Revolutions are complicated things. Whether Libyan, Russian, French or the altogether different phenomenon of the industrial revolution, they - by definition - upset the balance of whatever nation or medium they are acting through.
The Russian revolution led to the murder of the Tsar and his family, a civil war and years of oppression amid technological modernisation, show trials and prolonged 'class war'. The 'enlightened' leaders of the French revolution brought autocracy to its knees, illustrated the democratic future of politics and then unleashed the guillotine on their own people. The Arab Spring? Time will tell.
In each case we've seen revolutionaries rising up, arming themselves and throwing off the shackles of the oppressive, non-democratic old order.
But certain revolutionaries, whether dominant or in the shadows, tend to reveal an altogether more radical edge once power is firmly in their hands. The course of history illustrates a worrying trend. Factions, the haunting spectre of Stalin's political life, between the once united revolutionaries make themselves known, as with the common enemy - a Tsar, a King, a Gaddafi - now firmly out of the way - and chillingly in all three cases executed - the revolutionaries come to the conclusion that they actually have less in common than they once thought, and the influential faction then moves to oppress and crush the weaker, divergent factions. For as long as the pedestal of leadership and power is up for grabs it can be moulded to fit any political hand. Just ask the Communist Party of Russia's former General Secretary.
Libya, as with every revolution, represents a complex and unique situation. If revolutions reveal one thing other than the supposed path to light and glory it's that no two nations are the same, something now understood by the optimistic economists of the 1950's. Right now Gaddafi has gone and the aim of the initial uprisings in Benghazi has been achieved, however, the road ahead looks less clear than that just travelled. A path to democracy has been provisionally arranged with elections scheduled to take place in eight months time and plans to draft a democratic and free constitution have already been announced.
What happens, though, if certain groups within the revolutionary mass decide that their needs would be best served by not waiting for the provisionally set out eight months to establish the new regime? If a revolt against the revolt occurs before the elections have had chance to occur, as with Russia when Kerensky's provisional government was overthrown by Lenin and the more radical Bolshevik party, who arbitrates between the armed masses now attuned to death and bloodshed? The images of Gaddafi's decomposing corpse, blood stained and bullet ridden offer little to ease the thought that aggression and killing is now a common experience for a great number of those now assuming power.
NATO and western governments have, however, put their and our trust in the National Transitional Council and the hope that democracy and freedom will come to Libya. Those risking their lives to free their husbands, wives, sons, daughters and the future generation of Libyan citizens from the autocracy and oppression of the Gadhafi regime, deserve our support to aid in the construction of the path that they alone can take to democracy. That the direction of that path may become clear in the coming weeks and months, as of now there is a dense fog hanging around the events that lead to the death of Gaddafi, with defence minister Nick Harvey calling for the death of the former leader and 50 people in a Sirte hotel to be 'properly investigated.'
Right now its up to the National Transitional Council to stick to the promise - displayed on their website - to ensure Libya remains 'free and dignified.'