The Timeless Temptation of Despots

International New York Times | 3 June 2016

ATHENS — Archaeologists excavating two mass graves in an ancient cemetery at the site of Athens’s new opera house suggested in April that the skeletons of 80 men — 36 of whom they found buried in iron shackles — may have been supporters of an ancient Athenian sports hero who tried to grab power around 632 B.C. [Before Christ] The would-be tyrant, Cylon, thought that his glory as an Olympic Games champion would ensure popular support in his bid to replace his fellow aristocrats with himself. It seems the people were not sufficiently unhappy to join his revolt and it was crushed by the city’s leaders.

This coup attempt, early in Athens’s political development, is indicative of the timeless quarrel between an elite few and the masses, which, in this case, resulted in the world’s first democracy over a century later, around 508 B.C.

Whether the skeletons are those of Cylon’s supporters is yet to be confirmed, but the conjecture is a reminder that politics is a set of variations of the war between personal ambition and collective need, often at odds with each other but also with the potential for creative coexistence. The stakes are always high — national survival or destruction, personal happiness or misery.

Strongmen exploiting their celebrity, projecting uncompromising bravado, harnessing popular discontent with promises to overturn the current order, have always been a basic ingredient of politics. From prehistory to modern elections, through military dictatorships or palace coups or by riding the power of the masses, ambitious individuals shake up their nations and change history. We should not be surprised to see this happening today, in developing nations and mature democracies. But it does not mean we should not worry.

Donald J. Trump, Vladimir V. Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Rodrigo Duterte (the newly elected president of the Philippines who promises mass murder of “criminals”), have one thing in common: Each bases his power on public support. However despotic they are, no one can deny that they (Mr. Trump excepted, so far) were elected. Unlike Cylon, they are products of democracy, even as they undermine its institutions and its norms, like oligarchs or dictators of predemocratic times.

In Europe, with its mature democracies and long tradition of the rule of law, moderate forces that dominated the Continent’s politics after World War II are being pushed aside by growing public dissatisfaction, to the benefit of populists of the extreme left and right. Austria’s recent presidential election is the latest example: Centrist candidates were eliminated in the first round, and in the runoff an independent environmentalist beat an extreme-right candidate by a very narrow margin — just over 30,000 votes — proof of deep social division.

The collapse of the center and the empowerment of formerly fringe forces of the extreme right or radical left was first seen in Greece after 2010, when the country had to agree to harsh austerity and reforms in exchange for an international bailout. Since then, many European countries have been plagued by economic malaise and unpopular reforms, by fears provoked by a wave of refugees and immigrants and by major terrorist attacks in France and Belgium.

Globalization and a sense of loss of sovereignty provoke anger against local and foreign elites. Moderate parties and the politics of consensus suffer while demagogues flourish. Simplistic slogans divide societies and chill relations among states. Only the muting of dissent through repression is more disturbing, allowing government power to go unchecked.

In a world of uncertainty and anger, populist politicians can exploit public discontent to create friends and enemies and divide their nations. It is easy to gain power in this way, but it is difficult to govern a divided nation without resorting to repression. Authoritarianism, however, can keep its grip only when things are good, when a large enough part of the population has an interest in the regime’s survival. When things get tough, dictators and populists must fight on many fronts. The result is more repression or collapse.

This is why ancient Athens remains so interesting. Democracy came about not because someone suddenly invented it, but because the principle of all men (if not women and slaves) being equal and having an equal say and stake in the running of their city-state emerged gradually and proved effective.

After Cylon’s failed uprising, “there was strife for a long time between the notables and the masses,” Aristotle wrote some 300 years later. “All the land was in the hands of the few, and if the poor failed to pay their rents, they and their children could be enslaved.”

As debt and discontent grew, and the state needed more people involved in its survival, radical reform became a priority. Over a century, the people’s debt burden was eliminated, debtors could no longer be sold into slavery, old social units were replaced by 10 new groups on the basis of geography, not family. Aristotle, in his “Politics,” described the reformist leader Cleisthenes as wanting to “mingle the citizens with one another and get rid of old connections.” All free male citizens were given the vote — and the burden of responsibility of serving in public institutions. Tensions between the “few” and the “many” continued, but democracy proved durable in ancient Athens and inspired modern liberal democracies.

As observers over the ages have warned, democracy can easily lead to tyranny as ruthless men exploit the power of the mob. But history also shows — from Athens to Washington — that citizens’ equality and state institutions that provide justice and control power offer the greatest prospect of social stability, happiness and personal empowerment. Populists may play the system to gain power, but if they continue to undermine it, they will either destroy their nation, or it will destroy them.

Nikos Konstandaras is the managing editor and a columnist at the newspaper Kathimerini, and a contributing opinion writer.