It often puzzles me to see so many people walking around proudly bearing t-shirts of Che Guevara in his "Guerillero Heroico" pose. Wasn't he a beastly militant with no mercy? Why do all these "Free-thinkers" and libertarians praise him? And it led me to wonder how dictators and militants of certain eras were heralded as heroes later on.
Starting off with Julius Casear, tall, astute, Roman, the original aristocrat - the very fact that he was a dictator has no positive connotations to it. He was, however, loved by his people and the Empire of Rome was built by him and fell after his demise. Adding to that, his elevation to tragic hero status because of his assassination by his friend and betrayer, Marcus Brutus (aided by Shakespeare's dramatisation of his story). It is befitting that this dictator was romanticised - he even had Cleopatra!
El Che. El Che, the guerilla warlord, was a brutal and ruthless commander. So perhaps it was The Motorcycle Diaries - a book and later film of his travels in the early 1950's, that moulded him into a true revolutionary - that idealised him into a hero. And yet there is more. His fiery passion, his affinity for the poor, his unwavering beliefs against capitalism - it is something to be admired, a man's unfaltering faith and conviction, to believe in something and live your life acting for that belief, living for that truth.
It be only fair after discussing El Che, that I spare a word for his leader, Fidel. I daresay I do have a soft spot for Fidel Castro ever since I watched a documentary on the History Channel about how the CIA planned to murder him by inflicting him with an aggressive cancer after several other failed assassination attempts - this plan aborted only because the CIA decided in that time to assassinate JFK instead. What would Cuban cigars be without him? He spent his life dodging bullets, relentlessly continuing to be vocal about communism and socialism - and yes, it may not work in the real world but the actual ideology of pure communism is a beautiful, humanitarian one. No, he will never be romanticised as El Che - the reason being I think he lived too long, and will now probably die of natural causes, rather than as a martyr.
What all admired dictators, militants, great leaders of the past share is an incredible intellect and admirable unwavering conviction for their beliefs. Very few people can manage to live an idealistic-reality so the ones that fight for it to the end...right or wrong, black or white...in our grey world they hold a place in history as admired men.
And so a look to the future and our possible contenders. French president, Nicolas Sarcozy, makes a fair run for it - divorcing his wife, marrying an Italian model who is now trying her hand at acting - but whilst this is very Henry VIII of him, he is more like the mid-life crisis man than a zealous inspiration.
Kim Il-sung, bless his soul, passed on in 1994 yet remains the eternal president of North Korea. His ideology of Juche: independence in politics; self-sustenance in the economy; and self-defense in national defense, holds convincing, fervent conviction and the theory (of Juche - not the reality of North Korea) allows plenty of sentimentalisation.
Libyan dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, was a flamboyant Colonel in his youth that led to admiration by many women. His fame has grown over the years due to his eccentricities, ludicrousness and unpredictable behaviour. He has female bodyguards, he travels with a tent that is resurrected in whatever country he visits and he has time and again reinforced his beliefs in socialism eg refusing a rank and title higher than Colonel since his coup d'etat, claiming Libya to be a "direct" democracy. To most, he's just plain nuts! But then it is said that most psychiatric patients have phenomenally high IQ's.
Last contender...Robert Mugabe. His impassioned speeches and flair of execution of words leaves little to the competition: "The problem we have had is the problem that has been created by a former colonial power wanting to continue, to continue to interfere in our domestic affairs and wanting to continue to have a share in our natural resources. And this is what we have resisted. We have said the land, Zimbabwe's land, belongs to Zimbabweans and as we proceeded to acquire that land and to apportion it to Zimbabweans, our erstwhile colonial masters said no. And what did they try to do? They interfered with our processes, wanted to reverse them and they still want to reverse them. They spoke of regime change and you heard them. They spoke of regime change and they still speak of it. They imposed sanctions. We had not attacked Britain, we had not done anything to Britain. We had not attacked the Americans, we had not offended them in any way. Why, why, why the hand of the British? Why, why, why the hand of the Americans here? Let us ask that. Let us not ignore the truth as we move forward, we must accept reality."
Some strong contenders, but I'm convinced that ALL my grandchildren will be wearing t-shirts of Uncle Bob.
No comments:
Post a Comment