This week’s readings reminded me of our discussions in class last week, specifically our discussion of the importance of perception, spin, and the media. As highlighted in Andrade’s article “The Perennially Difficult Debate Around Tyrannicide”, while many other circumstances and factors must be at play for tyrannicide to actually be a viable option for a more democratic future, to “many sensible people” as Andrade calls them, tyrannicide makes sense. While not a one size fits all solution, when the dictator is actually disliked and there are suitable, more democratic successors available, tyrannicide can actually be effective. Reading this article myself, I thought Andrade made several valid points and began to see how tyrannicide could be a useful tool for spurring democracy.
Then I read George’s piece. In “Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism” George highlights the hypocrisy of our view of tyrannicide. While we view political assassinations as terrible acts, we praise tyrannicide as a beacon of democracy. George states that we have this view because we see tyrannicide as a public good and think of assassinations as acts committed for personal gain. This made me question who gets to draw that line and if it ever really stays in one place. We’ve discussed at great lengths the importance of perception and the media’s role in that last week, and I couldn’t help but draw the comparison with these readings. Isn’t tyrannicide just murder with a positive spin put on it? Who gets to say when murder is or isn’t justifiable?
2 Comments