“As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”
An anecdote about how Sparta installed its “Thirty Tyrants” in Athens after a war
In 404 BC, a Greek city-state (Athens) was utterly defeated in a war. Athens had been fighting the Peloponnesian War, and the war had initially gone well for the Athenians. But the Spartans, sadly, won the war in the end. Thus, the Spartans installed their own puppet regime in Athens. It was simply called the “Thirty Tyrants.” The word “tyrant” originally meant something like “absolute monarch,” or “absolute ruler of a polis” (with “polis” meaning a “city-state”). Incidentally, the word “monarchy” comes from Greek words meaning “rule by one” – or “rule by one person.” But, as the name “Thirty Tyrants” indicates, there were instead thirty of them. Thus, the Thirty Tyrants were more like an “oligarchy,” which comes from a few Greek words meaning “rule by a few.” Incidentally, the term “oligarchy” has since come to have a negative connotation in English. As early as Ancient Greece, Aristotle was describing an “oligarchy” as the corrupted form of an “aristocracy” (which comes from Greek words meaning “rule by the best”). Regardless, whatever you call them, the Thirty Tyrants turned out to be a terrible regime. As Wikipedia puts it, “the Thirty became known for their tyrannical rule, first being called ‘The Thirty Tyrants’ by Polycrates.[footnote] Although they maintained power for only eight months, their reign resulted in the killing of 5% of the Athenian population, the confiscation of citizens' property, and the exile of other democratic supporters.” (see source) A century later (that is, in 304 BC), Agathocles of Syracuse adopted this same title of “tyrant.”
Pisistratus of Athens – who called himself a “tyrant” in this older sense, but was still popular
They were so bad that they were an early namesake of the word “tyrant” (now derogatory)
But there was an interesting corollary to the story of the “Thirty Tyrants,” and Agathocles of Syracuse. That is, these words “tyrant” and “tyranny” soon came to have somewhat negative connotations. In Latin, the word “tyrannus” soon meant “illegitimate ruler.” The word then morphed into a French word that became the English word “tyrant.” It has since come to have its own meanings in English. What, then, does “tyranny” mean today? That is the question that I shall be examining in this post.
John Locke
John Locke: Usurpations violate alienable rights, while tyranny violates unalienable rights
One interesting definition comes from the English philosopher John Locke. In 1689, specifically, Mr. Locke wrote his “Second Treatise of Government.” In that work, John Locke wrote that “As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.” (See the beginning of this blog post, for the citation and the full quotation.) In other words, “tyranny” is the violation of unalienable rights. Some rights, like owning a car, are “alienable” rights. That is, they can be transferred or sold as the owner pleases. Stealing a car would be an example of violating a right that is “alienable.” Thus, in Locke’s terminology, “usurpation” is “the exercise of power, which another hath a right to” (like the rights to that car, which one has not bought). Other rights are “unalienable.” That is, they cannot legitimately be taken away under any circumstances. Like his disciple Thomas Jefferson, John Locke considered life and liberty to be “unalienable” rights. Thus, violating this kind of right would clearly be tyranny. In John Locke’s terminology, “tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.” Enslaving a man violates the unalienable right to liberty. Thus, enslaving a man would be tyranny.
John Locke
Locke further argues that a tyrant makes all give way to “his own will and appetite”
After this famous passage in his “Second Treatise of Government,” John Locke then quotes from King James the First of England. After that, Mr. Locke then concludes: “Thus that learned king, who well understood the notion of things, makes the difference betwixt a king and a tyrant to consist only in this, that one makes the laws the bounds of his power, and the good of the public, the end of his government; the other makes all give way to his own will and appetite.” (Source: Chapter XVIII) Locke then continues: “It is a mistake, to think this fault is proper only to monarchies; other forms of government are liable to it, as well as that: for wherever the power, that is put in any hands for the government of the people, and the preservation of their properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it; there it presently becomes tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many. Thus we read of the thirty tyrants at Athens, as well as one at Syracuse; and the intolerable dominion of the Decemviri at Rome was nothing better.” (Source: Chapter XVIII)
Julius Caesar
Some argued that having one person as president creates tyranny, but Hamilton disagreed
When the United States Constitution was first proposed, some Americans actually objected to having just one person as the president. Specifically, they believed that it might be better to have multiple people sharing this power. But the Constitution’s supporters were able to cite some ancient examples where this had gone badly. That is, in the Roman Empire, similar power-sharing arrangements sometimes led to civil wars, divisions of the empire, and wars between the former portions. Thus, in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton took his opponents to task for these arguments. Specifically, Alexander Hamilton wrote therein that “Every man the least conversant in Roman story, knows how often that republic was obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man, under the formidable title of Dictator, as well against the intrigues of ambitious individuals who aspired to the tyranny, and the seditions of whole classes of the community whose conduct threatened the existence of all government, as against the invasions of external enemies who menaced the conquest and destruction of Rome. [then the next paragraph begins] There can be no need, however, to multiply arguments or examples on this head. A feeble Executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.” (Source: Federalist No. 70)
Alexander Hamilton
Power-sharing might be appropriate for a legislature, but not for an executive branch
Thus, whatever the appropriateness of certain kinds of power-sharing arrangements in a legislature, they would seem inappropriate for an executive branch. Some portion of the government has to be able to act quickly at times, without having to consult with anyone else (with “at times,” again, being the operative phrase).
Aristotle, who is referenced below
Madison: Separation of powers and checks & balances protect us against tyranny
What, then, is the best way to prevent tyranny? There are many safeguards against it, such as having a declaration of rights. Other safeguards seem also to be necessary. One particularly relevant one seems to be separation of powers. That is, we want to avoid having all of the power being put in one place. It was with this in mind that James Madison once gave a good textbook example of tyranny. Specifically, in the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” (Source: Federalist No. 47) Thus, the word “tyranny” had broadened in meaning since the time of Aristotle. In Aristotle’s “Politics,” he argued that “tyranny” is a corrupted form of “monarchy.” That is, under Aristotle’s earlier definition, “tyranny” is the corrupt government of one person. By contrast, James Madison’s definition reflects the later changes in meaning since Aristotle’s time. That is, a government can be tyrannical, whether it is “of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective” (as cited above). All that is needed to enact tyranny is “the accumulation of all powers … in the same hands.” In James Madison’s time, some of Madison’s opponents accused the Constitution itself of violating a “separation of powers.” Specifically, they argued that checks and balances involve an inherent mixing of powers. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison replied that “Some deviations, therefore, from the principle [that is, of separation of powers] must be admitted.” (Source: Federalist No. 51) More about Madison’s resolution of this apparent paradox here. In this post, suffice it to say that checks and balances are necessary to maintain a separation of powers in practice. And, more to the point, both are needed to prevent tyranny. Incidentally, Madison cited the French philosopher Montesquieu as one of his influences on this subject. Montesquieu also popularized the word “despotism” – or “despotisme,” in his native French. This word comes, in turn, from the Greek word “despotes” (“despot”), meaning “master.”
James Madison
Baron de Montesquieu
The execution of Socrates is also a cautionary tale about the tyranny of the majority
Back in Ancient Greek times, the philosopher Socrates had embarrassed the Athenian government. Specifically, Socrates was then indicted on trumped-up charges of “impiety” and “corrupting the youth.” Thus, he was soon executed, by being forced to drink hemlock poison. There was a reference to this execution in the Federalist Papers. The author of this particular reference was either Alexander Hamilton or James Madison. One of them wrote therein that “there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.” (Source: Federalist No. 63) The “hemlock” seems to be a reference to Socrates. This is because hemlock is now known as the poison that was used to execute Socrates. One might even see this passage as a caution against the “tyranny of the majority,” in the terminology of a later time. That is, an unchecked majority may infringe upon the rights of minorities, if there are no constitutional barriers to protect individual rights. Hence, the need for a bill of rights.
The execution of Socrates
Tyranny is as old as humanity itself, and continues to be the norm in the world today
Tyranny seems to be as old as humanity itself. In 2900 BC, the Epic of Gilgamesh gave us the early example of Gilgamesh himself. During the Italian Renaissance, Niccolò Machiavelli openly defended harsh dictatorship, in his infamous book “The Prince.” In the twentieth century, there were the Nazis in Germany, the Fascists in Italy, the Soviets in Russia, and the communists in China. And there are plenty of other tyrants out there today. Tyranny seems to have been the norm throughout human history. And, sadly, it continues to be the norm in the world even today. Relatively few of the world’s people breathe free today. Tyranny has been explored by works of history, political philosophy, and dystopian science fiction (among much other literature). Sadly, it seems likely that its legacy will live on for centuries to come. Even in free countries, the danger of tyranny is always there, and freedom is somewhat fragile. Thus, we must always be on our guard against every form of tyranny, including those with good intentions. Some well-intentioned governments have done incalculable damage, and increased the sum total of human misery. Thus, we must judge governments by what they actually do, and take most of their promises at face value. Most of these governments would oppress us if they could, particularly when we fail to guard against their encroachments – whether they’re gradual, sudden, or anything in between.
“Tyranny has perhaps oftener grown out of the assumptions of power, called for, on pressing exigencies [or “emergencies”], by a defective constitution, than out of the full exercise of the largest constitutional authorities.”
– Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 20) – incidentally, the word “dictator” is of Latin origin, and comes from Roman leaders who were endowed with absolute power “temporarily” during an emergency, with the power becoming permanent soon afterwards
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment