"We want an army, and we want a police force!"
"We want an army and a police" – a phrase that has echoed in Libya since 2012, repeated by the young and old, politicians and ordinary people alike. Everyone echoes it without a clear designation of its dimensions, boundaries, and the aspirations behind achieving it.
After the February 17 Revolution, the country was engulfed in absolute security and military chaos. Security committees, military brigades, battalions, agencies, and moving and stationary forces operated without clear jurisdiction. They overlapped in both authority and areas of influence, leading inevitably to bloody clashes, often at the expense of the ordinary citizen in terms of blood or money.
Amidst this chaos, the term "We want an army and a police" emerged as if it were the magical solution to our deep and structural problems. It was believed that merely dissolving these committees, brigades, and agencies, and renaming them as military and police components, would solve all issues, bringing security and safety to the country and its people. This idea, despite its oversimplification of the country’s accumulated problems stemming from decades of programmed failure and corruption, gained widespread popular traction. Demonstrations across the country began demanding the dissolution of all agencies formed from the remnants of the revolutionaries and a return to the army and police. It was only a matter of time before political currents harnessed these popular demands to their advantage, riding the wave of public demands to appear as the people's voice.
These popular calls, once taken up by political parties, were seized upon by quasi-military institutions that had contributed to the February 17 Revolution. They began rallying around themselves figures from the former regime with security and military backgrounds, forming what resembled an army. This army comprised former revolutionaries, former fighters from the previous regime’s forces, and quasi-military forces with tribal, regional, and local backgrounds.
These entities exploited the security and military vacuum in some parts of the country, alongside the clear emergence of extremist groups that had effectively taken control of wide areas of the country. They launched comprehensive wars against anyone opposing their directions under the pretext that those who opposed them were extremists and terrorists. After eliminating the terrorists and those falsely labeled as such, these entities expanded their campaign to include anyone who opposed them, even verbally. Those rejecting their control did not want an army and police, thus did not want security and safety, making them enemies of the homeland and terrorists.
In the other part of the country, people were divided between supporters and opponents of what was happening in the first part. A brief war ensued, ending with the control of the opposing side, labeling more than half the country in terms of size and over three-quarters of its population as terrorists for the same reasons previously mentioned.
Following political negotiations between the two sides, a unified government was formed. This unified government (in name only) established military agencies based on the structures existing since the previous regime, and police agencies built on the same foundations. They formally entered the official frameworks, and the chaotic armament manifestations largely disappeared, along with the vehicles of the revolutionaries, their battalion symbols, and diverse attire, replaced by police cars and their known uniforms.
Even this did not spare them from the exclusive claimants to the term "army and police," leading the country into a broad war in 2019 to liberate it from terrorism once again. This ended with a political settlement (also nominal) in 2020.
Let’s rewind a bit to what should have been clarified at the beginning of the article: What is meant by the army and police? If you search for scientific, linguistic, and terminological definitions of these two terms, you will undoubtedly find dozens of definitions. In short, encompassing most definitions' connotations, the army and police should function as a safety net for the nation and its citizens, providing protection and instilling a sense of security and reassurance for all citizens alike.
Was this the case for the two institutions bearing these names under the previous regime? No, it was far from that. They resembled repressive tools in the hands of the authority, with their sole mission being the protection of the regime. Their slogans, goals, and actions on the ground did not suggest that the citizen held any value in their calculations. Their primary goal was to protect the regime, and their secondary goal was to reinforce their hierarchical system and impose it on the people. Officers were superior to soldiers, varying in ranks, and soldiers and personnel were superior to the general public, having the right to oppress and control them.
After the February 17 Revolution and the ensuing chaos, did the army and police institutions return to their previous state under the former regime, or did they don the attire they should have worn? The answer here is disputed, with two opposing views. The first view states that these institutions did return to their previous state, while the second view contends they became worse. These scattered groups of former revolutionaries, remnants of Gaddafi's brigades, and tribal fighters are united only by loyalty to the army's leader and his family. They lack a clear security and military doctrine, do not adhere to any laws, and do not comply with the constitutional declaration or otherwise. To survive, avoid disturbing the leader and his family. If you cross the red lines, you will be stripped of all rights, and you will not be protected under any pretext from the oppression of the authorities you have called for since 2012.
On the other side, armed groups and ideological, regional, and profit-driven militias succeeded in changing their skin. They shed the attire of revolutionaries and donned more elegant military and police uniforms, returning to their previous repressive practices, but this time with official status and military numbers. They embraced the culture of the former regime's army and police, placing the citizen at the base of the importance pyramid. Citizens have no rights, privileges, or even the right to use public roads without permission. At their checkpoints, often set up in front of our homes, they grant themselves the right to strip you even of your humanity. Why not? In their doctrine, you are at the base of the pyramid, and they pronounce your despised status with a disgusted curl of their lips: you are "civilian."
Given this brief account of our past and present, do we really want an army and a police? The actual demand that should have been voiced by the people since 2012, or even during the previous regime, is the establishment of a professional military institution that protects the country's borders, natural resources, water sources, oil fields, and strategic projects, forming a safety net in times of crisis. This institution should not oppress the citizen or engage in wars against them for the benefit of an individual or family. Whether we call it an army or even a gang, its role should be defined by law and constitution, with its practices disciplined.
Similarly, a professional security institution should be established to maintain public order and safety, protect lives, honor, and property, prevent and control crimes, regulate traffic, manage prisons, and handle civil defense and passport and citizenship matters as imposed by laws and regulations. Whether we call it the police or even a militia, its role should be defined by law and constitution, with its practices disciplined.
If we bury our heads in the sand and persist in our blind demands for an army and a police, then none of us should be angry if our rights are violated, or if we are arrested and imprisoned for disturbing the leader. The institution we demand only protects the leader and his family. None of us should be upset when we hear police sirens behind us on a crowded road calling us by our car's name (turn right, Toyota or Kia) to let the police car or the convoy it protects pass. The institution we demand places us at the bottom of the importance pyramid and recognizes no rights for us.