Government of forces and brutalities.

 With what is going on around the world, more especially in the middle east and north African, one will understand that most of the government authorities in the world is the product of only for forces and brutalities. Because if all Government in some country around the world is not the product of forces and brutalities, then most serving leaders would have not stayed in power for more than they are supposed to stay. Even when their people do not want them to stay anymore.  

For example; in Libya. What is happening in Libya is it not a product of force and brutality? It is a product of force and brutalities because if Gaddafi Government is not a product of forces and violence, then he would have stepped down when his people demanded for a change in his government, even when the people were crying for him to step down, after being in power for so many years. 

 Why can't he Gaddafi release power to other people and rest? Must he rule until he die? Although power is something that when you have it, you will lose control because of the immunity that covers you. But sometimes one have to apply his wisdom and know when you have over exceeded the power vested on you, because of the consequences that will come thereafter. 

 look out what is happening in Libya, the consequences of Gaddafi's rule, imposition of himself to his people, which led to civil war and the people are dying. And if he had agreed for a change in his government, of which he was once a revolutionist who preached for a change by overthrowing the government of King Idris in 1969 in a bloodless coup, now refused to step down after serving for so many years, people would have not lost their life's and properties in the on going Libyan war that was led by the western world. 

The question is, What happen when government authorities uses forces against the people? According to Locke’s social contract which he says “that when In their absence, an individual whose rights, in the eyes of the majority, have been violated by government can expect scant assistance. The majority might well be in a position where it either had to mount a revolution in defense of an individual's rights or acquiesce in the injustice. 

 In Locke's view, it is only when "The People are generally ill treated" that revolutions are undertaken As either a factual generalization or an ethical principle”. Take Egypt, as an example. Where people revolted against the government of Hosni Mubarak, because the people believed that his government is nothing but only the product of forces and violence, and also a product of corruptions. That is why the Egyptian decided to go into revolution against his government which he has been in power for 29years. 

 When people revolted against government, and if the government authorities did not bow down to the people's pressure, the possibility of the whole nation going into civil war is obvious, which will lead to many casualties. Although people will lose their life and properties, but if the government did bow down to the pressure when people are demanding for equality, employment and democracy, and when there is equality and democracy in a country, the country will have peace, and their economy will grow and the people will not lose their life’s and properties. 

 So what I'm trying to ask is Why do government authorities decided to use the power of force and brutality against the people? Let us put it in this way, that the reason why some government authorities decides to use power of force against the people, is because they are Corrupted. for example; when some ruler's found themselves in a situation where by they have committed a lot of atrocities against the people, and also have embezzled all the money that were meant for the people, for the fear of going to jail, when their tenure has expired, they decided to stay in power by force.

 And if any body opposes to their government or to their decision to remain in power, the government will kill or jail the person, or silent he or she. Without him knowing that, in everything your doing there are some limitations on it and when you have over exceeded your limits, that is when people will arise against your absolute power. Because the people are the majority while the government belong to the people. 

 They says that the evil that men do lives after them, that is exactly what is happening to some world leaders today, because all the evil and atrocities that they have committed is now following them. They now found them self in a sate of living in bondage with no one to come for their rescue. And at the end they will spend the remaining of their life in the prison, because their time has passed due to they did not make good use of the power which was bestowed on them by the people in a way that their people will benefit on it. 

 Let us use Charles Taylor of Liberia as an example, where is he now? Probably he is fighting for his release, the evil that he has committed is now following him, if any body told him that he Taylor will be in the prison and all his friend's will abandoned him, he will never believe it. Another example is Saddam Hussein of Iraq; He spent 24years in power and after all his power and brutalities to his own people and the invention of Kuwait , where did he end up? He was killed like a chicken, if some body told he Saddam that he will be captured and killed like a chicken, probably he will never believe the person. 

 That is to tell you that nothing is permanent in this world, and power is temporary. But still some leaders don't want to learn, Why can't them rethink and use their initiative, how can you just disgrace your self and family after all the honor you had enjoyed in life, at the end where you suppose to be living a good life, you just turn everything that you have achieved in your life to be in a mess. 

 My advice to the leaders in power, go for honor and merit, forget self acquisition of public funds. And those who sheared swords will also die by sword, and the consequences of imposition of oneself and the brutalities of people is revolution, be a good leader and rule without sentiments.