According to this NY Times article, thousands of Muslims are protesting against “tyranny” in Iraq (of course, the Assyrians (the native Christian population prior to the Arab conquest of Iraq) are saying “we hope the Americans stay forever”). It is therefore a good time to examine the etymology of the word tyrant. To the Greeks a tyrant was simply someone who ruled without being born to rule (a king) or elected by the local swells (an “archon”, e.g., Solon; the term “anarchy” comes from the finding that if there is no archon to rule a city-state things could be pretty chaotic).
“Tyrant” in ancient Greece was a value-neutral term. Some of the best leaders in Athens were tyrants, notably Pisistratus, who ruled at various times from 561-528 BC and, according to Herodotus and modern historians, laid the foundations for Athenian democracy.
Perhaps the U.S. occupation forces should try to reclaim the Greek heritage of the word. Whomever we appoint to rule Iraq will hold the title “Tyrant of Baghdad”.
You might remember that Tariq Aziz, Saddam’s right-hand man was a christian. Christians formed a large part of the Ba’ath party, in fact, the founder Michel Aflaq was a christian. http://www.assyrianchristians.com/ is only a self-proclaimed representive.
Have you read Piers Anthony? A similar use of the term was used in _Bio of a Space Tyrant_ – the main character became the ‘Tyrant of Jupiter’
It would be more accurate to say that the word “tyrant” had diffierent connotations for the Greeks. It was not by any means “value-neutral”, for it was recognized by thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle that tyranny is a form of political degeneration. There was a cluster of meanings associated with the term “tyrant”, the primary being someone who is put forward as a leader by the unwashed masses during a period of instability. As in many things, it’s instructive to turn to Aristotle: “… the tyrant is established from among the people and the mob against the nobles, so that the people might be protected against them. This is clear from the facts of history; for the great majority of tyrants have risen from being popular leaders in some sense, having won favour by slandering the nobles.” A tyranny is a form of political degeneration, at least in Plato and Aristotle, because it does not respect the rule of law. The Greek heritage of the word is, therefore, not value neutral and quite negative even if a particular tyrant was “benevolent”.
Neither Plato and Aristotle are models to be heeded. Plato was associated with the pro-spartan quisling government set up after Athens lost the Peloponesian war, and has rightfully been exposed by Popper as the wellspring of fascism and totalitarism. His “Republic” declares children should be taen from their parents and indoctrinated by the state, something even Goebbels or Stalin never considered in their wildest dreams.
Aristotle opens his “Politics” with a bald-faced statement that some humans are inferior to others and that it is right and expedient that they should be enslaved.
Their grumbling about tyrants and democracies are nothing more than the sour grapes of aristocrats deprived of what they think is a privilege to rule and enslave enshrined in natural law.