How far are dictators from justice?

Every autocrat wishes people loved them just as much as being portrayed in their propaganda. In reality, whenever there is a fall from grace, very few autocrats face trial and are held responsible for their actions. Most cases, vigilante justice prevails where people take the law into their own hands and release their frustrations by executing or directly killing the fallen leader.?

There is poetic justice in taking the law into your own hands, but in the long run, an absence of judiciary precedence of accountability makes it so that these autocrats can live on in pleasant memory of their benevolent followers. From the neo Nazis to the Maoists, every autocratic leader has made their footing very stable in the long run, the question then needs to be analyzed is, why?

People have diverse perspectives even when they live in the same society. No matter how much we want to ignore the fact that some people support their leaders based on their own prejudices , inherent biases based on emotion, locality, race, religion, and other beliefs are effective tools of politics. And politicians very skillfully exploit citizens’ differences to cater votes or in the autocrat’s case, extreme support. Almost every autocrat comes to power promising a wave of change. The Nazis in the 1930s promised Germany the dream of economic prosperity and progression, and they played the race card very well. The underbelly of German society or any society for that matter is built on pride and certain monochromic beliefs. Hitler on his own merit exploited every facet of the German insecurity and promoted patriotism and pride in the form of German superiority. Whether we like it or not, this is the truest form of Nationalism. Even today America does it by spreading the message of American superiority from both political campaigns, this nationalism of the American right or the left is the catalyst for the conflict in the Middle east. But the thing with America is that their citizens are yet to realize that they are too in an oppressive society altogether.?

Nevertheless, let’s focus on the citizens that had realized their true state. From Oliver Cromwell replacing the King of England to Mussolini's head being displayed in the center of Rome, history is a living proof that in most cases, dictators fail spectacularly.?

Why is that? Is it only because people have no patience for a trial to ensure justice? Or is it that people do not feel that justice can ever be ensured because of all the injustices they suffered till the deposing of the dictator? Or more dangerously, is it because those leading the revolution are afraid that a counter revolution can be in effect if the benevolent dictator is kept alive? All three can be true at the same time, and in most cases all three of these factors are in effect.?

After the second world war, Italy was in chaos. The war had been lost, Italy had lost all its colonies, the countryside was wrecked, and people clearly knew who to blame. The state itself was unlivable and the institutions were rotten to its core. Maybe that’s why the people did not even think of placing Mussolini on trial, understandably it was easier for them to just move on and slay the beast themselves and try to end the dictator’s legacy once and for all. In the early stages, it may have been effective in achieving this goal. But now you can easily witness that far right politicians have an excuse to recall the “good old days” when there was “law and order” and people were “happy”.?

The problem with injustice is that it is still considered injustice if action is done to an evil entity without following the book. It is not a matter of just sticking by the books or morals, rather the laws in place act as a final nail in the coffin. If the final nail is not hammered decisively, then the ghost of the benevolent dictator will arise, because the existence of the supporters and beneficiaries will stay in effect beyond time.?

It is easier to kill the man behind the idea rather than the idea itself.?

Bangladesh is now gripping with the same dilemma. On one hand, there is a mountainous legacy of Bangobondhu, which is heinously used by his daughter in her campaign to consolidate power. Therefore it is her, who tainted her father’s legacy, and the flames of Dhanmondi 32 fully received its fuel by the hatred Sheikh Hasina generated using Sheikh Mujib’s name.?

The question is, would it have been better if Hasina was killed on 5fh August surrounded by a mob? History tells us otherwise. There is no value in making a criminal the martyr of a cause. Yes, she eventually would have been a martyr to the 33% of supporters who would leave behind generations that saw Hasina differently, those 33% would have spewed the same propaganda. There is no cult without fanatics. Sadly, in Bangladeshi politics, every party is a cult.?

Gaddafi, Hosni Mubarak, Saddam are now worshiped, and people die in their name because their demise was not done by the “book”. Justice did not prevail which opened up the excuse and the space for the establishment of blind fanaticism.?

It is therefore an opportunity for us. Hasina should and must be a wanted criminal. Today the first case naming Hasina in the killing of 2 individuals was filed in court. This should not be an isolated incident. Bangladesh has a chance to wipe itself from lawlessness, a chance to establish rule of law that it never had, and Bangladesh has the chance to kill a cult for good. With a systematic judicial trial, this cult of Awami League which forgot the meaning of “Awami” long ago, can perish.?