Sunteți pe pagina 1din 4

Is “assassination” of a dictator justified?

Ok. So, what does the term “assassination” actually mean? “Assassination” is defined

as targeted killing of an individual for political reasons during peace time. It is

undertaken without any legal process. It may be undertaken either by ones own

countrymen or by a foreign community.

From what I get to understand from this definition, it’s difficult to justify the

“assassination” of a dictator.

Let us check it out against different grounds of arguments.

Is “assassination” justified morally?? Not exactly, as it does not prevent evils. Had Hitler

been assassinated, would the Nazis have acted differently??? Would they have stopped

being fascists?? Was Rome able to wash itself of all evils after the execution of

Mussolini?? These are the examples which show that “assassination” does not prevent

evils, so it’s not justified on moral grounds.

In fact “assassination” does not have the backing of the law so in that case

assassinating a dictator would mean stooping down the level of a dictator. A government

founded on such an act is most likely to fail – the “assassination” of Julius Caesar was

followed by a civil war. Looking back in Indian history there are quite a few examples.

Mogul history especially the later rulers like Aurangzeb who attained kingship after

executing previous rulers who happened to be his own father son found the tables

turned on him.

“Assassination” is often looked upon as a necessary tool to bring about a change in a

regime. But, this most often turns out to be a misconception. “Assassination” does not

necessarily causea fall of a regime, because once a tyrannical leader is done away
with, someone else believing in the same autocratic values emerge, mostly from the

family or the followers of the tyrant. This is so because dictatorial systems are not

perfectly personal though they appear to be so. Here again quoting Indian mogul

history, let me tell you that one dictator succeeded the other after the execution of the

previous one for three successive generations.

“Assassination” has never been the best mean of affecting change in a regime. Instead,

it often results in the citizens rallying around a regime counter productively. Looking

back and glancing at the example of Fidel Castro, the Cuban economy suffered even as

the citizens through a mixture of fear and admiration continued to support Castro’s hold

on the reins of power.

There is this other possibility to be considered also. What happens when an attempt at

targeted “assassination” fail at first strike? The consequence is loss of valuable lives of

men and drainage of the treasuries in pursuing through subsequent attacks!!! Because,

a failed attempt only results in the tyrant strengthening himself and his hold on

power.Fidel Castro continuing to rule Cuba for years together after 1959 exemplifies the

point.

In modern context too, I will say that “assassination” is in no way going to aid

international stability. On the contrary it would only push us back to the days of jungle

rule where survival of the fittest was the order of the day. The establishment of The

International Criminal Court supports the argument.

Yes, there are always better and effective options to “assassination” . Bringing a dictator

to justice is a tried and tested alternative to “assassination” and, it is known to have

brought about a change in tyrannical regimes. Slobodan Milosevic being on trial and

Saddam Hussein facing justice – aren’t they examples of this?


Alternatives like economic sanctions are also known to bring about change of regime

effectively as was done in the cases of East Europe, Yugoslavia and Iraq more recently.

The US law is perfectly just as it forbids political “assassination”. In 1974, US president

Ford’s executive order clarified that a government cannot legally engage in

“assassination” .

Accordingly “assassination” can be legitimate only in war time or if the target is a

‘combatant’ or a ‘terrorist’. An important point that needs to be clarified at this juncture –

yes, the targeted “assassination” of terrorist is totally justified because terrorists are

defined as ‘ combatants’ who are engaged in armed hostility and terrorist attacks. So

assassinating them is for the cause of ‘self defense’ and targeted killing done for self

defense is justified. Attempts at targeted “assassination” do deter terrorists and reduce

terrorism as have been seen after September 11th.

Coming back to ‘dictators’, bringing a dictator to justice does not mean protecting him by

law. In fact I strongly promote the inflictment of more effective and long lasting

punishments on tyrants. He should be punished by humiliation and by denying him the

ultimate penalty of death. That would be more demoralizing for dictators, highly egoistic

that they are. He should be denied the status of a ’martyr’. In that, the US armed forces

do have a better record of effectiveness. Going back in history, it was fear of such

condemnation that drove Hitler towards a suicide in April 1945.

Politics have never been a black and white affair. Ways and means to punish tyrants do

exists even within the boundaries of law. Israel only needs to act more strategically so

that it can preserve its right to self defense without harming itself and the international

community. By devising such strategic means that would enable it to have the cake and

save it too.
To conclude, instead of giving the dictator the self satisfaction of becoming a martyr,

breaking him down mentally would be a more lingering and effective punishment for him

as well as for the would be tyrants who would have examples of such punishments

before their eyes for longer times.

Insteadof resorting to outright “assassination” and cheapening the value of life wouldn’t

this be a more effective option and good politics??

S-ar putea să vă placă și