2011年8月25日 星期四

獨裁者的下場

利比亞局勢急轉直下,「義軍」或「叛徒」(視乎你站那一邊看)已經進佔首都的黎波里的腹地,統治利比亞42年的獨裁者卡達菲下落未明,眼前就是他的政權灰飛煙滅的局面。

外電報道他之前表示寧死不屈,不脫強人本色,以他這個年紀,如果落在新政權之手,要像前埃及總統穆巴拉克的受審,兼且自己和有關的利益集團----子弟、親戚、親家等等,一個一個被人揪出來追究和抄家,就真是臨老唔過得世,早死早著了。

難怪獨裁者,像現在面對同樣問題的敘利亞總統阿薩特,面對群眾要他們交出政權時,一定負隅頑抗,能頂一時就是一時。


回想起2010年中的一個早上,見到一個朋友,他說「陸克文總理下台了」,我馬上用手機上新聞網站一看,果然!他剛向傳媒講述辭職讓位給副總理Julia Gillard,說尊重內閣投票的決定,對曾任總理感到光榮,並祝繼任人成功等等。

凡此種種,都是例牌言辭,我們在西方國家,很難想像一個下台領袖「不是這樣講」的,所以毋須向陸克文臉上貼金,盛讚他有蓋世風度。

雖然他不掩其落寞之情,英雄也彈淚,但是鞠躬下台,好頭好尾,社會上的震盪渾然不覺,一切如常,人們也沒有多大興趣談論-----這就是民主的好處。


前文「爛蘋果與爛橙」講到,民主制度很多時未能達到「選賢與能」的功效;民主制度的最珍貴之處,其實是可以確保政權的交替可以和平進行,不用流血戰爭。

當然了,Party Rooms關上門和政壇內外,有不可告人的協商、慘烈的鬥爭、背後的出賣、無情的犧牲 ,但是人民不用捱炮彈,衣食住行不受影響。

看以往中國,承平日子一般是二三百年,跟著改朝換代之際的幾十年,有哪個不是血流成河的?你就知道中國要「現代化」,民主發展一定不能忽略。



(文章允許轉貼,請具作者名字:梁煥松)


41 則留言:

  1. Raymond上午1:32

    希望利比亞的喜劇在大陸快點重演!

    回覆刪除
  2. Libya case is not about 獨裁者. It is about western countries deciding to rob the country for its oil. The gov't would fall even if it were run by a democratic gov't.

    And China would not follow Libya case because China does not have enough things to be robbed right now.

    回覆刪除
  3. Another thing is Nobody really knows who the「義軍」are (said by Robert Gates- the US Secretary of Defence).

    It would be ironic if these people turn out to have ties with terrorist groups.

    回覆刪除
  4. RE:Raymond
    雖然西方輿論槍口一致炮轟"狂人"之獨裁,
    但推翻這位獨裁者之後後, 是否就能得到真正的民主呢?
    這點我看非常不樂觀.....
    因為這場內戰美其名為(以及西方大部分輿論稱之為)解放戰鬥或打到獨裁之類
    但我認為其本質就是部落戰爭
    一個部落和另一個部落為了某事打了上來,當然實質起因更為複雜,但基本上就是為了利益而戰
    而為利益而戰的團隊一但失去共同的敵人, 就很容易爆發內訌, 戰事往往一再拖延.......
    而且即使不發生內訌,"狂人"所屬之部落的族人的下場, 恐怕亦得不到"公平""公正""公開"的對待......

    故此, Raymond兄將此事稱為喜事, 小弟實在不能認同....

    回覆刪除
  5. Raymond上午3:27

    政治就是這樣!如兄所言,Libya有排亂,但值得!

    真的希望Libya的喜劇在大陸匪區快點重演,中華民國還都南京,炸掉毛酋澤東在天安門的甚麼甚麼!

    回覆刪除
  6. Raymond上午3:30

    大陸有稀土,為了稀土,炸到大陸匪區死三四千萬人也是值得!

    回覆刪除
  7. Raymond上午3:48

    數天前,The Guardian舊事重提,韓馬紹極有可能是英美政府殺死的。你知韓馬紹是誰嗎!

    回覆刪除
  8. 中東的獨裁者和皇室政權,是西方為了「維穩」而一直在支持的,現在反面不認人。世人如何評價這個所謂「阿拉伯之春」,也是一個Paradox。
    哈馬紹我記得,是聯合國秘書長,他墜機身亡時我才幾歲。

    回覆刪除
  9. Raymond上午8:57

    為了油,沙地阿拉伯也危了![future tense]

    回覆刪除
  10. Raymond上午8:59

    油價下跌了。還有Libya的油是sweet oil,很正的!

    回覆刪除
  11. The oil argument doesn't stand quite well in Libya case. For example the UK had a very good relationship with Gaddafi before this whole damn thing started. the Brits sold firearm to Libya and in return they did business with Brits oil company. Same happened to other countries, including the democratic west, China, Russia etc. If it's for the oil the best for these countries to do would be to let Gaddafi do what he want and make him happy, not removing him.

    "because of oil" becomes a very lazy argument used by people who dislike the west in general. It is true in certain case like Iraq, but is not always right definitely wrong in Libya.

    回覆刪除
  12. the trigger of Nato intervention I believe is the potential massacre of Benghazi. Not long ago when Gaddafi had the upper hand and the rebel retreated to their last strong hold Benghazi and yell to west for help, Gaddafi made it quite clear that he'd show no mercy to anyone in the city who dare resist his force. Europe would not like this thing happen again in its doorstep-I say again because Europe and Nato was critized, by probably the same group of people who critize them now, that they were too slow to act Kosova, Serbia and Bosina in the 90s.

    回覆刪除
  13. this is the destination of one party or one group of single regime.how many nations are still exist in one party regime..north korean,c....and their exist sooner or later be disolved...

    回覆刪除
  14. 看貼文都浪費我時間!

    回覆刪除
  15. Sweet oil 應是 sweet crude!

    回覆刪除
  16. 更正:sweet oil 應是 sweet crude!

    回覆刪除
  17. 利比亞從國土面積看是個大國,從人口數看是個小國。總人口600余萬,還沒香港多。

    這樣一個小國,還要動用美、英、法的海空力量才能推翻獨裁統治。有報導說,英法兵力捉襟見肘,此次出兵干涉首先仰仗美國的先進戰機摧毀了利比亞的防空力量,英法空軍才敢出動。

    打一個小國都這麼勞師動眾,估計美英法沒可能出兵干涉中國。中國的民主化道路,只能靠中國人民自己。現在已經不是削篙為旗、斬木為兵就能推翻一個政權的時代,民主革命不一定要血流成河。

    回覆刪除
  18. to William,
    Don't want to argue here but your description of war for oil argument as being lazy is certainly not substantiated:

    - "We're in Libya because of oil"-said by US Representative Ed Markey.

    - Suggest you read the following link for some facts:

    (http://waronyou.com/topics/gaddafi-gold-for-oil-dollar-doom-plans-behind-libya-%E2%80%98mission%E2%80%99/)

    "Human Rights Watch (which some call an imperialist-oriented NGO) reported that there has been no civilian bloodbath by Gaddafi. In Misurata, for example, with 400,000 population (second largest city), after two months of war only 257 people were killed, including combatants. Of 949 wounded, only 22 (3%) were women.

    As France took the lead, along with UK, to threaten Gaddafi militarily, Gaddafi threatened (March 2) to throw western oil companies out of Libya. With more blustering from the west, Gaddafi invited (March 14) Chinese, Russian and Indian oil companies to take their place. On March 17, the US-France-UK got want they wanted for starters from the UN. Resolution 1973, calling only for a no-fly strategy and not a regime shift or troop landings, was not backed by key big powers: China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany. Of the 28 NATO countries, only 14 are involved in the Libyan campaign and only six of those are in the air war."

    回覆刪除
  19. Raymond下午4:08

    其實,數枚巡航導彈就夠了。只要打中三峽大壩就行了!另外,飛彈密集式炸北京、上海、重慶、成都、天津等大城市。

    回覆刪除
  20. Raymond下午4:09

    over over,五毛黨來了,知道知道,roger.

    回覆刪除
  21. Raymond,
    死好多人架,唔好呱?

    回覆刪除
  22. 謝SK和William的資料。

    回覆刪除
  23. 碧潭,
    中國的事,中國人來了斷。
    美國已經內憂外患,伊拉克和阿富汗兩國已經搞到頭都大,介入利比亞是如履薄冰,生怕開第三個戰場。
    不論任何國家,讓美國介入,一定無好結果,這是歷史的教訓。

    回覆刪除
  24. wiki,
    所以現代的極權國家,一定要嚴控人民的資訊自由,要你他們知道外間的情況,作反是早晚的事。

    回覆刪除
  25. Raymond下午6:52

    文革、大飢荒、三反五反、大躍進都死很多人!當然,炸之前,會用暗號通知所有不必送死的人離去。大學、學術機構、圖書館、韓物館.......當然要全面保護,絕不會濫炸!

    回覆刪除
  26. Raymond下午6:53

    南京絕不會炸。

    回覆刪除
  27. sk:
    To me it's a bit pointless to use quotes from anti-west or anti-war organizations and individuals to counter my argument, as they already have a unmovable belief that it all for oil. I could, but I wouldn't because of the same reason, quote from David Cameroon, Nicholas Sakozy etc, to support the intervention.

    You seem not understanding my logic on why the west would be better off to let Gaddafi alone instead of removing him. You started with "As France took the lead, along with UK, to threaten Gaddafi militarily....." My argument is they wouldn't even verbally threaten Gaddafi in the first place if what they want is oil. If so what you described next would not happen and business continue.

    One thing I've found it appalling from people like to you is that, on one hand you condemn NATO or whatever power intervening other countries, on the other hand have a fair good will towards the dictators and believe that the people will definitely be better off in the hand of them instead of whoever new leaders/gov't after the intervention. Gaddafi, after all, fired at and bombed peaceful protesters. these all happened before the west got involved and well reported by media of all sorts. You quote Misrata but the fact is it never fell in Gaddafi hands. It's rebel control throughout the past six months amid heavy siege from Gaddafi. The casualty would have been higher if Gaddafi broke through. Benghazi was the last hold of the rebel in the east they had nowhere to go (they retreated from central Libya all the way). With his military supremacy it's days away for Gaddafi to occupy it. You seriously think that nothing bad would happen? To you what did "with no mercy" mean by Gaddafi?

    回覆刪除
  28. Chris,
    現代極權國家沒辦法完全控制資訊自由,因為網絡無國界。這次溫州高鐵事件,導致微博被嚴管,不少人將陣地轉移到新開張的Google+上面了。Google+在國內被牆,但只要配置一下系統分區下的hosts文件就可以突破封鎖。

    作為武裝到牙齒的超級軍事大國,蘇聯的倒臺既未經流血革命,也未經美帝入侵和核彈襲擊,值得反思。

    回覆刪除
  29. Raymond下午8:07

    你錯了,不能說出來,知道也不能在網上說出本,要立即刪掉!

    回覆刪除
  30. 看歷史宮緯片劇情,宮中官僚變節才有機會變,中國d官個個撈到大把錢,那裡有可能變?扛鋤頭拿起枝筆去......

    回覆刪除
  31. 現代改革,若不靠外力幫助,則一定要得軍方支持(或不反對)才可以成功。以前拎支鋤頭鐮刀已經可以起義同軍隊死過,而家就無可能.軍方唔支持你或反對你,一般人無得反抗.但咁樣就有一個風險,就係軍人干政.睇下好多東南亞同非洲國家就知

    回覆刪除
  32. William:
    I understand your logic - France and other countries would be willing to use their militaries to save people in Libya- I just don’t believe it because it does not fit in with facts. It is your choice to believe goodwill gesture of foreign countries on this event.
    If a country is justified to attach another country just to prevent something bad could/ might happen, there is no need for the existence of UN, no respect of a national sovereignty.

    (*Please note that I quoted Facts & news quote from web sites for references, don’t be confused with quoting David Cameroon, Nicholas Sakozy’s personal opinions.)

    Also, contrary to your statement, Misrata was initially controlled under Gaddafi before the western countries interventions. And again- the western observers did not find massacre there.

    回覆刪除
  33. Also, the trigger of Nato intervention was NOT "the potential massacre of Benghazi". It was after Gaddafi threatened to throw western oil companies out of Libya and gave the contracts to Russia and China (March 2).

    回覆刪除
  34. sk,
    -No you still don't understand my logic. Put it simple, if it's all about oil, they don't need to make all these fuss. There's a simpler way to do it. You can still believe your theory, it just to me is not quite credible.

    - Take a look at the your link. it's apparently anti-intervention. You call it facts but sorry, it's no more credible than I quote Cameroon - I'm not quoting Cameroon for quoting sake but to demonstrate that it's pointless to use someone who already have a very strong view on the issue as evidences.

    - you are wrong about Misrata. The rebel have occupied Misrata since the uprising in Feb and Gaddafi has never taken full control of the city again. even wiki now has a page on the Battle of Misrata why not go and take a look? And if Gaddafi take hold of the city, what would he do to the captured rebel and the defected generals/soliders?

    - Same to Benghazi. What would happen if Gaddafi and his army take the city? What did he mean by "no mercy"? Was it just a joke from a man who has a track record of shooting peaceful protesters?

    - the UN resolution was passed on 17th March the day when Benghazi was completely surrounded by Gaddafi force and an attack was imminent. To me, this's why UN has to rush through the resolution on that day. If you can recall the news, the whole thing was done in a hurry so that NATO have some degree of legitimacy to act.

    - If it's not because of the situation and Benghazi, but for oil, they don't need to do it on that day. They can do it in the Iraq way, get troops prepared, picked a good day, and boom right?

    - And how noble (or stupid whatever you put it) the Russian and the Chinese were not to veto the resolution, it the whole damn thing is to prevent the west losing business to Russian and Chinese companies?

    - I feel even more appalled after discussing with you here. I rest my case here. Sorry for the "words wall" on your blog Chris.

    回覆刪除
  35. 敵人的敵人並不一定是朋友。因為要反對敵人而忽略敵人的敵人的瘋狂和危險,甚至意圖替其掩飾和辯解,是我感到appalled的原因。

    回覆刪除
  36. Raymond上午7:45

    總之,Libya的石油已成為歐美大石油公司囊中物,不會輕易放出來!大陸共匪在Libya的投資全泡湯了!
    Libya不易再有強人出來執政,因利比亞人受夠了卡達菲的獨裁白癡統治。今後一段長時間,Libya的政局會極為動盪。
    居於海外的利比亞人,有才能而又愛國者,會陸續歸國,投身建國大任!這類人,就是Libya的希望。

    回覆刪除
  37. Raymond,
    客觀來講,中國目前是第二大經濟體,最大的資源需求國,聯合國安理會常任理事國,手握大量外匯儲備,且目前在利比亞有不少投資。如果利比亞反對派領導人頭腦靈光的話,斷然不敢惡化與中國的關係。何況利比亞反對派內部派系眾多,新政權不穩,亟需外界援助。不久前,利比亞反對派領導人還特地前往北京尋求支持。可以預計,利比亞革命不會對中國在利比亞的經濟利益產生太大影響。只是,中共這麼快就拋棄老朋友卡達菲,簡直是罔顧江湖道義了。

    回覆刪除
  38. Raymond下午3:01

    碧潭兄,大致同意所言。
    我們都是看報章的報道,真實情況如何,就非你我所能知曉了!

    回覆刪除
  39. Raymond,
    身為升鬥小民,只能隔靴搔癢、看看熱鬧。要是官方暗通款曲、幕後交易,也不會讓我等知曉。

    回覆刪除
  40. Raymond下午8:04

    碧潭兄

    升斗小民!

    回覆刪除
  41. 所以話網絡世界,高手雲集,拜讀咁多位真知綽見,使我獲益良多,多謝!

    回覆刪除