Scan barcode
lukescalone's review against another edition
3.0
This really is a provocative book, so please don't let my average rating scare readers away from taking a look at it. In short, Lisa Anderson argues that the divergent trajectory of Tunisia and Libya can be traced back to the colonial period. At the outset of the colonial period, both states were rather similar. Tunisia and Libya (or Tripolitania) were both semi-autonomous provinces of the Ottoman Empire, they were heavily agricultural, they are generally homogeneous ethnically and religiously, and much of their societies were indeed tribal. However, Anderson argues that the French establishment of a protectorate in Tunisia did a great deal to maintain political and bureaucratic institutions, whereas Italian colonization of Libya destroyed pre-colonial political structures in their totality. By continuing old political models, the French and--later--Tunisia's post-independence government, were able to foster a level of political pluralism and the formation of a civil society. Post-independence Libya, in contrast, saw individuals take power who earned their legitimacy on behalf of political power or patronage from Italian (and later, to a lesser degree, American and British) colonizers. This placed Libya in a position where political power was tenuous and without the necessary bureaucarcy to properly manage a country.
Interestingly, Anderson argues that the main separation between "Third World" states (Libya and Tunisia in this case, but also more broadly) and European states is that European state formation was rooted in internal negotiations in social structures dating back to the Early Modern period, whereas state formation in the Third World actually restructured the societies within (take Kenya, for example, where colonial and post-independence political structures fundamentally redefined the concept of the "tribe," essentially crystallizing it).
One major qualm I have with Anderson's book is her laser-focus on Libya and Tunisia alone. I agree with her arguments comparing the two, but they do not answer why Tunisia and Morocco (both French protectorates) took such different trajectories. Was it because Morocco had (and has) a much larger Amazigh population? Perhaps it has to do with the stronger independence of Morocco in the pre-colonial period? Does Moroccan geography, with the prominence of both the Atlantic and the Atlas Mounains, play a major role in its trajectory? Much ink has been spilled on Algeria, but thinking about Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco together may offer much more than a simple analysis of Tunisia and Libya on their own.
Interestingly, Anderson argues that the main separation between "Third World" states (Libya and Tunisia in this case, but also more broadly) and European states is that European state formation was rooted in internal negotiations in social structures dating back to the Early Modern period, whereas state formation in the Third World actually restructured the societies within (take Kenya, for example, where colonial and post-independence political structures fundamentally redefined the concept of the "tribe," essentially crystallizing it).
One major qualm I have with Anderson's book is her laser-focus on Libya and Tunisia alone. I agree with her arguments comparing the two, but they do not answer why Tunisia and Morocco (both French protectorates) took such different trajectories. Was it because Morocco had (and has) a much larger Amazigh population? Perhaps it has to do with the stronger independence of Morocco in the pre-colonial period? Does Moroccan geography, with the prominence of both the Atlantic and the Atlas Mounains, play a major role in its trajectory? Much ink has been spilled on Algeria, but thinking about Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco together may offer much more than a simple analysis of Tunisia and Libya on their own.
ekul's review
3.0
This really is a provocative book, so please don't let my average rating scare readers away from taking a look at it. In short, Lisa Anderson argues that the divergent trajectory of Tunisia and Libya can be traced back to the colonial period. At the outset of the colonial period, both states were rather similar. Tunisia and Libya (or Tripolitania) were both semi-autonomous provinces of the Ottoman Empire, they were heavily agricultural, they are generally homogeneous ethnically and religiously, and much of their societies were indeed tribal. However, Anderson argues that the French establishment of a protectorate in Tunisia did a great deal to maintain political and bureaucratic institutions, whereas Italian colonization of Libya destroyed pre-colonial political structures in their totality. By continuing old political models, the French and--later--Tunisia's post-independence government, were able to foster a level of political pluralism and the formation of a civil society. Post-independence Libya, in contrast, saw individuals take power who earned their legitimacy on behalf of political power or patronage from Italian (and later, to a lesser degree, American and British) colonizers. This placed Libya in a position where political power was tenuous and without the necessary bureaucarcy to properly manage a country.
Interestingly, Anderson argues that the main separation between "Third World" states (Libya and Tunisia in this case, but also more broadly) and European states is that European state formation was rooted in internal negotiations in social structures dating back to the Early Modern period, whereas state formation in the Third World actually restructured the societies within (take Kenya, for example, where colonial and post-independence political structures fundamentally redefined the concept of the "tribe," essentially crystallizing it).
One major qualm I have with Anderson's book is her laser-focus on Libya and Tunisia alone. I agree with her arguments comparing the two, but they do not answer why Tunisia and Morocco (both French protectorates) took such different trajectories. Was it because Morocco had (and has) a much larger Amazigh population? Perhaps it has to do with the stronger independence of Morocco in the pre-colonial period? Does Moroccan geography, with the prominence of both the Atlantic and the Atlas Mounains, play a major role in its trajectory? Much ink has been spilled on Algeria, but thinking about Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco together may offer much more than a simple analysis of Tunisia and Libya on their own.
Interestingly, Anderson argues that the main separation between "Third World" states (Libya and Tunisia in this case, but also more broadly) and European states is that European state formation was rooted in internal negotiations in social structures dating back to the Early Modern period, whereas state formation in the Third World actually restructured the societies within (take Kenya, for example, where colonial and post-independence political structures fundamentally redefined the concept of the "tribe," essentially crystallizing it).
One major qualm I have with Anderson's book is her laser-focus on Libya and Tunisia alone. I agree with her arguments comparing the two, but they do not answer why Tunisia and Morocco (both French protectorates) took such different trajectories. Was it because Morocco had (and has) a much larger Amazigh population? Perhaps it has to do with the stronger independence of Morocco in the pre-colonial period? Does Moroccan geography, with the prominence of both the Atlantic and the Atlas Mounains, play a major role in its trajectory? Much ink has been spilled on Algeria, but thinking about Tunisia, Libya, and Morocco together may offer much more than a simple analysis of Tunisia and Libya on their own.
More...