You’ll notice it still tries to frame him as “authoritarian”, but read beyond that and ask questions about these councils and committees, it becomes obvious his leadership was one of popular support in a system that was MORE democratic than representative democracies are rather than authoritarianism. The word “authoritarian” is absurd to use for this system tbh. But that is the word america applies to all enemies of the US.

Daaaaaaaaamn, I just read the article in the first link you gave; that’s extremely impressive. I legit had no idea it was like that.

I’m teaching the about Libya’s system and he’s definitely surprised and confused; he keeps asking about how people can take Gaddafi’s position if they wanted it and I had to keep explaining that his position was without political power, that the country was run by the people and policies chosen by the people, but he kept harping on about Gaddafi because he can’t wrap his around wanting to believe the guy was a brutal, authoritarian dictator who silenced dissent and journalists, and people having the political power to alter how the country functions.

I’m not showing him the second link because this guy wants to believe US propaganda in regards to any of their geopolitical rivals, he’s not going to question anything the NYT article says. I keep telling him of the political power the people had, even to the extent of rejecting Gaddafi’s proposals such as ending the death penalty, and he’s still struggling to understand/believe/reconciling what he wants to believe about Gaddafi and what the reality of Libya’s government was. This guy wants to trust US empire.

Thanks for the links; daaaaaaamn, I had no idea Libya’s government functioned like this.