The legacy of Muammar Gaddafi is a complex one. A brutal dictator, an ardent anti-imperialist, a political philosopher – all of these are hats that he could be considered to have worn through the years. As such, any evaluation of this legacy must consider the intersections between his role as a head of state, a self-proclaimed revolutionary, a Pan-Africanist, an author, and his numerous other identities. His most renowned work provides an insight into his vision for a revolutionary Libyan state through the lens of all his identities.

The Green Book (Arabic: الكتاب الأخضر), published in three volumes between 1975 to 1981, is a useful means of analysing legacy of Islamic socialism not only as a socio-political identity but also as part of a state building process. A relatively short text, meant to serve as an introduction to Gaddafi’s political thought (the Third Universal Theory) shaping the emerging Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from the throes of a revolution, one cannot help but make the comparison to Mao’s Little Red Book. Indeed, the two seem to play similar roles in their respective state building processes, as a concise yet extensive coalescence of the philosophy intended to be shaping its national identity.

Therefore, an examination of this book through the lens of national identity building should seek to answer the following question: How does The Green Book utilise Islamic and Arab cultural values to formulate the basis for a new Libyan national identity around Gaddafi’s vision of a revolutionary Islamic socialist state for Libya’s specific historical conditions?

This commentary will seek to tackle the issue in two parts: the first analysing Libya’s immediate political circumstances during the time period’s decolonisation movements shaped by Islamic socialism, to contextualise Gaddafi’s political vision. The second part will examine how Gaddafi taps into cultural and religious traditions that legitimise his conceptualisation of the Libyan national identity, and how his expression of them serves as part of the nation-building process.

1.     Emerging from a revolution in an era of Islamic socialist national projects

The Libyan Arab Republic, when proclaimed in 1969, emerged from a bloodless coup led by Muammar Gaddafi after a period Italian colonial rule followed by a period of largely autocratic rule under the monarch King Idris I. The monarch was seen as a puppet of Western imperialist forces, allowing the construction of several military bases. The Western extraction of Libyan oil, with most of the profits hoarded by the ruling class, also played a prominent role in shaping an understanding of neo-imperialism. Thus, the mission of assuring sovereignty to the people thus took place as part on attempt to break free from a period of direct imperialism and proxy neo-imperialism, just as was the case in Egypt. Nations like Algeria had also taken a similar path following their decolonisation wars.

a. The question of Libyan democracy and sovereignty

Gaddafi was largely inspired by Nasser’s Arab socialist rhetoric and programme in Egypt, and as such, tapped into this legacy when constructing his vision of the truly liberated Libyan nation. Much like Nasser, he was largely disillusioned by Western liberal democracy. He states, “the most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the aegis of parliaments,” criticising many elements of the Western political framework, from political parties and parliamentarism to plebiscites. While talking in slightly more theoretical terms rather than referring to specific events and processes, Gaddafi draws upon the presumed understanding of the Libyan people regarding the failures of Western democracy to derive what he sees as generally applicable statements about how “the mere existence of a parliament means the absence of the people.” Each sentence is short and relatively simple, leaving little room for multifaceted perspectives. A systematic condemnation of the Western democratic model thus leaves room for the emergence of a more democratic political framework, in the eyes of the reader. Similar rhetoric was employed by Lenin and Mao in their condemnation of ‘bourgeois democracy,’ tapping into a revolutionary tradition of tearing down political institutions deemed defunct, to make way for what seem to be revolutionary new political frameworks.

His alternative is a system of direct democracy, since “True democracy exists only through the direct participation of the people, and not through the activty of their representatives.” According to him, this is best exercised through the establishment of Popular Conferences and People’s Committees – a fundamental part of the Third Universal Theory that will be articulated through this book. Such a system is ambitiously declared to lead to a result where “the problem of the instrument of government is naturally solved, and all dictatorial instruments disappear. The people become the instrument of government, and the dilemma of democracy in the world is conclusively solved.” It must be kept in mind that Gaddafi’s Revolutionary Command Council had embarked on a radical transformation of Libyan society and politics after the coup and had not yet acquired the mandate of popular support. Therefore, creating such bodies and extolling their virtues was a useful means of mobilizing grassroots involvement in the new Libyan Arab State, attempting to garner a wider support base in the process.

Furthermore, Gaddafi goes on to address the role of the press in the functioning of democratic institutions, creating a basis for a democratic press as issued by a People’s Committee as the only truly democratic expression of a society’s point of view. Privately-owned press outlets cannot claim to represent public opinion. Through this argument, he assures the reader that, “what is known as the problem of the freedom of the press in the world will be radically and democratically solved.”

It must be noted that in the book, most of these statements exist in a largely theoretical framework. No historical events are referenced, nor are there any extensively detailed plans for implementation. This approach serves two purposes; it allows for a certain amount of flexibility in their implementation, and asserts the arguments made as a sort of universal truth. Given the especially vulnerable position Libya was in after decades of imperialism and exploitation, a radical transformation of society would gather far more support if it seemed to answer the fundamental questions that had remained unaddressed by the Libyan ruling class for so long. As such, revolutionary rhetoric was the underlying force of the entire book, and represents the direction in which Gaddafi claimed to guide the state building process (through the ‘Popular Revolution’).

b. Revolutionary justice and the political economy of the Third Universal Theory

Gaddafi develops on the Arab socialist and Islamic socialist tradition of establishing economic justice as a fundamental aspect of true liberation (“The aim of the socialist society is the happiness of the human being, which cannot be attained except by the establishment of one’s material, and spiritual freedom.”)

In the second volume, published in 1977, Gaddafi makes several arguments (primarily rooted in economic analysis) as to why socialism must be the basis of the revolutionary process, condemning wage-labour and the profit motive of capitalism. Incidentally, this was the year that Libya officially became the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”, having already seen the introduction of a doubled minimum wage, price controls, and statutory rent reductions – but most importantly, the nationalisation of oil industries that sought to establish global self-sufficiency and resources for human development.

This is by far the most elaborately argued section in the book, with the formulation of arguments necessitating universal housing, common ownership of land and the means of production, and the end of domestic labour. His arguments tend to follow the line of Marxist political economy, demonstrating that exploitation arises from private enterprise; he emphasises economic production for the betterment of society at large, than for profit accumulation. The theoretical basis to these needs is asserted through a fundamental reminder that “the freedom of a human being is lacking if his or her needs are controlled by others, for need may lead to the enslavement of one person by another.”

Unlike other articulations of Islamic socialism, however, the theological basis to these conclusions is barebones, save for one reference to ‘natural law’ as the basis of primitive communism. Gaddafi’s Libya was indeed comparatively far more secular than other Arab states. His commitment to socialism, rather than coming from a purely theological basis, was derived from his understanding of colonialist and capitalist exploitation of the African continent. Although never addressed directly in the book, this trajectory was represented through his commitment to Pan-African socialism as an answer to neo-imperialism. It must be noted that he was similarly wary of the Soviet-led communist bloc as well, and gravitated far more towards the Pan-Arab model of socialism that would bring Libya closer to Egypt.

Just as with the first volume, Gaddafi has ambitious hopes for his programme, stating that “The Third Universal Theory heralds emancipation from the fetters of injustice, despotism, exploitation, and economic and political hegemony.” There is no articulated suggestion for the implementation of such policies either, except through the mobilisation of People’s Committees. In doing so, his political and economic programme were fundamentally tied together, necessitating the implementation of one for the sake of the other. Gaddafi therefore uses The Green Book to establish the building blocks of the Third Universal Theory, but again, mostly as a primarily theoretical framework. In reality, his implementation programme was largely based on the Arab Socialist Union line.

2. Constructing a perennial national identity through cultural legitimacy

The third volume, published in 1981, seeks to establish a ‘social basis’ to the Third Universal Theory. This volume was quite likely the most important in terms of the cultural national identity formulation process, thus lending further legitimacy to the political and economic strands of his thought so far.

a. Cohesion derived from religion and the tribe as the basis of a nation

Gaddafi conceptualises social bonds based on national identity as the factor of utmost importance for the survival of a nation, identifying the compatibility between the social factor of nationalism and a national identity derived from a shared religion as necessary preconditions for when “harmony prevails and the life of communities becomes stable, strong, and develops soundly.” It should be noted that the Islamic religion is never mentioned by name; religion as a concept is important solely because it represents the embodiment of ‘natural law.’

Natural law is a very important idea for Gaddafi, and has served as a basis of justification for many of his arguments throughout the book. Indeed, he prioritises national law based on natural law over constitutionalism, asserting the greater legitimacy of natural law. This perspective saw its implementation in 1973, when the Popular Revolution declared a cultural revolution inspired by Islam as part of its envisioned radical nation-building process.

Gaddafi sees national identity as the natural development of familial bonds that have passed beyond the tribal stage, and experience cohesion through “the course of history which induce a group of people to live in one area of land, develop a common history, form one heritage, and face the same destiny.” While the social cohesion of tribal bonds is complimented, Gaddafi also views tribalism as a divisive factor for the modern national identity. The family unit serves as a demonstration of the importance of cohesion at a micro level, with the nation serving the same role at a much larger scale. He articulates the importance of the congruence of the political structure and the social reality of the nation-state, in the absence of which, the state collapses. This can be seen as part of a process to instill an understanding of Libyan national identity through its political articulation in the form of its institutions, attempting to further integrate the Libyan people into the state-building process through a lens of national identity; to value their familial bonds but to discard tribalism so as not to tear the nation apart.

b. Developing social principles for a revolutionary Libyan society

The last few chapters of Volume 3 go on to touch upon women’s liberation, the question of minorities, and the place of education, art, and culture in the nation-building process. It should be noted that Gaddafi took a relatively more progressive stance towards the role of women and their labour (although rooted in a certain amount of biological determinism about the reproductive roles of women), sponsoring the creation of a Libyan General Women's Federation in 1971, and later passing a law criminalising child marriage for women as well as establishing consent as a prerequisite for marriage. When it comes to the question of minorities, he takes a similarly emancipatory stance as well, stating, “The political and economic problems of minorities can only be solved within a society controlled by the masses in whose hands power, wealth and arms should be placed.” As such, he ties social liberation of all kinds firmly to his political programme.

This attempt to establish relatively diverging principles of social emancipation can be seen in context of the presence of certain culturally reactionary strands of thought present in Libya, and can be argued to represent an attempt by Gaddafi to redefine political Islam along more socially progressive lines as part of his liberational rhetoric. However, it must also be kept in mind that a clampdown on such thought served as a means for him to target those he perceived to have had connections with the Muslim Brotherhood as well, one of the declared enemies of the RCC. Therefore, such rhetoric could have served multiple purposes.

Conclusion

Gaddafi would extoll the virtues of the Third Universal Theory multiple times in The Green Book, and would certainly take steps to embed its principles in the Libyan public consciousness, having its study made mandatory with quotes broadcast and printed around the country. In the context of his construction of Libyan national identity, The Green Book’s approach starts to make a great deal of sense. Its short, simple, yet powerful structure would be memorable enough in the minds of the average Libyan, and would tap into enough both revolutionary and cultural sentiment to be seen as legitimate. The largely theoretical framework of the book, however, served as a useful tool to maintain a sense of abstraction around the Third Universal Theory, such that a disconnect between Gaddafi’s policies and the thought of the book would not necessarily call Gaddafi’s legitimacy into question. At least, not until the Arab Spring.

Works Cited

García, Santiago, et al. “Muammar Gaddafi’s Legacy: A Domestic & Intellectual Approach.” Africology: The Journal of Pan African Studies, vol. 11, no. 3, 2018.

Jardine, Jordan. “Muammar Gaddafi’s Green Book: The Good, the Bad, and the Weird.” Center for a Stateless Society, 9 Mar. 2022, c4ss.org/content/56266.

Gaddafi, Muammar. The Green Book. World Center For The Study And Research Of The Green Book, 1981.‌

Collins, Carole. “Imperialism and Revolution in Libya.” MERIP Reports, no. 27, 1974, pp. 3–22, https://doi.org/10.2307/3011335. Accessed 1 May 2022.

Hajjar, Sami G. “The Jamahiriya Experiment in Libya: Qadhafi and Rousseau.” The Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 18, no. 2, 1980, pp. 181–200, http://www.jstor.org/stable/160277. Accessed 1 May 2022.