---

            The ideas of how to govern have been pondered sense the creation of civilization and very deeply thought about during the relatively recent years of the Western “Enlightenment Period” which brought about the creation of the American states under the representative government for which they stand. It would be repugnant to assert representative over direct because of modern bias toward it. Direct democracy does have times when it is also effective, but from a perspective of viewing democracy as something that needs to represent populations both small and large, the representative system holds more utility than direct democracy as it is a scalable form of government. Modern representation is not shaming direct democracy, but simply a superior form of democracy for the objective reasons that it can function in populations of all sizes and adds layers of protection against the emotions of mob rule while maintaining its core function of expressing the will of the people.

            Direct democracy does work. This fact is evident by ancient Athens. It is also evident today in America on the local government level in town hall settings and larger scale referendums on single issues. The difference being that in Athenian direct democracy was the primary mechanism of government, while it is used mostly today to supplement a larger representative system. Direct Athenian democracy could not function for day to day operations of a large country like the United States or any other. It is not feasible for millions of people to go to the same place and debate and vote in person. That must be done by smaller groups to be effective. A representative democracy brings with it a scalable platform that can be used to represent large or small populations. It also allows for different populations to be united together, unlike the relatively homogeneous democracy of ancient Athens. In the Federalist Papers 62, written by James Madison states in regards to the American Senate that it is a, “compromise between pretensions of the large and the small states.”[1] Representation via the combination of both the American House of Representatives and Senate allows for a diverse populations of millions, over a continent size landmass, living within their own organized state governments to come together. This large scale democracy would be impossible if millions of citizens within an Athenian model of democracy tried to descend on one location to participate in government. Representative government can also be scaled down to work on the same smaller effective level as direct government today in the form of city councils and even school boards.

            Democracy without safeguards can become thousands of tyrants in an assembly, no better than one tyrant in castle. Direct democracy has no safeguard as even Athens could in Pericles’s words, “to speak plainly, is a tyranny”.[2] Athens became a tyrannical empire under direct democracy. The United States despite some past imperial tendencies is not a tyranny. The House still allows the mass will of the people to have a voice, while the Senate is a longer termed office that can act as a check on possible tyranny of the masses.

            American representative government is marked by its checks and balances. This checks and balances system acts as a safeguard of liberty and values not found within direct democracy. Athenian direct democracy also does not have the ability to scale up to levels needed to function in large complex nations, while the American representative system can. These two reasons of safeguards and scalability combined makes representation a better form of overall government.

• Robert Hatfield

Word Count: 537

---

[1] James Madison. “The Federalist #62”. Constitution Society: Everything Needed to Decide Constitutional Issues.

[2] Pericles, Thucydides 2.63

A lot of fugitive are fleeing from Venezuela due to the economic collapse of their country. The majority of these immigrants blame Venezuela’s president, Nicolas Maduro, for the total collapse and desecration of their economy. Because of this, they are calling him a dictator and a tyrant. The use of the word tyrant has been modified ever since ancient times. In current times it is considered a close synonym to dictator. The situation in Venezuela further proves how people no longer use the same definition for the word tyrant.

Some would say that the word tyrant has not changed significantly from its original meaning. They would point out that, due to the fact that ancient tyrants tended to emulate all of the characteristics we see with current tyrants, the definition is essentially the same. Tyrant has become more of verb whereas it was more of a noun in the past. Tyrant also has a much higher negative connotation with it then it used to. We see this in the current situation in Venezuela.

            Venezuela is in a dire state, and its people believe that the one to blame is their current “tyrant” Maduro. Tom Phillips interviewed a fugitive camped in Mexico named Molina who said it best when he stated, “I think if Maduro goes, we’ll be back in Venezuela the next month. I’m 100% sure.” Venezuelans are extremely proud of their homelands. They love their country and its landscape and would love to go back to rebuild, but the current president is corrupt. They are unable to be safe and taken care because president Maduro cannot keep the country in check. Even the United States, a major world power, recognizes, or believes, Venezuelan opposition for Maduro as interim president. Gregg Re comments on how President Trump formally recognized Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s legitimate leader. The US has also placed billions of dollars in new sanctions against disputed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and the country’s state-owned oil monopoly PDVSA As of right now Venezuelans are protesting in places such as Mexico City and Hong Kong to gain respect and attention for their situation.

            Interestingly enough, based off of the definition of tyrant in the ancient world, Nicolas Maduro would not be considered a tyrant. Venezuela has been a federal presidential republic for about 45 years now. This shows that they do not follow a more hereditary system where the presidency, or monarchy, stays in the family. Because of this Maduro would not be considered a tyrant during ancient times, because he is not interrupting a family lineage of rulers. This shows that the word tyrant has been modified from the ancient definition of disrupting a family lineage of rulers to a more modern definition which would be similar to a dictator. Even if you look up the definition of tyrant in the modern dictionary it says that a tyrant is a cruel and oppressive ruler.

            As time passes definitions sometimes lose their original meanings and adopt a more stereotypical definition that fits who it applies to. This can be seen from the current modern use of the word tyrant which is used when describing situations such as the current dictatorship going on in Venezuela.

— Andrew Beck

Word count: 534

2 Definitions

            Over time customs and trends change or evolve. In the pre-democratic era, a tyrant was a leader who seized power without being a part of the royal family. For example, during the twelfth century B.C, different groups of people were trying to expand their land in Mesopotamia. The Assyrians, led by King Esarhaddon, went on expeditions across the Mediterranean coast to expand their empire. King Esarhaddon would be classified as a tyrant, because he came to power by unjust ways. Over time this definition of a tyrant evolved and took on a new meaning. Post-rise of democracy the definition change into an oppressive leader. This new definition of a tyrant was used to describe the President of the United States, Donald Trump.

            Jeffrey Sachs, CNN Journalist, wrote an article about the President going down a path of tyranny through his actions in office. Sachs is swift to connect President Trump with leaders that have tried to oppress the well-being of Americans during the colonial era. Sachs states, “The United States was born in a revolt against the tyranny of King George III. The Constitution was designed to prevent tyranny through a system of checks and balances, but in President Trump’s America, those safeguards are failing” (Sachs). Sachs delegates the word tyranny to describe the rule of King George over the colonies. Digging deeper into this statement, King George was oppressive to the colonies by raising taxes and implementing laws that imposed on Americans rights. Conversely, when Sachs speaks about President Trump, he classifies him as a leader that disregards precedents that make our country a democracy. Sachs states, “The list of one-man actions grows rapidly. Trump is single-handedly imposing hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs — that is, taxes — on imported goods from key US allies and China, without any explicit or implicit Congressional backing” (Sachs). These actions given in this article classify President Trump as a leader that disregards the idea that he needs permission to do as he pleases. In our democracy, we have checks and balances. Others may say the president does have the ability to use executive authority to bypass Congress and that is something President Trump has done.

            I believe that the term tyrant was used partially correct within the confines of post-rise of democracy. Sachs correctly classified King George a tyrant and in the case of President Trump. The information Sachs states in his article showed signs of a tyrant when President Trump put tariffs on our allies. Conversely, it would not fit the ancient definition of tyranny, because President Trump rose to power by an election.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/opinions/trump-is-taking-us-down-the-path-to-tyranny-sachs/index.html

-Denzel Polk

Word Count: 441

The ancient and modern definition of tyranny vary greatly, with the ancient definition being a person who came to power in a non-hereditary way and having neither a positive nor negative connotation while the modern definition of tyranny describes a dictator and has a strictly negative connotation.

The current Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro, through his actions and pathway of achieving his position sufficiently fulfills both definitions of tyrant by both being a leader who was elected and not granted his position by birthright while also possessing dictator like qualities. The NYTimes has given an update to his recent actions in the article “After U.S. Backs Juan Guaido as Venezuela’s Leader, Maduro Cuts Ties”, showing how he has cut relations with the United States and demanded the American diplomats leave while also refusing to acknowledge his opposition in the presidential race Juan Guaido. (Herrero) As Venezuelan leaders are elected through a vote and a democracy, Maduro was able to win his position through the people. However, his time as President has been described as one of “political repression, economic mismanagement and corruption”. His reign of power has been described as tyranny and has kept power through reelections that have been denounced as rigged.

Regarding the origin of the word tyrant, the Greek historian Herodotus tells the story of Pisistratus and analyzes how he continuously rose again and again to the position of a tyrant. However, he is popular among the people and a leader, and he was quoted to “administer the state constitutionally and organize the state’s affairs properly and well” (Herodotus, 1.59). This shows the connotation that tyrants had at the time was not negative and could even be positively viewed.

However, although Maduro does fit the definition of an ancient tyrant in that he gained power in a non-hereditary way, his rule can only be viewed as unjust. His mismanagement of national resources has caused more than three million citizens to emigrate and resulted in those that chose to stay having a difficult time in finding basic necessities such as food, water and medication. His control of the military has led to high crime rates and suppression of any movements against his political party. Maduro has also received the backing of countries such as Russia, which is also backing dictatorships in the Middle East with assistance towards Syria and the Assad regime. Maduro’s actions and his firm grasp on power confirms his status as a modern day tyrant. Furthermore, his rise to power was strictly non-hereditary in that he started as a bus driver and worked his way through the ranks of Hugo Chavez’s cabinet, eventually becoming the “most capable administrator and politician in Chavez’s inner circle”. He assumed the position of President after Chavez’s death and kept the position after winning the election in 2013 with slightly over 50% of the votes. He has thus kept his position by decree with powers given to him by the Venezuelan legislature. As his rise and seizure of power was based on his own work and not due to being born into the position, Maduro is also able to fulfill the ancient definition of a tyrant as a ruler who gained the position through a non-hereditary way. Maduro, who has been described as a tyrant, has proven himself to be both definitions of the word through his methods and actions.

-Eugene Om

Word Count- 543

The term tyrant is developed from the Greek word, Tyrannos, which means “sole ruler”. Ancient Greeks referred to tyrants as rulers who came to power in a non-hereditary way. This classified tyrants as coming to power through illegitimate means, despite the fact of whether they rose to power through common use of election, or seizing power by force of arms. Tyrannies in pre-democratic societies were commonly correlated with “statis’s” which describes a civil conflict with a moral problem within a city. This situation produces a leader to arise who is not in the line of ruling, but usually has public support over the power of aristocrats. Pisistratus an infamous Ancient Greek tyrant, is known for his success of acquisition of Athens as a tyrant. Through three different attempts, Pisistratus finally achieved the rule of Athens, rising to power non-hereditary. Although he used force in his attempts to seize Athens, as a tyrant he did not disrupt the structure of government and instead brought prosperity and stability throughout the city-state.“After Pisistratus ruled Athens, but he did not interfere with the existing structure of offices or change laws; he administered the state constitutional and organized the states affairs properly and well” (Herodotus 1.57). This quote demonstrates the history of the pre-democratic use of the word tyrant as a ruler who brings success throughout his rule in a region that has been previously corrupted with chaos. This definition of a tyrant does not fit the modern day association of tyranny which is plagued with a negative connotation. Common characteristics of a stereotypical tyrant include corruption, greed, oppressiveness, and more unfavorable descriptions. However, Pistastrus brought economic growth throughout Athens, as well as conducted public works projects throughout the city-state. Known for bringing stability, within both political affairs throughout the government and the economy, his progress in Athens sheds light on the term, characterizing tyranny in Ancient Greece and pre-democratic times in a good way.

Modern-day president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, has been described as a “Tyrant for Life” for his involvement in Sudan, connecting his actions to a modern-day perception of a tyrant, post-Persian Invasion in Athens (Reeves). Bashir’s label of tyrant differs from that of Peisistratus in pre-democratic times because of the abusive actions that cause him to be associated with the negative connotation of a modern-day tyrant. This analysis is associated with characteristics of greed, corruption, and bad intentions. Omar al-Bashir holds an oppressive rule has been marked with acts of atrocity against humanity, including mass killings and rape, along with accusations of war crimes. Although Omar fits the description of a tyrant through his actions to overthrow the existing ruler in 1989 using force, he used manipulation and corruption as means to maintain his firm rule which has created opposition within his own party and the resisting party and led him to commit acts that correlate to the modern day definition if a tyrant. Instead of bringing progress as many Ancient Greek tyrants did, Omar has created instability in the government and country, bringing hostility within the public. Not only has Sudan suffered from economic deterioration, but endures assault with a civil war involving ethnic cleansing. Unlike, Peisistratus and many other Ancient Greek tyrants who kept the structure of the government, Omar al- Bashir, in full control of the government, has managed to change the existing Constitution to meet his needs. Currently, Sudan’s Constitution has a two-term presidential limit, however, through Bashir’s influence within the ruling party, he has been elected a candidate for a third term, which would, in turn, rewrite the Amendments within Sudan’s own Constitution. With this change in the Constitution, Omar al-Bashir has the ability to perpetually maintain power forever, escaping any possible backlash for his violent rule and abusing authority.

-Caroline Foley

Word Count: 591

https://blackpast.org/gah/bashir-omar-hassan-ahmad-al-1944

http://sudanreeves.org/2018/08/13/8746/.

http://sudanreeves.org/2018/08/13/8746/.

Herodotus. The Histories. Start Publishing LLC, 2015.

Spodek, Howard. The World’s History. 4th ed., Pearson, 2010.

Maduro of Venezuela is one of today’s prime examples of a “tyrant”, however the term now holds a significantly different meaning than it did when the word first came into existence with the Ancient Greek ruler Peisisratos. The traits associated with the complex term “tyrant” have evolved over time, with its current connotations being more negative than they were when the first tyrant actually came to power. Today, people often associate the term “tyranny” with the likes of Nicolas Maduro, the dictator of Venezuela who is widely known for his political intolerance and aggressive leading tactics. An article published by The Guardian titled “’We want an end to tyranny’: Venezuelan diaspora calls for Maduro to go” depicts Maduro as the epitome as tyranny, associating words like “murderer”, “usurper”, “imposter”, and “oppression” with his tyrannical nature; one sign at a protest against Maduro highlighted in the article that best exemplifies this attitude is one that read, “Maduro. Murderer. Usurper. Free Venezuela!”(Phillips). This article, therefore, illustrates a tyrant as somebody who aggressively and cruelly takes control of a country, acting for his personal gain. Because Maduro is one of modern times’ most well-known tyrants, the term “tyrant” is popularly associated with these qualities, and has become a term that describes a strongly disliked, controlling, and aggressive leader.

However, the article’s definition of the term tyrant does not completely align with the definition of tyranny when the first tyrant came to power. In Ancient Greece, where the first tyrant Peisistratos came to power in 546 BC, a tyrant was merely an extra-constitutional ruler, somebody who came to power in a non-hereditary way. Stereotypes do exist based off of ancient tyrants, like gradual corruption, greed, and sexual deviancy, some of which do meet the criteria of a modern day tyrant. However, tyrants weren’t “bad” in the way that many people view them in modern day. In fact, Peisistratos epitomizes the opposite of what Maduro is as a leader. Although he did make violent attempts to come to power, his rule was generally good hearted and well-intended. His time of rule is known as the “Golden Age of Athens” because he promoted economic wellbeing and made several religious reforms, including bringing the shrine of Demeter at Eleusis under state controls, both of which promoted unity of the Athenian state. In contrast, Maduro’s policies ultimately brought the further collapse of the Venezuelan economy and divided the country. Additionally, he preserved the constitutional forms of government, whereas Maduro is widely known for limiting Venezuelan rights. Peisistratos was, therefore, a more positive leader who was widely supported, whereas Maduro is overall the opposite.

The article’s use of the term “tyrant” isn’t necessarily incorrect. It doesn’t completely align with the word’s original meaning, however the more negative terms that were associated with the word “tyrant” during the reign of Ancient Greece, like “greedy” and “corrupt”, do still apply today. There is, therefore, some overlap between the modern definition of a tyrant and the ancient definition of a tyrant. However, the term “tyrant” today is used in a more negative light than it was in ancient times, which the article demonstrates. Today, rarely is a tyrant described as having a positive influence on society, and, in this way, the article’s use of the term tyranny is incorrect. Overall, however, the modern use of the word “tyrant” isn’t completely different from its ancient use.

–Katie Mackle

Word count: 558

Phillips, Tom, and Joe Parkin Daniels. “’We Want an End to Tyranny’: Venezuelan Diaspora Calls for Maduro to Go.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 24 Jan. 2019, www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/24/we-want-an-end-to-tyranny-venezuelan-diaspora-call-for-maduro-to-go.

Starr, Chester G. “Peisistratus.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 16 Mar. 2018, www.britannica.com/biography/Peisistratus.

In ancient times, a tyrant was one who was ruling from an authority that was non hereditary. In the typical sense, this means that tyrants are not always bad, which is contradictory to the biased examples given by pro democratic literature in the Archaic period and in an article describing President Trump. An article by Eliot Cohen unequivocally compares President Donald Trump to a modern tyrant: a cruel or oppressive ruler. The author is not correctly using the word ‘tyrant’ as he connects the dislike of Trump with the word and is not careful to distinguish the post-rise of democracy and pre-democratic views towards it.

In the sense of the pre-archaic period, the comparison is not as bad as it sounds. However, the basis of Cohen’s article relies on the fact that tyrants are usually considered bad by today’s post-democratic standards. This is evident when he states that “tyrants are always abandoned by their followers” and “a tyrant is unloved.” Furthermore, Cohen compares Trump’s commonly perceived sense of selfishness and bad behavior to that of Mussolini – a “monumental tyrant.” This is not true. Many tyrants in Athenian states restored order and preserved constitutional forms of government that increased unity. A great example of this is Peisistratus of Athens. Specifically, Peisistratus improved water supply, lowered crime, created a road system and systematized the market place. Aristotle described the reign of Peisistratus as the “golden age” of the Athenian state. Typically, the reign of ancient tyrants did not last long as criticism grew, popularity dropped, and all the while democracy started to take hold. The author takes advantage of this fact and states that Trump will be abandoned. Cohen gives no real examples as to how Trump could be compared to a corrupt tyrant besides his attitudes towards the press, minorities and even his self absorption in his own endeavours. Although this is common among classically defined tyrants with the addition of sexual deviance, violence, and greed, it still does not warrant the accusation that all tyrants of ancient times possessed these traits proven by leaders such as Peisistratus.

The article goes on to expand on the command and disadvantages corrupt tyrants have towards their people, “those he commands move only in command, nothing in love.” Although this is true to some extent during a presidency, I do not agree that this alone classifies Trump as a tyrant. Some may disagree, but there still exists a large majority of Americans that will support Trump in love of the way he leads.

All in all, Cohen is expanding on the modern definition of a tyrant that evolved during the pro democratic period: a cruel or oppressive ruler. I would argue that the author is not correctly using the word ‘tyrant’ as he connects the dislike of Trump with the word and is not careful to distinguish the post-rise of democracy and pre-democratic views towards it. In the typical Ancient context, Cohen’s use of ‘tyrant’ would certainly not fit the literal definition that the pre-archaic period describes. However, those that criticized rulers in the post-rise of democracy would certainly agree with the use that Cohen articulates purely based on their bias. Even so, his use would not align with the original definition of the word tyrant.

Brandon Gore

Word count: 542

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/08/the-end-of-trumps-reign/568480/

The ancient, pre-democratic definition of tyranny states that a tyrant was a person that took the throne without inheriting it. It also described someone that took power using unjust or cruel methods. The second part of that definition is the one that better fits the modern day definition of tyrant.

An article I found regarding a “tyrant” is one of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega. The article describes him and his wife, Rosario Murillo (coincidentally the vice-president) oppressing the Nicaraguan people to the point where they have started rebelling and have “turned their backs on him”. Basically, they have lost all trust in their government and leadership. Ortega sends his people to be tortured, accuses them of terrorism as well as espionage without basis or evidence, and accumulates wealth at the expense of his people. One quote that sums up the article says, “Ortega hasn’t been able to crush the rebellion and social unrest however hard he has tried. The times when his people lovingly referred to Ortega and his government as “the boys” are a distant memory now.” President Ortega even has armed groups to fight the rebellion that shoot at the head and chest to kill, instead of using high-pressure water hoses and rubber bullets like almost every other government in the world. It is stated that Ortega’s armed groups roam the streets, capturing protestors and murder them in public, with the intention of intimidating the population. Currently, there have been more than 350 protestors killed in the last 100 days of protests, but thousands more injured by these groups. Also, the fact that he made his wife vice-President is a big red flag. Showing favoritism as the President of a country is unfair.  The whole country of Nicaragua has been in disarray since Ortega has taken power.

Based off of this article, the word tyrant does not really fit into the ancient definition as he did not become President unjustly, he was elected into office. As the quote above states, the Nicaraguan people were actually fond of him at the start of his Presidency. He also was not in the bloodline to inherit the Presidency, but democracy doesn’t work like that anymore anyway. However, he does represent the modern day definition of a tyrant. He is cruel to his people and makes personal gains off of their suffering and hardship, without any regard for them.

— Peter Lohrbach

Word Count: 401