Dictatorship and Tyranny are Good
Words change meaning over time. When the founders of our republic called King George a tyrant in the Declaration of Independence, they were relying on a commonly understood reference from ancient Greece that all educated people of their time understood. Tyranny was not bad government. It could be good government. But the tyrant was a pervert. Oedipus was the paradigm. We call the play "Oedipus Rex" but that is Latin. The Greek title was "Oedipous Tyrannos." But he was not alone. Dirty jokes were told about Peisistratos, Tyrant of Athens.
In the Greek Dark Ages 1100 to 700 BCE kings ruled, as they had from time immemorial. Then came a revolution. The Phoenicians brought commerce and writing. And something else came, too. Buddha, Thales, and Confucius lived (born or died) within 100 years of each other.
In Ionia of the Greek world, 13 colonies experienced a multifaceted revolution. Philosophy supplanted religion. Writing replaced speech. Commerce overshadowed farming. Coins were invented. Tyrants were chosen. The citizens of the town gave control of the business affairs of the state to successful men on the rise. Touting Pythagoras, Carl Sagan denounced Polycrates, the Tyrant of Samos as a "caterer." Indeed he was. Polycrates of Samos was a successful businessman who took over management of the town.
Tyranny led to oligarchy. The decision-makers could not find a manager, so they ruled by committee. Oligarchy led to democracy: everyone with standing gets in. It happened as fast as three generations, but no more than three lifetimes, not less than 700 BCE to 550 BCE across the Greek world. Once democracy, coinage, writing, philosophy, and commerce were the norm, tyrants fell into the shadows and tyrannicide was heralded.
The Thirty Tyrants of Athens, was in fact an oligarchy in the wake of the Peloponnesian War that killed rich people and seized their property.
Dictatorship was a constitutional office of the Roman Republic. In times of crisis when the senate (not the only legislative or judicial assembly but the overarching one) was divided, the senate empowered one person of good character to command. The paradigm was Cincinnatus for whom veterans of the American Revolution named their new settlement of Cincinnati, Ohio. Twice Cincinnatus took charge; and twice he returned to his farm.
The dictators of the 1930s, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Metaxas, Franco, and others, were proclaimed only to be guiding their nations through temporary crises. In the USA nothing in the Constitution prevented Roosevelt's third and fourth terms. Consider that in the UK, Churchill was turned out as soon as the war was won. (Rationing, for instance of chocolate, continued for another ten years.) In theory, at least, a democratic republic can appoint a dictator to guide the ship of state through the shoals of crisis.
Generally, we all hate dictators and tyrants. I assert that that is a prejudice, foisted on those not deeply educated by a public education system in service to democracy.
In the Greek Dark Ages 1100 to 700 BCE kings ruled, as they had from time immemorial. Then came a revolution. The Phoenicians brought commerce and writing. And something else came, too. Buddha, Thales, and Confucius lived (born or died) within 100 years of each other.
In Ionia of the Greek world, 13 colonies experienced a multifaceted revolution. Philosophy supplanted religion. Writing replaced speech. Commerce overshadowed farming. Coins were invented. Tyrants were chosen. The citizens of the town gave control of the business affairs of the state to successful men on the rise. Touting Pythagoras, Carl Sagan denounced Polycrates, the Tyrant of Samos as a "caterer." Indeed he was. Polycrates of Samos was a successful businessman who took over management of the town.
Tyranny led to oligarchy. The decision-makers could not find a manager, so they ruled by committee. Oligarchy led to democracy: everyone with standing gets in. It happened as fast as three generations, but no more than three lifetimes, not less than 700 BCE to 550 BCE across the Greek world. Once democracy, coinage, writing, philosophy, and commerce were the norm, tyrants fell into the shadows and tyrannicide was heralded.
The Thirty Tyrants of Athens, was in fact an oligarchy in the wake of the Peloponnesian War that killed rich people and seized their property.
Dictatorship was a constitutional office of the Roman Republic. In times of crisis when the senate (not the only legislative or judicial assembly but the overarching one) was divided, the senate empowered one person of good character to command. The paradigm was Cincinnatus for whom veterans of the American Revolution named their new settlement of Cincinnati, Ohio. Twice Cincinnatus took charge; and twice he returned to his farm.
The dictators of the 1930s, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Metaxas, Franco, and others, were proclaimed only to be guiding their nations through temporary crises. In the USA nothing in the Constitution prevented Roosevelt's third and fourth terms. Consider that in the UK, Churchill was turned out as soon as the war was won. (Rationing, for instance of chocolate, continued for another ten years.) In theory, at least, a democratic republic can appoint a dictator to guide the ship of state through the shoals of crisis.
Generally, we all hate dictators and tyrants. I assert that that is a prejudice, foisted on those not deeply educated by a public education system in service to democracy.
Good? Hell No! But then again I'm a product of private schools.
Unless you had the privilege of a school that was above the law, such as Andover, Choate, or Phillips (or an equal girls' school), or maybe were home-schooled, then actually, most so-called "private" education especially Catholic schools, are still within the public norms. Your teachers went to public universities; your school conformed to state standards.
Also, you need to define what you mean by "free." Under dictatorships described above, nothing was said about citizens losing rights. The dictator was simply a manager. The appointment of a dictator did not create state-wide slavery of the the citizens. I encourage you to investigate the facts of history.
"People" are "managed" all the time: find a business that does have a manager. You are free to quit. And, I suppose in Roman times, you were free to run away… but just don't try to come back and pretend you were not there when your neighbors all answered the call.
Collectivism has its limits, easy limits, close to the individual; but individualism has its limits. If you do not want to be "managed" then you are free to live in the woods. If you want to live among people, then you accept the norms of the society you choose.
Exactly right, even if you don't realize what those norms are. It has always been that way.
If everyone around you is painting themselves blue and you are not painting yourself at all or using a different color, watch out. You will be looked at askance at the best and ostracized or punished at the worst.
It does not matter what either dictator or tyrant meant historically now. What matters now is what the sheeple that are spoon fed their history/propaganda think it means now.
In ancient times dictator or tyrant was not generally an epithet unless they were incompetent at ruling. As you pointed out.
Unfortunately now, many people only care about who is going to "take care of them" without regard to what their rulers are called or how much power they usurp.
So, too, might it be necessary and appropriate - a response to objective historical conditions - for an extra-constitutional tyrant (a self-made business leader on the rise) to assume financial control of the state. Tyranny is nothing more or less.
Similarly, in a time of constitutional crisis, it might prove to be a matter of survival of the people and the state, for one person of good character to take temporary leadership.
While Rome did appoint tyrants and dictators from time to time it was never done lightly. It was done in response to a crisis when the normal government was unable to respond adequately. Rome also knew that giving any individual that much power was always a double edged sword.
You point out Cincinatus as a positive example, and he was.
However there were negative examples as well, such as the best known roman of all, Julius Caesar.
In fact his insurrection and the resulting civil war in approx 57bc produced a phrase we still use today.
Crossing the Rubicon.
Meaning passing a point of no return, crossing a line you cannot go back from, etc.
The Rubicon was a river dividing Italy proper, from what was Cisalpine Gaul. Bringing your legions across that river "under arms" meaning in campaign mode rather than garrison mode, was considered an act of insurrection against the state of Rome.
Julius Caesar did this and seized dictator powers in Rome by force of arms, and in some ways this began the final slide from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. It took another 3 decades or so, but the die was cast to end the republic as Caesar said when he crossed the Rubicon.
My point is, that dictators and tyrants came down on both sides of the good/bad divide.
Nonetheless, for all of that, would it have been so bad for Rome to have Caesar and Cleopatra rule? Look at what followed… Nero, Caligula… Domitian… Commodus…
Given the hedonism of the time, the crazy could have disease origins too.
As to what Caesar would have done in different circumstances, I think he would do whatever he had to for his own goals.
In fact, we have such "tyrants" or "dictators" commonly today. It happens often in business or in community, that when a new chief executive is needed, a temporary CEO or director is appointed by the board for the interim.
All I suggest here is a bit of "outside the box" thinking, rather than giving in to common cant.
See above: in the ancient Roman republic dictators served a variety of functions and were limited in their powers and were also answerable under law.
As for tyrants, I said at first that they were successful businessmen, men on the rise, who took over the management of the town. Why do you have a problem with that?
Fortunately Lord Acton included the words "almost always." Because some great men are not bad men.
As to your reference to historic definition of tyrants: I have no problem with that. It is just another word where the modern vernacular has changed. I only have a problem with tyrants in the modern meaning of the term.
Your historical perspective and info. was actually quite interesting, though I do not see how in the modern definition of the words or the modern examples of dictators/tyrants they are "good."
No one man or woman should hold such power. That job should not exist.
Respectfully,
O.A.
It was similar to the granting of "imperium" to a consul or other officer to act for and speak for Rome in their duties.
The difference was large in degree of power granted, but under the law still subject to the same controls. The increased power did make enforcing control a much pricklier proposition.
Modern era dictators and tyrants are more in the arena of having seized power rather than having it granted. (Inherited tyrants and dictators wield seized power at one or more removes)
How to you evaluate George Washington? They called him "father of his country" as a direct reference to PATER PATRIAE, one of the titles of a Roman emperor. Just about every emperor was chosen by the Senate in response to a crisis.
They need far more backbone than they have yet exhibited.