Head to Head: Should we celebrate tyrant deaths?

The tyrannical leader we should mourn, or celebrate the death until morning?

Violetta Nikolskaya and Matt Martorana

Mcmaster Debating Society

M:  Thousands of people gathered in the streets of Libya this past week to celebrate the death of Muammar al-Gaddafi, the former Libyan President.  Gaddafi, despite coming into power with an overwhelming popularity, died as one who was hated by most of his citizens.  When a political leader has sovereign control over a country, as was the case with Gaddafi, the leader is directly responsible for the actions that his government makes. This is especially true when the actions of the government contribute to the overall suffering of its citizens. In the case of Gaddafi, there are many reports of how Gaddafi tortured and oppressed his political opponents who would not support him or his political views. In the eyes of his opponents, Gaddafi’s death should be celebrated because his death symbolizes the end to the oppression that those who did not support Gaddafi experienced.

V: Let’s isolate the thought that his death should be celebrated because it symbolizes the death of an oppressive regime and the birth of a new era of potential democracy for Libya. I am not standing in defence of his war crimes, crimes against humanity or clearly oppressive practices. His crimes cannot be justified, but his death should not be celebrated. His death only sheds light on the lack of mercy shown by the rebels and the disregard for international resolve. Even in times of war, unnecessary murder of civilians, soldiers or militia is investigated and taken to court, as our laws have been set on the pillars of justice and truth. In this case, Gaddafi had a warrant for his arrest by the International Criminal Court. He was owed his day in court. Instead, he was murdered. Even Saddam Hussein was given his day in court. He was captured alive and taken into custody, peacefully. Gaddafi was found alive and shot in the abdomen.

M:  I will not deny that there was a lack of mercy shown by the rebels in the murder of Gaddafi.  I am not supporting the position that Gaddafi should have been murdered by his citizens.  You may be right to think that it would have been better to hand Gaddafi over to the ICC, yet the unjust murder of Gaddafi should not prevent the Libyan citizens from celebrating his death.  When a leader dies, his death often symbolizes something greater than just the passing away of a specific individual. This is especially true in autocratic regimes, where the leader has the sole authority to rule the country. When Gaddafi died, individuals did not celebrate his death merely because his oppression has ended, but his death provides an opportunity to develop new political ideas. It is the kind of opportunity that could not have happened until Gaddafi was murdered.

V: Gaddafi started off as a young idealist who cared about his people and his country. He led a bloodless coup d'etat against the King Idris of Libya and proclaimed the state as the Libyan Arab Republic. For some people of Libya in the 1960s he was a revolutionary leader; his successful effort to overthrow the monarchy was applauded. Power and corruption, over time, turned him into the delusional man the world mocked and criticized until the reports of his death. The proper course that should have been taken, to deal with regime, would have been to attempt a bloodless coup d'etat as he had. This was not the case, instead an oil-fuelled bloodbath between the rebels and the Gaddafi forces emerged. Throughout history, the world has seen its share of ruthless tyrants; Stalin, for example. Nonetheless, the death of a ruler must be acknowledged in their praise of a life well led or silence for a life not worth rewarding. He was murdered and the world applauded, besmirching the life of a man to the cruellest posthumous reaction.

M: Let us remember that it is not as if there were no attempts at mediation between Gaddafi and his opponents. When the rebel movement began, the international community urged Gaddafi to step down and he refused. A blood bath ensued because of Gaddafi’s refusal to step down.  When looking back at the life of a political leader, the life of a leader should be remembered for the good or bad that he (or she) has done.  When a leader like Gaddafi becomes a tyrant there is nothing wrong with celebrating his death.  Again when we applaud the death of Gaddafi, we are not applauding the way in which he has died. We are not applauding the fact that he was murdered.  By applauding his death we recognize the intense suffering that his citizens had dealt with through all of Gaddafi’s human right violations. Gaddafi ordered his private army to kill many Libyan citizens that took part in a peaceful protest, and even innocent Libyan citizens that had no affiliation with the rebel movement. When we applaud the death of a tyrant like Gaddafi we are recognizing the suffering of his citizens and the liberation they have from his reign.

V: I agree wholeheartedly that a political leader should be remembered for their actions, however every individual on this earth, regardless of the contents of their character, is owed a certain level of dignity. I believe that if they did not deserve that dignity to be recognized during the course of their life then they are owed it in death. However, Gaddafi was murdered against the wishes of the Libyan government (the one that now celebrates the assumed 'freedom' of Libya). Their accomplishments as a society, as a peoples and a state should be celebrated, but the death of one man should not be mourned. I hope that the families and friends of those who lost their lives during this revolution can find peace now knowing that the individual responsible for this pain is gone, but let us not forget that there are family and friends who will never find that peace with this particular murder. He was a human being, after all, who had loved ones.