ONE reason why history keeps repeating itself is because human beings hardly learn from it. Muammar Gaddafi did not have to dig into ancient history to learn that his dictatorship could end as gruesomely as it did on the 20th October 2011. From Nicolae Ceaucescu in 1989 to Saddam Hussein in 2006, many dictators have met their ends in ironic tragedy. Gaddafi had sufficient warnings to escape a most brutal endhe could have followed the Hosni Mubarak scriptbut would appear to have characteristically dismissed the resolve of his antagonists.Gaddafi, even as arrogant as he was, was hardly the worst dictator in history. His people, in the honesty of their hearts, do admit that he did some good things regarding their welfare. However, there was always bound to be resentment or discontent when one individual had assumed the monopoly of wisdomdetermined to suppress opposition from real or perceived enemies. Forty-two years was far too long for anyone to be in power; plotting also to hand over power to ones own child was bound to be resented. Gaddafi had also over the years incurred the wrath of the Western world that it was always expected that the minutest spectre of discontent at home was bound to generate external support. Gaddafi was conspicuously associated with international terrorism in the 1980s, prompting Ronald Reagan, erstwhile President of the United States, to order an air attack on Libya in 1986. The Lockerbie air disaster of 1988, claiming 270 lives, was believed to have been orchestrated by Gaddafi. Of course, the hypocritical leaders of the West dined and danced with him, when it suited them, not least because of oil; it was, however, one uncomfortable relationship of mutual distrust. They waited patiently and got him in the end, thanks to the rebels who seized upon the wind of change blowing through the Arab world to vent their own anger.The thing with dictators is that their own personal or regime survival is more important to them than the survival of the state itself. Gaddafi went down fighting, destroying whatever achievements he had made for his nation in the process. His own children died fighting along with him.The rest of sit-tight leaders in the African continent, lizard brains that they have, would probably have thought the reason Gaddafi got killed was because he was not wearing a helmet! Robert Mugabe has led Zimbabwe since 1980; Paul Biya in Cameroon since 1982, while Yoweri Museveni has led Uganda since 1985. Because they are not capable of learning from events elsewhere, it may not be long before nemesis also catches up with them.We do not have the problem of sit-tight leadership in Nigeria; however, this would not mean that we do not have a few over-ambitious individuals who would have loved to be in power for life. The reason we do not have sit-tight leadership may not be unconnected with the countervailing influences of our ethnic and religious divisions. However, the problem we have with corruption is arguably worse than that of sit-tight leadership. With unemployed young men and women roaming the streets, it would be stupid to assume that the type of revolts we have been witnessing elsewhere cannot happen in our country.Our political leaders must sort out the problem of corruption before the problem of corruption eventually sorts them out. Who will want to invest in a nation of dangerous roads, slaughter-slab hospitals, and a security of life and property that borders on the survival of the fittest' The concluding message here is that our political leaders should stay at home and use our resources to develop Nigeria and Nigerians if they themselves must avoid public anger and the type of revolt that consumed Muammar Gaddafi.- Anthony Akinnola, PhD, Oxford, UK. Email: anthonyakinola@yahoo.co.uk
Click here to read full news..
