Colonel Muammer Gadaffi has been the head of state and government of Libya since 1969; that is approximately 42 years as ruler of the Libyan people. This sit-tight phenomenon of holding on to political power unduly which is very common among African leaders and rulers of other developing countries, especially in the Middle East, South America and the Caribbean must stop. Indeed, it is already coming under serious contention and challenge by the people.

Truly, nobody holds or should be seen as having monopoly of wisdom and knowledge. In fact, nobody is indispensable because without that individual, the country and people could move on with another leader. But most African leaders like to hold on to power for too long. Surprisingly, some even prefer to die in office than relinquish power to younger generation leaders. Leaders such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Yoweri Moseveni of Uganda, and those recently swept away by popular citizens’ revolts in Morocco, Egypt and Tunisia.

That is the more reason why it is so worrisome that the Libyan leader, Colonel Gadaffi is still holding on to power, even after his people have clearly spelt out the handwriting on the wall indicating that he has overstayed his welcome in government. But stubbornly, Gadaffi has tenaciously clinged on to power.

One thing that agitates my mind is: Wh o is he holding on to power for? In whose interest is he still struggling to remain the leader of Libya? Is it in the interest of the same people who are agitating and clamouring for his ouster? I think Gadaffi needs to understand his people better by now, and realise that the end of his reign and fame has come. He should learn very fast from history. But unfortunately, many African leaders have failed to allow history be their first teacher. And this why they are very bad leaders!

To some extend though, the Colonel Gadaffi government has done mush for the people of Libya in terms of infrastructure, general development and overall well-being of Libyans. However, Gadaffi, his family and cronies have been pillaging the wealth of the entire country as personal estates and siphoning public funds into secret private accounts in some foreign nations. This is unacceptable to the good people of Libya and the world. Also, he has been high-handed and very autocratic, and so, the people of Libya deserve and need a change in guard.

Be that as it may, majority of the Libyan people have been agitating and protesting for change in the past six or so months asking for nothing but the unconditional hand over of government by Gadaffi. In fact, a large number of Libyans have taken up arms against the government of Gadaffi and formed a transitional national committee (TNC), which is now supported by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The rebel forces have taken over a number of key towns and cities in the South, East and now, West. They are already closing in on the nation’s capital, Tripoli. But Gadaffi has refused to step down. The TNC, for instance, comprises prominent and well-meaning Libyans who have credible credentials to help midwife a smooth transition and elections paving way foe democracy.

This gradual but purposeful protests and agitation which started from the southern part of Libya has seen them capture the town of Misrata, which is their stronghold and base. They are now moving northwards through Benghazi, which is under their control to attack and march on Tripoli, the seat of government and Gadaffi’s stronghold. This was occasioned and made possible with the combined assistance of NATO allied forces’ air strike against the Gadaffi-led forces. There has been heavy casualties on both sides which is expected from military campaigns of this magnitude and scale.

Suffice to say that the western countries through the United States and its NATO allies were swift to step into the fray. But I must say that they have done this more for their strategic and vested interests than identifying with the plight of the people of Libya. And I think this amounts to double standard, and does not augur well for dispute and conflict management in the 21st century. My concern stems from the fact that these same allies did not intervene in Sudan and Somalia in the way and magnitude they have done in Libya.

On the part of African Union (AU), it has more or less been on the side of Colonel Gadaffi, who the people are wont to remove. Instead of being on the side of justice, truth and fairness, the AU chose to take sides with a despot like the Libyan ruler. Any wonder the Libyan people rejected the AU peace plan because they did not see neutrality or fairplay in the peace deal brockered by the African leaders who outrightly seemed only interested in protecting one of their own.

The world must know that when it comes to issues of international peace, dispute management or conflict resolution and achieving set targets, a lot of caution and restraints must be observed by all concerned, especially in conflicts of this nature. A case in point is the Iraq war that the Americans won. But the big question still remains: Have the Americans secured peace in Iraq? In fact, Iraq is even more restive now, more fragmentation with an unpopular leader who lacks effective control of the country compared to what obtained before the war.

However, there is need for the Libyans to be given the free hand without undue and unwarranted interference. They should be empowered, guided or aided by international friends and partners to decide, resolve their challenges and evolve a lasting solution – democratic government that reflects a true representation of the good people of Libya. This is the right path to peace and growth in Libya.

Ayooso, a public affairs analyst, writes from Port Harcourt.

Samson Ayooso