A week after his murder, how Muammar Gaddafi met his grisly end might appear an exhausted subject. Perhaps – if we’re discussing the killing itself. But what does the commentary say about Malta?
It is inconsistent to champion a free, open society and justify even one instance of mob justice- Ranier Fsadni
All opinions – whether expressing condemnation or regretful understanding or cackling triumph – invoked some basic principle or another. Yet, in a few cases was the respective principle upheld in a way that is consistent with a liberal, anti-authoritarian society.
Some pointed out that Col Gaddafi was bound to meet that end. It was evidently impossible to restrain an armed crowd from lynching the tyrant. This argument, however, confuses explanation with evaluation. Just because something happened for understandable reasons doesn’t make it right.
Would I have done the same in their position? Probably. I have felt murderous anger in response to far lesser wrongs. But that’s exactly why it is a basic principle of a society, based on the rule of law, that the administration of justice should not be left in the victims’ hands. To affirm otherwise is to legitimise – at least in some cases – mob rule. It is to deny the fundamental, irreducible human dignity of every person. A second group of arguments asserts that justice was indeed meted out. One variant states that Col Gaddafi was not denied his right to due process: he had renounced it himself by his actions.
A second variant states that, since Col Gaddafi wanted to treat people like rats, it was right that he died like one. A third asserts that the nature of his crimes was so heinous that no ordinary court could administer restorative justice – which, on this argument, requires catharsis for Libyan society.
The mention of catharsis – a deep sense of release and emotional cleansing – indicates what’s wrong here. All these arguments are based on the idea that poetic justice is, indeed, justice. But poetic justice is not liberal justice. It is a theatrical notion, not a legal or even a political one.
The ancient Greeks, to whom we owe the concept of catharsis, distinguished between drama and justice. At the theatre, the audience experienced catharsis in seeing Clytemnestra hunt and kill Agamemnon in the same way he hunted the city of Troy and Clytemnestra in her turn hunted and killed by Orestes using the same weapon. However, catharsis arose out of recognition of the tragedy of the cycle of violence. Pity went hand in hand with release from fear. Catharsis did not cleanse murder.
Pity need not be essential to catharsis. And there are societies where poetic justice and real justice are conflated. Given the deep tragedy of its conflict, Libya in its current state may be one of them. Certainly, Libyan TV images of Col Gaddafi’s death do nothing to dispel the idea. But, here in Malta, we should at least recognise that to endorse such conflation is to distance ourselves from a liberal notion of justice.
It is not the essential purpose of liberal justice to provide catharsis or to perform ritual sacrifices. To think otherwise is to confuse dramatic, ritual spectacle with law, the sacred with the profane. Our society is founded on their very separation.
It is true that no law court could have made proper reparations for Col Gaddafi’s crimes. But that is true of any single murder. The idea that, through the sheer scale of his ruthlessness, Col Gaddafi somehow renounced his human rights makes nonsense of the very idea that they are universal and fundamental.
If rights are inalienable, they cannot be taken away or renounced. They belong to every human being, irrespective of their pariah status. Erode that notion and we’re back to living in societies where rights depend on status: 200 years of European liberal development reversed.
A third group of arguments condemned the murder but somehow seemed reluctant to base that condemnation only on the notion that Col Gaddafi retained – despite the inhumanity of his actions – the irreducible dignity of a human being. Other arguments, practical and utilitarian, were made that keeping him alive would have been better.
But the truth is that his expedited death was convenient and useful. It made Libya more secure. It facilitated political closure. It is unlikely that a court case could have established truths that cannot emerge otherwise. In court, confronted with his crimes, he is likely to have been as defiant as Saddam Hussein. His murder will not be an obstacle to national reconciliation or serve as political cover for rampant rough justice because Libyans clearly put his fate into a special category.
However, despite being understandable, cathartic and useful, his murder was tragic and wrong. No human being deserves that fate. It is inconsistent to champion a free, open society and justify even one instance of mob justice. It’s not wishy-washy liberalism to be steadfast on human rights. It’s wishy-washy to make exceptions.
ranierfsadni@europe.com