The ‘Libyat Free’ series, podcasted last Ramadan by ‘Libya TV for the Free’, is the new face of the former ‘Libyat’.  By adding the word ‘free’ in the last edition, the production team hoped that the title would reflect the Libyan art situation after the revolution.

The ‘Libyat Free’ series, podcasted last Ramadan by ‘Libya TV for the Free’, is the new face of the former ‘Libyat’.  By adding the word ‘free’ in the last edition, the production team hoped that the title would reflect the Libyan art situation after the revolution.

But other than the series’ title, not much has changed according to Wassif Khweldy, one of the heroes of the “Libyat” series, which was podcasted for five consecutive seasons under the former regime.  He has not perceived any boost to the freedoms granted to the production of art work after the Libyan revolution.

Criticism and death threats

The appearance of “sarcastic puppets” in the scenes of the last edition of “Libyat”, which was banned from broadcast for two consecutive seasons under Gaddafi in 2009 and 2010, demonstrated a prominent technical and artistic rise on the level of its character representation technique.

This uniqueness however created much burden and pressure on the series team, which did not cease when broadcast ended due to the fact that it raised the resentment of several parties that objected to the presentation of political and religious figures in such a sarcastic way.

“Things went to the point of sending death threats and accusing us of blasphemy on the pretext that we have insulted religious figures,” Zabtiyeh explained.

Paradoxically, criticism, as pointed out by the director, was not made by the impersonated political and religious figures themselves, but by their proponents and supporters who reacted harshly, which complicated the matter even further.

“We do not need useless censorship by any one; dramatists know their profession better than anyone, especially with the variety of communication tools and channels for both actors and viewers,” Zabtiyeh added.

Absence of a union body

Wassif, or his character “Moaz” in the comedic series, believes that censorship and “red lines” in particular have not yet been annihilated from the art arena, rather they have been replaced by other forms, which differ only in name with an “insignificant positive change.”.

He therefore calls on dramatists and actors to take the initiative and establish a union that preserves and defends their rights against the “suppression of those intruding on this profession,” as he puts it.

Despite his optimism about gradually gaining creative freedom after the revolution, director Muayad Zabtiyeh admitted the existence of some implicit social censorship.

Intellectual guardianship

“There is still some professional censorship that we can deal with according to its artistic nature whether it is ethical or legal,” says Zabtiyeh.  “What we fear after the revolution is that this censorship might become an intellectual guardianship imposed on art.”

“Considering the nature of the Libyan art situation, freedom must be snatched since it neither was nor will be served on a golden platter.”

Alternative censorship

Censorship over the Libyan artistic works’ production is of a familiar matter; it is as old as art itself and has been through various phases often associated with the political situation of the country.

Censorship in general witnessed a remarkable breakthrough under the Libyan monarchy, where Articles 12, 21 and 23 of Chapter II of the Constitution, drafted in 1951, provided for the protection of public freedoms and all types of free speech and guaranteed such freedoms by law.  Thus, Libya experienced an exceptional margin of freedom at the regional level as a whole.

When Gaddafi’s regime came to power in 1969, creativity experienced recession at all levels; all focus was directed towards the magnification of Gaddafi’s person and the oppression of the elite, which went to the point of formulating an intelligence agency “stardom combat unit” whose mission was to eliminate several creative souls and visionaries in all art fields.

Abdullah Al-Shawesh, one of the contributing artists in “Libyat”, believes that the “red lines,” which influenced the freedom of art and artists during Gaddafi’s rule were a clearly defined “single red line”.

Strangely enough, Al-Shawesh confirms, these lines are countless after the revolution and “tribes, political figures, revolutionists, cities, villages and towns have become red lines and no one may criticize them or hold them accountable”.

“The deteriorating situation of the Libyan artists,” criticized Al-Shawesh, “is one of their own creation because they did not take the initiative to establish a union body or a legal entity that would preserve their rights”, thus reinforcing the opinion of Wassif Khweldy.

“Everything is mixed up and shamefully the Libyan artist’s image is now distorted before ordinary citizens as well as officials”, he added.

Seasonal drama

Critic Hamza Jabboudeh touched on production problems in Libya, saying that artwork production was restricted to the government’s institutions only and focused on the so-called Ramadan banquet programs. “Such conditions have made artists work in specific seasons only and contributed to more censorship and negative pressure,” Jabboudeh said.

“Libyan drama in general needs to be restructured by artists themselves with the help of the private sector, which shall take the initiative and invade the production world to minimize governmental red lines,” he added.

Jabboudeh also stresses the need to consider viewers as a top priority. The artistic options have doubled and the viewer is now familiar with both Arab and international drama. Thus, red lines banned by the government are accessible through other channels.

Differing views

The opinions of the Libyan viewers receiving such insignificant seasonal art production vary about the concept and importance of a censorship system after the revolution.

Abdulrazaq Mohammed believes that Libyan society has its own peculiarity and artists must comply with it. Hence, he deems it necessary to establish a censorship system that eliminates any violating art work to protect viewers from what contradicts the teachings of society under the title of “creative freedom”.

On the other hand, Rawad Aqbi believes that freedom of speech must be reflected in all types of art works, especially after the revolution. He says that the only censorship system after the revolution is the conscience of the artist and there is no need for censor’s “scissors”, under a shiny title that would turn into a censorial “guillotine” tearing the body of art into pieces.