On Tyranny

Tyranny is a very unfriendly word, even though it was originally not invested with the same connotations it does today. In this particular blog (consider it an education entry, with some major detours into political theory) I will look at the meaning of tyranny, the origin of tyranny in Greek and Roman society, the moral questions invovled in tyranny and accountability (briefly), and close with a look at the moral obligations of common people with regards to tyranny. It is sad and unacceptable that in this age of such knowledge that many people are woefully unaware of the issues at stake when it comes to governance.

Definitions

According to www.dictionary.com, there are several definitions of tyranny. They are as follows (combining the definitions from The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary and Wordnet):

1)A government in which a single ruler has absolute power and is not limited by constitution, law, or a legitimate forum of opposition.
2)The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an aboslute ruler.
3)Absolute power, especially when exercized unjustly or cruelly.
4)Use of absolute power or a tyrannical act
5)Extreme harshness or severity, rigor.

Synonyms for tyranny include one-man rule, dictatorship, and absolutism, among others. The origin of the word is Greek, where its history properly begins.

It should be noted, however, before going into the early origin of tyranny, that any form of government which does not allow official opposition, is not ruled by a constitution (some comment on this will follow), and is not "legal" is tyrannical, even if that leadership behaves kindly towards those it leads. The lack of accountability to the people is sufficient to judge a particular leader or leadership as tyrannical. This is especially true if those leaders (as is common in modern times) write constitutions and bylaws but do not live by the restrictions on their power within them and where the common people have no ability to enforce the constitution and bylaws against those entrenched in power. Such behavior is ipso facto tyranny. It is also the case that any form of government where people are subject to authority without reciprocal accountability of that leader to them is despotic and tyrannical. Those who have power in any domain cannot be trusted to behave in accordance with God's law and the natural rights of man; there must be enforceable procedures to prevent abuse, and the general trend of society is to increase the prerogatives of governments and administrations to improper levels without sufficent oversight. In any just government, the people are the masters and the leadership serve the best interests of the common people. It is only in wicked governments and administrations where leaders lord it over people and exercise authority over them, as the Bible clearly states (in Matthew 20:25-27, Deuteronomy 17:7-20, etc.).

Origin of Tyranny in Greece and Rome

Originally, the tyrants in Greece and Rome were viewed favorably, especially because of the difficulties the common people had with the proud aristocrats who ruled over them. It is the traditional (and pernicious) longing of an oppressed population of people to seek a strong arm to defend their interests against an entrenched aristocratic elite (which is itself behaving tyrannically by avoiding accountability to the people and attempting to create and defend artificial distinctions between equals--for properly speaking, all people are equals or at least potential equals). In such societies, as were present in both Greece and Rome at pivotal moments in their history, the common people supported leaders against the constututions at the time to put into practice laws to defend the common people against their wicked aristocratic opponents.

At first, all went well. These leaders (whether a Solon or a Lycurgus in Greece or a Cincinnatus in Rome) led temporarily, did not seek power in a dynastic or permanent way, and stepped down at the first opportune moment. Though these people would technically be considered dictators and tyrants (dictator being the official term in Latin for tyrant), they deserve little moral censure for their behavior, though much for their precedent. In all of their cases, their refusal to continue power after the crisis passed which pushed them into leadership demonstrates their good faith that they were acting on behalf of the people rather than seeking to rule unjustly over them. Those who consider, for example, Abraham Lincoln to be a tyrannical leader would do well to look at the historical example and find that he too would fit into this category (as against, say, an FDR). George Washington likewise would fit into this category of leaders who may have exceeded their technical authority but did so only for the duration of a specific crisis. (I should add, in passing, though, that I do not believe Abraham Lincoln exceeded his constitutional authority, but merely offer a defense for him against those who would disagree with me on the finer points of constitutional law.)

That said, once the example of despotic rule had been set to deal with social crises, it became increasingly tempting for leaders on any side of a difficult dispute to set up dictators in ever more frequent crises, for ever longer periods. Both in Greece and in Rome republican systems of government eventually crumbled because societies ceased to defend their own liberties and instead relied upon leaders who at length took away their freedoms and became tyrannical kings and emperors. In Greece, the rise of the Macedonian dynasty destroyed the decaying democracies of Thebes and Athens. In Rome, Julius Ceasar the catamite (if the historical record can be believed) in life and death destroyed what remained of a long weakened Roman Republic. For much of human history, except for a few bright spots government has been marked by alternating tyranny and anarchy, both of which are equally wicked.

Moral Questions of Tyranny

There are essentially two moral questions involved in tyranny upon which all others decide. These two questions are, incidentally enough, vital for any serious and honset discussion about government. The first question relates to the abstract question about whether tyrannies are morally wrong by definition. That is, is there a moral dimension to government type (is there a form of government, in other words, that receives greater moral sanction than any other type). This question merits discussion on both a biblical and a philosophical level, because there is much confusion and deception involving this point. The second question is more practical, and follows from the first--namely, how is it that society can be organized so that anarchy is avoided without creating the monster of one-man rule or aristocratic privileges a la the ancien regime. We will examine those two questions briefly in turn.

The natural rights and natural equality of mankind have long spoken against tyranny. Throghout history, those of superior mental ability and education have either been members of the aristocratic elite or have sought to destroy the aristocratic elite. Regardless of which one is the case, if human beings are conceeded to be from one flesh and blood (i.e. we have a common origin), there is no just inequality of position and status that can be defended on logical and moral grounds. While the case would be too lengthy to make in detail, character does not correspond with race, social class, gender, age, etc. so it follows that these superficial distinctions are unjust if they are used to build up unaccountable positions of power in a given organization or society.

The biblical case is equally compelling, if somewhat more obscure. Again, time and space constraints forbid me from laying it out in full detail (I am at work on my own in doing that at length), but the brief result is that God's government is consultative government. The biblical evidence on that count is indisputable, but has been hidden a result of those who wickedly seek to deny God's word. Those who claim, falsely, that God's government is hierarchial and pyrimidal in nature are at best deceived, at worst deliberately and presumptuously sinning against the biblical record. The biblical case on the subject is present in both the OT and the NT. The desire for God to have equals to consult with and fellowship with is a powerful argument for the rationale for the ideal government among men. In the OT, the ideal government is demonstrated in Judges, with temporary leaders to deal with crises and with broad egalitarian government based upon villages and small towns (see Judges and Ruth). Monarchy, with its authoritarian prerogatives, is denigraded for its tyrannical tendances (see Deuteronomy 17 or 1 Samuel). The prophets continually comment against the tendancies of kings, priests, and aristocracies to take advantage of their positions of power (read Hosea, Amos, or even the condemnation of David by my namesake, to say the least of Elijah's prophecies or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel...you get the picture, right?). The NT is also clearly egalitarian in terms of its structure--regular members participated in the Jerusalem Conference (in Acts 15), no one (not even apostles) was exempt from moral censure in the case of sin, and 3 John (to give one example) speaks against the rise of church leaders who sought pre-eminance over congregations and sought to prohibit Christians from fellowshipping with others (to comment on this more would be impolitic).

Moral Obligations of the People

What then, are the obligations of the people with regards to the conduct of their leaders? In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of the people to keep their leaders in line (the governors are those who are most difficult, and most necessary, to govern). Therefore, certain moral obligations follow for the people in order to fight and prevent (preventing can be prevented, and fighting what cannot) against the spread of tyranny. The people cannot rely on a strong arm to defend them, but must have a strong arm (and mind) themselves. Therefore, it is necessary for the common people to arm themselves with knowlege--both about their rights and responsibilities, and about the activity of those who perport to serve their best interests. These cannot be outsourced to others. Next, the people must fortify themselves with courage. It is far from an easy thing to speak out against the wicked, especially when those wicked are (as is often the case) in positions of authority. This is especially true because authority figures possess a great deal of resources for defamation and slander, and the "credibility" necessary to harm the reputations of the righteous in the eyes of others. God deals justly, but that justice often takes time, and being accountable only to God, in the practical sense, is not being accountable at all. It may become necessary, despite all the best interests and actions of the people, that serious resistance may be necessary to protect liberty (see Acts 5, 1 Kings 12, Exodus 1, etc.). When such occasions are regretfully necessary (and they should never be sought, only faced with the greatest reluctance) than it is important to remember that obedience to God sometimes demands rebellion against men (and women). Cowards do not deserve to be free, and tyrants (and in this sense I mean those who rule wickedly, not merely without constutionality) do not deserve to live. Sic semper tyrannis.