Staggering Gaddafi's dictatorship, has revealed the widespread inconsistency and hypocrisy of many, judging when dictators and despots.
When initiated mobilizations against autocratic regimes in countries such as Tunisia and Egypt, many spoke of a survey of local peoples oppressed against "authoritarian Arab regimes, the interests of imperialism in the region."
However, ironically against the riots in Libya against the dictator Qaddafi, these early expressions of confidence in "the people mobilized, have led to " mobilization is coordinated by imperialism and the interests suspects. "
clearly inconsistent So, about the situation of the autocracy of Qaddafi, called "The Republic Arab Jamahiriya Socialist ", some have raised many rhetorical embellishment to justify autocratic regime's brutality against demonstrators and the stubbornness of the dictator Gaddafi leaves office. Reaching the point of saying that there are good and bad dictators, as the "enemy" that it has.
According to this point of view, incoherent, unlike what happened in Egypt, Libya would not be mobilized citizens, people facing a disastrous dictatorship, but behind, is "black hand" favorable a questionable interest, against a leader "legitimate and revolutionary as Gaddafi. " "Inconsistent not?
But beyond this absurd rhetorical play multiple positions and explanations, shows the lack of an ethical criterion for judging any political regime and the actions of governments. Thus, we see a better way, the incoherence and hypocrisy about democracy of many.
If one judges the ethical act of States and Governments, whatever name you have such schemes, no dictatorship can be good, always infamous, because no state, much less a ruler, have the right to monopolize power, stripped of their civil rights to citizens, silence and less massacre.
On the other hand, if we judge the ethical act of great powers, as well as Venezuela and Cuba, the situation regarding Libya, all have been very hypocritical in terms of democracy, the right to rebellion, and the human rights of thousands of Libyans.
And while some, to the apparent inconsistencies in their leaders and warlords, play to a draw by saying that this or that power also justified dictatorships, or try camouflage governmental hypocrisy on the basis of supporting brutal for "reasons of state, national interest or strategy," the conclusion from an ethical standpoint, is that all states have been hypocrites, whether they like it.
Then we see that the problem surrounding dictatorships and as the judge, remains an ethical problem that most people, from politicians, analysts through to ordinary people-mess accommodations with semantic and discourse, to justify the unjustifiable.
Y resolved in an ethical manner, because the truth is that there is good and bad dictatorships, but all are despicable, even if there bringing down another despot.
The central mistake of this, is that most judges the same thing, authoritarian, dictatorial power and arrogance, as the dictator's uniform color, the length of his beard or hair or the word most used to in their speeches.
Worse, based on that given to these rulers the right and resources to use force at will against the person, on behalf of "global security the proletarian revolution, freedom, socialism "or whatever.
And basically, what they do, is to grant rights and powers to a person or group of individuals (whether they be President, Commander leader, prophet, art or whatever), that no human being is alone, especially in the use of force.
Worse is when that power has no counterweight class legal and ethical material, a dictatorship whose leader said that all love him.
