The tyrant Trope and the Rise to Power of the Athenian Democracy

 The tyrant Trope and the Rise to Power of the Athenian Democracy 

Today we know that there is simply no good politician. The great majority of them are just outright awful; but even those that seem to be good cannot be trusted. Yes, there are some politicians who advocate for social justice and the rights of the have-not's; but we all know that all politicians are hypocrites, thus they are certainly only looking for popularity, so that they can soon become a tyrant. Obviously, such course of events should be stopped by all means, because, as much as we may associate tyranny to injustice, it is always better to stay entrenched in injustice than to live under a tyrant. For instance, if Pericles determined that Athenian public officers should be paid for their public service; it was not because he genuinely wanted to enable the lower classes to have access to public offices and, in general, to the political system, in order to achieve the expansion and stabilization of all democratic institutions. Instead, his real motive was to stifle all other rival prominent families out of power, so that they will never be able to challenge his own line anymore. If Tiberius Gracchus pushed so hard for his agrarian reform law, it was not because he sincerely believed that Rome's public lands, which the wealthiest families had seized over the years, needed to be redistributed and doled out among the impoverished citizens, who had been slowly losing their own properties while serving in the legions. Rather, he was only looking at increasing his own network of clients and political supporters, so that he could become Rome's tyrant. If Napoleon III got rid of the intricate labyrinth of dark and filthy, very-narrow streets and alleys of Paris, and replaced them with wide boulevards and parks; it was not because he was concerned with improving the living conditions of the citizens, but because he wanted to prevent anybody from being able to raise again barricades on those old medieval streets, in order to overthrow him. If Franco made of every Spaniard a homeowner; it was not because he cared a thing for the people's wellbeing. Rather, he wanted to keep everybody fixed at a specific place, so that it would be easier for him to control them. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera... 

There was a time, where people saw it in exactly the opposite way, though. Definitely, The word tyrant comes from the Ancient Greek 'tyrannos'. Back then, the people for the most part love their tyrants, as they came to be the champions of the people. Tyrants fought off the aristocrats and protected the common/folk from the traditional predation of their social betters. Of special relevance is the figure of Peisistratus, the tyrant of Ancient Athens for about 20 years in the mid-VI century BC. Peisistratus' rule was a time of prosperity and ultimately the origin of Athens' rise to preeminence.       

As Aristotle would later explain, Peisistratus' political motive to improve the lives and working conditions of the poor farmer, was to foment their gratitude and consequently obtain in return their support and continued loyalty. Peisistratus promoted a democratic program in order to organize and secure the following of the poorer majority of the Athenian population and thus rise over the Philaids, and the Alkmeonids, the other two rival, otherwise-more-powerful clans. As a matter of fact, the Athenian people welcome Peisistratus' powergrab, on account of the fact that it was putting and end to the constant infighting among the aristocratic families, which had plagued Athens over the early Archaic Age, and subsequently opened a period of stability and internal peace. Indeed, back then tyrants were recognized by the common people as competent and just rulers, who protected them against the abuse of the oligarchs. For instance, Peisistratus started a system of traveling judges throughout the countryside for inspection purposes, conflict resolution and to conduct trials on location. Obviously, prior to Peisistratus' judges, the big men simply imposed the law of the jungle to abuse the weak. After all, as much as our revolutionary fathers may have succeeded wiping out the notion from our minds, the whole point of justice and the justice system was and should always be to protect the weak from the big man's abuse. Peisistratus also helped the poor farmer to obtain land as well as purchase tools and farm equipment, by providing them with easy loans. But, of course, we should most definitely believe that the real motivation behind these aids was to ensure, that the rural residents surrounding Athens would continue working in the fields, so that they would stay uninterested in the politics of the city-state and therefore never even entertain the thought of challenging the tyrant's rule.. Still, Peisistratus initiated as well an intense public works campaign to enhance the infrastructure and architecture of Athens, building roads and improving the water supply to the city. Previously, aristocrats had owned their private wells, but Peisistratos determined to construct fountain houses to allow everybody to access the water. Public patronage was the norm in Athens during the Peisistratus, as opposed to what had been in the past and, would even more so be later on in the Roman Republic, where private patronage would become a fundamental component of Rome's society. Indeed, private patronage led to the establishment of very strong client networks, where, in return of the patron's sponsorship, the clients will eventually back the patron's political causes, even if these went against their own interests. In contrast, Peisistratus' impulse to public patronage provided a steady source of construction jobs for those citizens in need, as well as more affordable housing in the city center; thus allowing more people to move to Athens proper.  

We should, however, not let us be fooled by the prosperity and improvements that Peisistratus' rule brought to Athens and the lives of its citizens, because all what matters is that he was a tyrant and his only real motive was to perpetuate himself in power. As transmitted, among other authors, by Herodotus and Aristotle, Peisistratus was a man known to be concerned about the people: having secured power, he wanted to do everything in his hands to make his citizens happy and prosperous. In other words, having previously taking up the cause of the downtrodden, he definitely was not going to forsake their interest now. In fact, he had risen against the rival oligarchic factions and, once in power, he dared to confront the aristocracy to the point of greatly reducing their privileges, by, for example, confiscating their lands and giving them to the poor. It then only makes sense to believe that the aristocracy would want by all means to have him removed from power, and his political survival therefore clearly critically depended on his ability to win the people's hearts and keep their love and support. In fact, according to History books, written as they have always been by their aristocratic authors, Peisistratos installed relatives and friends in key political offices and, in his strategy to discourage his enemies and deter any thought they may have had to revolt, placed opponents' children as hostages (like endless rulers would later do throughout centuries) on the island of Naxos, as well as sent or invited to leave for exile both Alkmeonids and other prominent Athenians. Upon the tyrant's death, power passed on to his sons: Hippias and Hipparchus. As a general rule, tyrants were good as long as they critically needed to earn the people's appreciation in order to stay in power. TO the extent that an autocrat is able to make any claim of legitimacy to power based on his lineage or any other ground, different from the people's will, the chances that he will turn out to be a good ruler decrease dramatically. Peisistratus' sons appear to have been the exception to the norm: despite having obtained their authority through inheritance, they seem to have continued their father's gentle and fair style of government. However, History books have it, that after Hiparchus was assassinated, his brother grew more paranoid and oppressive in his actions. While it seems reasonable to think that he would primarily target those prominent Athenians who he perceived were a threat to his regime, it also appears unlikely that his crackdown was exactly surgical, but many innocent people probably became victimized. Clearly, the truth of what exactly happened is something that we will never know; neither is it really relevant anyway. As much as storytellers like to embellish their narratives, any ethical analysis of any fight for power is very rarely of any value. As many times as these stories have been told, in the fight for power it is barely ever possible to differentiate between 'good guys' and 'bad guys': nobody tries to get to the top out of a concern for the people's wellbeing, but out of one's own. Neither is it truthful to speak of the people as a homogeneous body of citizens. Rather, there has always been - and there is still -, on one side, the common-folk and, on the other side, the social betters who are constantly preyin on and crying for being free to abuse their social lessers. In other words, there has always been Aristocrats and common-folk; Adult class and children class; Alphas and gammas; or - in plain English - the abusers and the abused. 

Regardless of what is the truth on Hippias' ruthlessness, it is safe to assume that the regime's destabilization and Hippias' revitalized hostility, gave in turn the final motivation, encouragement and support to the Alcmaeonid family to seek oligarchic Sparta's aid to liberate Athens, by finally put an end to the era of the Peisistratus' tyranny. Cleisthenes was so able to take power, but the fall of the Peisistratus returned Athens to the old factional fiuding, and it was not long before he had in turn to flee as well. However, the leader of the Alcmaeonids had the political insight to learn the lessons of the tyranny and understand that, in order to overpower his enemies and prevail, he would have to win the people's hearts over. We so finally arrive at the historic event of the birth of democracy. Indeed, the proposal of a new democratic system of government absolutely did it for Cleisthenes and the people quickly ran to his banner. As it always happens, however, the new regime made sure to soon kick off its propaganda highlighting its virtues, as much as trashing the previous regime's accomplishments. As a matter of fact, the aristocracy was and has never been able to forgive the Peisistratus for the lost of power and privileges they suffered during the years of tyranny. Probably one of the best examples of this aristocratic resentment is the Anthology of Theognis of Megara's scathing rebuke, where the authors cannot help to express the utmost disgust and contempt for the low-borns and how the tyrants and their evil tyrannies had degraded the aristocracy close to the level of the unwash masses. Indeed, it is truly remarkable to what extent the nobles have never been able to see the rest of us worth for anything, but to serve and toil for them. Interestingly, since all until very recently the rabble has always been illiterate and could have never read any book, the nobles have never even bothered to make any pretense to conceal, never had any concern to blatantly express, their feelings of disgust for us in writing. At the minimum from Plato and Aristotle, to our revolutionary, fake-democratic fathers,  they have always been fully convinced that wealth should be the defining factor in judging an individual's fitness to hold political office and power. Obviously, the people is way too stupid and ignarant to ever get a clue of what needs to be done and exercise command. Paradoxically, if not plain ironically, as noble, educated wise and smart as our masters were and are, it never even hit them that, perhaps, if they would allow the unwashed masses to also receive the same kind of education that they had had, then, perhaps, we would not be that despicable and would be better able to contribute to the prosperity of the community.

Now, let us face it, it is important to understand that this mentality of disgust and contempt for the subordinates is not exclusive of any specific class of humans. Rather, enslavement and exploitation is not only an inherent feature of human nature, but is visible everywhere in nature. In other words, if the chance is ever presented, any living being will not hesitate to enslave and exploit whoever and whatever. We have all seen it: it does not matter how humble a person's origin may be, unless our true personal moral convictions prevent it, anybody would use and abuse any unfortunate soul who so happens to fall under his or her dominion.  

Weather we like it or not, we just have to rekon with the basic facts that 1) the powerful will very rarely hesitate to abuse the weak, and 2) the privileged will look after themselves and will do whatever necessary to keep their advantageous status. The immediate consequence of these two observations is that, in the absence of any leveling mechanism, whenever a significant inequality emerges in a society, this will only keep growing indefinitely. Obviously, as the powerful abuses the weak, the powerful will only grow more powerful, and the weak will get even weaker. Now, by definition, there is no equal opportunities, if an elite accumulates all the resources and leaves everybody else destitute. Moreover, in the absence of equal opportunities, there is no fair competition and without any fair competition meritocracy is not only unattainable, but plainly impossible. However, History has shown again and again, it really does not take a rocket scientist to understand that, to the degree that equal opportunities is a necessary precursor of meritocracy, there is no better policy than the pursuit of equal opportunities to ensure the prosperity of any society.

Probably even more than for what it was intrinsically, but for its enormous historical significance and repercussions, Preisistratus' tyranny is the best example of how equal opportunities - more so than pure equality - leads naturally to prosperity; if only the privilege would ever be ready to give up, or at least not be able to resist losing, their advantageous status. Certainly, there is no doubt about Peisistratus' policies' success producing wealth and ensuring the wellbeing of the citizens; thus representing a decisive factor in Athens' ultimate rise to preeminence. Intriguingly, to the extent that for the winners who write History and the winners who tell the story Peisistratus' tyranny was such a calamity, the lessons which have been taught to us are that nothing of that sort should ever happen again. Certainly, from then on, tyrants became the worst nightmare ever in the minds of oligarchs, aristocrats and magnates alike of all times and places. Hence, immediately after the overthrow of the Peisistratus' tyranny, the new regime made sure to devise mechanisms like ostracism to prevent the threat of any man amassing too much power or influence, that he may ever think of, horror of horrors, becoming a tyrant (Ostracism did not necessarily had to be to the island of Naxos, and it was for freedom and democracy; so it was OK). Of course, nothing as effective as media and entertainment for the aristocracy to engrain in the people any important notion. Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides offer examples of how the people was indoctrinated to dread tyrants. It is definitely not a coincidence that, from all places and times, theater started precisely in Athens in the wake of the rise of the new democratic regime. Obviously, as the mob had for the first time a voice in matters of state, it became imperative to establish a mechanism, whereby those enlighten men would still be able, albeit indirectly, to continue in control and maintain some good sense over the kids' insanity. At this point we may want to ask ourselves, who was the biggest populist: Peisistratus or Cleisthenes? Whichever the answer, eventually our revolutionary fathers were able to find some very good use for both: while the former was transformed into the bogeyman to scare the children with, the latter offered the vaccine: As long as the people believe they have the power, they will hate the tyrant come to remove them an take over; brilliant!! Peisistratus was certainly not the only tyrant in Ancient Greece; but he was 'the tyrant of Athens': the torment that kept Classic Athens' aristocrats sleepless at night, the demon that Classic Athens' authors kept cautioning against. Athens is undoubtedly the cradle of Western thought and it is therefore easy to see how the paranoia has extended into the modern days, until the present time. In fact, the French Aristocracy and wealthy Bourgeoisie, as well as the Colonial, landed, slaveowning magnates in British North America, did not have any shame to argue that King Louis XVI and King George II's attempts to tax them were nothing less than slavery. Thus, with the re-birth of fake-democracy, our revolutionary fathers made sure to devise additional mechanisms like 'separation-of-powers' to prevent the resurrection of the tyrant. What they never really told us is that, sarcastically enough, our fake-democratic fathers' actual fear was against the people's tyranny. Certainly, the threat is as real as the Plague, and they need to continue inventing new mechanisms or the people's tyrant will keep coming back. After all, tyrants are to representative fake-democracies, what yersinia Pestis was to Medieval cities. FDR's expansion of the federal government's power through his ambitious programs and reforms succeeded, not only propelling the nation out of the Great Depression, but also, in a fashion similar to Peisistratus', setting the United States out to years of unprecedented prosperity and undisputed worldwide economic preeminence. It became clear that 'separation of powers' did not suffice. People simply cannot be trusted, but we will forever continue voting for whoever tyrant is good to us, despite his most absolute disregard for freedom, liberty or democracy. 

It is just odd that, as stupid, ignorant, irrational and selfish as people are, - from all presidents - we did not get stuck electing some populist who would only think of frivolously spending lavishly, in order to win the favor of the masses; but on some guy who actually improved the economy and the lives of the people.

As H. W. Brand says in his book, FDR was a "traitor to his class": in a fashion similar to Peisistratus', under the acting of his concern for the people's wellbeing, he kept winning one election after another and was going straight for a tyranny. Clearly, it became necessary to start limiting the number of terms a president can hold the highest office, in order to prevent anything of that sort to ever happen again. Sarcastically enough, our masters' actual fear is against the people's tyranny... Yes, it is definitely a grotesque irony that, to the extent that Peisistratus' tyranny was such a crucial factor in Athens' boom and rise to preeminence, it equally led to the complete vilification of the figure of the tyrant. Indeed, what had traditionally been seen as a blessing for the population - a breath of relief from a history of oligarchic oppression -; was immediately turned into a curse, which had to be avoided by all means and at any cost. Furthermore, it says everything about the extent to which our masters are certain and relaxed about their power to brainwash us with whatever idea they fancy, that they never had any shame nor bothered to make any pretense, to use the very same title which was known in Archaic Greece to mean "the champion of the people", to refer now to the kind of appalling ruler who should be avoided by all means. Indeed, now we have all learned, that the Story has shown again and again that the real motive of those populist rulers protecting the citizens from the oligarch's abuse and embarking in intense programs to improve the lives of the people, was only to become tyrants and perpetuate themselves in power.

To make a long story short: beware of the good governor, because his true motive is to become a despotic tyrant.