------------- -------------- ------------------- -------------------

When a thinker admires a tyrant

Tyrants in any part of the world have not reached the degree of love, deification and power over a long period of time except in our Arab region. We are not satisfied with falling into their fantasies as history has proven but rather we sought to create them if their appearance was delayed.

Abdullah Al-Nafisi, who is called an intellectual and academician, says in describing Saddam Hussein: “Despite the disadvantages of his regime, he was a (blessing) for the Arabs because he was the strategic fence against Iranian ambitions.”

Oh Abdullah, but what about the millions of Arabs who were displaced, killed, became victims of bloodshed, and millions displaced, their dignity trampled for more than three decades, and wealth of his people waste? Do not all these tragedies deserve a pause from you? What did Iraq and the Arabs gain from his stand against Iran while internal and external damage to these countries was many times greater than can be imagined.

In another interview, he said: Saddam was completely humble in culture, but he ruled with mastery because he had the prestige and was charismatic and when walked in the street, he felt the electric current passing through him. Half of the rule was tinted with prestige while the other half was created by media, so whoever has no prestige is not competent rule, but Al-Nafisi did not ask about the source of this electricity, and why did it not have the stunning effect on the American soldier who dragged him from the rat hole?

How miserable these analysts are and the humility of understanding the feelings of the peoples who follow them, admire them, listen to them, and cite them, just as they blindly walk behind everyone who was is rowdier than others.

Mussolini, Hitler, Nasser, Omar al-Bashir, Nimeiri, Gaddafi, and dozens of other dictators ‘demanded’ prestige, and they owned the media, so in the end what did the people benefit from them? What did they leave behind for their people? What did their countries reap from their prestige and their ‘electricity’?

If we compare the personalities of these tyrants with the likes of Lee Kuan Yew, Chancellor Angela Merkel, Nelson Mandela, Kamal Ataturk, Mahathir Mohammed and Indira Gandhi, and Mahatma Gandhi before them, and dozens of other reformers, we will find that they did not possess that electricity or the media, however they achieved miracles for their people, and history will remember them forever.

The dictator believes that he is above accountability, and does not remain committed to any societal values or morals. Usually, he is domineering and ready to get rid of his opponents mercilessly. Hence, the electricity that Al-Nafisi talked about may have come in one of his interviews.

The dictator hates those who oppose him, doubts everyone, and lives a luxurious life because he feels that his survival may not be prolonged, and spends too much because he believes that he owns the state, so how do these thinkers admire and praise the dictators?

The tyrants are not born like that but they are made by people because of their fear and suspicious behaviors. The character of the tyrant usually does not emerge and grow except in an environment of ignorance, laziness, and dependence on others, that is why the peoples of the tyrannical region replaced the tyrant by another and this makes them unable to be free from tyranny as long as there are those who glorify them and consider them as defence fences despite all their crimes against their people and others, their sabotage of the minds of generations, and their dangerous role in eliminating all manifestations of pride and dignity among their peoples.

email: a.alsarraf@alqabas.com.kw

By Ahmad alsarraf

Translate »