Libya: Gaddafi threatens bloodbath if West intervenes.
As opposed to what is happening at the moment then?
LEGITIMACY: One thing I genuinely cannot understand is why so many people confer the right to govern a country to people and/or groups that have seized power by force.
SH came to power at a conference of parliament when his thugs picked out delegates from the audience and took them off to be shot. Thereafter everyone was so petrified that they consented to his murderous rule.
By most people (not including me of course) he WAS accepted as legitimate by the “international community” and his country “sovereign”, thus of course consecrating the seizure of power by ruthless force.
And clearly those who come to power by such means are – by natural selection/survival of the fittest – those who are the most ruthless and obviously the most dismissive of human rights.
And of course NO ONE person or organisation would have ANY more right to “rule” than any other; force and ruthlessness being the only criteria by which a ruler or group became “legitimate”.
This is ipso facto absurd in a world which is supposed to be united by an organisation that published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which a large number of member nations do not of course adhere. I really cannot understand how so many otherwise intelligent people seem to accept this ludicrous situation as “normal”. I suppose it is a combination of A) habit and B) it couldn’t be otherwise given the nature of Man and the world.
Both these of course are abject surrenders to silliness. We do not have to be governed by habit and Man CAN aspire to better things. But we certainly won’t achieve them by utter hypocrisy.
The absurdity of this “legitimacy” is put into relief by analogy. Imagine that the BNP rid itself of the odious, loathsome cretin currently running it and got a smooth-talking apparently moderate neo-Blairish lookalike. Then with the economic collapse in the west and continuing anger about almost everything this group engineered a coup with the aid of disaffected military officers, put to death its most dangerous enemies and announced that it was going to rule by decree. (This is normal in such situations, whether it be the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the rise of Nazism, SH or indeed the Castro clan’s version.)
One may feel this scenario unlikely, but it is exactly the kind of thing that does occur elsewhere and COULD conceivably occur almost ANYWHERE.
So, were this to happen; would the BNP be “legitimate”? Unless you take my position (which almost nobody seems to) then you have to agree that it WOULD be legitimate. Other countries SHOULD recognize that the country as “sovereign”, even if ruled by a bunch of murderous gangsters.
It is patently absurd. And what would be absurd in Britain is EQUALLY absurd in Libya. The people there are no different from us; they ALSO aspire to freedom, belong to the UN and deserve “universal rights”, which they will NEVER get except under a democratically-elected government.
Yes, these latter are imperfect, but even I would prefer the hapless Gordon Brown vaguely under the control of an electorate every few years to rule by decree by the BNP.