Abstract
This thesis examines the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood (LMB) and the Libyan Salafi-Madkhalis (LSM) during and after the 2011 Libyan uprisings until October 2020. While there is a vast body of literature on Islamism and Salafism generally, and an increasing number of researchers have relied on social movement theory (SMT), important gaps remain in our understanding about specific local groups – with Libya being a glaring example. Very little work has been done on the LMB and LSM generally, but even less work has undertaken an SMT-driven approach relying on the inclusion-moderation hypothesis developed by Jillian Schwedler to analyse the two groups’ failure to moderate despite their inclusion into the post-Qaddafi Libyan system. The main research question this thesis addresses is therefore: how and why did the LMB and LSM fail to moderate in post-Qaddafi Libya?The inclusion-moderation hypothesis has long been debated with reference to the inclusion of Islamist parties into state-dominated processes of limited political liberalisation in the Middle East. This gained new importance after the Arab Uprisings in 2011 in countries such as Libya when entirely new sets of institutions were established.
This thesis therefore aims to achieve two goals: First, showing that both the LMB and LSM became involved in the post-Qaddafi Libyan system by obtaining key positions and by inserting themselves into the security institutions of the post-revolutionary environment respectively. By tracing this inclusion of both the LMB and LSM, the thesis establishes the necessary condition to approach the analysis of moderation. Second, examining the two groups in relation to the inclusion-moderation hypothesis as Schwedler argues that social movements that become included into political and societal institutions are likely to turn moderate in their behaviour and ideology.
This thesis argues that both movements failed to moderate during this time, thus contradicting the expectations of the inclusion-moderation hypothesis. The thesis analyses the most important political and military institutions into which the LMB and LSM became included and shows how the two groups behaved in uncooperative and uncompromising manners.
With regard to behavioural moderation, the LMB pursued exclusionary politics, including relying on violence after it reached positions of superiority; and the LSM pursued discriminatory policing as well as violently attacking institutions and individuals they deemed heretical. In both instances, the groups failed to work for the common good of Libya by seeking compromise. With regard to ideological moderation, both movements also failed to moderate here, when key figures frequently relied on violent rhetoric in their framing of events and exclusionary identity formation.
Therefore, this thesis argues that the inclusion-moderation hypothesis needs to be adapted when examining groups in a post-revolutionary environment. This is because the inclusion-moderation hypothesis was originally designed for authoritarian openings and hence its rationale fails when applied in environments with less centralised control. This is demonstrated by examining three different time periods in Libya: (1) the collapsing authoritarian regime; (2) a nascent democracy; and (3) civil war.
This thesis does not aspire to be a comprehensive account of Libya’s recent history but instead follows an actor-based approach focussing specifically on the LMB and LSM - two neglected groups in recent Libya scholarship. The insights presented in this thesis thus make it pertinent for our understanding of the descent of Libya’s ‘Arab Spring’ into almost a decade of civil war.
| Date of Award | 1 Aug 2022 |
|---|---|
| Original language | English |
| Awarding Institution |
|
| Supervisor | Peter Neumann (Supervisor) & Shiraz Maher (Supervisor) |