Both readings talk a lot about what tyrannicide means, and the ethics behind the term. While it may be morally justified to assassinate a dictator-like government official, steps need to be taken to assure that the next government will be just and not make the same mistakes as the previous regime. One of the documents argue, “In most cases, tyrannicide either brings tremendous instability (as in the contemporary Middle East), or simply turns the tyrant’s successors even more despotic, with fierce persecution against the plotters, and even brutal revenge against the population.” Making sure the next government official isn’t corrupt, and that they have resources in place to effectively lead, needs to be considered before disposing of the current regime.
I actually learned a lot about a situation in Zimbabwe where tyrannicide may have been a potential solution. Robert Mugabe, who recently passed away, was formerly the leader of Zimbabwe. Mugabe was extremely corrupt, caused mass poverty, and order the army to kill members of the opposing political party. The issue with just killing him, when was in power, was that the government power was so concentrated that the next leader would have likely been just as corrupt.
While the climate after the assassination is just as important to a successful government overthrow, the morality of the act should also be considered. The ethics of killing a person is the gray area of the subject that will divide people. At some point murdering one person to save many is necessary, but the question is when that event should take place. That’s where the difficult lies because the answer changes depending on the person, some may argue that tyrannicide shouldn’t be an option and democracy will prevail in time. How society interprets the intentions of those trying to overthrow a government by means of assassination will determine if history remembers their acts as liberating or criminal.
The example of tyrannicide that took place in Zimbabwe is a prime example of David George’s reasoning in his text; when a tyrant is killed or passes away, it is very likely that another tyrant of similar values will rise to power again. This ties into what my 102 class discusses about narcissistic leadership– narcissists are more likely to rise to power due to their captivating qualities– although they might be the most detrimental leaders.
I thought it was really interesting how you related it to something modern. I thought it was interesting how you said that killing someone is a gray area, I definitely think that that’s correct. While I was reading there was a story about how people would pull the lever and kill the one person to save 5 but they wouldn’t push a fat man in front of the train to stop it. I think that that relates to what you were saying because some people are willing to say that they are ok with tyrannicide and killing someone but when the moment comes, they are unable to actually follow through.
I thought it was interesting that neither of the articles pointed out what you did: “steps need to be taken to assure that the next government will be just.” During reading, I also found myself comparing tyrannicide to Mugabe’s death. I loved what you said at the end—society’s interpretation of a government overthrow will determine how history remembers it. That is like the saying “history is written by the winners.” Even history must be taken with a grain of salt.