In a typical display of arrogance, Colonel Gaddafi came out to us today with an hour long of what could only be described as pointless babbling, in which he accused hundreds of thousands of Libyans protesting his regime of having ingested "hallucinogenic pills" (considering their reality of having endured such leadership for decades, can you blame them?)
This brought to mind the comical episode back in 2009 when Gaddafi addressed the UN General Assembly in New York with 96 minutes of improvised babbling, incoherently touching upon just about every topic in the world. Back then he had claimed that some foreign military was responsible for the H1N1 virus, accused Israel of assassinating Kennedy, right before he proceeded to physically tear up the UN Charter.
Not that I'm attempting to analyze the words or actions of the King of Kings (there's really nothing to analyze, the guy is just nuts). I'm writing to bring attention to a subtle yet key fact: This psycho relic of a leader is a product of a revolution, and one that -back in its day- might have felt just as exciting as today's revolution feels like to us!
Gaddafi rose to power by staging a Military coup d'état against King Idris El-Sanousi in September 1969. Back then he was just a junior military officer, only 27 years old. I bet he must have been hailed as a hero by masses of excited Libyans eager for change. Waves of surreal enthusiasm must have swept through the nation, much like what is felt today, 42 years later, as a similar revolution is taking place. It seems like in the Arab world, a revolution is needed to get rid of the guy who led the previous revolution which was needed to get rid of the guy before him. When will it ever end?
It would have been impossible to notice the seeds for megalomania in little Gaddafi back in 1969. Yet cover and let simmer for 40 years or so, and voila! you end up with the gangrenous lump of a nutcase that spoke to us today in a tone more like a parent grounding his kids than a leader addressing his people.
Come to think of it, Iraq's Saddam Hussein was also the product of a revolution. This sort of applies to Egypt's Mubarak as well, since he replaced an assassinated leader, so that he came to power in a time of turmoil and as a product of people's attempts to force change.
The moral of the story: Just because one is brave enough to effect change doesn't mean that one is wise enough (or in Libya's case sane enough) to lead. The people of Arab nations need to be aware of that especially right now as a new wave of revolts is sweeping across. It's not enough to topple the system, the process of revolution itself needs to evolve in order to avoid the failures of the last wave of revolts, which produced for us such gems as Gaddafi, Hussein, and Mubarak, among others.
As Libya spits out its national disgrace of a leader, and as other Arab nations shed their skin over the coming few years, one can't stress enough the importance of the evolution of revolution! Old leaders need to replaced by systems of government. You absolutely don't want to replace a Jackie Chan with a Jet Li. Nations need to be rebuilt on the explicit mandate that no one person is expected or allowed to take over. Arab nations have suffered enough from the rule of Rambo's. What they need now is cleverly engineered systems of checks and balances, assuring long-lasting representation of the people, and preventing any person whatsoever from accumulating too much power. I mean that in the most literal sense, as in the constitution should start like this: "I don't care if you're Sun Tzu reincarnate, you're going to serve your term and then get the hell out!"
This brought to mind the comical episode back in 2009 when Gaddafi addressed the UN General Assembly in New York with 96 minutes of improvised babbling, incoherently touching upon just about every topic in the world. Back then he had claimed that some foreign military was responsible for the H1N1 virus, accused Israel of assassinating Kennedy, right before he proceeded to physically tear up the UN Charter.
Not that I'm attempting to analyze the words or actions of the King of Kings (there's really nothing to analyze, the guy is just nuts). I'm writing to bring attention to a subtle yet key fact: This psycho relic of a leader is a product of a revolution, and one that -back in its day- might have felt just as exciting as today's revolution feels like to us!
Gaddafi rose to power by staging a Military coup d'état against King Idris El-Sanousi in September 1969. Back then he was just a junior military officer, only 27 years old. I bet he must have been hailed as a hero by masses of excited Libyans eager for change. Waves of surreal enthusiasm must have swept through the nation, much like what is felt today, 42 years later, as a similar revolution is taking place. It seems like in the Arab world, a revolution is needed to get rid of the guy who led the previous revolution which was needed to get rid of the guy before him. When will it ever end?
It would have been impossible to notice the seeds for megalomania in little Gaddafi back in 1969. Yet cover and let simmer for 40 years or so, and voila! you end up with the gangrenous lump of a nutcase that spoke to us today in a tone more like a parent grounding his kids than a leader addressing his people.
Come to think of it, Iraq's Saddam Hussein was also the product of a revolution. This sort of applies to Egypt's Mubarak as well, since he replaced an assassinated leader, so that he came to power in a time of turmoil and as a product of people's attempts to force change.
The moral of the story: Just because one is brave enough to effect change doesn't mean that one is wise enough (or in Libya's case sane enough) to lead. The people of Arab nations need to be aware of that especially right now as a new wave of revolts is sweeping across. It's not enough to topple the system, the process of revolution itself needs to evolve in order to avoid the failures of the last wave of revolts, which produced for us such gems as Gaddafi, Hussein, and Mubarak, among others.
As Libya spits out its national disgrace of a leader, and as other Arab nations shed their skin over the coming few years, one can't stress enough the importance of the evolution of revolution! Old leaders need to replaced by systems of government. You absolutely don't want to replace a Jackie Chan with a Jet Li. Nations need to be rebuilt on the explicit mandate that no one person is expected or allowed to take over. Arab nations have suffered enough from the rule of Rambo's. What they need now is cleverly engineered systems of checks and balances, assuring long-lasting representation of the people, and preventing any person whatsoever from accumulating too much power. I mean that in the most literal sense, as in the constitution should start like this: "I don't care if you're Sun Tzu reincarnate, you're going to serve your term and then get the hell out!"
Comments