Somapala Gunadheera

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ GaddafiƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s death by violence has led to a vociferous debate. Many celebrate his demise as good riddance of a hard-core dictator and tyrant. Others extol his benevolence and ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”welfarismƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢.

GaddafiƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s administration is credited with unrivalled magnanimity. Basic facilities like electricity, education and health care are free for all Libyan citizens. If education or medical facilities are not locally available, the government underwrites expenses in obtaining them from abroad. Under Gaddafi literacy rate has shot up to 90% from 25%. One in every four Libyans has a University degree.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Bank loans are given at zero interest. A home is considered a basic right in Libya. Newlyweds receive a grant from the government to buy their first apartment. A mother receives a government grant at childbirth. Purchase of a new car is subsidized. Farm land, equipments, seeds and livestock are provided to kick-start new farms. Petrol and bread are subsidized. Unemployed graduates receive the average salary of the relevant calling until employment is found. All Libyans share the proceeds of oil sales

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Gaddafi carried out the worldƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country. He played a dominant role in the battle against apartheid and actively supported resistance to western hegemony for a long time.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

The wonder is how such a benevolent ruler came to the ignominious and violent end that Gaddafi faced at the hands of his own people. Doubtlessly there had to be overwhelming facets in his career that outweighed his philanthropy. Prominent among them were four damning charges made against Gaddafi that apparently helped western imperialists to have their own back on him and to serve their own economic interests.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Nepotism: GaddafiƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s children have carved out spheres of influence, seemingly treating the country as their personal fiefdom. They dominated telecommunications, national security, maritime shipping, and commerce. There was growing anger over the crass behaviour of his offspring. Although there were disputes among his children as to who should succeed Gaddafi, succession was assured to one of them.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

Corruption: Government funding was used to capitalize family ventures. There was close integration of private and public interests in many of LibyaƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s key economic entities. Flaunting of wealth hurt the family image. Although he held no specific post, Gaddafi was intimately involved in the regimeƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s most sensitive and critical portfolios. He has used an influential but obscure administrative entity to politically vet commercial contracts to ensure that opportunities to extract rents from those deals were distributed to key regime allies.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

Repression: In 1969 Gaddafi banned independent trade unions and strikes were completely shut out a few years later. Once real labour organisations had been banned, state-controlled “unions” were set up. What was thus created was a totalitarian regime, under the tight control of Gaddafi himself. As part of his ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”cultural revolutionƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ Gaddafi banned all private enterprise and ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”¹…”unsoundƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢ books were burned. He had dissidents repressed at home and annihilated abroad.. Freedom of speech and association were firmly suppressed through acts of violent repression.

Thirst for power: Gaddafi was a skillful politician who manipulated local rivals and his own sons so that he could remain in power. Historians say the veteran ruler used economic privileges, marital alliances and the threat of force to build ties to tribes commanding varying degrees of loyalty among most of the six million population. Despite its small size, his own tribe was given preeminence. GaddafiƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s who had already enjoyed over four decades of power was bent on holding the reins of government for life and handing them over to his progeny at death, regardless of a mandate from the people. In the result, he suffered the same fate as other dictatorial leaders like Hosni Mubarak who harboured the same ambition. He did not have the wisdom of a Mandela who had the vision of a statesman to call it a day in due time.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

In sum the tragedy of Gaddafi underscores the immutable fact that populism is never a bulwark against governance without respect for human rights and the rule of law. If this advice was given to Gaddafi at the height of his power, he would have flared up in a fit of rage.ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Hearing the sameƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ words at the moment of his tragic death, he would have lamented not having heardƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ them before.