Tyranny in Nicaragua

In the August 2018 article for Foreign Affairs “How Daniel Ortega Became a Tyrant,” Gioconda Belli refers to the Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega as a tyrant.  While this article primarily uses the word tyrant in the modern context, Daniel Ortega also fits the definition of an ancient tyrant.

            The ancient use of “tyrant” most simply refers to a non-hereditary ruler who usurps the current ruler in an extra-constitutional manner.  These tyrants are stereotyped as good rulers at first, but gradually become corrupted and have a reign characterized by violence, greed, and sexual deviancy.  Often these tyrants would pass their power down to their children, reestablishing hereditary leadership.  On the other hand, when the word “tyrant” is used in a modern context, it refers to a leader who rules with absolute authority, particularly in a way that is harsh or oppressive. 

            When he first rose to power, Daniel Ortega had many qualities of an ancient tyrant.  In Nicaragua in the 1970s, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) fought against the current dictatorship: the Somoza regime.  The FSLN used guerilla tactics against the regime until a complete insurrection occurred in 1978, which ended the Somoza regime in 1979.  Through these events, Ortega first rose to power as prominent guerilla, to the coordinator of the FSLN’s Revolutionary Junta, then the leading member of the FSLN’s National Directorate, eventually as Nicaragua’s President in 1984.  In this, Ortega is a tyrant by the ancient definition, as he came to be the sole leader of a nation by overthrowing the previous dictator through revolutionary, therefore extra-constitutional means.

            Later, Ortega’s rule began to be colored by the traits of a stereotypical tyrant.  In 1990, the Sandinista Party, and therefore Ortega, was voted out.  Before leaving office, Ortega essentially looted the government, seizing public assets with his allies in “the Sandinista piñata,” demonstrating his greed.  In 1998, Ortega’s stepdaughter accused him of sexual abuse beginning when she was only eleven.  This demonstrates his sexual deviancy.  Through political maneuvering, organizing riots, creative campaigning, and promising to change his ways, Ortega was eventually reelected President in 2006, even though he had shown the traits of a stereotypical tyrant.

            As President, Ortega continued to consolidate his party’s economic control therefore tightening its grip on the politics of Nicaragua.  While he continued to rule under the guise of democracy, 70% of voters abstained in the 2016 election, and international observers were barred.  In the article, Belli refers to Ortega’s Nicaragua as a “tyrannical system” at this point.  As protests erupted, the government dissolved popular protests with force.  As the protests continued to escalate, people were killed by snipers, independent media was shut down, prisoners were tortured, and innocent civilians were killed by the government.  At this point, the article states that Ortega was “exposed as an abusive dictator at the UN,” shortly after concluding  the article by calling upon the “new crop of young, talented, and determined Nicaraguans—[who] will once again help their country regain freedom from a tyrant” which shows that he is using the word tyrant as a synonym for dictator.  Therefore, Ortega best fits the modern definition of a tyrant.

            In this, Daniel Ortega fits all definitions of the word tyrant throughout his reign: the brutal modern dictator, the stereotypical greedy and perverted leader, and ancient usurper. 

-Hanna Prince

Word count: 549

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/nicaragua/2018-08-24/how-daniel-ortega-became-tyrant

Kim Jong-Un Tyrant or Monarch?

Kim Jong-Un Tyrant or Monarch?

In the modern world the possibility of studying tyranny or a tyrant without at least the mention of the North Korean regime is unavoidable. Through the leadership of the Kim Regime, North Korea has developed itself into the very modern association of tyranny. It allows virtually no freedom or natural rights for its citizens. Joshua Berlinger published in CNN an article articulating the course of action of the North Korean “tyrant” Kim Jong-un for the new year. By articulating his new strategies at foreign relations and the economy he also highlights the shocking history and standards of the regime. Within the confines of a modern worldview Chairman Kim may be the perfect definition of a tyrant, but when looking at him through an ancient worldview he is closer to the position of cruel legitimate monarch of North Korea than that of a Greek tyrant.

Despite recent positive interactions with the dictator by the South Korean leader and even the American President Donald Trump, Chairman Kim continues to pursue nuclear weapons despite incentive not to (Berlinger). Kim Jong-Un continues on that tradition of his father and father before him with aggressive isolationism. It is no secret that the people of North Korea live in a virtual slavery like state compared to the lifestyles of their Korean brothers to the south. It is reported in the Guardian that there is, “evidence of systematic murder, including infanticide, and torture, persecution of Christians, rape, forced abortions, starvation and overwork” (Washington). The Kim dynasty exemplifies the modern definition of the word tyranny or tyrant. The modern definition is closely related to actions while in power rather than the means by which the Chairman Kim actually came to his position.

By ancient Greek standards the word “tyrant”, as used to describe Kim Jong-Un, in Berlinger’s article is inaccurate. A tyrant did not have to be a “bad guy”. The Ancient Greek definition of a tyrant deals with how the tyrant obtained their position and not necessarily actions while in office. The Greek tyrant was a ruler who often took over control from the ruler, most often a monarch, and became themselves revolutionary monarchs.  Kim Jong-Un is the third in what has become a dynastic handoff that has stretched the greater part of a century. The longevity of the Kim Regime and the fact that there are no other “heirs” who had previous claim to rule before the Kims leads to the conclusion that the current leader Kim Jong-Un more closely resembles the Greek equivalent of a oppressive monarchy, than tyranny in its original form.

  • Robert Hatfield

Word Count: 435

Berlinger, Joshua. “Kim Jong Un’s 2019 Game Plan for North Korea Awaits.” CNN. December 31, 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/30/asia/north-korea-new-years-intl/index.html.

Washington, Associated Press in. “Kim Jong-un Should Be Prosecuted for Crimes against Humanity, Say Jurists.” The Guardian. December 12, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/12/international-jury-kim-jong-un-should-be-prosecuted-for-human-rights-crimes.

Distinguishing Between Modern and Ancient Tyranny

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/

Blog Post 1: Tyranny

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

Lessons

In my educational career, the most important take away that I have acknowledged from any history class that I have completed- European History, American History, Pre-Modern, etc. – is that history repeats itself. That being said, I think it is extremely important and beneficial to not take certain topics lightly. In a couple of years, hopefully everyone in section 3001 will be commissioning as Navy or Marine Corps officers; therefore, any military lesson we learned should have had some relevance to us so that we know the characteristics of a great leader. We have learned about many solid leaders in many civilizations, but lessons from Sun Tzu, who was a part of the ancient Chinese civilization, stuck with me the most. I believe that that the knowledge I learned from legalism and Sun Zhou’s Art of War in the ancient civilization will be the most useful to me as I graduate that Naval Academy.

Legalism arose as a prominent philosophy in ancient China around 300-200 BCE in the Qin Empire. “Legalism is a classical philosophy that emphasizes the need for order above all other human concerns.” (Dr. Wheeler) It was a belief that as long as there is strong political leadership with a shared vision, then the peace would be preserved. This lesson should not be taken lightly because as future leaders, we should start realizing the importance of communication. If everyone is on the same page, missions should, in theory, get completed successfully and quickly. “Legalism argues that the well-being of the state would be best guaranteed by clear-cut rules rather than any reliance on private morality.” (Kevin Rudd) Although I agree that it is important to have good morals and good intentions, we were often taught in our leadership class how important it was to stick to the mission and only so ever would we have to sway away from the plan.

To this day, The Art of War is often referred to discuss influential strategies that can apply to military warfare. After reading the three chapters that were mandated for our fourth blog, I realized the importance of preparation. You have to learn strategies, not memorize them. If you “know the enemy, and know yourself, the victory is never in doubt.” (Tzu, 19) In a state of uncertainty, one’s mind can fog up and forget what drills they thought they had memorized like the palm of their hands. If they learned and studied the drills, success could have come easy.

We have studied several ancient civilizations that have been ruled by many great leaders, but I hope to carry out the lessons learned from Sun Tzu and the philosophy of ancient China out to the fleet with me.

Word Count: 451

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-rudd/chinese-strategic-thoughts_b_6417754.html

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/chinese_legalism.html

Blog Post #6: Lessons from Alexander the Great

An example of leadership that we talked about during class was Alexander the Great. Alexander grew up admiring the leadership of Achilles and modelling his leadership after him (Arrian, 7.14). He was a very successful leader towards the beginning of his reign and began to falter as time went on and his death was eventually the result of his actions. He began by being appointed regent of the kingdom by Philip II at the young age of sixteen. Much like us as officers, he was leading many men who were older than him. We will graduate as young ensigns in our 20s and will be trusted to lead men and women of all ages and backgrounds. One thing that he is most documented for is being in the front lines with hit men during battle and not remaining in the back. This resembles what many of us will be asked to do as commissioned officers in the Navy and Marine Corps. Valuable lessons that can be learned from Alexander the Great are accountability and humility.

 

This is something that each of us can learn from and take with us as we continue our time at the Naval Academy eventually venture on out into the fleet. Accountability and leading by example is one of the first things that we learn over Plebe Summer. If we are dropped, the detailers drop. If we fail at an evolution, the detailers took accountability for us failing at that evolution. Every failure was taken on their shoulders while we received praise for our success. This all carries beyond that Naval Academy. While we may not be directly in the line of fire with our subordinates such as Alexander the Great because that may not always be the nature of our job, the same principles will carry over.

 

We should understand that we are in authority and always ensure we have a professional relationship with our subordinates; however, we should also take responsibility and let our men and women know that we have their backs. As division officers, the failures of our men and women ultimately will be traced back to us. But on the flip side, we should give praise to our men and women when they do well because they are ultimately the ones that deserve the credit. That is part of the nature of our job. These are all values that we must maintain throughout our career so that we don’t face the same fate that Alexander eventually did with his people. These are the values that many great Naval leaders have possessed throughout history.

 

Word Count: 433

Learning from the Past

Philip Dalke

Learning about the past has allowed me to better developed myself for future leadership in the fleet. I believe I will take the most lessons from learning about the leadership of Alexander the Great. Although historians have conflicting views on the leader, I believe he was very beneficial for his people and overall improved their lives. I believe the best aspects I can learn from him are his confidence in himself and his mixing of different cultures. Confidence is important for a leader but it can quickly turn to arrogance. I believe this may have been the case with Alexander the Great. I will not take arrogance into the future but I will try to emulate his confidence in himself. As King of Macedon he was always confident he would succeed. This helped him in battle, as he never lost. He always believed he was the best and this translated to success for himself. I would like to have this level of confidence in myself when I am leading people in the fleet. I believe it is important to be entirely confident in decisions, especially if it could potentially put someone’s life at risk. Alexander the Great was excellent at mixing and promoting many cultures. He was able to gain support from many different types of people because he allowed them to keep most of their traditions. He also let the former leaders, so long as they vowed to support him, keep command. This led to stability in the regions he conquered. In the Readings in Greek History, this type of leadership is described. It says, “Entering the city, he commanded the Babylonians to rebuild all the temples which Xerxes had destroyed, and especially that of Belus, whom the Babylonians venerate more than any other god…He also sent Mithrines, who had surrendered to him the citadel of Sardis, down into Armenia to be viceroy there.” This quote shows how Alexander lead the people he conquered. He was aware of the differences between cultures and used that to his advantage. His empire was able to grow as large as it did simply because he did not change much. I believe this style of leadership would be beneficial for myself in the future. In the military, I will be required to lead people from all different backgrounds. Like Alexander the Great, I will try to lead each person based on their own cultural beliefs. By being confident in myself and leading on an individual level, I hope to better lead as an officer in the future.

 

Word- 425

ISIS Crusaders of the 21st Century

Blake Bizousky

The ongoing fight against the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria in the middle-east is a war against religious extremists. The ideals of ISIS jihadists parallel those of Christians during the time of the 12th-century crusades. The practice of Islam revolves around the preaching of Muhammed. A large belief within the religion is that Judaism and Christianity are a misinterpretation of the word of God. Within the Islamic religion, there is also another belief in jihad. The definition of jihad is the internal struggle against sin, however, there are other interpretations as defending their faith against persecution. To an extreme jihad is seen as a call to holy war against those who are not Muslim.
Islam is not a religion built entirely around hate. I believe that in today’s world a lot of people do not fully understand what the Islamic faith is. They are too ignorant to enlighten themselves of another’s religion and too arrogant to believe anything other than the beliefs they were taught growing up. In all reality, Islam and Christianity both stem from the belief in an Abrahamic god. Muslims believe in scripture from Judaism and Christianity. People forget or lack the knowledge that the two religions stem from the same god and find their discrepancies in the interpretation of scripture. In all religions, there are extremists, within the Muslim faith the practice of jihad is taken as justifiably killing those who differ from Islam. A similar, if not exact same approach was taken during the Crusades through the middle-east and Europe.
The rationale behind justified holy war can found wherever it wants to be interpreted. Within the Quran 9:73, “Strive hard against the unbeleivers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell and evil and the destination.” How hard should you strive against these no believers? It is completely up to the interpretation of the Quran to discern what the proper measures are against nonbelievers. From Quran 3:32, “Obey [God] and the apostle; but if they turn back, then surely [God] does not love the unbelievers.” Once again a call against the nonbelievers which brings into question of how to combat them? The precedent for ISIS lies within the Quran just how the justification for the Crusades lied within the bible.
Similarly, an interpretation of the bible can be used and was used to justify the killing of millions. From Matthew 5:9, “Blessed are the peacemakers said the Lord, for they will be called children of God.” Upon a first glance, this quotation seems to do no harm. However, the meaning of “peacemaker” can be applied by keeping peace and making peace. During the Crusade’s, peacemakers were believed to be those fighting and killing to spread the Christian religion. When tied in with other scripture, a crusade can definitely be a reasonable jump to conclusion. From Luke 19:27, “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me. “ This quote was originally meant to display the almighty power of God. Under different interpretation, the bible supported the killings of the crusade.
In the end, the similarities to between the Crusades and how ISIS currently justifying their holy battle all come down to man’s interpretation of scripture. Sadly, in both of these cases, man has erred on the side of violence.

Word Count – 565

Pride before the fall

There is no question that Alexander the Great earned his name. As a teenager , Alexander led the Roman Empire to victory in combat and politics, earning the love of his people. Upon the death of Phillip the II, Alexander needed to cement his role as the official leader of the prospering nation. At the beginning of Alexanders rise to power and before his conquest east towards china, he characterized himself as a leader of the people. In Macedon, kings were expected to lead through example and be on the battle field fighting alongside their men. Fighting on the front line showed everyone that Alexander was equal in battle, dedicated to the success of his empire. Alexander’s bravery and devotion to battle made his men want to fight for him. Alexander understood why his men followed him, he proved his dedication through his scars. In a speech to his men, Alexander said “”Come now – if you are wounded, strip and show your wounds, and I will show mine. There is no part of my body but my back which has not a scar; not a weapon a man may grasp or fling the mark of which I do not carry upon me” (Arrian, 7.10). This speech was, unfortunately, a last ditch effort to rally the support of his troops at the peak of Alexanders departure from reality, wrapped up in hubris, and his new life as a “demigod king”.

As Alexander amassed more power and created a larger empire, he fell out of touch with the values that made him so great in the first place. Alexander was influenced by the Persian idea of the God king as a ruler, and began to change. Practices such as proskynesis and extremely limited access to Alexander began the discord between the leadership and troops. This continued until the army reached India and Alexander wanted to continue to the sea because he felt it was his birth right as a son of Zeus. Eventually there was a mutiny and the army had to begin the trek home, an action that lead to the unremarkable death of Alexander the Great, the division of the once great empire.

As military leaders we need to be constantly humbled to stay effective. Alexander the Great serves as a cautionary tale for leaders who become more focused on their image and lose sight of the people they are charged to lead. It is vital to effective leadership to create an environment where everyone feels equal and not subject to the superficial desires of the leaders. As we move up through the ranks and obtain more power and responsibilities we cannot have a departure from the understanding of those who are at the very lowest of the chain of command. Too often we have old and out of touch leaders who believe they are doing what is right, when they are actually doing what is right for them. We should be judged in our leadership by how we treat those who are below us and how effectively we relate to them.

 

Ryan Franco, WC-Quote:478