Aristotle and Tyranny (2005)
It seems that if I want to participate in a BLOG containing WRITINGS, I might have to actually write something. Of the many diverse concepts addressed within Aristotle’s Politics, none is more controversial than the preservation of tyranny detailed in Book V. Aristotle very clearly despises tyranny, yet he devotes a chapter to its survival. Contemporary philosophers struggle with the purpose of this section; why was it included in a book focused on justice, virtue, and correct governance? Aristotle was not writing a manual for tyrants, and those ambitious demagogues that read it as such miss the point. Book V contains a concession; an acceptance that not every city is fallow ground for polity, aristocracy, or even kingship. The passages are a warning that all tyrannies will fall, and those ruled by might and cruelties are ever-more likely to face the blade of an assassin or the fires of revolution. If tyranny is the only government to take root, there are at least some actions a sovereign can perform to extend the longevity of his rule. Aristotle divides his reflections on preserving a tyranny into two possible methods. These modes create the illusion of a choice to aspiring tyrants, but in actuality Aristotle is simply dichotomizing tyranny into the strategies of brutality and moderation. The more rudimentary mode of maintaining control is the iron fist. A brutish, merciless regime is detailed by Aristotle with specific examples of actions and conditions that help control the people. Aristotle explains that a body of people may be ruled best if they are groomed for tyranny. A ruler must not allow them to form solidarity or intellectual collusion. They must distrust each other, feel humiliated by their lot in life, and (being so convinced of the immense power of the state) consider the idea of revolution or reform an impossibility. Aristotle includes state espionage, poverty, flattery, narcissism, and primitive brainwashing in a list of techniques to oppress and control the population (1314a15). After focusing so closely on justice and order, the brutality of this regime forms a stark contrast to earlier chapters. Aristotle is quick to undercut these tactics with their ultimate affect: brevity. The brutish tyranny is effective, but short lived. The second method, the kingly tyranny, approaches the issue of control through appeasement. Where a brutish tyrant rules through fear, and imposes his will with intimidation and power, a kingly tyrant appeals to the ideals of the people, and gives the impression that he is a public guardian of the state. Where a brute cleanses exceptional people from his city, a kingly leader personally honors “men of merit” to a degree higher than the general public would if the government was overthrown (1315a5). He maintains a record of purchases to appear fiscally responsible, and either moderates his use of drugs and “sensualities” or abstains from them completely (1314b31). A kingly tyrant respects and embraces the people’s religion, with enough conviction to appear genuine but not so much zeal that he appears foolish (1315a4). A kingly tyrant must spend the revenue of the state on public goods, if only to preserve the image that he serves the state and not his own petty lust for power or pleasure. Perhaps most importantly, he must reserve the call to war for necessity and seizure of resources, rather than expansion. As long as the people believe that the common good is the goal of the leader, they will not object to his rule. Several critical questions arise when reflecting on these controversial chapters of the Politics; chief among them, motive. In a book devoted to the evolution of a supreme regime, why include detailed instructions on the preservation of what both Aristotle and Plato regarded as the worst form of governance? The Politics is an intellectual writing. It does not serve as propaganda, an article of persuasion, or a hidden lesson. Therefore, it is not limited to a singular thesis, and examines the task of governing a population with some level of objectivity. Aristotle reflects on the most common regimes as well as the most desirable. Conceding that not all cities will be suitable for the “best regime,” his work finds refinements possible in the most common types of government. Although he accepts that rule may be kept by force and might alone, Aristotle repeatedly gives examples of the short term of brutish tyrannies, and touches on the consequences of inciting the contempt of the people. Cruel rulers are more likely to generate hatred among the people, and whether by the actions of a single, “spirited individual” or the uprising of an entire faction, the regime will fall. Aristotle makes no promises about the lifespan of a tyranny save its inevitable fall, but gives some assurances that the closer it is to the typological ideal of kingship, the longer it may endure. Leading into Chapter 12, Aristotle lists the longest lasting tyrannies, and makes note of their nature. Even with moderation, honor, and respect of the people, the greatest tyranny only stood for a century. With such guaranteed fragility, Aristotle hardly praises tyranny as an admirable government, but appeals to those who wish to preserve a tyrannical regime with moderation. One may question the prudence of including tips on extending the life of a tyranny in a work intended for distribution and education. Aristotle makes it clear at the start of Chapter 12 that “no forms of government are so short-lived as oligarchy and tyranny” (1315b12). Only through moderation and appeal to the common good will a tyrant appear as a king. However, appearing to serve the common good is not the same as actually serving it. While Chapter 11 praises moderation, honor, and kindness towards a tyrant’s subjects, it does not require a ruler to actually strive towards justice. Rather, he need only appear to be just, and hide his cruelties and exploitations from the public. This is not high-minded philosophy or a subtle sympathy for tyranny. This is gritty realism surfacing within Aristotle’s political theory; the same truth that Machiavelli will less tactfully approach centuries later. There are times and places where the people cannot be counted on to rule themselves. Through inefficiency, corruption, crime, or bureaucracy, certain publics do not possess the ability to maintain even the most undesirable forms of democracy or oligarchy. A strong, resolute leader must lead them, even if he doesn’t have the word of law or will of the people behind him. Until the populace is capable of producing anything besides anarchy or demagoguery, a firm but moderate tyrant may be the only suitable government available. To accept tyranny in modern times is liberal blasphemy—we are a culture raised and washed with the ideal of a democratic republic. Aristotle is not burdened with the bias of a functional regime. Ancient Greece was populated with brutish tyranny, mob-rule democracy, corrupt oligarchy, and anarchy. Aristotle’s kingly tyranny is the advantage of the stronger, but few regimes of the time are concerned with justice or the common good. For all the ideals of his typology—kingship, aristocracy, and polity—their negative counterparts were far more prevalent. As an intellectual, Aristotle included analysis of realistic regimes along with idyllic scenarios. Book V is not an endorsement or strategy guide to tyranny. Aristotle’s reflections are a concession—the rise and fall of tyrannies are inevitable, and if they must exist, perhaps their brief spark across the span of time might be marked with moderation and the semblance of justice.
Some day, I will. Today is not that day. Instead, here is some archive fodder.
[ARCHIVE: While taking a course on classical and medieval political theory, I was tasked with writing a short essay about Aristotle's reflections on tyranny. For all its shortcomings, this may be the best academic paper I ever wrote.]
