Charisma, Decentralization & the Downfall of Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi

During the 1980’s, Libyan President Muammar Gadhafi was a rock star. Changing his sleeping locations nightly to thwart any attempts of assassination, Gadhafi’s charismatic personality as well as his flair for fashion made him the most popular renegade since Che’ Guevara. Reminiscent of Mao Tse Tung’s “Red Book,” Gadhafi’s “Green Book” was the quintessential tome on socialism. Gadhafi’s bloodless coup in 1969 set the course for a drive towards Arab unity. But, how did a man who’s bigger than life personality and early calls for unity become so fractionalized?

It would be logical to point to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt that sparked the unrest in a number of Middle Eastern and African countries. It would also be rational to suggest that global economic depressions, high unemployment rates and a desire for western style freedom became a more compelling idea than socialism or “managed” democracy. Like many charismatic leaders, Muammar Gadhafi would have been better served by adopting the power moves of Russia’s Vladimir Putin rather than that of the late Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin. After Putin became ineligible to run for a third term, Dmitry Medvedev was elected Russia’s president, while Putin became prime minister. It is believed that Medvedev is nothing more than a proxy for the machinations of Putin to maintain power. However, that is the point. To create the symbolic illusion that a democracy exists, Putin did not exercise an overt grab for power, which would have been reminiscent of the old Stalin days. Instead, he took another political position, decentralizing power and spreading his influence through other leaders. These maneuvers led to the expansion of his political base by increasing the number of powerful supporters.

By Gadhafi positioning his sons and daughter to succeed him, he sowed the seeds of discontentment among Libyans in a time where egalitarianism has been ushered in by the Internet. By not being prescient about current events and its impact on governmental operations, Gadhafi was weakened by his unwillingness to alter his modus operandi. With the onslaught of the Internet and multimedia, no one wants to feel that his country is precluding him from self-actualizing. It would be altogether different if the world was not digitally connected. But, as the Internet has become the ultimate democratizer of education, blind allegiance has become impractical.

In addition, if Gadhafi had supported non-familial ties for his political ambitions, he could have been a kingmaker without losing any direct power. An analogy would be a parent company that owns the leading brands under its banner, which allows these brands to compete against each other in the market place. The parent company does not care which brand wins, because all revenue go to the same source. Gadhafi should have promoted other leaders in a succession plan and operated in the background while influencing decision makers. American style politics has shown the power of political machines that last for decades without any backlash from the citizenry. As long as the voting public perceives it has a voice in the outcome of an election, it will support the process.

Like Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, Gadhafi underestimated the impact of the changing times. To simplify the current tumultuousness within Libya would underestimate the power of progress. If power is at the base of geopolitics, the changes being demanded by Libyans and surrounding countries are not about totally reforming the political game as much as changing the players to compete more effectively. This is no different than trading a less productive player in professional sports for a more productive one. Gadhafi is paying the price of not possessing greater foresight. In a competitive world of power, such blindness is the beginning of the end of a dynasty.

For more information, visit:  Charisma

Could Possessing Charisma Have Saved Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak?

For all his personal traits, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was not given the sobriquet “Mr. Charisma” by the world community. Very little is known about Mubarak and he seemed to have played an insignificant role in African-Middle Eastern politics. That is at least the impression. However, in all fairness, very few world leaders actually fit the prerequisite characteristics for being labeled “charismatic”. Such characteristics typically entail highly evolved communication skills, a compelling vision for a populace and the ability to continuously reinvent oneself based on the needs of the situation. But, can charisma assist leaders from being ousted from a position without overwhelming backlash from supporters? Specifically, could charisma have helped President Mubarak thwart an ignoble end to a 30 year reign? Although, there are many Mubarak supporters who view his downfall as devolutionary to Egyptian glory, the rippling effects of his departure will not be felt as would be the case of a Fidel Castro. Since 1959, Fidel Castro has been a stalwart for revolutionary politics that has caused fellow Cubans to either love or revile him. Even non-Cubans have an impression of Castro. Not so with Mubarak. To the world, Mubarak did not possess a preternatural charm nor serve as a visionary for Egyptian greatness. Reports suggest that Mubarak has in his coffers $40-$70 billion. This amount is not a vindication of his political prowess as much as another example of governmental greed and megalomania. To this extent, Mubarak is more of the same; denigrating the will of the people for personal gain under the guise of democracy.

But, could charisma have saved him? The answer is yes and no. Within the thirty years of his reign, if Mubarak had laid out a compelling vision for Egypt, either being a global leader in a particular industry, a destination spot for advanced education or an economic behemoth comparable to the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries, he could have survived. Citizens will allow a certain amount of graft and naked aggression, when they are prosperous and optimistic. Inherently, they understand the nature of politics is rooted in political and economic self-interest. It is a naïve citizenry that believes in the altruism and magnanimity of politicians after centuries of historical accounts demonstrating the contrary. However, the politics of the world has changed where the citizenry and the politician must benefit equally, but the politician must appear subservient to the needs of the citizenry. To this extent, Mubarak was out of step with the zeitgeist of a digital world. In contemporary times, a political leader cannot afford to be greedy, unimaginable and exposed.

On the other hand, no amount of charisma can save a leader who has outlived his usefulness. Charismatic leadership is transitory for situations needing an infusion of innovation. Because the charismatic leader is a crusader for a cause, once the goal has been achieved, he either needs another challenge to overcome or an effective successor for the completed task. The long term success of a leader hinges on his ability to consistently satisfy the immediate and most relevant needs of the populace. A string of past successes are unimportant when critical needs go unaddressed. Charisma cannot fill the gap of unfulfilled needs no matter how likable the leader.

In the end, Mubarak broke all the implied rules for maintaining power. He was not prescient in determining the future needs of the Egyptian citizenry. If he had infused the Egyptian government with new faces and ideas, created political enclaves that played off each other, and encouraged Egypt to be a bigger player in the global economy, he could have maintained power under the guise of democracy. Even if Mubarak did not have a compelling vision for Egypt’s future, he could have placed talented individuals in position and ruled by proxy. Instead, his house of cards fell, because he neither possessed the charisma or savvy to operate in a world where illusions still matter.

Related: Charisma