"Leader of the revolution" and "owner of the Kremlin": what unites Gaddafi and Putin

On October 20, 2011, Muammar Gaddafi was killed in a suburb of Sirte when his supporters lost control of the city in an uprising. His death marked a dramatic end to a more than forty-year reign — and raised a number of questions for the entire Arab world. Today, on the anniversary of his death, we look not only back at Livia Gaddafi, but also to the side of modern Russia, at the face of Vladimir Putin's rule.

Two figures - different in time, geography, society - but with certain parallels, and with noticeable differences that indicate the evolution of authoritarianism in the 21st century. Gaddafi came to power in 1969 in a military coup and led Libya as a de facto dictator. He introduced his political project — the "third international theory" — as an alternative to capitalism and socialism, and proclaimed the role of "people's committees.

" However, in practice, the state became a personalized regime: Gaddafi controlled the army, intelligence, border troops, deeply integrated clan and tribal ties, and made many decisions through an inner circle of relatives. Economically, Libya under Gaddafi had huge oil revenues, which were distributed among the population, infrastructure projects and corruption schemes. However, a large part of society lived with inequality, marginalized regions, ethnic and tribal conflicts.

The political opposition was practically destroyed or marginalized. Dissidents were either displaced, disappeared, or died: for example, the public execution of Al-Shuwayhdi in 1984, which was broadcast to the entire country as a warning to others, was illustrative. The regime used intimidation, repression, control over mass media and means of communication.

Gaddafi often won with foreign policy adventures: supporting uprisings, interventions in Africa, claims to the role of a "liberal" Arab leader. But it also led to isolation, sanctions, and conflicts with the West. When the turmoil of the "Arab Spring" reached Libya, the mass uprising turned into a civil war — and the resistance movement managed to merge with foreign intervention. Gaddafi lost control, fled, was captured and executed.

This death became a symbol: "the impossibility of impunity dictatorship". But it also created chaos in Libya, the collapse of the state, civil war, fragmentation of power between military groups, foreign influences and regional leaders. Vladimir Putin came to power in the wake of the crisis of the 1990s — in 1999–2000 — and gradually formed an authoritarian system that uses a combination of traditional pressure and "soft mechanisms" of control.

What is characteristic: Putin's regime is not a direct dictatorship in the Soviet style, but a hybrid, stable authoritarian system with elements of control, manipulation and repression. After the start of a large-scale war with Ukraine, its regime is increasingly approaching totalitarian features — centralization, censorship, mobilization of society, violent suppression of dissent.

Political scientist Ihor Reiterovych confirms that parallels between Vladimir Putin and Muammar Gaddafi definitely exist. Both built essentially totalitarian regimes in their countries. However, the difference between them is in the scale of cruelty. Gaddafi's dictatorship was brought to an absolute level: his regime is not even directly comparable to Putin's. Gaddafi was much tougher and scarier - his repressions took place openly, executions were broadcast on television.

Instead, Putin tries to imitate "democratic standards". "It looks comical, but there is a certain difference: in modern Russia, people are not executed publicly - they are eliminated secretly, "without noise". This is one of the main differences: both regimes are repressive, but Gaddafi did it demonstratively, and Putin - under the guise of the illusion of legality," Reiterovich explains to Focus. However, they have a common feature that is characteristic of all such systems.

They look monolithic, motionless, as if eternal. But then, at some point, they fall apart — instantly, with no chance of recovery. And all because these structures have no real strength: they are based on fear, and fear cannot be eternal. "You can imagine a conditional palace coup in Russia - it looks realistic. But it is still difficult to imagine what the majority of Ukrainians would like: a story in which Putin is taken out of the collectorate, and angry citizens bring him to trial.

Unfortunately, such a scenario does not seem possible," - says the political scientist. Russian political culture and social inertia are such that even if the regime falls, it will not be through a revolution. If there is a change of power in Russia, it will most likely be "a story about a long illness", after which "our dear Volodymyr Volodymyrovych died peacefully". Exactly the same as it happened to Stalin in 1953. Then there were also different versions - whether they killed him or not.

But one thing is clear: when he needed help, it was simply not provided. It looked like a conspiracy of silence on the part of the inner circle. Presumably, in the case of Putin, everything can happen according to a similar scenario: conspiracy of silence, lack of help, official notification of "natural death". "Within Russian political thinking, it is difficult to imagine a mass revolution, a civil war, or Putin's escape from the Kremlin.

He may lose power, but most likely, this will happen only when he loses his life. That's right, suddenly. And even after that, the regime he created may persist for some time. Putin mutated the system under himself, but it has become too inert to fall immediately," continues Reiterovich. Moreover, according to the expert, it is more appropriate to compare Putin not with Gaddafi, but with Stalin.

Because after the death of the dictator, a kind of "politburo" will probably operate in Russia - a shadow council from his entourage, which will formally take the reins of power into its own hands. Such a "politburo" already exists today, it just works in private, trying to predict the future - in contrast to Stalin's times, when everyone lived for one day and was afraid to even think about the "after". "That's why the parallel between Putin and Stalin is more accurate.