Why Democracy Sucks, but Representative is the Best of its Kind

Though there is merit to the idea of a direct democracy, such as that of the ancient Athenians, a representative democracy gives a greater benefit to the individual citizen. Democracy, as characterized by its Athenian founders, may be summarized by their most beloved ruler, Pericles, when he said “Our plan of government favors the many instead of the few…nor do we discriminate against the poor. A man may serve his country no matter how low his position on the social scale” (Thucydides 3.37). Their definition of a democracy consisted of an equity of accessibility within government despite social status or merit. In theory this type of government, also known as a direct democracy, allows for the government to be most representative of the people, for it hinders upon a holistic representation of the people. Thus, every corner of the society has their voice made heard within the voting body. However, this theory of direct democracy lacks the changing power of an individual, and instead focuses on the power of the majority.

The major problem with democracies as whole, no matter how they are implemented, is that they require individuals to give up their ability to create change in favor of contributing to the majority or minority. Instead of having the freedom to do as one pleases, individuals in a democracy are subjected to the whims of the majority. The annoyance of this phenomenon is compounded by situations caused by simple majority rules, the type of majority the Athenians used. A faction could win a vote with only twenty percent of the votes because the vote was so divisive between the other factions. As such, the “majority” is determined to by the twenty percent of the population, so the numerical majority of the eighty percent loses their right to act via legislation as they believe is correct.

Direct democracy maximizes the effects of this phenomenon while representative democracy seeks to minimize it. Direct democracy maximizes the inequality by what Pericles believed to be Athenian democracy’s greatest quality: the equity of all. By establishing every citizen as equal in the voting assembly, the power of the vote is diminished. Pericles established his new citizenship law as a means to make being a citizen more exclusive, and thus establishing power and the ability to enact change for the Athenian citizen. However, the mass influx of equity in the voting realm reduces the power of a single vote. Representative democracy, on the other hand, diminishes the effects by creating a system that relies on individuals to create legislation. Representative democracy gives the illusion of equity via the direct election of the representatives, but creates a hierarchical system of voting accessibility. In doing this, American government has successfully created the illusion equality while giving individuals the ability to create change. Furthermore, the power of the vote increases for all of those who voted for the individual, as the representative holds a mandate for the people’s will as a result of the social contract between the incumbent and constituent.

The minority faction within a democracy is always subjected to the whims of the majority, however representative democracy mitigates the amount of people subjected to arbitrary powers.

-Jackson Garber

Words: 532
Excerpt from Pericles’ Funeral Oration written by Thucydides.

A Representative Democracy is an Equal Democracy

The current system of the representative democracy is the far better than direct democracy. With representative democracy, everyone has the ability to be heard equally and decisions are made by politicians who have a better understanding of political issues than many typical citizens.

To contrast the point of others, a direct democracy seems ideal in nature; however, there are many implications with this concept, some of which we have seen in class. Real political issues were masked by discussing who should be able to vote, who should be educated, and how the opposing political groups are not fit to run Athens. One could argue that this happens today in our representative democracy; however, I argue that it happens externally, whereas in Athens, these issues were focused on assembly participation rather than legitimate issues in the Athenian society. Moreover, those who did vote in the Athenian assembly were typically wealthy male citizens. Those who wanted to participate in government had to travel from days away to have their voices heard. This demonstrates some of the inconsistency in the ideals of a direct democracy: representation of the people by the people. There is no doubt that inconsistency in representation affected the Athenian society as whole; therefore, unfairly forcing legislation (possibly of a minority) on all citizens.

Consequently, a representative democracy equally represents all of its citizens, at least in the U.S. system. Americans that qualify to vote are equally heard against all other voters regardless of their background (as opposed to the Athenian system). In the end, those that win elections do so because the citizens support their agenda and agree with their views. Therefore, a politician is put into power who has been given representation by his or her constituents who are possess the same political viewes. Without a doubt he or she is educated on modern political issues, persuasive enough to gain supporters, confident that changes can be made, and will carry out the views that his or her constituents wish. This means that a mix of all political ideologies, of course distributed as equally as the citizens political ideologies, are in charge of creating, discussing, and carrying out politics.

Alexis de Tocqueville states that “the health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of function performed by private citizens” (Democracy in America). This means that the strength of a democratic society is directly related to that quality of its citizens. It is no doubt that having uneducated citizens speak in the assembly created a mob mentality, wasted valuable time, and prompted secondary discussions on issues that were not important (who should be educated, who should be able to speak, ect). Furthermore, the lack of professional politicians in the Athenian democracy led to rash decisions. The Melian dialogue highlights many of the greedy and uneducated statements born from the effects of a direct democracy.

The Athenian system of direct democracy had many issues: masking real political issues, and biased voting of wealthy citizens to name a few. A representative democracy remains the best way to equally allow all citizens to voice their opinion (regardless of background) by voting for political leaders who have a greater capacity in politics and will carry out the agenda their constituents want.

-Brandon Gore

Word count: 541

Athenian versus American

Although today the United States uses a system of democracy to govern its nation, it can be viewed as dramatically different than the 5th-century Athenian democracy, despite having the same ground ideas. The first democracy born in Ancient Greece, in Athens, was built off the founding idea of promoting “eleuthia” or otherwise known as “liberty”. The United States today, also recognizes the idea that protecting liberty is essential to the nation and should be the foundation from which the country is governed. However, due to the contrasting systematic approach of advocating democracy, the two can be viewed as unrelatable in many aspects.

The main factor that separates the two democracies is that Ancient Greece used a direct model of democracy which the individuals themselves voted different issues as they appeared whereas the American uses a modern model of democracy which advocates democracy through the representation of the people. More specifically, political parties are used to represent the ideas of the people, from which the representatives vote on issues with the best interests of the people of the party. Individuals may vote on a representative to enter a political party, but it is the representative’s vote that ultimately counts. As opposed to the Athenian democracy, in modern-day democracy, individuals do not directly vote on every issue that arises. Representation of the majority is achieved in this model of modern-day democracy because the people elect others in the office to represent their ideas with common stances. Current day proponents of the system believe that this the most effective form of governance of democracy in order to truly gauge the stance of the majority. The people are indirectly voting on issues.

In contrast in the Athenian democracy, individuals were able to vote on each issue through an assembly. This meant that individuals were very involved and had a first hand say on the issues themselves. Their thoughts could be directly represented in the outcome of the decision. The voting took place in the Pnyx which required individuals to travel to a central location in Athens, where they would debate in front of the assembly before a decision would be made. In the Funeral Oration, the Athenian pride of their democracy is shown through the words, “In the name, it is called democracy, because we managed not for a few people, but the majority (Thucydides 3.37)”.This demonstrates their commitment as an empire to represent the people through their governance which allowed individuals to hold the power and directly impact the decision.

Both democracies had the intention to represent the majority, however, took very different approaches. Both democracies, the 5th-century Athenian model and the 21st century United States model would argue that their own approach to governance best accomplishes “democracy” as in that it represents the people the best.

-Caroline Foley

The Funeral Oration

Word Count: 442

The Endurance of the American Democracy

-Katie Mackle

The representative model of democracy is a more efficient way to govern than the direct model of democracy because it maximizes the amount of voices being heard. In a representative democracy, the people elect officials to represent them in political decisions. This system prevents what is popularly known as a “mob rule”. In “The Republic” by Aristotle, he discusses the Athenian democracy, saying, “the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction”(Aristotle VIII). Aristotle argues that democracy leads to tyranny, forming the foundation for the popular argument that too much representation ultimately leads to decreased representation. This argument has formed the foundation of what is now known as “tyranny of the majority”. A representative democracy decreases the chances of a tyranny of the majority developing; it decreases the chance that a policy will be implemented that acts only in the interest of one majority group and works against the minority. In a situation like this, the majority votes in favor of a policy that puts its own interests above the interests of the minority. The minority is, therefore, silenced, and its voice is not heard. In a representative democracy, however, different regions vote for one person that has their collective interests in mind. This representative then makes decisions based off of these interests, keeping the interests of the people they are representing in mind while also hearing the interests of other groups of people and voting in accordance of not only their interests but the interests of the country as a whole.

Along with mob rule comes this concept of emotions dictating the polls. Sometimes in politics it is easy to act in the heat of the moment. A representative democracy prevents this from occurring, because people can’t just vote on something in the spur of the moment, overwhelmed by their emotions at that given time. A representative maintains a consistency of emotions in decision-making.

Additionally, a direct democracy causes too many people’s voices to be drowned out. Direct democracy definitely has its merits in smaller communities, where voices can be easily distinguished, like in a New England town hall. However, in a country with so much diversity because of its massive population, if there are too many voices at once, it would be impossible to hear everybody. In the end, either the majority will come out victorious, leaving the minority with no voice, or no decision is going to be made because there will be no consensus as a result of too many clashing voices. With a representative democracy, however, because there is one person representing a relatively (in comparison to the size of America) small area, the representative is able to get an accurate gauge of the various things that people in the area want and build their political motives based off of these things. These representatives can then come together and collaborate in a way that would be logistically impossible if everybody in the entire country were voicing their own individual opinions.

Some argue that a representative democracy can be easily corrupted by voting policies and political bribes, however these hesitations should not be the foundation of an argument against representative democracy. There are downsides to all forms of government. However, if you consider the birth of American democracy as coinciding with the ratification of the US Constitution (which, as the establishing foundation of the US government, I consider the birth of American democracy), American democracy has kept our nation alive and thriving longer than the Athenian democracy. American democracy is going on 231 successful years, whereas the Athenian democracy logged around 190 years of solid rule. Therefore, I believe American democracy to be more reliable.

-Katie Mackle

Word Count: 598

Sources:

Diotima. Accessed February 20, 2019. http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_democracy_overview?page=all.

The Internet Classics Archive | On Airs, Waters, and Places by Hippocrates. Accessed February 22, 2019. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html.

Why Direct Democracy is a Better Way to Govern

I believe that the direct Athenian model of democracy is better than the representative American model of democracy. While representative democracy is better in theory, direct democracy is the best way to ensure full participation in democracy.

In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued in favor of a representative democracy: a republic. He felt that the republican model that the framers of the Constitution drafted made “valuable improvements…on the popular models, both ancient and modern” (Federalist 10). He argued that the main problems in government are due to “factions,” and that the “advantage which the republic has over a democracy” is “controlling the effects of faction” (Federalist 10). He argued that this way to control factions would result in a government that allows results in the most democratic and inclusive government as opposed to the Athenian mob-rule coming from “the people in their collective capacity” (Federalist 63). In theory, this republic is effective and democratic.

While American democracy is great it theory, the actual execution of American representative democracy is not as James Madison intended. The democratic aspect of representative democracy lies in the fact that the elected representatives vote to protect their constituents’ interests. As we have seen throughout American politics, that is not always the case. Madison assumes that the elected representatives will have “enlightened views” and “virtuous sentiments,” which will make them “superior to…schemes of injustice” (Federalist 10). Yet, our representatives are not always immune to outside influences. Politicians are often encouraged to vote in a way that may not be best for their constituents because lobbying and special interest groups exercise a disproportionate influence over them through their ability to petition them to support certain ideas and to offer them campaign donations. The average American cannot compete with this, so our representatives are not always unbiased and are influenced by outside groups.

Representative democracy also fails in giving everyone representation. While a representative democracy, in theory, allows everyone to be represented through voting for their representative, this has not actually worked out in reality. For example, women could not vote until the 19^th Amendment was passed in 1920. While Athenian women could not vote in the Assembly, they at least enjoyed the benefits of citizenship and were allowed to attend and voice their opinions. As well, African Americans were no allowed to vote until 1898, but even then their voting was restricted by grandfather clauses. Even now, in 2018, our election system fails to give everyone a voice. Voting location hours and waits make it difficult for people who work multiple jobs to vote, as Election Day is not a national holiday in the United States like it is in other countries. As well, in gerrymandered districts, one party may win higher percentage of the popular vote in a state, yet still win less seats in Congress. For these reasons, representative democracy does not actually give everyone fair representation in government.

While there are numerous examples of representative democracy failing to reflect the will of the people, the Athenian democracy actually did reflect the will of the people. When the Athenians reformed their democracy Aristotle declared “For the people has made itself master of everything…the people is the ruling power” (Athenian Constitution 41.2). Importantly, he also explained how the new Athenian system led to the Council members acting justly and being less susceptible to corruption and outside influence (Athenian Constitution 41.2). In this, the Athenian direct democracy accurately and fairly reflected the will of the people.

Therefore, while the representative democracy is, in theory, attractive, in reality it has flaws that can lead to representatives being elected who do not reflect the popular vote, restrictions on who can feasibly vote, and certain groups exercising disproportionate influence over representatives. On the other hand, direct democracy lets everyone’s voice be heard and is actually run by the people. Therefore, Athenian direct democracy is more democratic than American representative democracy.

-Hanna Prince

Word Count: 598

Aristotle. Athenian Constitution 41.2.

Astor, Maggie, Lai, K. K. Rebecca. “What’s stronger than a Blue Wave? Gerrymandered Districts.” The New York Times. 11/29/2018.

Madison, James. Federalist Papers 12, 63.

Why Representative Democracy Is Better

Pablo Loza

Despite being credited as the founders of democracy, the Athenian version of democracy varies much differently compared to the representative model of democracy. One of the primary differences is the fact that in ancient Athens all citizens, with the right to vote, would come together to vote on a certain topic, whereas in the American representative democracy, citizens vote for people to represent them and vote on their behalf. In doing this, only certain elected individuals have a vote in major laws. When officials are elected on behalf of the people, they are expected to carry out what the people want, as this is why they voted for them. Unfortunately, these officials do not always do this and may go against their constituents. Although these officials may go against the people who elected them, the representative model of democracy is a better way to govern than the direct, Athenian model of democracy.

Direct democracy relies on all citizens to come and vote on certain issues. In theory, direct democracy seems like the best way to get people involved as everyone will be able to voice their opinions. Unfortunately, as ancient Athens has proven, a direct democracy leads to major inconsistencies which can be detrimental to a country. The inconsistency in a direct democracy can be seen in the Melian Dialogue and the greed possessed by the Assembly. Athenians were known to look to the gods for help such as before battles and in times of droughts. Despite always looking to the gods, the Athenians said, “Nature always compels gods and men tor rule over anyone they can control. We did not make this law… but we will take it as we found it and leave our posterity forever” (Thucydides 3.105). When speaking in the Melian Dialogue, they directly compare themselves to gods which is a rather bold claim to make. This claim is allowed to be made because the people of the Assembly wanted to gain more power, rather than follow their beliefs that were preached.

Although one may claim that people in a representative democracy also do this, the people of the Athenian Assembly were the ones acting on their actions. For instance, if they Assembly voted to go to war, then the people who voted would go and prepare for war themselves. People who voted in the direct democracy, as a result, may also not have been educated on all topics, whereas a representative democracy allows for further education. The people who elect the representatives are smart individuals, but are not typically versed in all aspects of politics. The direct democracy model forces one to try and be well-educated in all areas, which is extremely difficult and may cause a lack of knowledge in many areas. But, through the representative model, the elected officials are devoted only to these matters and do not worry about other jobs they have, such as being a farmer like Athenians. This leads to more educated officials voting on major matters in government.

Lastly, the major flaw of the representative democracy is that officials may abandon their ideas, which got them elected, to push their personal agenda. Unfortunately, this is seen in both forms of democracy. In a representative democracy, officials can be given more money by companies/people to vote on their behalf, rather than their originally stated beliefs. The officials do this to gain more wealth for their campaign, a way to keep representing their constituents. In a direct democracy, people can easily be bribed as it is all based off of personal agendas. As seen in the Reacting to the Past exercise done in class, when the poor members of the Assembly were offered compensation or potential help from the rich, then they would switch sides to keep themselves afloat. Regardless of the democracy being used, this is inevitable.

Both the representative and direct form of democracy come with their benefits and detriments. However, the representative form of democracy is a better way to govern as it is more consistent and has only people educated on the matter speak. Thus, the representative form of democracy allows for a more controlled chaos than a direct democracy.

Word Count: 663

The U.S. Remains Superior

When comparing Athenian direct democracy to American representative democracy there is no question that American representative democracy is superior. Democracy in its most basic sense is government by the people and the rule of the majority. It is in the implementation of democracy where the American representative form succeeds in providing the best representation for all.

In a direct democracy the whole population must actively participate to ensure equitable representation. In Athenian democracy, the laws and the leaders were chosen based on a majority rule. While this seems like a practical way to govern, risks exist for under representation of minority positions. The majority of the population was satisfied because their ideas were being heard and their representatives were being elected. However, there was still the minority that needed its voice to be recognized. Aristotle explained the lesser minority status in The Athenian Constitution,“Not only was the constitution at this time oligarchical in every respect, but the poorer classes, men, women, and children, were the serfs of the rich (Aristotle 1.2).” When a majority continually places their candidates in power the minority will never have direct representation. Eventually this results in the minority losing faith in their government because of concerns that they are not being included and this will ultimately lead to failure of this democracy.

While the ideals that an Athenian direct democracy represents are good ones – a government of and by the people – it does have practical flaws that must be addressed to ensure fairness and sustainability. The United States employs a representative democracy to govern. The difference is that in a representative democracy individuals are elected to represent the people and exercise power according to the rule of law. Having a representative based government is critical given size of the country and population. In addition in order to ensure equal representation at the national level, the United States has set rules on how leaders are elected. Congress has two bodies with equal power, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Each state is allocated spots in the House of Representatives based population size. To ensure representation of those living in states with lower populations, two senators per state are also elected to the Senate. In total, 535 elected representatives make legislation on behalf of the country.

In electing a President, the founding fathers again had the foresight to understand that the needs of the many in a highly populated city are different than those of rural area less populated areas. However, their views are equally important and should not be diluted by larger populations of the cities. To ensure fairness they created the Electoral College, which follows the same representative allocation formula as Congress. Rather than voting directly for a candidate, voters actually choose electors who then elect the President. The electors associated with the winning candidate in each state (except Maine and Nebraska which proportionally allocate electors) then vote to select the President. While the use of the Electoral College to elect the President could be considered anti-democratic because it is possible to be elected President without a majority vote (it has happened five times, most recently in 2016), it is in line with the principals of a representative democracy because elected representatives of the population vote for the President.

It is easy to conclude that American representative form of democracy is better than the Athenian direct model, especially for a country with a large population. However, it is important to note that America’s representative version is based on lessons learned from the Athenian experience. The system in United States is not perfect, but its representative form allows for majority rule while ensuring minority rights.

-Danny Vela

Word Count: 600

Source:
The Internet Classics Archive | On Airs, Waters, and Places by Hippocrates. Accessed February 20, 2019. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/athenian_const.1.1.html.

The Scale of Representative Democracy

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

“Tyranny” in Venezuela: How Today’s Definition Differs From the Past’s

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

Tyranny Now and Then

In his article, Peters discusses actions by world leaders that suggest that some of the most powerful nations in the world are moving towards tyranny with powerful tyrants at the head, citing Putin in Russia, Kim Jong-un in North Korea, and even President Trump here in the United States. He writes that “Today’s tyrants (other than Kim) aren’t interested in controlling every thought: They’re content to control behavior.” He goes on to discuss the ways in which the powerful leaders are taking over their respective countries; people in some countries value security over freedom thus giving rise to tyrants who claim they can ensure that. Peters employs a post-democratic definition of tyrant to describe modern leaders and therefore uses the term “tyrant” correctly in context, however, this definition differs from the ancient definition of tyrant in a few key ways causing Peter’s definition not to fit the ancient definition of tyrant.

In the context of post-democratic world leaders, Peters considers a tyrant to be someone whose main goal is not only to consolidate power, but also to use corruption, “religious extremism, xenophobic nationalism- or both” to create a false sense of certainty and security. Specifically, “every tyrant provides scapegoats for his people’s failures: It’s never your fault, it’s them. ” The article briefly mentions how Putin was recently re-elected by a landslide; this post-rise of democracy tyrant oppressed his people more in public so they could complain in their households but wouldn’t dare do so in the street. He, along with the other world leaders in the article, all have the common characteristic of providing their people with a false give-and-take relationship that makes it seem like the peoples’ lives are better than they actually are (while giving the tyrant that much more power).

The ancient definition of tyrant greatly differs from the definition many are more familiar with today. Then, a tyrant, such as Pisistratus in Athens, was a single autocratic ruler (ruler with absolute power) who came into power by a non hereditary way. Peisistratus took power as a tyrant after a decade of struggle between the rich and poor. As another example, Cleisthenes also took power as a tyrant and proceeded to reorganize Athens. In The Histories, Herodotus talks about Pisistratus and says, “This time he planted his tyranny firmly, with the help of large numbers of mercenary troops and a substantial income…” It is then written that Athenians were in a state of oppression. The ancient definition of a tyrant is much more definitive in the sense that the word tyrant means someone who came into power by some way other than a hereditary track. This is one of the key areas where the definitions of tyrant diverge. Another key reason is because the word tyrant for ancient Greeks did not have a negative connotation. Although Pisistratus was oppressive, this did not change the entire ancient definition of tyrant or tyranny.

Though it could be argued that Peter’s definition and the ancient definition of tyrant both include a ruler with absolute power who rules with an oppressive, iron fist so they do fit in a way. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Peter’s definition hinges on what the tyrant does with his or her power (affect negative change or cause more corruption) while the ancient definition focuses more on how that tyrant came to possess their power.

Overall, in “The World Is Ascending into Tyranny” Peters uses an expanded and, as expected, post-democratic definition of the word tyrant. The world is used correctly in context because it is discussing world leaders in a post-rise of democracy world. Some of the same aspects of a tyrant and tyranny are existent but the post-rise of democracy definition is expanded to include all of the stereotypes associated with democracy (power hungry, greedy, corrupt, etc.)

-Carina Richardson

Word Count: 566

nypost.com/2018/03/20/the-world-is-descending-into-tyranny.

(Herodotus 1.26)