{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021701388888888888, 'fraction_numerical': 0.015190972222222222, 'mean_word_length': 5.002604166666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Question of Nationalism and Education in Libya under Italian Rule

Over thirty years of Italian rule in Libya (1911–1942), while leaving a considerable infrastructure of roads, schools and other public buildings, provided only a poor legacy in terms of skilled and educated Libyan manpower. This is attested by the fact that in 1951, there were only five graduates of Italian universities and perhaps ten from the Islamic University of Al-Azhar in Cairo. Moreover, there were no Arab directors of elementary schools or persons qualified for the non-Islamic professions or trained as agricultural experts. On the other hand, apologists of Italian rule emphasise that by 1942 Italy had made an important contribution towards solving some of Libya's most chronic problems. Although official statistics must be treated with caution, it is likely that by 1939 around 9676 pupils were enrolled in the halo-Arab schools, even if only 50% attended regularly. A further 147 students were said to be attending the School of Islamic Studies or al-Madrasah al-Islamiyya al-ùlyá at Tripoli which trained Islamic lawyers, school teachers and minor officials. 22 Moslem girls were also receiving training as nurses at the school of Princess Maria Pia originally set up in January 1936. The object of this paper, however, is not to narrate the achievements and defects of Italian rule in Libya, but to ask, what possible problems in the political, as opposed to the economic or other related fields, might have contributed to such a state of imbalance. Was it, for instance, some kind of “apartheid” policy on the part of the colonial regime that prevented Libyans from attending the excellent system of Italian secondary schools and so going on, like their Italian contemporaries, to become skilled artisans, technicians, engineers, doctors or administrators? Or was it because the mass of the Libyan population were so basically opposed to the Italian regime that they regarded attendance at the schools, whether elementary or secondary, as an act of collaboration with the hated oppressor? These are just two of the areas that would have to be explored by the historian before any explanation could be put forward of what can be termed the “central dilemma” of educational development in Libya under Italian rule.