CONSIDER THE GREEK PHILOSOPHERS

Alright, I know, I know, but hear me out a minute, because this has great bearing on where we stand today.

You see, Plato considered tyranny to be the worst disorder in a state, and he believed that tyrants lacked reason and order, and he felt this way because tyrants ‘lack the very faculty that is the instrument of judgment, i.e. reason.’

Socrates agreed by stating that guardians – say, a prime minister - should not become tyrants to the people they guard. He felt, as has been proved this last year, that ‘democracy can provide extremely fertile ground for tyranny, particularly when the tyrant turns against the rule of law.’

Aristotle described a tyrant as ‘Any sole ruler, who is not required to give an account of himself, and who rules over subjects to suit his own interest and not theirs. Aristotle goes on to state that the tyrant will often have a bodyguard of foreigners to protect his rule over unwilling subjects. A mark of the tyrant, according to Aristotle is that ‘he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table.’

In Aristotle’s Politics he states that, ‘A king's bodyguard consists of citizens, a tyrant's of foreign mercenaries. And it is manifest that tyranny has the evils of both democracy and oligarchy; The tyrant copies oligarchy in making wealth his object (for inevitably that is the only way in which the tyrant's bodyguard and his luxury can be kept up) and in putting no trust in the multitude (which is why they resort to the measure of stripping the people of arms, and why ill-treatment of the mob and its expulsion from the city and settlement in scattered places is common to both forms of government, both oligarchy and tyranny).’ 

‘Foreigners,’ notes Aristotle, ‘Are more willing to act against the local population if ordered to.’

If you ask me, there are only two ways to lead: you either divide & conquer, or you build & unite. If the leader chooses to divide & conquer, he creates a mutual enemy (the mythical far-right thugs, by referring to patriots in this manner) and leads a crusade to conquer them. Alternatively, the leader can choose to unite people by creating a shared ambition and inspiring people to build it with him. Keir Starmer, for argument’s sake, lacks this quality. He’s not a leader to create a shared ambition.’ But a good leader would turn it into a life quest; the journey to build something bigger than themselves unites people.

I mean, seriously, ‘Imagine a government that fears its own people, a system where open debate is seen as a threat, where gatherings are suspicious and where wealth is deliberately drained from the masses.’ Sound familiar? This is tyranny as Aristotle described it over 2300 years ago. 

Aristotle defined tyranny as a system of governance that exists for the benefit of the ‘ruler’ rather than the governed. The result is a society when law becomes subservient to the ruler’s will. State resources are used for personal gain rather than public good. And traditional checks on power are disrespected and eliminated. 

According to Aristotle, tyranny often emerges from within existing political systems, particularly democracies. ‘The path to tyranny,’ he argues, ‘is paved with popular support and societal divisions.’

Aristotle notes that times of social and economic upheaval are particularly ripe for the emergence of tyrants, who actively work to keep the general population poor. ‘This isn’t just cruel,’ writes Aristotle, ‘It’s strategic, making everyone dependent on the state.’   

Constant surveillance is another tactic Aristotle observed; ‘The tyrant should know what every man is saying or doing,’ and in his time this meant a network of spies and informants. Today, it’s much easier because all he has to do is set a team of traitors to observe Facebook or Twitter posts. The goal is to make people feel as if they’re always being watched, leading them to censor themselves out of fear, and to catch those who speak their mind.

Also, tyrants often subtly invent or exaggerate external threats – Russia, for instance. Keeping the state always ready for war allows them to demand sacrifices from the people.

Creating a common enemy – the mythical far-right, in Starmer’s case - is the most usual way to divide people. It was Hitler who said, ‘Our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within.’ 

The ultimate objective of divide & conquer is to gain and maintain power by breaking up groups (British patriots) into smaller and less powerful ones. This type of leader will do whatever it takes to win, and he doesn’t care about the future.

He’s a sociopath. He has no conscience. He’s simply not wired like the rest of us.

Despite the numerous tactics tyrants use to maintain power, Aristotle observed that tyrannies are often the least stable form of government. But why is that? What causes the downfall of tyrants? Well, Aristotle identified several key factors. First and foremost, he noted that tyrannies often fail due to the intense hatred they generate among the population. ‘This hatred,’ Aristotle says, ‘Can lead to bold acts of resistance.’ 

Interestingly, Aristotle pointed out that ‘tyrannies can often collapse due to contempt, if a tyrant is seen as weak, stupid or otherwise incompetent, people are often emboldened to challenge their rule.’ Another cause Aristotle identified is internal conflict within the tyrant’s inner circle. Those who are close to the tyrant might conspire to overthrow them out of personal ambition.

On a positive note, Plato argued for a state bound by harmony and ruled by 'philosopher kings'. A philosopher king is a leader who combines knowledge, commitment to the pursuit of truth and the common good, and many other positive points. What a concept! But that’s for another day.

Copyright © Karl Wiggins