Gadhafi Goes: 'Strongman' or 'Madman'? How the World Portrayed His End
Western media called him a madman; others remembered an anti-colonial strongman. The way the world described Gadhafi's fall said as much about the observers as about Libya.
When Muammar Gadhafi was killed in October 2011, after 42 years in power, the world's media reached for very different labels.
The Western view
In much of the Western press, Gadhafi had long been portrayed as an eccentric and dangerous "madman": the sponsor of the Lockerbie bombing, the dictator who promised to hunt down rebels "house by house", the leader of flamboyant costumes and rambling speeches. His death was covered as the end of a tyrant, although the images of his killing troubled many commentators.
Other perspectives
Elsewhere the picture was more mixed. In parts of Africa, Gadhafi was remembered as a strongman who had championed African unity, funded the African Union and invested across the continent. Governments that had abstained on or opposed the NATO intervention, including China and Russia, emphasised Libya's sovereignty and the dangers of regime change by force. China, which had abstained on Resolution 1973 and recognised the National Transitional Council only in September 2011, framed its position around stability, its commercial interests and the evacuation of tens of thousands of its workers from Libya.
Beyond the labels
Neither label captures Libya's experience. Gadhafi's rule combined oil-funded welfare with brutal repression, and his idiosyncratic state left the country with few institutions. That absence shaped the chaos that followed his fall more than any caricature.