques of national control as compared with the U.S. case. The U.S. chartered an unconstitutional Bank of the United States to further its aims. The Libyan council has set up the Central Bank of Benghazi and, equally important, it set up the Libyan Oil Company to supervise oil production and policies. Between the two of them, they will control revenues. Every government has to finance itself. This is where the tax feeding comes in—and has to come in. This is where the state gains a critical lever of control and dominance over the territory it intends to rule. Its other major activity is forming a national fighting force. The interim council has set up such organizations too. I would also expect organs of communication to be set up.
In other words, the gaining of national control has become almost a science or a cut and dried matter. Not only is national control taken for granted, but the cliques who accomplish it know how to do it. They have past examples to copy. They waste no time at it. The transition from one set of rulers to another set of rulers can be done quickly, assuming that the military situation has been settled, or even if it remains unsettled as in Libya’s case.
A key question is this: Who is going to get what shares of the oil revenues? One person’s take on this appears in this blog. A Venezuelan who was inside the process and saw how the State diverted oil revenues to itself and industrial projects addresses Libyans and tells them “Give yourselves a fighting chance to become real citizens in your own country. Demand for the oil revenues to be paid out to you directly. If you so wish, you can then later hand it over to your government in taxes… but at least that way you make it clearer to your government that it works for you.” This is a sound idea, because then the government has at least one barrier to laying its hands on the oil revenues. This, of course, is not how things are done. National governments routinely get the money first and they decide to whom it goes.
The issues include ownership of the oil, the extent of royalties that are paid out by the oil companies, and the recipients of those royalties. The ownership is usually settled upon the people as a whole. Problem solved. The government negotiates royalties. The outcomes depend in part on competitive and bargaining factors. Problem solved. The critical question becomes who gets these royalties. Do the rulers get them, so that they can send them to Swiss banks? Do the favored industrialists or real estate interests within the country get them? Do the people at large, directly or indirectly dispensed by the government on its social programs and (mis)spending get them? Does the government form an investment fund and invest them overseas?
The disposition of oil revenues is a core issue, maybe the core issue, for any new national government. And so I come full circle and question whether the masses of Libyans understand what sort of oil revenue sharing program alternatives they have and whether they understand what sort of outcomes they are in for with a new government run by people like those in the interim council. I question whether they knew this when the council was formed, because this is the key issue for any national government in which oil revenues play a large part. I question the legitimacy of any political process in which this key question is not fully aired from the outset.
I am not claiming that Gaddafi’s control of these revenues is better or worse than what a new government might institute. Some details on his national investment policies are here. The funds invested are large, and much of them are going into foreign projects like hotels and gold mines. This article mentions that the French companies are aggressively seeking for Gaddafi to invest in their business enterprises. This is what this war may really be about for some foreign governments and why Sarkozy has been so aggressive about overthrowing Gaddafi. He did not do deals with the French. The war may be about the control over where the Libyan government’s oil revenues get invested, at least on the part of some very interested governments.
