09-30-2010, 01:04 PM
|
#19
|
|
Post Whore!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: New Jersey
Age: 40
Posts: 5,013
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalveBlue
The OP's article reminded me of a quotation that I read a while ago. It's attributed to a Scotsman by the name of Alexander Tytler, though there's some debate about whether he is actually the author. In any case, the treatise has become known as the Tytler Cycle:
[I] A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
|
that disagreement over authorship is dead-on, imo, because polybius beat him to it by about 2200 years or so; Tytler's cycle dealing with only the very last transition.
Anacyclosis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Polybius' sequence of anacyclosis proceeds in the following order: 1. Monarchy, 2. Kingship, 3. Tyranny, 4. Aristocracy, 5. Oligarchy, 6. Democracy, and 7. Ochlocracy.
According to Polybius' elaboration of the theory, the state begins in a form of primitive monarchy. The state will emerge from monarchy under the leadership of an influential and wise king; this represents the emergence of "kingship". Political power will pass by hereditary succession to the children of the king, who will abuse their authority for their own gain; this represents the degeneration of kingship into "tyranny".
Some of the more influential and powerful men of the state will grow weary of the abuses of tyrants, and will overthrow them; this represents the ascendancy of "aristocracy" (as well as the end of the "rule by the one" and the beginning of the "rule by the few"). Just as the descendants of kings, however, political influence will pass to the descendants of the aristocrats, and these descendants will begin to abuse their power and influence, as the tyrants before them; this represents the decline of aristocracy and the beginning of "oligarchy".
As Polybius explains, the people will by this stage in the political evolution of the state decide to take political matters into their own hands. This point of the cycle sees the emergence of "democracy", as well as the beginning of "rule by the many". In the same way that the descendants of kings and aristocrats abused their political status, so too will the descendants of democrats. Accordingly, democracy degenerates into "ochlocracy", literally, "mob-rule".
During ochlocracy, according to Polybius, the people of the state will become corrupted, and will develop a sense of entitlement and will be conditioned to accept the pandering of demagogues. Eventually, the state will be engulfed in chaos, and the competing claims of demagogues will culminate in a single demagogue claiming absolute power, bringing the state full-circle back to monarchy.
|
of course, polybius wasn't using democracy in the same sense as Tytler, who is presumably thinking of representative democracy. anacyclosis was part of an argument as to why the roman republic was stable, since it encompassed kingship (consuls), aristocracy (senate) and democracy (public), just like our modern american republic. but as far as applicability (and sadly for rome - but hopefully not the US), it's same general theory nonetheless and it works well in the framework of the republic. |
|
|