End Of Authoritarians

There are two kinds of abstractions, one that exist in mind and the other that are unimaginable. Abstractions imaginable do exist in world apart from those that physically exist. Everything, either physical or abstract, that exists has two faces, one that is beautiful and favorable to some, and the other that is ugly and hostile to others. But such things do exist, which have one face either beautiful or ugly, which either favors you, in all their state, or is against you. For instance education has one beautiful face that benefits all and illiteracy has one ugly face that favors none.



Our existing political systems in some way have a similar story. Authoritarian form of government is such thing that favors not even authoritarians themselves. I am saying something to which authoritarians in power would never agree.  But Doug Flahaut’s report over his “…classmate Saif Qaddafi” reinforces my statement in which he analysis Saif Qaddafi’s speech as, “…What I saw during the 40-minute speech was two Saifs at war with each other… Saif undoubtedly sensed the gravity of the position he was taking and the possibility that he could be tried at The Hague.” It is clear from the above that Saif Qaddafi defeated Saif-Al-Islam at war leaving him to his fate. It is clear that a liberal minded Saif-Al-Islam could not stand in front of repressive Saif Qaddafi. It is free from doubt that leadership in an authoritarian system that he inherited from his father silenced a liberal voice and his fate took him to the weakest position that even if he is alive somewhere inside his existence cannot make difference. On one hand the ruler of the soul Saif Qaddafi was warning Libyans: A stable Libya under my father is better than the short, nasty and brutish alternative—a life of civil war, And on the other hand Saif-Al-Islam was expecting his father, an authoritarian ruler, to regret by saying: You should have listened to me and implemented reforms.



Not all will agree but Self rule can bring nothing to a person but money. Total or partial authoritarians are beyond money same as Qaddafi but that did not make it possible for Saif to get ruled by his own, Saif-Al-Islam’s, qualities. That did not help him defeat Saif Qaddafi. That did not let Saif-Al-Islam live.  Saif, for whom there was no reason to write a thesis that did not have practical applications, promised committees where “everyone can agree on new laws and a constitution,” a unanimity that he himself had called inapplicable at LSE. He is well aware of his losses, he is aware that his money that the system could only shower cannot save him from trail at The Hague. He is aware of what this authoritarian system has brought to Libyans and himself.



History has climaxed Qadafis’ fate similar to dictators that have passed more or less the same period of impeachment, whether he is Pakistan’s dictator or the dictator of Tunisia or Egypt. All partial or total authoritarian rulers suffer same situation of daydream till their last breadth after history ends their period of heavenly life. Here with partial I mean those who demand democracy while authoritatively ruling their political parties. This restricts a person’s qualities, degrades one’s interests and affects lifestyle. This hardly encourages the theory of attaining independent life according to one’s own choice. And if the interest is to become a leader it avoids competition, hence repealing hard work and education, and so people are deprived of a true leader. This imposes restrictions on one’s qualities, on capacity to think independently limiting the room space and hence influencing decisions that may be referred as ‘a conservative decision by a liberal’ after so many factors affecting them. No matter how much they condemn authoritarianism the system triggers their repressive soul that overcome a hero within them and the only left repressive soul dies with the end of heavenly days. Saif’s repressive soul will die the day his last in Libya leaving him, who’s both souls, would weaken then, to laugh at himself for the rest of his life.



This is only what a self-interested authoritarian system can bless mankind with. It has just one ugly face that already troubles nations and ends at troubling authoritarian leaders. It is a kind of selfishness that lessons life to sufferers and ruins life of those being selfish. I safely conclude that those who seek favor may end in destruction. So may I call here self-interested authoritarians naïve who are running after devastation of which they are unaware?