Ever since George W. Bush stole the 2000 election the words ‘tyrant’ and ‘dictator’ have been used to describe him (I image that these terms have been used to describe all our Presidents, by someone or another). As his ‘reign’ has progressed these terms of endearment seem increasingly applicable, but just exactly how amazingly accurate these terms are in describing George Bush is best seen when we examine the roots of these words. Analyzing the roots is more than just a fruitless mental game, but rather they provide us with an insight into ourselves and the precarious state in which our democracy exists. In the words of Karl Marx, "History repeats itself, first as a tragedy, second as a farce."
It is no coincidence that these words both come from ancient Western history, the word ‘tyrant’ from ancient Greece, famous for the flourishing democracies, and the word ‘dictator’ from ancient Rome, famous it’s republic. Both terms originally referred to positions of great respect and honor, until those who held those positions betrayed even those who believed in them. So, if you will indulge me, let us look back to our democratic histories, first to Greece, it being the most ancient and perhaps the term ‘tyrant’ being the least applicable to present circumstances, and then to Rome.
Ancient Greece and Tyrants
The tale of ancient Greece and the rise of tyrants is a difficult one to tell as little is known about this period. Most of our information comes from spotty archeological evidence and the Homeric poems. The Homeric poems tell of us of the time of the Mycenaean empire. The Mycenaean empire was a period of monarchies, conquering kings ruled most of what would be the cradle of Western democracy. The Mycenaean civilization had a form of writing known as Linear B; however, this language cannot be translated because we know little of the language, and no equivalent of the Rosetta Stone has been found.
What we do know is for some period beginning in the 11th century B.C.E. a people from the North invaded Greece bringing with them iron weapons and unfortunately wiping out literacy in Greece, this was the period of Homer. The country of Greece emerged from this Greek Dark Age around the 7th century B.C.E. with the spread of literacy and a massive increase in the populations of many of the Greek city-states. This massive surge in the population of Greece led to a substantial increase in the number discontent poor. Many city-states sought to relieve these tensions by sending colonists abroad, but the bitterness of the lower-classes remained unabated.
The people of the lower-classes sought solace in people besides their kings. Popular leaders emerged in various city-states around Greece that promised to stand with the lower-classes against their oppressors; these leaders were termed tyrants. As one can image in monarchies that were often heavily influenced by the upper classes monarchs were resistant to tyrants. This fact, coupled with the fact that no concept of democracy or elections were in place meant that the transitions were often sudden and violent. But something new had been created, a leader who ruled not because he had some divine right to rule, but because he was popular, he ruled at the will of the people.
Inevitably, these tyrants would either grow old and die or lose their popularity. The tyrants would seek to establish their children as heirs to their kingdoms, but they were not kings. The idea that the leaders reigned at the will of the people had taken hold. The notion that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" seemed to apply to ancient Greece just as well as it does today. The tyrants’ rule was increasingly brutal and oppressive. Many states were able to overthrow their tyrants and replace them with a new form of government, democracy. The most notable city to do this was Athens, after generations of rule by tyrants the Athenians rose up against their tyrant and established one of the most important democracies ever. Tyrannies were remembered as something terrible, something that prevented the Athenians and many of other city-states of Greece from achieving democracy, and so the term tyrant became the negative term it is today.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/... for more information on the word 'tyrant'.
Ancient Rome and Dictators
Ancient Rome similarly experienced its share of monarchs and then tyrants, and similarly cast them aside; but, unlike Greece, Rome chose a Republic. The Roman Republican is much like our system of government, a senate and two consuls, elected by the citizens of Rome, to run the legislative and executive branches of government (Athens’ legislative branch consisted of all the citizens of Athens who met in the Assembly, and their executive branch was either elected, as was the case with generals, or chosen by lot, as was the case with practically every other function).
Unlike Greece in which its tyrants preceded democracy, Rome’s republic preceded its dictators. Rome’s two consuls were in commanders-in-chief; however, it was apparent that in times of military crisis Rome required a single military commander, elected by the Senate, to either work with the other two consuls or to outrank them, depending on the political environment. These military leaders were known as dictators. Dictators originally had no power to raise or spend money and were only named for either six months or however long the military crisis lasted, whichever was shorter in duration.
It is not hard to see how savvy politicians were able to use these positions to gain incredible power and influence. Military crises tend to make people hysterical and sheepish. This coupled with the tendency of a body of multiple law-makers to be frustratingly slow to react, as their Senate was then and our Congress is today, led to the gradual weakening of Rome’s Republic.
Julius Caesar would exploit these facts and eventually establish himself dictator for life. It would be his adopted heir, Octavian that would become the first Emperor [Augustus Caesar]. Rome would continue to have a senate, but it would be subservient to an Emperor, a body that was largely ceremonial.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/... for more information on the word 'dictator'.
Everything being said it seems to me that the word 'dictator' is far more applicable to George Bush than the word 'tyrant'. Tyrants were popular leaders who represented an institution that often led to great democracies, it is hard to see how George W. Bush's reign will led to any great revolution or improved democracy; however, 2008 might prove me wrong. Dictators, on the other hand, represent a downfall, a destruction of something great: a Roman Republic becoming the Roman Empire that is familiar to us all.