When we feel that we have to avoid the full truth.

There are can be excellent reasons for holding widely shared views. Nevertheless, admitting to them can be perceived as “bad PR”. That condition makes us say what we do not mean and to fudge on what we really think. Perhaps no one in the reader’s neighborhood went around emptying clips to celebrate Gaddafi’s demise. However, it is likely that those that knew the man that loved camels more than his subjects were silent about being secretly content that the King of Africa was gone. Frequently, outside of a trusted circle, we hold back what we really think. That results in evasive statements that misrepresent opinion or they submerge views in a meaningless protective verbiage.

Among the reactions to the “Guide’s” demise is formal reverence that custom demands. A component of that is that any death is regrettable. A similar chord resonates when a Latin proverb is rehashed. About the dead, one is to say something good or one should keep silent. These homilies smooth out an ugly record simply because its perpetrator is gone. Such shibboleths are useful because they keep one out of trouble. In the case of public figures, we are called upon to ignore the record. This approach implies that those misdeeds are to be made relative. This is only one-step away from denying wrongdoing. Pharisaic politeness connects to a lack of concern that is enhanced by the luck of having been personally untouched by the crime.

Typically, Gaddafi’s liquidation also moves some good souls who prefer to overlook evil even when it governs. These intone that we are to “forget” because a new era has come. In this case, the time after the overthrow of dictatorship is said to demand reconciliation with the defeated. Differences are to be overcome by forgetting them and with that, a search for common grounds can begin. By building on the alleged good that is in all persons, the foundations for the future require that the past be left behind. That this isolates crime from punishment is clear. So is the implication that those that paid for liberty with their blood are to lower their suffering to the level of tyranny’s now dispossessed servants. In practical terms, the past’s victims are to forget their pain. In exchange, their defeated tormentors will forgive their loss of power and privilege.

The third approach goes beyond asking for leniency for the poor souls that have lost so much when their system collapsed. While it is still “early” for it, voices become discernible that put partial blame on the victors and so exonerates dictatorship. This line is audacious as it assumes that instant amnesia will help the case. The plea is typical and it is called in the case of East Germany “Ostalgie” – a fusion of Ost (East) and Nostalgie (nostalgia). Regarding Gaddafi’s Libya, the claim that it was “not only not that bad” but actually “much better than you think” has several components. Have not thousands of Africans find jobs under the Colonel? Who provided free and universal health care? The standard of living rose. Additionally, world leaders consulted an upgraded Libya. Such arguments infer that, thanks to the imposed security and equality, the people should have waited until the “reformers”  could assert themselves. Therefore, it is suggested that those that celebrate now will one day regret their actions.

In the “Leader’s” case, the terms of his death became a special topic. The UN is promising an investigation. In general, the line taken is that while the overthrow is sufficiently understood to excuse it, the way Gaddafi was killed deserves disapproval.

There are systems that are based on suppression, fear, and violence. Such a régime will only exit the scene if forcibly removed by a war or a revolution. That implies that the system’s institutionalized violence must to be matched in ferocity. The bloody process will have little to do with our enshrined system of change through the verbal clash of opinions. Here the issue is decided by brutal methods and the winner will be the one with the better weapons, the greater mass, and the steeliest resolve. A decisive difference to power by ballot is not the intenseness of violence but that the policy of repression had excluded peaceful approaches to bring about change. Here this writer must admit to a prejudice. He has participated in such a confrontation. In it, the Soviet Union won against a largely unarmed midget. Therefore, the writer rooted for the Libyans as he recalled his youth in them. There was also some envy. That was for the celebratory shooting when in Budapest it was difficult to keep a Tokarev pistol fed.

Aside of being a conflict between violent parties, an uprising travels on emotion. It will overcome losses and replace the organization that it must miss if it is a revolution against a determined tyranny. If you have experienced this mixture of enthusiasm, desperation, hate, and hope, you understand why Gaddafi’s captors have killed him. With his systemic torture and killings, the “Brother Leader” has greatly contributed to his own lynching. Beyond that, let us not forget Lenin’s formulation. He held that a revolution is not a boarding school for “young ladies”.

Long before the end, your correspondent has pondered what he would do if he would be the Libyan who captures Gaddafi. The exercise ended without an answer. Here a case could be made for trying Gaddafi. Politely, many will articulate it. Wisely, that includes the transitional government that expresses retroactive regret. The advocates include those that indulge in a useful lie while they are privately happy that there will be no trial.

Let the rational case for that 9mm bullet from the “golden gun” be made here. If one ponders a trial in The Hague then the record can be turned into an argument against resorting to that tribunal. The International Court hands out no death sentence and you can bet that no “lifer” will serve the full term. Furthermore, the IC has a problem with assigning full responsibility and thus with unmitigated guilt.

A few words must be inserted regarding the taking of the captured Gaddafi’s life and his subsequent display. Before his capture, his last cohorts signaled surrender. Once the pursuers left their cover, they were fired upon. In the field, this will cause rage. Beyond this, those that slaughtered Gaddafi were likely to have seen in him the personification of the system that stole decades of their wasted lives.

It is likely that those that have enjoyed normal existences are alienated by the public display of Gaddafi’s body. Admittedly, this is anything but “respectful” in the sight of death. Nevertheless, the quest of those who qued to see the “unbelievable” point to a rationale. Libyans needed to be convinced that “he” is gone and that his system will never return. In Eastern Europe there are, twenty years after Communism, still cowering people who dread that “they might come back”. The result is partial paralysis. To convince the intimidated that it is really “over” is a key to the move into the future.

The alternative to international prosecution, a trial before a Libyan court, had drawbacks. For one thing, while alive, a Gaddafi is a threat. As Israel’s case with her radical Islamist captives shows, or as “Mogadishu” and the Red Army Fraction have demonstrated, a jailed terrorist can induce new terrorism. Indubitably, a Libyan court would have condemned Gaddafi to death. Before that, Tripoli would have been criticized for not prosecuting according to the rules of an Anglo-Saxon court. Claiming that these procedures do not fit the crime would not have silenced the critics. Then the death sentence would have elicited international disapproval and grown into a burden. On the whole then, Libya is better off as the result of that shot and the knowledge that, regardless of the obligatory formal critique of those that feel they “have to”, the case is closed. With that, the time has come to start to forgive a bit once judgment has been passed.