In early 2011, a wave of civil unrest swept through many Arab countries in North Africa and Southwest Asia. Long-standing tensions emerged when Mohamed Bouazizi sparked the Tunisian revolution by burning himself to protest government corruption (Abouzeid). The Tunisian revolution gave impetus to the Arab Spring demonstrations that occurred in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and many other countries. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Middle East specialist Brian Whittaker predicted this as early as January 16: “inspired by the Tunisian uprising, people will be more assertive about their grievances… We can expect to see many more incidents like this in the coming months in various Arab countries” (Whittaker). Libya, the protests that began on February 15, 2011 turned into a real civil war between the protesters and the authoritarian regime of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, just like any real dictator, was the face of the Libyan government; he was involved in every aspect of Libyan life, even though he officially had no role in the government. Ultimately, the rebels defeated Gaddafi's forces, establishing the National Transitional Council, or NTC, and eventually killing Gaddafi in. process. The NTC, however, is intended only as a temporary government and has proposed a constitutional democracy as the permanent government that will govern Libya (Birsel). Several aspects of the Libyan civil war, such as violence within the revolution and the overthrow of a sitting government, resemble key features of other historically significant events. Although there are some inconsistencies with the comparison, the violence within the Libyan civil war can be compared to the Marxian call for a violent overthrow of the ruling class by the proletariat, while Gaddafi's actions parallel those of Maximilien Robespierre all interior of the French Revolution. it is not without historical precedent. One of the most influential political philosophers of the late 19th century was Karl Marx, who published The Communist Manifesto together with Friedrich Engels in 1848. In The Manifesto, Marx and Engel argue that there are two main classes in society: the bourgeoisie (made up of medium and high) and the proletariat (made up of the working class). Marx and Engel also argue that the bourgeoisie uses its resources of production to manipulate the proletariat in its relentless pursuit of profits (McKay 696). Gaddafi's reign paralleled this exploitation and “class struggle” (Marx and Engel): many of Gaddafi's opponents argue that he and his sons ran an essentially kleptocratic government (“Arab Spring”), which is the epitome of a class struggle. Much of Libya's wealth – 25% of GDP and 80% of government revenue – comes directly from oil production and exports. However, “little of this income trickles down to the lower strata of society” (“Africa: Libya”). Instead, it is used primarily to run the government and, until Gaddafi's recent overthrow, was likely skimmed off the Libyan autocrat for his personal use. According to Professor Tim Niblock of the University of Exeter, there was “a gap of several billion dollars a year between the amount Libya makes from its oil reserves and government spending – a deficit [which may have] contributed significantly to the wealth of Muammar Gaddafi and his nine sons” (Bawden and Hooper). The high unemployment rates of 30% (“Africa: Libya”), together with this poor distribution ofwealth, probably angered the majority of lower-class Libyan citizens. Just like their Marxist counterpart, the proletariat, Libyan citizens have risen up to demand their rights and fight against the government in power due to injustices. Injustices inspired Marx and Engel's Communist Manifesto. In the Manifesto Marx and Engel say not simply for a revolution, but for “the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie” (Marx and Engel). Libya followed this model exactly. Protests in Libya began in Benghazi on 15 February 2011 with protesters clashing with police (“Clash between Libyan protesters”). The conflict soon evolved into pitched battles by March, which included a NATO-imposed no-fly zone (Erlanger and Schmitt). Gaddafi was completely ousted from power and fled Tripoli after a major battle in August (Fahim); he was eventually killed by rebel forces on 20 October (Fahim, Shadid and Gladstone). The civil war in Libya was short and bloody, but its main characteristics closely resemble those proposed by Marx and Engels. Despite these similarities, there are some important differences. Libya does not have a strong industrial structure because the country's economy revolves around the export of oil, not the creation of other exports or products; therefore, there is no real proletarian class within the country. Marx and Engels considered the proletarian class vital to the communist revolution. However, other supporters of Marx and Engel's philosophy – such as Lenin – also questioned this aspect: “Lenin argued that under certain conditions a socialist revolution was possible even in a non-industrialized country” (McKay 834). This quote also raises a second key difference between the Libyan revolution and the idealized Marxian revolution: although Libya desires a redistribution of wealth, it aspires to become a constitutional democracy (Birhels) – not a socialist nation. This contradicts much of what Marx and Engels argued, but the comparison between two violent revolutions remains valid. There is also a strong correlation between the reigns of Gaddafi and Maximilien Robespierre. Robespierre was the leader of the Mountain faction within the Jacobins, a French political party, and gained power after his party decided to execute Louis XVI as a traitor to France in 1793 (McKay 635-636). Gaddafi came to power after overthrowing – but not killing – King Idris of Libya in a 1969 military coup (“Libyan leader vows to fight”). According to the New York Times, he "embraced a number of titles... [but] his favorite [was] 'leader of the revolution'" ("Times Topics: Muammar El-Qaddafi"). Both Gaddafi and Robespierre's reign began through revolution and ended the same way. The revolutions outgrew their leaders: Robespierre was executed during the Thermidorian reaction to the violence of his Reign of Terror (McKay 643), and Gaddafi was killed by Libyan freedom fighters supporting the NTC as he attempted to flee the country ( Fahim, Shadid and Gladstone). Both Gaddafi's death and Robespierre's execution were also public affairs. Robespierre was beheaded on a blood-red guillotine along with his closest followers before a huge crowd in Paris (McKay 643); Gaddafi's final moments before his death and images of his body shortly after were captured via cell phones and shared on the Internet almost immediately (Fahim, Shadid, and Gladstone). Gaddafi's body was also publicly displayed in a refrigerated butcher's shop for several days after his death (Netto, Black, and Harding). Even the style ofGaddafi's government bears significant similarities to that of Robespierre. Robespierre became the leader of the Committee of Public Safety, which ruled France in reality if not in name. The Committee was given “dictatorial power” (McKay 636) which was used to tightly control the economy. Robespierre then established the Reign of Terror, which executed approximately 40,000 French citizens (McKay 637). Robespierre argued that terror was completely justifiable: Terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue. It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government then resemble despotism? Yes, just as the sword that shines in the hands of the heroes of freedom resembles the one with which the armed henchmen of tyranny attack. (Robespierre)The Reign of Terror effectively quelled all anti-government protests and abolished basic human rights such as freedom of speech. However, Robespierre still touted democracy as the official form of government in France: “not only is virtue the soul of democracy; it can only exist in that government” (Robespierre). Surprisingly, the official method of governance in Libya under Gaddafi was also democratic. Gaddafi established the Jamahiriya, or a “mass state” (“Africa: Libya”) as a direct democracy with popular councils. These councils were officially the “highest authority” of Libya (“Delay of Libyan Councils”). However, Gaddafi maintained real control of power in Libya and suppressed human rights in his pursuit of wealth. Although Gaddafi's humanitarian history in Libya is somewhat dark, his history outside the country is clear and damning. Douglas Farah, of the journal Foreign Policy, reveals that Gaddafi had alliances with Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, both notoriously brutal and controlling leaders; he supported the FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, which produces more than half of the world's cocaine and borrowed money from Gaddafi to buy missiles for use against US fighter planes. Gaddafi also created a terrorist training school called the World Revolutionary Center, located within Libya's borders. WRC graduates include Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso, Idriss Déby of Chad and Foday Sankoh of the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone. Charles Taylor of Liberia was also recruited by Gaddafi and is now on trial "for crimes against humanity, including the abduction of children for the purpose of combat, systematic rape and mass murder." Zimbabwe's intimidating and hard-line president, Robert Mugabe, has received hundreds of millions in Libyan oil money (Farah). Gaddafi also suppressed civil liberties in Libya. Reporters Without Borders is a group that publishes an objective report on press freedom in different countries every year. In 2005, their Press Freedom Index rated Libya at 88.75, placing it 173rd globally behind Cuba, China, Vietnam and Iraq (“Press Freedom Index 2005”). By 2010, Libya had only improved to a score of 63.50, still ranking 160th behind governments such as Pakistan and Afghanistan ("Press Freedom Index 2010"). Another oddity of both Gaddafi and Robespierre is that they attempted to restructure their countries' calendars. in an effort to have greater control over all aspects of their people's lives. Robespierre sought to create a more rational, de-Christianized calendar based on ten-day weeks with new month names as an extension of his rational and atheistic policies such as the cult of reason (McKay 640). Even if Robespierre's logic seems questionable, the.