Tag: 12 (04)

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

Andrade establishes his belief that “tyrannicide does form part of the American ethos” and although different by definition, this claim reminded me of the long history America has regarding dictators and the ease in which we have killed and replaced them (Andrade, 2019). For example, America’s active role in helping place Pinochet in power in Chile. Pinochet went on to be a violent dictator and instill deep-rooted fear into Chileans. We supported him. Yet on the topic of tyranny, Andrade believes Americans are “only truly satisfied” when a tyrant faces death. George defines tyranny as “the generic term for this illegitimate, unconstitutional… lawless, violent rule” (George, 1988, pp. 407). My reason for making this comparison is to bring to light a strange dichotomy in the ethos of American history as Andrade phrased it. Tyrants must die because their power is lawless and a nation is at stake, but a ruthless dictator deserves support despite their corrupt path to leadership and horrible actions to their entire country. Where exactly is the distinguishing line here?

For me, through reading the distinguishing factors between terrorism and tyrannicide, I couldn’t help but reconsider the concept of the Trolley Problem that Andrade references. Complications arise when “the participation in killing… is far more active” for an individual (Andrade, 2019). I am not surprised that this problem has found many people will choose to kill fewer people in the scenario, but I had never heard of the version including the fat man being thrown from a bridge. In terrorism, the “use of the victim as a means to an end, that is, as in instrument for sending signals to some third party” means the victim does not matter (George, 1998, pp. 400). But, in tyrannicide the notion of pulling the lever to only kill one, the tyrant, holds so much more leverage. That one action is the beginning and the end of the intended message. And considering enough people are deterred from the question simply because that one person would have to be actively added into the equation (unfortunately in my opinion) makes for a pretty good argument that one who commits tyrannicide, commits one of “’the finest of all glorious deeds’” (George, 1998, pp. 392). Actively, they save a group of people at the expense of one tyrant’s life.

4 Comments

I truly believe that murder can never be justified, but these articles made me think twice about the justification of murder in a political sense. I found these articles enlightening but at the same time I could not help but read with a skeptical lens. In the first article, Andrade’s “The Perennially Difficult Debate Around Tyrannicide”, one point that stuck with me was his point about the Trolley Problem. In high school we debated the trolley problem for weeks in my world literature class. I always thought I knew my answer and I always believed all murder in unjustifiable no matter what until Andrade compared the idea of pushing a man off a bridge to stop the trolley to tyrannicide. Can it really ever be just about numbers? Is it better to kill one person on the tracks than five people on different tracks? Is it better to kill one leader than have that leader persecute, discriminate, exploit and in some cases kill millions of citizens? When I think about Iraq and Libya’s struggles, and what the murder of their leaders’ (Hussein and Gadaffi) murders produced for their countries; some might argue their murders sparked greater unrest than when they were in power. I agree with Andrade’s comment that each leader-follower situation, tryanical or not, should be treated as a case-by-case basis and there is no blanket statement that can or should be used to talk about the justification of tryannicide.

 

George’s “Distinguishing Classical Tyrannicide from Modern Terrorism” was more difficult to follow but equally enlightening. One of the most interesting part of the article was when George comments on how the Western Cult of Tyrannicide has glorified tyrannicide as a spotless symbol of democracy whereas assassinations and parricide are dishonorable and polluted. If killing people is amoral for assassination and parricide, why is it “moral” to kill in the name of tyranny? It might be easier to justify to a certain extent, but justification and morality are different things. Maybe terrorism is easily misunderstood and misrepresented as tyrannicide but making that distinction is again a case-by-case basis.

1 Comment