Watching Muammar Qadhafi’s last few minutes, I was reminded of Saddam Hussein’s grisly end. While the latter had the dubious benefit of a legal process, his end was at the hands of mocking, vengeful executioners.

Both dictators were found hiding in holes: after decades of absolute power and lives of obscene luxury, they could find no dignified exit. Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, too, is having to suffer incarceration, with his court appearances taking place in a cage.

Stripped of the trappings of power, they are all exposed as cowardly mediocrities.

Something they all share is the conviction that they cannot be displaced, and have a God-given right to rule forever. Like kings and pharaohs, they prepare their sons to succeed them when their time comes. Brutal in their suppression of all dissent, they cannot imagine that their people might want to get rid of them.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to draw any satisfaction from the way Qadhafi was killed. Having been captured, he ought to have been brought before a court of law to defend his long and terrible record. Even though he showed no mercy to his opponents in his lifetime, there ought to be a difference between his criminal outlook and that of a civilised opposition seeking to bring about the rule of law in Libya.

While I can see why the mob that captured their tormentor was so furious, executing him out of hand has cast a pall over the optimism and hope that were characteristics of the Libyan revolution. Other Qadhafi supporters will now fear for their lives, and with good reason. Even earlier, stories of vengeance killings were rife.

In Tunisia and Egypt, security forces retained the reins of power after the ruling dictators were toppled. But in Libya, the army has been shattered, and soldiers and officers have either switched sides or gone into hiding. Power is fragmented along regional lines, and the National Transitional Council will be hard-pressed to prevent local power brokers and tribal chiefs from asserting themselves to claim a slice of the national pie.

Oil is the other joker in the pack, with western multinationals scrambling for concessions even before all the war dead have been buried. The fact that Nato was so keen to act is a reflection of a barely suppressed eagerness to exploit Libya’s hydrocarbon resources.

Surrounded by sycophants, both Qadhafi and Saddam had lost touch with reality. In the latter’s case, he genuinely felt he could invade Kuwait, an oil-rich neighbour, and get away with it. He thought that as a check on Iran, he was indispensable to the West, and therefore immune.

In Qadhafi’s case, the eccentric dictator thought he could support terrorists from Ireland to South America, and his country’s oil wealth would protect him from reprisals. He ought to have figured out that he was vulnerable when Reagan ordered his palace in Tripoli to be bombed in 1986 to avenge the death of a US serviceman in a Berlin nightclub, allegedly by Libyan agents.

But instead of focussing on his own country, he continued on his mad way, culminating in the Lockerbie bombing that caused crippling sanctions on Libya. He became an outcast, with most Arab countries turning against him for his harsh criticism of their ruling elites. While his attacks might have been justified, nobody wants to hear the truth from one of their own.

When the people of Benghazi rose against him in the beginning of the year, even the timorous Arab League joined the chorus against Qadhafi, thus paving the way for a unanimous UN Security Council resolution permitting Nato action to ‘protect Libyan civilians’ from security forces. This resolution was stretched to breaking point and beyond, angering China and Russia.

Indeed, a similar UN blank cheque is now unlikely in countries like Syria because China and Russia feel they were used and deceived to obtain the Libyan resolution.

So what are the lessons for other dictators? Firstly, do not alienate other leaders: you might need their support one day.

Secondly, always have an exit strategy as there’s no telling when you might have to escape the wrath of your own people.

Swiss accounts are no longer safe, so consider stashing your loot in China, or in other countries not too bothered with human rights.

Thirdly, never believe your own propaganda. Even when the official media continues to trumpet your praises, remember that it is run by your own appointees and they are unlikely to permit critical comments to appear, for fear of their lives and jobs.

While you oppress your own people, do not use your spooks to target opponents abroad: foreigners are most unhappy by assassinations carried out on their soil. Remember that your power does not extend across the globe, so keep a low profile.

We all love our children, but dictators ought to keep theirs from misusing their power to amass fortunes. Remember that for every crooked deal, there are ten rumours that do the rounds. Also, powerful generals and bureaucrats resent being ordered around by young dictatorial pups. So try and keep your sons from strutting on the national and global stage. One reason the powerful Egyptian army became alienated from Mubarak was that the generals resented his son being positioned to inherit the presidency when he was not a member of the military elite, unlike his father who had been head of the air force before assuming power after Anwar Sadat’s assassination.

Refrain from foreign adventures like invading your neighbour, or supporting distant revolutions. Focus on your own people, and give them enough crumbs to make sure they don’t get desperate. Learn from Saudi Arabia where some of the oil wealth is spent on the people to keep them quiet, even during the Arab Spring.

And please, please, refrain from building vast palaces with gold bathroom taps and filled with third-rate art. People might forget your other sins, but gold pistols? Bad taste should always be punished.