Dictators and Tyrants: Leaders of the Muslim World
Right in front of an international audience Muammar Qaddafi, the dictator of Libya for the past forty years, made a fool of himself by delivering a 96-minute long, disjointed, harangue at the special session of the United Nations General Assembly. The listeners in that hall were aghast and boredom quickly followed. No one could believe that a world leader would put on such a clownish act on the global stage. When he finished the room was half empty with most delegates slithering out seeking relief from such a tedious rhetoric.
To the global community in front of their television sets Qaddafi presented a quintessential portrait of the leaders ruling across the Muslim lands. It was a pitiful caricature of incompetency, stupidity and insensibility. The world got to see a Muslim ruler in action at a very important international gathering.
Many Muslim leaders have had long tenure at the helm of the government in their countries. After all, Husni Mubarak has been on the seat of power for almost thirty years and wants to stay on until he maneuvers his son to take over. The Abdullahs of Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia who call themselves “kings” intend to rule for the rest of their lives. Those others, in places like Tunisia, Bahrain, Kuwait and Oman, and elsewhere, also have similar designs.
The leaders are all self-imposed and self-styled though ignorant beyond belief, unschooled and utterly lacking in character without any sense of decency or responsibility. Nevertheless, they rule with an iron fist freely exercising violence against their own citizens for any presumed “insult.”
Saddam Hussein fully demonstrated this capability. When he was overthrown and finally hanged most such rulers bitterly criticized his removal and more so his hanging. All of them secretly expect their own fate to be same at the hands of the people, seething in rage, if given a chance.
Ruling over others is a form of entitlement for these leaders thanks to the weapons imported from the United States which keeps them in power. Enormous resources are expended on such efforts while many people go begging including in oil rich nations like Saudi Arabia.
None of these leaders was freely elected in competitive elections. They do not represent their people. They discourage activism and have constructed barriers against political participation. People are taught to refrain from politics and remain passive spectators in the drama of life.
However, demand for democratic form of government has gradually been creeping in instigated by international media. The national free press pushed Pakistan for example into holding a free and competitive election. In several other Muslim countries the authorities were compelled to take similar action. Turkey was one of the first ones to be able to do so.
Unfortunately, the political parties vying for power in these places are virtually all authoritarian in nature with party chairman making all the important decisions. Such is the case with PPP and PML(N) where Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif call the shots respectively. The internal party structure resembles the communist or fascist model. Unlike the US or UK open elections are not held for party leadership. No one on the outside, even if a party member, has a chance to lead the organization and determine its agenda.
Consequently, democracy in Pakistan, as well as in Malaysia, Indonesia and Bengladesh, and to some extent even in Turkey, has become perverted. The leaders in these places who now rule are cautiously dictatorial and tyrannical although they follow the goal of achieving complete democracy.
Qaddafi’s speech was punctuated by several long pauses suggesting that he lost his train of thought in what appeared to be an impromptu speech. He is a man who rose to power through the exercise of violence and has found no reason for any other skill. Most Muslim leaders are highly skilled in bloodshed having used that strategy to climb on the throne.
Barack Obama offered a real contrast to Qaddafi and came out smelling like a rose. He delivered a hard hitting speech touching upon all the major issues confronting the global community. He appeared to be a statesman, which he is, and was poised, sophisticated, and responsible to a fault. He held everyone’s attention and during his talk one could have heard a pin drop.
He remained focused to the end in his twenty-minute presentation. The following day he chaired a special session of the UN Security Council where he introduced and maneuvered the unanimous passage of a resolution calling for “the nuclear disarmament of the world.”
Nowhere was the contrast more visible than in the demeanor and delivery of the two leaders at the podium of the UN body. From the West Obama presented a picture of a suave, urbane, statesman and, from the Muslim World Qaddafi, a wild, savage man, remained an embarrassment to the bitter end.
