On Tyranny

On Tyranny

Today, the word „tyranny“ has a rather negative connotation in international and national political circles, and rightly so – modern authoritarian and totalitarian regimes have shown us the dark side of it. Very few, however, realize that the term actually stands for something more complex than it seems at the first glance. Especially fantasy authors, who often fail do delve deeper into the phenomenon and understanding what it really is, end up with superficial and a rather ignorant image of the system which they essentially proclaim to be Evil ™. While suffering my way through the literary torture that is Paolini’s „Inheritance“ cycle, I could only sigh at yet another such depiction. More than that, the superficiality and implausibility reached a new peak in his writing! But we will get to that in time. Let us then first investigate the hidden depths of tyranny.

1. Origins

Actually, as anybody who would bother to put any effort into writing a believable authoritarian state will find out, they are not that much hidden, really. If one would bother to check the „State and Political studies“ section in local library, they would be in for a surprise. Not only books generally dealing with political systems have quite large chapters on the subject, but after what was experienced in history, there is a load of literature available on particular forms of totalitarian and authoritarian governments. Here, I will present most basic marks of the most common ones.

Tyranny itself, just as the majority of political systems known today, originated in ancient Greece, around 7th century BC. At the time, the term had no negative connotations, it only referred to anyone who seized power over a polis (city state). Tyrants, just as any other ruler, naturally had to make sure the society ran smoothly. This is why the word originally carried no other meaning with it; the ruler was too busy running his domain to oppress his own subjects who raised his crops and paid his taxes. The term „tyrant“ took a negative meaning with the role of Peisistratos and his two sons in Athens around 560 BC. They were such bad and cruel rulers that an uprising broke out shortly and Athenian tyranny was terminated. This kind of tyranny is defined as a rule of a single person or several of them. However, tyranny of a single party is also a very well known one, as will be discussed later in the essay.

2. Authoritarian and Totalitarian Political Systems

In modern days, we refer to tyranny as „totalitarian“ or „authoritarian“ regime. Though the two have very similar connotations and to a laic they may seem to be the same thing, there are differences between them and they cannot be treated as synonyms.

2. 1. Authoritarian Systems

„Authoritarian“, or as often also called, „autocratic“ (self – governing) regimes are much looser than totalitarian. These can very often be seen in third world countries. They are a mark of a fast political development. In these systems it is not rare to encounter governments who only last for a few days, maybe even hours. Very often they are bound to an ideology, but the sole purpose of the ruling elites is getting to power and gaining as much as possible of it. Military forces play a big role in these systems and very often are the main reason why a particular elite holds the power. One of the rules of authoritarian systems is – whoever has more guns, wins. They do not generally support human rights and the ideology in most cases have a hold on the court system. Nowadays we can encounter these forms of autocracies:

· Conservative regimes – represented either by traditional monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Nepal), traditional dictatorship (Paraguay, Malawi) or theocracies (combined secular and clerical rule, ideology bound by certain religion – Iran, Taliban rule in Afganistan)
· Facade liberal democracies (Mexico)
· Military regimes
o combined civic – military regimes, some sort of a hybrid between the direct military rule and „civilian“ government
o radical militaristic regimes (Angola, Mosambic, Ethipia, Algeria) – all power is with the military officials

2.1.1. Monarchies

If run with a little bit of effort, monarchies tend to be pretty stable. There is no uncertainty in who the next leader would be – there is always a person related by blood who would take over the rule. They tend to vary in strictness from ones who can happily rival some of the fiercest authoritarian systems to looser ones. They are probably the most versatile of all the systems mentioned. Very often the king is being referred to as the „fourth branch of power“ (if you remember my previous essay, power is usually divided into three branches), the monarch fills the role of some sort of a mediator, if there ever is a conflict between other branches, if the country has them.

2.2. Totalitarian Systems

Totalitarian regimes are something completely different. These are what convinced us that total rule is inherently Evil ™. Before these came along, nobody could imagine domination so perfect, so omnipresent than what they showed us.

„Totalitarian political systems of varying ideological focus are examples of extreme political monistic systems (monism means that in a given state, only one form of power has supremacy), when through the power of state and other means the ruling elites regulate not only political affairs, but also all thinking and acting of the citizen. These systems attempt to dominate the personal domain of a man totally, they are focused on changing his or her personal beliefs and values based on the model presented by the ruling elite.“

If you are not scared at this point, you are not human.

Now, I have read a lot of pre – WWII fantasy and I came to an interesting conclusion – majority of these early fantasy works have nothing to do with overthrowing an evil tyrant whose rule threatens to destroy the whole world. Jules Verne is more on the side of science – fiction, I admit, but if he does deal with tyrannies, it is always in a small scale – a secluded society with little to no impact on the outer world. Then there was „Ptah Hotep“ by Charles Duits which was written sometime in the latter half of 19th century. We get very little insights into the pseudo – Egyptian society the main character lives in, but we soon leave it and the story mostly focuses on hero’s personal journey to enlightenment and mental maturity. Fantasy heroes of this time do not challenge the system; they deal with their own challenges. What changed since then? Easy question – World War II happened. The first Great War showed us the true horror of battle, introduced fighting techniques which were nothing short of monstrous at the time (poisoned gas was first used in 1917). But only WWII brought true fear into our hearts, only then did the mankind realize that yes, there can be such thing as ultimate evil which will bring nothing but pain and destruction to wherever it comes. I know Tolkien vehemently denied that Sauron’s rule in Mordor is supposed to be a metaphor for Nazi Germany during the war period, but these terrible, dark and Evil ™ systems start showing up mostly after WWII. Until then nobody could even imagine such horror.

Totalitarian systems, in all their forms and shapes have several things in common:

- solid political system based on the rule of a single party. All opposition is suppressed, prosecuted and eradicated – ideology is legally embedded in the system by law, mostly by a declaration in the Preambule – the opening of the Constitution (if the country has one) – organs and offices of state are subjugated, directly controlled and on many accounts eventually fused with those of the party – supremacy of the state – economy is controlled directly by the state – severe limitations of personal domain of the citizen – the media network is under direct control of the state and ruling party, commonly known under the popular term of propaganda – exercise of terror by the state itself against citizens, based either on their belonging to a certain race or a different ideology (special courts and punishments, repression…) – a section of the party is a military unit

All three following systems carry these marks, there is not as much difference in the way they were executed and made an innate part of the system, as much as philosophical and cultural origins from which they came.

2.2.1. Facism

This system is a brain child, if I call it that, of Benito Mussolini. Fascist Italy is the first of truly totalitarian countries that emerged in the early half of 20th century. Fascism is very often confused with Nazism. Though they show some similarities, they are two completely different systems, with Fascism being the younger one and very much an inspiration for the latter. I have neither time nor space to dissect the historical development of the Fascist party, so I will just skip to the most important event – September 21, 1928, when the Great Council of the Fascist party became an organ of the state, making the Fascist party a state – bound organization with quite a big say in the matters of the state.

Here I would very much like to recommend reading some of Mussolini’s works, if you are interested in politics. He has some interesting insights on political systems, which is very neatly summed up in his most famous quote: „Everything for the state, nothing against it, nothing beyond it“. Interests of the individual were second to interests of state with the doctrine claiming that one is a citizen first and only then an individual.

But however crippling Fascism was when it came to human rights, it was still a walk in a park compared to the system which eventually took over not only Italy but most part of Europe, its successor:

2.2.2. Nazism

Basic theory of Nazism was not based solely on Mussolini’s regime. One of its strongest roots can be dated to 19th century Germany. Feel free to correct me, but from my Philosophy classes I remember it was Hegel who considered the German race to be the pinnacle of human evolution. The main reason behind this thought was the fact that Germany was since the fall of Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the ancient Roman Empire!) not really a country. It was divided into many small, independent states and in 19th century unification of Germany was the most prominent question resonating through the political scene of Western Europe. The country was in the end united, mostly thanks to Otto von Bismarck, the „Iron Chancellor“, but remnants of political and philosophical thought calling for German pride were still there.

So instead of the principle of citizenship, which was dominant in Fascism, Nazism was built on racial principle. Even in the early decades of 20th century, some territories originally belonging to Germany were under rule of different countries. Essentially it was the idea of getting all Germans under a single rule was what started the invasive streak to Europe.

Similarly to Fascism, Nazism too strongly relied on the personality of its leader, but much more heavily than its predecessor. The Leader and the „spirit of nation“ were the two most significant boundaries within which the law was supposed to maneuver. Nazism actually gave a huge importance to law and only the Fuhrer and the „spirit of nation“ were above it. But other than that, everything had to be regulated by law. Yes, even the deportations to „labour camps“. From the point of view of a lawyer in Nazi Germany, nothing was wrong with that.

The system as such was, very much like other totalitarian systems, one based on a single – party principle, which in this case was the NSDAP (National Socialist German Labour Party. Talking about overkill in naming conventions). The party was the single carrier of political power. Everything was linked to the party and through it, to the Fuhrer. The party decided everything, not only on national but later on the international level too. The party was just an extension of the Fuhrer, Hitler himself said that „The Party is the Fuhrer and the Fuhrer is the Party“. More than anything, Nazi Germany stood on the cult of personality the size of which could successfully rival that of Stalin. Speaking of which:

2.2.3. Communism

According to Marx and Engels, it was not that bad of an idea. And if you read „Der Kapital“ It sounds very nice. The biggest catch of the whole theory is – it doesn’t work as anything other than a theory. The main reason why we have no true communist countries anymore is that the system just doesn’t work (Chinese system is not communism in its purest form, just as Soviet Russia wasn’t). It is way too unstable to function properly, which became apparent very soon after it was made the main ideology of Russia for the first time in 1917.

Communism was very very similar to the two previous systems, especially to Nazism. In its peak, it stood on the cult of personality of the infamous paranoid Yosif Vissarionovich Stalin and it fits the marks of a totalitarian regime to a t. But instead of putting people of a different race into forced labour camps, they did that to those who opposed the system. The fact that atrocities of 1939 – 1953 are not as well known in the Western world does not mean they were any less terrible. Again, we have a country whose political offices are fused with those of the party – Communism actually brought those to a whole another level. Not even Hitler had such total control over his citizens. Propaganda was everywhere, they would hammer it to your head the moment you learned to read (You should see some of the old children’s schoolbooks, now THAT was scary). Despite the fact that the Soviet Union was unlike Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, both unitary states, a federation, local offices had little to no authority – it all rested with the party. We don’t want anybody to secede, now do we?

Unlike Fascism and Nazism, rule of Communism managed to survive for much longer, mostly because Russia was one of the winners of the war. But the system did undergo some changes in the course of years that followed. At one point, in 1960s, it was loosening up in many Central European countries – Hungary, Czechoslovakia, for example. There was even talk of real election, unlike the fixed kind there always was until then. But, since the officials wouldn’t have it, they sent military forces to these countries in August 1968. Nowadays known as the Occupation by the forces of Warsaw pact, it resulted in the new wave of repression, censorship and political arrests. As somebody whose both parents were brought forth for questioning before the damn system fell in a revolution of 1989 I must say – good riddance!

3. Totalitarian and Authoritarian systems in Inheritance

As already noted, fantasy writers often overlook the very natures of these systems and reduce them to tyrannies to those seen in ancient Greece rather than more complicated and sophisticated systems we encounter later in history. Even monarchies were much more complicated than that because their domain was incomparably larger. As pointed out in the previous essay, systems based solely on a rule of a single person can only last for short periods of time and on a very small scale, because they tend to be greatly unstable and easily collapse.

Which is the main reason why I still fail to understand why exactly the „Empire“ in Christopher Paolini’s „Inheritance“ cycle is still running, but that was also explored in the previous essay. Here I would like to focus on the person in charge of it, Galbatorix.

First off – he is a King. He rules an Empire. I know this has been pointed out on several occasions by several people, but the sheer stupidity of it never ceases to bemuse me. We barely started dissecting the system and here, on its very top and in its very center we run into the first absurdity. One can only shake their head and say in a desperate voice: „What. The. Hell.“ I am trying really, really hard to not resort to ad hominem attacks, but here I simply can’t do anything else. From this single fact it is very clear that Paolini himself has no idea AT ALL about what the fuck is going on. Oh, he may be a wunderkind who finished high school at the age of fifteen and then didn’t go to college because he was obviously too good for it, but finishing high school at age of fifteen does not give you all the education you need. Or, as seen in this case, common sense. I once read in interview with him in which he listens to some college lecture as he draws. He says „I think it’s an economics course.“ Well, maybe if Paolini stopped having college courses merely as a background music for when he is doodling, he could learn a thing or two not only about economics, but also about political sciences and theories of state. He would learn that EMPIRES ARE NOT RULED BY KINGS. Now that I got that out of my system, let us continue.

From what we know, in Empire the power is centered in the hands of the King (gaaargh). Or from what we can guess. Because we never get any information on whether there is anyone else involved in the actual governing other than Galbatorix. Which is really stupid, seeing as he spends all of his time trying to subjugate the Dragon Heart Pokeballs to his will. Now a system like this has to:

a.) either have a strong government consisting of ministers who run the country while Galbatorix is too busy playing with his Pokemons
b.) based on a pretty strong cult of personality and strengthened by an intricate web of secret police, military and supported by propaganda

Since Galbatorix is mad and Evil ™, we have to rule out the possibility a.) because he would never give power to anyone, generic villains just don’t do that. Plus, there is not a single word in any of the books about any other carrier of the power other than Galbatorix. And given how thick these door stoppers are, that is a lot of nothing considering the Red and the Black brick were nearly 1000 pages long. One would think that if there was an issue to address, he would address it SOMEWHERE in there. Therefore the when running his Empire (garrrrrh) Galbatorix has to depend on the power of his cult and all that jazz that goes with it. But no matter how hard I looked, even with the help of my falcon friends I couldn’t find anything that would support this possibility either. Here is how a cult works:

The person is everywhere. And I mean everywhere. There are songs about them, there are stories being written about how awesome and great and wise the ruler is. Try looking at the cult of Stalin, or Ho – Chi – Minh. If you look into some stories about them from that time, these guys are painted like some kinds of saints with all the powers and abilities of Chuck Norris! They are on money, stamps, magazines, on posters – wherever you go, you cannot escape them. They make sure they are SEEN, because the public must be made aware of their omnipresence. No town is small enough for the gracious leader to appear in and help with some petty problem (all under strict surveillance by their guard, of course). Their statues are all over the country and everybody knows how they look better than they know faces of their own family.

Okay, so do we know how Galbatorix looks? Hm….no. Total appearances made by Galbatorix in all three bricks so far:0. How stupid is this guy? He thinks that if he just sits in his castle where no one can get to him and decides whether sending Pikachu in would be a good idea, all will be well? He has nobody to keep the country under control and he never leaves the house?

Sure, Sauron in Lord of the Rings never left Barad Dur either, but he was a giant burning floating eye on top of a tower. How much more visible and omnipresent can you fucking get? Being seen is one of the most essential parts of being a sole ruler/dictator. If I say names like Saddam Hussein or Fidel Castro, I am sure 98% of people would know how they look like. Not to mention THEIR people. Galbatorix does nothing and goes nowhere. Which brings me to my next point:

All dictators/tyrants do at least something to make their people like them. With Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin – all these guys got to power because they were popular with the people. Heck, Mussolini got to become the „Duce“ by staging a coupe, not unlike Galbatorix. Hitler was legitimately elected by popular vote. People LIKED these guys because despite the repression and propaganda and prosecution, because they were smart enough to not only keep quiet about all these things, but also gave people what they wanted, or at least told them what they wanted to hear. If they didn’t and everybody would hate them, they would soon be overthrown by their very angry subjects. You can’t keep beating someone and not expect they would not fight back eventually. The longer you want to stay on the top, the nicer you have to be, within the limits of Evil ™, naturally. But everybody seems to hate Galbatorix and the only people who serve him do so just because of magic. Gosh, how I loathe that excuse. The only ones who served him willingly – the Forsworn – are all dead. So there. Galbatorix remains a king even though he does squat and everyone with free will hates him. Logic truely does elude the world of „Inheritance“

Other than that, we never learn whether Galbatorix has any other military unit than just army, you know, to keep things in order at home while his troops fight on fronts. And I highly doubt he has enough manpower to protect his interests on the domestic scene when he sends such obscene amounts of soldiers to fight a bunch of rebels. I am not going to dignify the Black Hand (you really should hand it to him – he knows how to twist historical facts and turn them into travesty) by calling it a „military unit“. From what we know, if was just Morzan’s little private activity and had absolutely no connection to Galbatorix. The Ra’Zac were under his direct command but how stupid/high do you have to be to think that FOUR men (well, technically) would be enough?

We are also never shown how Galbatorix oppresses or reduces the rights of his subjects. Sure, everyone is complaining about how much he sucks, but we never get any evidence. In Lord of the Rings, we were there, we could see all the damage Sauron did to Middle Earth and it puts a whole new fear of him into the reader. Personally, when I read what happened to Shire at the end of the third book, I was shocked and horrified. True, it was not Suron’s direct doing, it was Saruman’s, but Saruman worked for Sauron, we can stretch it a little and say that it was Sauron’s fault really. And doesn’t Frodo say „This is Mordor“ at one point during the cleansing of the Shire? The main reason totalitarian regimes and their leaders themselves were so feared and nowadays are so hated and well remembered is that there was nowhere they could not reach. Nothing was safe, not even your home. To me, Cleansing of the Shire is the most powerful part of the trilogy, showing that to evil nothing is sacred, there is nowhere it cannot go and it is particularly frightening and painful. You can’t hide from it. What do we get in Inheritance? Nothing. Again. The inhabitants of Carvahall go about their merry lives. Then the Ra’Zac show up. Then they leave. Then they show up again and THEN they do something that makes the villagers really worried. The attacks on the village were the only case in which we are shown that Galbatorix would not hesitate going against his own people. And even then they fail to do any lasting damage.

To sum it up – Galbatorix is staying on the throne by some mysterious logic which remains hidden to this humble critic. His people hate him despite the fact that he does nothing to deserve such reputation, they don’t even know how he looks and his henchmen are useless. He doesn’t have a government and yet he himself does NOTHING. Other than chase a sociopath brat and his pet dragon instead or ruling his own country, of course. He could be levitating in a vacuum from all we know. And according to modern day political thought transplanted to medieval world, which is pretty much how things in Alagaesia are judged, they should be carrying him on their shoulders. He has overthrown the militaristic dictatorship of Riders! He practically set them free! So not only Galbatorix is not a good ruler – he is not a ruler at all. It makes no sense just as everything else in the books.

Thank you for reading and I hope to see you with my next essay (if I don’t get voluntarily mauled by an eagle until then),

Comment