Author: amarviswanathan

Authoritarianism vs. Democracy in both Reconstruction Athens and America

                Following the disbandment of the Thirty and the reclaim of Athens by its people, the city and the fallen empire was at a turning point: Do we support democracy or do we revert to authoritarianism? A similar disillusionment with democracy has developed in America. American people are now conflicted amongst themselves: should we support the authoritarian trends rising in America and around the world, or maintain our democratic roots?

           In Xenophon’s Old Oligarch, we see arguments for the return of autocracy: “I cannot commend their present method of running the state, because in choosing it they preferred that the masses should do better than the respectable citizens” (1-4, Old Oligarch). This line expresses many of the sentiments Americans feel today. They have been done a disservice by democracy. Others succeed and thrive while their lives have been allowed to deteriorate.

            In rural America, what was once the middle class of America has declined rapidly in socioeconomic status. The jobs they once had, as machine workers and skilled laborers have lowered their wages. They feel the pain of automation removing the need for their jobs. Furthermore, opioids flood their communities and homes. These people were once content and thriving in their professions, but a changing America has put them out of work and led them toward ruin. The result is the support of politicians and policies that are increasingly authoritarian and undemocratic. Similarly, an inflated democracy and sense of impunity among the Athenians led to a decline in strategic thinking and quality of life for many Athenians. This culminated in them being overrun by the Thirty, and after this calamity, a sense of disillusionment with democracy and a desire to return to authoritarianism.

            On the opposite end of the political spectrum, the American left wing has become inflamed by police brutality and school shootings. They see the economic ruin that still belies minorities and America and once again feel as though democracy does not work for them. While rural conservatives have just begun to see the damage of the opioid epidemic, African-Americans have been dealing with a similar plague for the past forty years. The result is a heightened sense of racial tension and ‘us vs them’ mentality among American liberals. Democratic politicians have changed their tones into ones similar to the right wing, in that they promise simple, strong man solutions to complex problems. One of the problems outlined in Old Oligarch was that the democracy had begun to make increasingly foolish political decisions that did not benefit the people of Athens, and that democracy was not working to better the individual.

               However, in the center of the spectrum lie those who still believe in democracy. They are beset on all sides by people who wish to support authoritarian policies on both ends of the political spectrum. While they have seen the destruction caused by poor political decisions by the American government, they still maintain that democracy is worth fighting for. These were the moderate and radical democrats who saw the destruction by the Thirty as well as the poor political decisions from the Old Athenian democracy but still chose to support the democratic political system.

      The parallels between America’s internal conflict over democracy and authoritarianism are mirrored in the conflict between democracy and authoritarianism in the reconstruction of Athens following the invasion by the Thirty. Everyone has seen the flaws in democracy and how it has led to ruin, yet people’s reaction to this has been divided. Some choose to maintain support for democracy while some support authoritarianism.

WC 588

The Crusades were a Cash Grab

The First Crusaders were not justified in capturing Jerusalem following the defense of Constantinople.  After Byzantine defeats against the Seljuq Turks, Pope Gregory VII called for a crusade to aid their Orthodox Christian brothers. This call was ignored. 20 years later, Byzantine emperor Alexios asked Pope Urban II for aid against the Turkish, and once again the Pope responded in favor, calling for aid to the Byzantines: “This royal city, however, situated at the center of the earth, is now held captive by the enemies of Christ and is subjected, by those who do not know God, to the worship the heathen. She seeks, therefore, and desires to be liberated and ceases not to implore you to come to her aid” (Expedition to Jerusalem, Book 1). This time, however, the Popes words had more impact. The armies sent out were unprofessional and undisciplined. They sacked and pillaged as they moved toward Constantinople, killing Jews and laying Eastern Europe to waste. Once they arrived in Constantinople, Alexios saw the destruction they had caused and wished only to use the knights as a tool to defend his empire. He transported them to Asia Minor and allowed them to continue taking back territory after repelling the Turks.

I believe that following defense of Constantinople, the crusaders returned to their original goal: gaining wealth. The people leading the crusade were some of the most powerful nobles throughout Europe. They had a lot of money and a lot of it to risk by embarking on this crusade. Why would they do that? It is not simply out of kindness for their fellow Christian, but to take wealth from the Muslim Empire and establish Christian footholds throughout the Middle East. At the end of the crusade, “those who were poor there, her God makes rich. Those who had few coins, here possess countless besants” (Expedition to Jerusalem, Book III). Essentially, those who had gone to crusade became extremely wealthy and rich.

It should be clear now that the Crusades were simply an excuse for European nobles to take land from the Muslim Empire. Were they justified? According to their own beliefs with God, they were not. They claimed they were conquering the holy land in the name of God, but that is a lie they were told and that they told themselves. They say they did it to defend Christianity, but it was really to make money. ‘Justification’ of our actions is a very relative term. According to our values, ones that promote peace and dissuade conflict in the name of greed, the Crusaders were not justified. According to their values, defending fellow Christians and approval by God, the Crusaders were still not justified. No one has claim to land or wealth, people will take what they want: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must”.

 

WC:475

 

Fulcher of Chartres. A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127. Trans. Frances Rita Ryan. Ed.    Harold S. Fink. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1969

 

USNA Leadership Can Dunk on Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu’s Art of War, focuses on how to win conflicts with the enemy. The Naval Academy has a different focus, how to be a good leader. However, Sun Tzu admits that one of the 5 constant factors of war is The Commander and his/her leadership. Sun Tzu believes that all that truly matters to leadership is intelligence. Ability to plan well, deceive the enemy, and use the environment to their advantage. Sun Tzu spends little time discussing the relationship between leadership and the soldiers. USNA tries to imbue its students with values and principles which it believes to be valuable in leadership. The Naval Academy focuses less on how to win wars, but more on how to better develop and maintain relationships within a unit. Essentially, Sun Tzu believes that leadership is not the most important factor in winning a conflict, while the Naval Academy believes that leadership is the only factor.

Sun Tzu’s entire treatise laid out in The Art of War, talks about discipline, knowledge of the enemy, deception, etc., but spend very little time talking about leadership. This means that Sun Tzu sees leadership as either not critical to the success in armed conflict or as not needing development. This is because of the basis upon which The Art of War was crafted: Confucianism, Legalism, and Daoism. Confucianism defines the 5 major relationships: ruler to subject, father to son, husband to wife, elder to younger, and friend to friend. This means that according to Sun Tzu, leadership was already defined and did need to be talked about in The Art of War. Essentially, if Confucian teachings are followed, leadership will be good enough to ensure the success of all grand strategy imposed by the state.

USNA has a much different philosophy on warfighting. They believe that there is no rulebook to leadership. Confucianism is not the end all be all to good leadership and one needs to spend more time and thought in developing leadership skills. Essentially, without good leadership, no task can be accomplished. This means that leadership is central to accomplish a grand strategy or winning an armed conflict. For this reason, USNA spends much more time defining the components to good leadership: morality, ethics, values, professionalism, etc.

I believe that USNA’s philosophy on warfighting is most effective. Sun Tzu lays out principles of tactics and warfighting, all of which is taught to military officials regardless. What USNA focuses on is good leadership, which is critical to any action a leader wishes to take.

Sun-Tzu, and Samuel B. Griffith. 1964. The art of war. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

419 Words

Similarities between The 3rd Century Crisis and the Syrian Civil War

        The current Syrian Civil War and the 3rd Century Crisis share a lot in common. The 3rd Century Crisis was a period in which the Roman Empire fell into chaos and civil war following the failure of the Severan Dynasty and lasting until reunification and reformation under Aurelian and Diocletian. Following the death of Severus Alexander, there was a 50 year period of “barbarian invasions, civil wars, usurpations, increasing economic difficulties, and natural catastrophes” (Geza p. 94). During this period, internal trade broke down, resulting in financial disaster and localism, where cities became more isolated and Rome lost its power as the center of the empire. The result was the inability of the empire to defend against invasions from barbarians from the North. Landowners and the rich began to grow their own armies and rule their own land, further taking power from any central Roman authority. This period was characterized by civil war, plague, and invasion.

        In 2011, the Syrian government began to crack down on peaceful protests that had spread to Syria via the Arab Spring. After the government began torturing and killing innocent protests, revolution broke out with rebels demanding democratic reforms, the release of prisoners, an increase in freedoms, and ending corruption. The civil war was starkly religiously divided on the Shia Sunni divide.  However, soon after the onset of the civil war, ISIS, YPG, and FSA are battling against the Assad government and with each other. The result is chaos and death as Syrians are invaded by terrorist groups like Hezbollah, YPG, and ISIS. The Assad regime is using chemical weapons on Syrians. The result of all of this is famine and disease breaking out among Syrians, as well as a decentralization of power as the Syrian government has been delegitimized.

        These two regime changes are very similar. Although Assad was not assassinated, he was removed from power. His absence led to invasions from terrorist groups, just as barbarians invaded Rome in the 3rd Century Crisis. As civil war tore apart both Rome and Syria, the result was decentralization of power, famine, and disease. The 3rd Century crisis ended once one single ruler was able to conquer all of the surrounding regions. The people were content enough to settle for whoever was in power, so long as life was stabilized. This current civil cannot be solved in the same way. Modern power struggles are much different than those of the 3rd Century, wars are no longer won with larger armies, but widespread guerrilla warfare. We don’t have single generals leading an army, but a loose, decentralized band of goons with guns. Modern weapons, communication, and war strategy have made today’s conflicts much different than those before. For this reason, the past cannot inform us of ways to solve modern power vacuums.

Alfoldy, Geza. “The Crisis of the Third Century.” Duke Library. October 1973. Accessed October 15, 2018. https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/9021/4625.

462 Words

Shared Flaws between Athenian and American Democracy

                A significant similarity between the American and Athenian system of democracy is the role of self-interest in determining the way legislation is crafted. In American democracy, elected senators and congressmen craft and pass laws. In the Athenian democracy, laws were created and voted upon by anyone eligible to vote and who showed up in the Pnyx. Both systems improve the society they belong to, but the issue of self-interest has led to issues in both democracies.

                In the Athenian democracy, self-interest among rowers led Athenian democracy astray. The Athenian empire had democracy for good reason. According to Xenophon, “it seems just that all should share in public office by lot and by election, and that any citizen who wishes should be able to speak in the Assembly” (Thucydides, The Constitution of Athenians: 2). What Xenophon meant by this, is that in Athenian democracy, allowing citizens to vote was critical to a maintaining a functioning empire. “it is the ordinary people who man the fleet and bring the city her power; the provide the helmsmen” (Thucydides, The Constitution of Athenians: 2). Participation of the rowers in democracy made the fleet more effective. Athens had made a great, expensive, naval fleet which was maintained by free citizens whose welfare depended on the success and usage of said fleet. As a result, self-interest motivated the rowers to push Athens into military conquest beyond which it could sustain. This led to overexpansion and ruin of the Athenian empire. The self-interest of participants in Athenian democracy, the rowers wanting to get paid by supporting naval expeditions, led to poor decisions from the assembly, attacking Sicily and Persia. Clearly, self-interest led Athenian democracy astray.

                In the American assembly, self-interest from lawmakers has lead the American democracy to make poor decisions. In American politics, lawmakers often choose to support special interest and lobbyists instead of the people who elected them. We see this in American politics where lawmakers support laws that benefit certain industries or companies. Those lawmakers then go to work as lobbyists for those companies and make millions of dollars. “For every person the American people have elected to sponsor legislation of the public benefit, special interests have more than one former legislative advocate now working on the inside in Congress” (Farnam, Washington Post, Revolving Door). This quote describes the “revolving door” in American politics where legislators are either supported by special interests before joining Congress or are paid by special interests to lobby in Washington after leaving Congress. This means that there is clearly a special interest for legislators in Congress. For example, in Congress’s decision to fund the production of the F-35, they chose a manner of production that was extremely effective and inefficient, namely to support the special interests (BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin, among others) involved in producing the plane (Tegler, Popular Mechanics, WTF-35).  American democracy went hundreds of billions over budget because of the self-interest in Washington. Clearly, American democracy had been led astray by self-interest.

                Both Athenian and American democracy helped maintain the strength of each respective society. However, both democracies were harmed by the same issue: self-interest.

Works Cited

      Xenophon. The Old Oligarch: Being the Constitution of the Athenians Ascribed to Xenophon. Oxford :Basil Blackwell, 1926.

       Farnam, T. W. “Study Shows Revolving Door of Employment between Congress, Lobbying Firms.” The Washington Post. September 13, 2011. Accessed October 03, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/study-shows-revolving-door-of-employment-between-congress-lobbying-firms/2011/09/12/gIQAxPYROK_story.html?utm_term=.cb268ec82fe0.

       Tegler, Eric. “How the F-35 Got to Be Such a Mess.” Popular Mechanics. July 27, 2018. Accessed October 03, 2018. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a21957/wtf-35/.

‘Tyranny’ applied to the rule of Mao Zedong and President Xi

          Should Mao Zedong and Xi Jinping be considered tyrants? In ‘Dictatorship nearly destroyed China once. Will it do so again?’ Radchenko analyzes the history of Mao Zedong’s rule of China and draws parallels to that of Xi Jinping. Radchenko says that Xin Jinping removed term limits and became a ‘tyrant’, just like Mao Zedong. Whether or not Xi and Mao are ‘tyrants’ depends on the lens through which one looks at tyranny. In pre-democratic Europe, tyranny was neither bad nor good. Tyranny means that a leader gained absolute power through unconventional means.  In ancient Greece, tyrants were often members of the aristocracy who usurped the current monarchy. Whether or not they are good or evil, or loved or hated does not influence the definition of what a tyrant is. Radchenko’s article details how Mao secured power by founding the People’s Republic of China and leading the Communist Party of China following the Chinese Civil War; this rise to absolute power is certainly ‘unconventional’, and Mao is therefore a tyrant. Now, is Xi Jinping a tyrant? Once again, the archaic definition of tyrant says yes. President Xi led the Communist Party and ruled China with absolute power. In Radchenko’s article, Xi secured this power for a lifetime by removing term limits of the presidency. What this means is that he can rig elections and lead China indefinitely. Once again, Xi secured absolute power through unconventional means, and should therefore be seen as a tyrant according to the archaic definition of a tyrant.

         Are Mao and Xi ‘modern tyrants’? The modern meaning of a tyrant is negative and is influenced by pro-democratic powers. It was the Athenian democrats and those who grew up in a democratic society who decided and wrote that democracy was better than tyranny. As the number of democratic societies grew, the number of people who claimed democracy was better also grew. The result of which is that now, the whole world favors democracy, or feigns it. For this reason, the most common definition of tyrant says they are a ruler unrestrained by law or constitution, or a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally. Mao “ruled with an iron hand” and “tens of millions of Chinese paid with their lives for Mao’s delusions of glory” (Radchenko). This is certainly exercising absolute power oppressively and brutally, and Mao can therefore be considered a tyrant. President Xi also has a history of making people ‘disappear’ and suppressing those who oppose the communist party. Furthermore “Xi’s addiction to power clouds China’s future” (Radchenko). Once again, Xi can also be considered a tyrant in the modern definition. However, there is more to be said about what a tyrant is in the modern era.

         In obviously authoritarian societies, rulers claim to have democracy in order to quell both internal and foreign dissent. This is why China and Russia rig elections. The modern definition of tyranny is likely not to change in the near future, however the methods by which rulers claim absolute power is changing. Rulers today no longer need to use violence to suppress dissent. A much more powerful tool is manipulation of the relationship between people and information. Today, people are extremely reliant on news and information presented to them to form opinions, so many rulers today simply manipulate that information, by suppressing the internet or producing their own news. The result of this is a growing support for authoritarianism and tyranny around the world.

Works Cited

Radchenko, Sergey. 2018. Dictatorship nearly destroyed China once. Will it do so again? March 5. Accessed September 6, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/03/05/dictatorship-nearly-destroyed-china-once-will-it-do-so-again/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95869e20c729.