History is plush with examples of notable individuals who have pursued specific sometimes ‘political’ ideologies (often birthed from personal aims and aspirations) some of which have led to major seismic changes or ‘upset’. The global stage had Hitler (Pol Pot- Cambodian Khmer Rouge Leader, Saddam, Milosevic etc.) on the one hand; on the other hand there was Nixon (during whose time the clamour for withdrawal from Vietnam was intense thus sharing a parallel with campaigns for withdrawal from Palestine and Baghdad- with exception of any comparisons on scales of annihilation in those regions) which will lead oppositions to the Iraq invasion to include Bush and Blair in this category. Then again, others included Odumegwe Ojukwu (Biafran Leader), Che Guevera (the Argentine Revolutionary), Prabhakaran (Sri-Lankan Tamil Tiger Leader) etc. Al-Qaeda and Nigeria’s Military Juntas are probably in a separate league? Both can perhaps be separated from the rest because of their lack of vision and also as they are symbols of debased ideologies driven by cunning motives. But even those with perceived genuine driving aspirations- like Prabhakaran could not see what his tunnelled vision for the creation of a Tamil State (Tamil Eelam) in Sri-lanka, was doing to his own people- (the same people whose interest he said he was fighting for). It seemed he lost the plot somewhere in the middle and ended up an oppressive tyrant with a passion for killing anyone who measured up to him- even fellow Tamils! Unlike the Nigerian Federal Army and Biafra, Prabhakaran’s reign lasted until it did because of the Sri-Lanka’s Army’s vulnerability and the support he received from India. The question behind these narratives however is ‘what makes a Hero and a Villain’? This question is intended to be divisive because its answer is divisive. Depending on who you speak to- Ojukwu, Che and Prabhakaran are either Heros or Villains. There are thin lines between- strong leadership and absolute autocracy, terrorism and liberation struggle or radical terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. This is even more so considering that Nelson Mandela was once considered the most wanted ‘terrorist’ in South Africa but is now the ‘darling’ of the West; both political leaders and Pop-stars flock around the ‘Elder Statesman’ at every opportunity. His global acceptance was underscored by the recent unveiling of his statue in London some months ago.
Using Saddam’s example however- it is the people’s perception that matters. Even though Tony Blair believed that he had done the right thing and showed his conviction in the recent Iraqi Enquiry that ‘the world is a better place without Saddam’, many Iraqis (and indeed non-Iraqis would disagree). During the immediate aftermath of the staged Armageddon in Iraq (which many will remember with the pulling down of Saddam’s statue), the Iraqis’ suffering and total dejection about the lack of amenities (they had previously taken for granted under Saddam) led many to lament the invasion and toppling of Saddam. In the same vein, many Ibos like Sri-Lankan Tamils would idolise Prabhakaran and Ojukwu (respectively) – however, there are many who could never forgive them as they struggle to forget the tragedy of the causes that both men fought for. Like Che both men stood revered or reviled by their own people.
The whole idea of villainy and heroism rests on the antithetical notion of right and wrong. Whose battle is being fought? Whose interest is being served? ‘Might’ sometimes comes into the equation but not in all cases. Definitely so, in the case of America and the coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan or Britain Vs Argentina in the Falklands; in the case of Falklands though, it was not so much British might but the will of the people on the Island who preferred the benefits of British sovereignty to Argentine’s.
Government or leadership style often belies the conceptualisation of villainy or heroism. As recent history has shown, sometimes so-called modern liberal democratic systems are marred by subversive, covert operations across the world (the recent alleged killing of a Hama Leader by Mossad- Israeli secret intelligence agency is an example). In contrast, because some leaders are perceived as tyrants or ‘are called tyrants and dictators’ (for whatever reason) does not make them villains to their own people. The use of terms of endearment (‘Dear Leader’) for Kim Yong Il of North Korean (although debatable) some may say demonstrates that his people love and respect him! Others will say that it is a sign of a people who are oppressed-
non-compliance may attract serious consequences even death. Other leaders like Mahinda Rajapaska (of Sri-Lanka) for example- presently endeared to the Sinhalese Majority because of his killing of Prabhakaran (the late Tamil Tiger’s Chief and ending a long period of war in Sri-Lanka) even though he has shown (and his people know that he himself has) capability of unleashing the deadliest form of terror known to man.
Therefore, whose side are you on?
