essay on democracy without justice is tyranny

• Essay on “Democracy without Justice is Tyranny” for CSS, PMS

• June 8, 2023
• Essay for CSS PMS and Judiciary Exam

The quote “Democracy without justice is tyranny” encapsulates the inherent relationship between democracy and justice. Democracy, as a system of governance, aims to ensure the participation, equality, and accountability of its citizens. Here’s a complete Essay on “Democracy without Justice is Tyranny”.

Introduction:

• Introduce the quote: “Democracy without justice is tyranny.”
• Highlight the significance of democracy as a system of governance .
• Explain the interdependence between democracy and justice.
• State the purpose of the essay: to analyze the relationship between democracy and justice and explore the implications of an unjust democracy.

I. Understanding Democracy and Justice

• Define democracy as a form of government by the people, emphasizing principles of equality, participation, and accountability.
• Define justice as the fair and impartial treatment of individuals within a society.
• Establish the inherent connection between democracy and justice, as both are essential for a functioning and legitimate political system.

II. The Importance of Justice in a Democracy

• Discuss the role of justice in safeguarding individual rights and liberties.
• Analyze the significance of a just legal framework that upholds the rule of law.
• Explore the concept of social justice and the equitable distribution of resources and opportunities within a democratic society.

III. The Pitfalls of an Unjust Democracy

• Examine the potential consequences of a democracy without justice.
• Discuss the dangers of majority tyranny and the potential for the oppression of minority groups.
• Analyze the erosion of individual freedoms and human rights in the absence of justice .

IV. Case Studies: Democracies Struggling with Justice

• Explore real-world examples of democracies grappling with justice-related challenges.
• Discuss issues such as systemic racism, income inequality, and corruption.
• Analyze the impact of these injustices on democratic institutions and societal cohesion.

V. Ensuring Justice within Democratic Systems

• Discuss strategies for promoting justice within democracies.
• Analyze the importance of independent judiciaries and the rule of law.
• Explore the role of civic participation, activism, and social movements in advocating for justice.

VI. Balancing Democracy and Justice

• Address the tension between democracy and justice.
• Discuss potential conflicts between majority rule and the protection of individual rights.
• Analyze the need for checks and balances, constitutional safeguards, and human rights frameworks to ensure justice within democratic systems.

VII. Justice as a Pillar of Sustainable Democracy

• Emphasize the symbiotic relationship between justice and democracy.
• Discuss how justice contributes to the stability and legitimacy of democratic institutions.
• Highlight the transformative potential of a just democracy in addressing societal inequalities and promoting inclusive governance .

Essay on Democracy without Justice is Tyranny

Introduction

The quote “Democracy without justice is tyranny” encapsulates the inherent relationship between democracy and justice. Democracy, as a system of governance, aims to ensure the participation, equality, and accountability of its citizens. However, without justice, democracy can become a tool for oppression and exclusion. This essay will analyze the connection between democracy and justice, exploring the implications of an unjust democracy and the importance of justice in maintaining a fair and legitimate political system.

Understanding Democracy and Justice

Democracy is a form of government in which power is vested in the people, and decisions are made through majority rule. It emphasizes principles of equality, political participation, and representation. On the other hand, justice refers to the fair and impartial treatment of individuals within a society, encompassing legal, social, and economic dimensions. The link between democracy and justice is rooted in the idea that a just society is a necessary condition for a functioning and legitimate democracy. Without justice, the democratic system risks becoming a façade, perpetuating inequalities and denying individuals their rights and liberties.

The Importance of Justice in a Democracy

In a democracy, justice plays a pivotal role in safeguarding individual rights and liberties. A just legal framework is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that citizens are treated fairly and impartially. Additionally, the concept of social justice is vital in a democratic society, aiming to ensure the equitable distribution of resources and opportunities. For example, in a just democracy, equal access to education, healthcare, and employment is essential to prevent the marginalization of certain groups. Without justice, a democracy can become an instrument for the powerful to exploit and oppress the less privileged, leading to social unrest and a breakdown of trust in the democratic system.

The Pitfalls of an Unjust Democracy

An unjust democracy can lead to various negative consequences. One such pitfall is the risk of majority tyranny, where the majority suppresses the rights and voices of minority groups. This can manifest in discrimination, exclusion, or even violence against marginalized communities. Without justice, individual freedoms and human rights may be eroded, undermining the very foundations of democracy. Furthermore, an unjust democracy may perpetuate systemic inequalities, such as racial or economic disparities, as the democratic process becomes skewed in favor of the privileged few. Such injustices can breed resentment, fuel social unrest, and undermine the legitimacy of the democratic system itself.

Case Studies: Democracies Struggling with Justice

Examining real-world examples can provide insights into democracies facing challenges related to justice. For instance, systemic racism has been a persistent issue in many democracies, including the United States. The legacy of slavery and racial discrimination has created deep-seated inequalities and injustices. Similarly, income inequality is a pressing concern in many democratic societies, where wealth concentration hinders equal opportunities and social mobility. Corruption within democratic institutions is another example, as it undermines the principles of justice, transparency, and accountability. These case studies highlight the urgency of addressing justice-related issues within democratic systems to ensure the well-being and equality of all citizens.

Ensuring Justice within Democratic Systems

Promoting justice within democratic systems requires concerted efforts and specific strategies. One crucial aspect is the establishment and maintenance of independent judiciaries that can impartially interpret and apply the law. This ensures that justice is not subject to political interference or manipulation. Additionally, the rule of law serves as a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power, protecting individuals’ rights and promoting justice. Civic participation, activism, and social movements also play a vital role in advocating for justice within democratic societies. They can raise awareness, mobilize collective action, and push for legal and policy reforms to address systemic injustices.

Balancing Democracy and Justice

There exists a tension between democracy and justice that necessitates careful balancing. While democracy values majority rule, it must not come at the expense of protecting the rights of individuals and minority groups. Constitutional safeguards , checks and balances, and human rights frameworks are essential to ensure justice within democratic systems. These mechanisms prevent the abuse of power, promote inclusivity, and safeguard individual liberties. Striking a balance between democracy and justice is a continuous process that requires ongoing dialogue, compromise, and the engagement of all stakeholders to create a society that upholds democratic principles while safeguarding justice.

Justice as a Pillar of Sustainable Democracy

Justice is not merely a complement to democracy; it is a pillar that sustains it. When justice is upheld within a democratic system, it contributes to the stability, legitimacy, and effectiveness of democratic institutions. By addressing social and economic inequalities, a just democracy fosters social cohesion, mitigates conflicts, and promotes inclusive governance. A society that prioritizes justice ensures that all citizens have equal opportunities, access to basic needs, and a fair chance to participate in the democratic process. Thus, justice in a democratic context is transformative, enabling societies to address historical injustices, empower marginalized groups, and build a more equitable and prosperous future.

The quote “Democracy without justice is tyranny” highlights the inherent relationship between democracy and justice. This essay has explored the importance of justice in a democratic system, the potential pitfalls of an unjust democracy, and strategies for ensuring justice within democratic societies. By analyzing case studies, balancing democracy and justice, and recognizing justice as a pillar of sustainable democracy, it becomes evident that justice is not a mere complement to democracy but a fundamental prerequisite. Only through the pursuit of justice can democracies achieve true equality, protect individual rights, and build a society where every citizen can actively participate and thrive.

• Environmental Pollution, Global Warming and Water Crisis in Pakistan
• Top 10 Profitable Small Business Ideas in Pakistan for 2023
• A Comparative Study of Sri Lanka and Pakistan
• The Future of Pak-Afghan Relations

I am interested in writing content for educational purpose.

Most relevant ▼

• Essay on “Innovations are Never-ending Headways” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Single National Curriculum Pave the Way for the Desired Ideological Integration in Pakistan Society” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Single National Curriculum Paving the Way for the desired ideological integration in Pakistan Society” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Inflation – A Result of Poor Economic Policies or a Part of Global Economic Woes” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Man is Born Free but Everywhere he is in Chains” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Power Corrupts: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely” for CSS and PMS
• Essay on the “Role of Social Media in the Modern World” for CSS and PMS
• Essay on “Terrorism and its Socioeconomic Implications” for CSS, and PMS

Why tyranny could be the inevitable outcome of democracy

Associate Professor of Philosophy, Rochester Institute of Technology

Disclosure statement

Lawrence Torcello does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Rochester Institute of Technology provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

View all partners

• Bahasa Indonesia

Plato, one of the earliest thinkers and writers about democracy, predicted that letting people govern themselves would eventually lead the masses to support the rule of tyrants .

When I tell my college-level philosophy students that in about 380 B.C. he asked “does not tyranny spring from democracy,” they’re sometimes surprised, thinking it’s a shocking connection.

But looking at the modern political world, it seems much less far-fetched to me now. In democratic nations like Turkey, the U.K., Hungary, Brazil and the U.S., anti-elite demagogues are riding a wave of populism fueled by nationalist pride. It is a sign that liberal constraints on democracy are weakening.

To philosophers, the term “liberalism” means something different than it does in partisan U.S. politics. Liberalism as a philosophy prioritizes the protection of individual rights , including freedom of thought, religion and lifestyle, against mass opinion and abuses of government power.

What went wrong in Athens?

In classical Athens, the birthplace of democracy , the democratic assembly was an arena filled with rhetoric unconstrained by any commitment to facts or truth. So far, so familiar.

Aristotle and his students had not yet formalized the basic concepts and principles of logic, so those who sought influence learned from sophists , teachers of rhetoric who focused on controlling the audience’s emotions rather than influencing their logical thinking.

There lay the trap: Power belonged to anyone who could harness the collective will of the citizens directly by appealing to their emotions rather than using evidence and facts to change their minds.

Manipulating people with fear

In his “ History of the Peloponnesian War ,” the Greek historian Thucydides provides an example of how the Athenian statesman Pericles, who was elected democratically and not considered a tyrant, was nonetheless able to manipulate the Athenian citizenry:

“Whenever he sensed that arrogance was making them more confident than the situation merited, he would say something to strike fear into their hearts; and when on the other hand he saw them fearful without good reason, he restored their confidence again. So it came about that what was in name a democracy was in practice government by the foremost man.”

Misleading speech is the essential element of despots, because despots need the support of the people. Demagogues’ manipulation of the Athenian people left a legacy of instability, bloodshed and genocidal warfare, described in Thucydides’ history.

That record is why Socrates – before being sentenced to death by democratic vote – chastised the Athenian democracy for its elevation of popular opinion at the expense of truth. Greece’s bloody history is also why Plato associated democracy with tyranny in Book VIII of “The Republic .” It was a democracy without constraint against the worst impulses of the majority.

• Ancient Greece

Head of School, School of Arts & Social Sciences, Monash University Malaysia

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Clinical Teaching Fellow

Data Manager

Director, Social Policy

Democracy without justice is tyranny

Democracy without justice.

Introduction A democracy places its citizens at the helm of government. Elected representatives who answer directly to them utilize this power, with justice being enforced impartially in accordance with law; this ensures all citizen’s rights are upheld while operating effectively as part of democracy.

Democracy can quickly devolve into tyranny without justice being maintained, due to powerful individuals acting without worrying about potential repercussions for their actions. This may result in the suppression of dissenters, minority groups or fundamental human rights violations.

Justice in a Democracy

Justice is essential for the functioning of democracy for several reasons. First, it ensures all citizens’ rights – such as life, liberty and property rights – are upheld; fairness also plays a part in social order and stability by decreasing instances of violence or other forms of discontent among its inhabitants. Thirdly, justice encourages economic expansion: businesses are more likely to invest and create jobs when they believe their rights will be upheld fairly.

Unjust democracy poses serious dangers.

An unjust democracy allows powerful individuals to act however they choose without worrying about any repercussions for their actions, leading them into irresponsible behavior that leads to dictatorship. As such, an imbalanced democracy may result in:

Minority group oppression:

Under an unfair system, it becomes easy for majorities to abuse minorities through violence, segregation, or discrimination. Violence could take the form of physical attack against them; segregation might separate communities. Discrimination might manifest itself.

Suppression of Dissent: Critics who question government can be silenced through coercion, imprisonment or even execution when justice does not prevail.

Basic human rights can easily be violated when there is no justice in society. This includes freedoms such as assembly and speech as well as the right to a fair trial.

How can justice be ensured in a democracy?

A democracy offers numerous means to ensure fairness. These include:

Judiciary Independence: For impartial decisions to be rendered by judges without fear of reprisals from administration.

An efficient judicial system must uphold and defend the rule of law for citizens. While upholding the rights of each citizen. To achieve this goal, an effective court system, well-trained police force, and fair punishment scheme are needed.

Respect for law as culture:

People must show respect for both the law and legal systems, by abiding by it themselves, helping law enforcement officials, filing reports of crimes committed and cooperating with police when needed.

2023 depicts Pakistan’s current democracy and justice situation.

Pakistan only recently gained independence from British domination in 1947 and remains an emerging democracy today. Since then, several democratic defeats such as military coups and instances of martial law have taken place. Nonetheless, regular elections and peaceful transition of power between political administrations has propelled Pakistan forward on its journey toward democracy.

Justice in Pakistan continues to face some hurdles despite this progress, particularly within law enforcement and judiciary systems. Police often are accused of violating human rights while the judiciary is often perceived as corrupt and inefficient; additionally there is considerable impunity for criminals holding positions of authority.

Pakistan is facing an extremely precarious situation in 2023. Economic and security challenges the nation is currently enduring have led to widespread protests and demonstrations. To quell opposition, administration has adopted an aggressive response, further damaging trust in both government and court systems.

Pakistan serves as a stark reminder of how fragile democracy and justice truly are, necessitating continuous protection due to corruption, impunity, and violence that can easily undermine them.

Here are a few specific examples of how Pakistan’s democracy and justice are under threat in 2023:

Authorities have been accused of abusing the legal system to attack their political rivals.

Police officers have been accused of abusing their power when confronting protesters.

Government officials have been involved in multiple high-profile corruption incidents.

Security forces have carried out several extrajudicial killings.

These issues pose a threat to Pakistan’s democracy and future of justice. If the government doesn’t address them, trust in both executive branch and legal systems may further erode, making addressing economic and security matters much harder for everyone involved.

It is essential to acknowledge that many individuals in Pakistan are working tirelessly towards increasing justice and democracy. Lawyers, campaigners and journalists all play an integral part in fighting to ensure all citizens’ rights are respected while the government accounts to its constituents.

Pakistan remains on an uncertain course towards greater democracy and justice, yet due to individuals fighting for these ideals there remains hope that Pakistan can move past its obstacles to form a more equal and democratic society.

Conclusion Any successful society must be built upon two fundamental pillars – democracy and justice. Without fairness in our democracies, democracy could quickly deteriorate into tyranny. Therefore, we must take all steps possible to ensure fairness among us all.

Additional Ideas It is also essential to remember that justice encompasses more than simply protecting individual rights. Ensuring the public can hold government accountable is another goal, so governments must be open and sensitive to people’s needs when handling transactions involving the public. Without accountability measures in place, government abuse of power becomes much more likely.

Keep in mind that justice is a dynamic concept; its meaning shifts with society over time and what was considered inclusive in one age may no longer apply in another era. Therefore, having an established mechanism allowing revision of definition of justice should remain an essential feature.

About Author

Muhammad Munib Rasool

See author's posts

Unveiling Alternative Pathways to Teaching

Online degree programs in the usa, the path to css success and significance of online classes, pakistani women face equal opportunities as men, will pakistan legalize bitcoin in the future, investment in education is important, is bitcoin going to replace the dollar soon, how to get an online degree in the usa, digital currency have an effect on the economy, how central bank digital currencies (cbdcs) will impact the global financial system, subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates.

We don't spam.

The Art of Time Management

Cyclone biparjoy: devastating storm hits india and pakistan, related articles.

BRICS VS G7

Why Was Imran Khan in jail?

Pakistan’s Ineffective Government

Why USA is still a superpower in 2023

• Pingback: Literacy and Democracy: The Challenges and Solutions in Pakistan - CSS ESSAYS

a good thought

Thats great.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Adblock Detected

Democracy Without Justice leads to Tyranny

• Sameeullah Kakar
• July 7, 2023
• Daily Write-Ups , Featured
• 38562 Views

The following article is written by Sameeullah Kakar , a student of Sir Syed Kazim Ali . Moreover, the article is written on the same pattern, taught by Sir to his students, scoring the highest marks in compulsory subjects for years. Sir Kazim has uploaded his students’ solved past paper questions so other thousands of aspirants can understand how to crack a topic or question, how to write relevantly, what coherence is, and how to include and connect ideas, opinions, and suggestions to score the maximum.

Introduction

Democracy is, for sure, nothing but a breeding ground for tyranny if it does not protect fundamental human rights and ensure the rule of law in a country through justice. Moreover, injustice not only hampers accountability and equality, the salient features of democracy but also encourages the concentration of powers. It is, therefore, a worldwide belief that the more the justice, the better the democracy. Currently, it can be observed that several states have found a shift from democracy to tyranny, like Russia and North Korea, due to the absence of justice. Similarly, the rise in injustice occurs in manipulating elections and discrimination among the different sects and portions of society, easily detectable from the Apartheid tyranny in South Africa and Saddam Husain’s tyranny in Iraq. Weakened democratic institutions, along with pressurized and censured media, have also resulted in the formation of tyranny in Russia under Vladimir Putin’s rule. Apart from that, Nazi Germany is the primary case study reflecting and converting an unjust democratic state tyrannical one. In short, if a state wants to sustain democracy in the future, it must maintain justice without compromise. The essay, above all, throws light on the relationship between justice, democracy, and tyranny and the major arguments proving why democracy leads to tyranny in the absence of justice.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” (Martin Luther King Jr)

Exploring the relationship between democracy, justice, and tyranny

Justice, the prime necessity of peace and prosperity in society, establishes a unique relationship between democracy and tyranny- binary opposite one another. Moreover, to certain reports and facts of history, democracy and justice promote political equality and participation in any state, establishing a symbiotic relationship with one another. In contrast, democracy and tyranny cannot sustain in a single palm as tyranny favours the concentration of powers while democracy has the characteristic of distributing powers among the different institutions and individuals of the state. Furthermore, justice cannot bear tyranny, for tyranny compromises the rights of people- the fundamental responsibility of justice. Thus, it can be concluded, in a few words, that justice and democracy cannot stay with tyranny in a single state.

How does injustice lead democracy to tyranny?

Democracy, the loved form of government by the people, is converted to tyranny, the worst form of government, in the absence of justice. Moreover, it does not happen in every state; in contrast, there are certain causes behind the conversion of democracy into tyranny. The first reason in this regard is the concentration of powers in the hands of a single ruler or only a few people. In the case of Nazi Germany, the objective of Adolf Hitler was achieved through the approval of Enabling Act of 1933 from the parliament, which granted him the power to enact laws without the consent of parliament. Furthermore, he introduced paramilitary organizations, like Schutzstaffel and Gestapo, to pressurize and misplace his political opponents, like leaders and organizations countering him in any field, which means the maximum number of powers were concentrated in the hands of Adolf Hitler only. Thus, Adolf Hitler took all the powers in his own hand and established tyranny in the absence of justice.

“To promote justice is to curtail tyranny.” (Mohammad Abdullah Kakar- D. D. Ombudsperson Balochistan)

Furthermore, democracy turns to tyranny in the absence of justice due to the suppression or violation of rights and freedom, majorly observed during the tyrannical period of Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1953. Moreover, it was his tyranny which was marked by the formation and establishment of Gulags- the labour camps- for the prisoners, state enemies, and other opponents of his ideology. The affecters had to face harsh conditions of life, such as forced labour and physical torture. Apart from that, he was famous for the elimination of certain rights and freedom, such as the freedom of speech and the formation of independent political parties, and it all happened due to the absence of justice. Thus, the lesser the justice in society, the worst the tyranny.    

In the same fashion, an unjust society with no accountability undoubtedly promotes tyranny with the discouragement of democracy. Moreover, there are several examples of states worldwide where democracy has turned to tyranny, like Saddam Husain’s tyrannical rule from 1979 to 2003. In the concerned tyranny, with prominent characteristics, like the abuse of human rights, along with torture, extrajudicial killings, and forced disappearances of people, the use of chemical weapons, mass killings, and forced disappearances had become the routine of Iraq, enabling Saddam Husain to establish tyranny. Apart from that, there was no one to be held responsible for the worst situation in Iraq because of the unjust judicial system. It can, therefore, be said that justice and accountability are a must to sustain democracy in a state.

Similarly, inequality and discrimination among sects of society do grow in an unjust society and welcome the tyrannical form of government. And the best example in this regard is the establishment of Apartheid tyranny in South Africa, in which they not only formed the government of minority white people but also established separate health, education, and voting systems. Moreover, they also introduced some acts, such as the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, and the Prohibition of Inter-marriages Act, restricting the interaction of black people with whites. Separate public offices were established, and the blacks had to bear the harsh attitude of the whites everywhere due to the absence of justice and equality in society. Thus, eliminating justice from society is to accept tyranny for the state. 

Furthermore, Injustice supports the manipulation of elections and corruption in every state. And history is full of such examples, like the establishment of the Mobutu Seso Seko regime, formally known as the Zaire tyranny, in the Republic Democratic Republic of Congo from 1965 to 1997, where tyranny was established through the manipulation of elections. He, for the sustenance of power, not only manipulated elections through a number of means, such as intimidating voters, rigging votes, and outriding frauds but also ruled tyrannically for nearly 32 years. Similarly, his opponents had to face harassment, censorship, and restrictions on campaigning, but no one was able to provide justice to the sufferers. Therefore, to curtail justice is to clear grounds for tyranny in society. 

“The more the power to speak in society, the better the democracy.” (Fazal ur Rehman- HOD Sociology, UOB)

Similarly, strengthening democratic institutions, such as the media, judiciary, and civil society, has become a must to counter tyranny in a democratic state. However, there are certain states and governments worldwide that lost all their democratic institutions with the establishment of tyranny, such as Viktor Orban’s Regime in Hungary since 2010. He completely controlled the media, and there existed no such type of justice system securing the institutions. Furthermore, he brought several other changes in the laws of the constitutional courts and judicial appointments to appoint judges legalizing all the decisions of Viktor Orban’s Regime. Thus, tyranny will surely be the fate of the state, allowing some individuals to make unbearable changes in democratic institutions.

The tolerance of other’s right to say and express his views is the key characteristic of democracy. Moreover, it has been clearly evident from history that whenever justice has diminished in a state, it has resulted in in-toleration, persecution of dissent, and ultimately tyranny in the state. It can easily be depicted in the tyrannical regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria since 2000, in which he had no tolerance against the opposition parties along with dissenting voices. Apart from that, when the Syrian refugees were protesting for their political rights, a violent and brutal reaction was faced by the protestors through the murder and imprisonment of thousands of people, the prominent signs of tyranny. Thus, it is proved that democracy ultimately leads to tyranny in the absence of justice.

“Protecting the basic human rights is to ensuring justice in the state.” (Mohammad Afzal Khan Kakar- Session Judge Dalbandin)

Case studies                      

There are a number of case studies clearly depicting the conversion of a democratic government to tyranny in the absence of justice. Moreover, Germany is a distinguishing one, for it had adopted all the measures and steps required by democracy to become a tyranny. In the first stage, Germany, after World War I, became unstable, both politically and economically, and hitting the warmed iron with a hammer, Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler started propaganda movements to gain the support of the people. In the second stage, they convinced a large portion of the parliament to let them lead the office collectively, and that was the time at which Hitler and the Nazi Party started the suppression of Democratic norms. They started the suppression of opposition parties and their voices; furthermore, it was the charismatic personality of Hitler gained the support of the people despite taking multiple steps against all types of democratic values and institutions. At last, he started the promotion of Nazi ideology, which was nothing but the promotion of racial superiority of the Germans. This ideology led them to start mass actions and genocide against certain races, like Jews, and it was all due to the absence of justice for the suppressed class. Thus, the tyranny of Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany shows a clear image of converting a democratic state into a tyrannical one in the absence of justice.

Secondly, the conversion of North Korea, officially known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), from a democratic state to tyranny is another glaring case study. Moreover, Korea, after World War II, was divided into North Korea and South Korea, and Kim-II Sung remained the leader of the North Korean people due to his leading motives in the anti-Japanese movements. He first of all favoured democracy, but on taking control overpowers, he became a tyrannical ruler due to the absence of justice in society. First of all, he tried to oppress all the political opponents and parties except his own party, known as the Worker’s Party of North Korea. Furthermore, he isolated his nation from other countries by gaining complete control over the media, and after that, he violated all the basic human rights, like freedom of speech, through repression, arbitrary arrests, forced labour camps, tortures, and brutal acts of atrocities. It all happened due to the absence of justice in North Korea, and it can therefore be said that the fate of a democratic state is tyranny in the absence of justice.  

Last but not least, Iraq and its people hoped to have a democratic government under Ba’ath Party and its leader Saddam Husain. However, after coming into government, all the hopes of the people turned into ashes because he not only dismantled the democratic institutions but also tried to impose his authority over the people of Iraq. His statues and pictures were displayed all over the country to gain the support of the people, and he tried to oppress all types of political opponents, whether present in his own party or outside his party. Furthermore, he imposed strong control over the media and countered all types of free information and journalist spreading propaganda against him. He also introduced secret police collecting information about the people working against him, which, overall, instilled a factor of fear in the People. But there was no one to stop him and provide justice to society. Thus, in a few words, democracy can never sustain in a state in the absence of justice.  

Critical Analysis

After analyzing the whole essay critically, it becomes an undeniable truth that justice holds prime importance in sustaining democracy in a state. However, history shows that the conversion of a democratic government to tyranny remains the choice of the people being ruled, for the situation of the converted states does not represent stable and satisfying social and political conditions. It is, therefore, alleged that they were actually the general public demanding Saddam Husain and Adolf Hitler to rule over them and take them out of the abysmal conditions. The threats to a country, whether in the form of people, race, or any other shape, had to be removed at all costs, and the mentioned dictators did the same. Thus, justice is mandatory for the sustenance of democracy in a country, but there are multiple other factors welcoming tyranny.    

In light of the above arguments, it can be concluded that nothing is more important than justice for democracy in a state. Moreover, it takes very little time to develop tyranny in a democratic state due to the absence of justice, including the examples of North Korea and Iraq. The formation of tyranny is because of certain reasons, like the concentration of powers, the violation of rights, and the censorship of media by the rulers to get control over the people of the state. Additionally, the weakening of the democratic institutions, along with the lack of tolerance and persecution, has added salt to the injury. It can, therefore, be concluded that justice is the soul of democracy.

PMS Solved Past Papers’ Essays

Looking for the last years’ solved PMS essays and want to know how Sir Kazim’s students write and score the highest marks in the essays’ papers? Then, click on the PMS Solved Essays to start reading them. PMS Solved Essays

PMS 2022 Solved Essays

Are you searching for PMS 2022 solved essays? All the essays are attempted by Sir Kazim’s students, who either qualified for the CSS or PMS examination or scored the highest marks in the essay paper. Click on any of the following essays to start reading.

CSS Solved General Science & Ability Past Papers

Want to read the last ten years’ General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers to learn how to attempt them and to score high? Let’s click on the link below to read them all freely. All past papers have been solved by  Miss Iqra Ali  &  Dr Nishat Baloch , Pakistan’s top CSS GSA coach having the highest score of their students.  General Science & Ability Solved Past Papers

Articles Might Interest You!

The following are some of the most important articles for CSS and PMS aspirants. Click on any to start reading.

Recent Posts

Top Categories

Cssprepforum, education company.

cssprepforum.com

Welcome to Cssprepforum, Pakistan’s largest learning management system (LMS) with millions of questions along with their logical explanations educating millions of learners, students, aspirants, teachers, professors, and parents preparing for a successful future. 

Founder:   Syed Kazim Ali Founded:  2020 Phone: +92-332-6105-842 +92-300-6322-446 Email:  [email protected] Students Served:  10 Million Daily Learners:  50,000 Offered Courses: Visit Courses  

More Courses

Basic English Grammar and Writing Course

Extensive English Essay & Precis Course for CSS and PMS

CSS English Essay and Precis Crash Course for 2023

Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates direct to your inbox.

• CSS Solved Essays
• CSS Solved GSA
• CSS Solved PA
• CSS Solved Islamiat
• Current Affairs
• All Courses
• Writers Club
• All Authors
• All Members
• All Teachers
• Become an Author
• Who is Sir Syed Kazim Ali?
• Privacy Policy

CssPrepForum is Pakistan’s largest and greatest platform for CSS, PMS, FPSC, PPSC, SPSC, KPPSC, AJKPSC, BPSC, GBPSC, NTS, and other One Paper 100 Marks MCQs exams’ students. It has become Pakistan’s most trusted website among CSS, PMS students for their exams’ preparation because of its high-quality preparation material.

@ 2023 Cssprepforum. All RightsReserved.

• Collectibles

What is the ‘Tyranny of the Majority‘? A Historical Perspective

• by history tools
• May 26, 2024

The concept of the "tyranny of the majority" is a critical one for understanding the challenges and limitations of democracy. It refers to a situation in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own objectives at the expense of those of the minority factions. This results in the oppression of minority groups and the erosion of their rights and liberties.

While the term "tyranny of the majority" itself was coined by 19th century philosophers like Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill, the underlying problem has been recognized since ancient times. The trial and execution of Socrates in ancient Athens, based on the votes of hundreds of Athenian jurors, demonstrated how a majority could unjustly overrule reason and individual liberty.

The Threat of the Majority in the Age of Revolutions

However, it was in the 17th-19th centuries, as demands for democracy and popular sovereignty grew louder, that concerns about the dangers of majority rule truly came to the fore. The English Civil War and Glorious Revolution in the 17th century raised the specter of the masses rising up against traditional elites. John Locke, in his seminal Two Treatises of Government (1690), sought to balance the will of the majority with the need to preserve individual rights.

A century later, the American and French Revolutions ushered in a truly revolutionary age of democracy. But the bloody excesses of the French Revolution, in which the will of the revolutionary masses led to the Reign of Terror, underscored the dangers of unrestrained majority rule. On the other side of the Atlantic, James Madison and other framers of the U.S. Constitution grappled with how to create a stable republican government that could withstand the destabilizing passions of factional majorities.

It was in this context that Alexis de Tocqueville, a French diplomat and political scientist, made his famous observations about the "tyranny of the majority" in his landmark work Democracy in America (1835/1840). Based on his travels in the young United States, Tocqueville admired many aspects of American democracy. But he also warned of the "omnipotence of the majority" and its ability to impose its will on dissenting minorities through both formal, legal means and informal social pressure.

As Tocqueville wrote, "The majority has absolute power both to make the law and to watch over its execution; and as it has equal authority over those who make the laws and over those who execute them, it may be said absolutely to govern society." He worried that the majority could use this power to "deprive its opponents of their civil rights and from their political ones by declaring them unworthy to hold them."[^1]

British philosopher John Stuart Mill built on these ideas in his famous essay On Liberty (1859). He argued that democracy‘s "tyrannical majority" could impose a "despotism of society over the individual" not just through laws and government action but through social pressure and the "tyranny of opinion."[^2] Like Tocqueville, Mill feared that majority opinion would stifle freedom of thought, creativity, and individual flourishing.

Tyranny of the White Majority in US History

Sadly, the U.S. Constitution‘s system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and federalism failed to prevent tyranny of the majority in many cases. The most glaring example was the treatment of African Americans, who were enslaved and then subjected to discriminatory Jim Crow laws and segregation for a century after emancipation. As political scientists Robert A. Dahl and Edward R. Tufte have noted, "Perhaps the most extreme case of a ‘tyranny of the majority‘ in American experience has been the treatment of the Negro minority."[^3] [^3]: Robert A. Dahl and Edward R. Tufte, Size and Democracy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1973), 14.

Other minority groups have also suffered under the yoke of a white majority demanding conformity to its cultural, religious, and linguistic norms. Native Americans were forcibly removed from their lands, denied citizenship, and pressured to assimilate in order to please the Euro-American majority. In the name of national security and responding to popular anti-Asian prejudice, over 110,000 Japanese Americans were detained in internment camps during World War II, despite no evidence of disloyalty.

Majority Tyranny Around the World

The problem of "tyranny of the majority" is not unique to the United States. Political theorist Hannah Arendt, writing in the aftermath of the Holocaust and the rise of totalitarianism in Europe, warned that the masses could be just as dangerous to liberty as monarchs or dictators. In Arendt‘s view, the broad popular enthusiasm for Hitler in Nazi Germany demonstrated how a majority could democratically support the destruction of a minority group.[^4] [^4]: Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1951), 232.

Other examples abound. In Northern Ireland, the Catholic minority faced systematic discrimination in voting, housing, and employment at the hands of the Protestant majority. The Turkish government and majority have long oppressed Kurdish minorities demanding cultural and political rights. Across the Arab world, non-Muslim minorities like the Christian Copts in Egypt and Yazidis in Iraq have faced hostility and pressure to conform from the Muslim majority.

According to the human rights group Minority Rights Group International, "Minorities remain under threat and their rights are often violated in both authoritarian states and democracies."[^5] Their data shows that ethnic minorities make up over 70% of the world‘s stateless populations and face disproportionate poverty, social exclusion, and lack of access to justice.

21st Century Concerns: Populism and Polarization

In the 21st century, concerns about the tyranny of the majority have taken on new relevance with the global rise of populist movements and leaders. Populists often claim to represent the "true will" of the majority against corrupt minority elites. But in practice, populist leaders like Hungary‘s Viktor Orban, Brazil‘s Jair Bolsonaro, and others have demonstrated authoritarian tendencies, undermining democratic checks and balances and marginalizing minority opponents and vulnerable minority groups.

The deepening of partisan polarization, especially in mature democracies like the United States, has heightened fears of a tyrannical majority running roughshod over minority rights. Political scientists have documented the poisonous effects of "negative partisanship" or "toxic polarization," in which politics becomes defined by mutual hostility more than substantive issues. In this "us vs. them" environment, a majority party may feel empowered to disenfranchise or discriminate against their partisan rivals.[^6] [^6]: Rachel Blum and Christopher Sebastian Parker, "Trump-ing Foreign Affairs: Status Threat and Foreign Policy Preferences on the Right," Perspectives on Politics 17, no. 3 (2019): 737–55, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592718003365 .

Sustaining Liberal Democracy: Structural and Cultural Remedies

What can we learn from this history to better protect against the tyranny of the majority in the 21st century?

Many of the traditional structural solutions proposed by Madison, Mill, Tocqueville and others remain vital: strong protections for individual rights enshrined in a constitution, separation of powers, an independent judiciary, and decentralized federalism that prevents a national majority from imposing its will on dissenting local majorities. Proportional representation and protections for minority parties in legislatures can ensure that a majority faction cannot completely dominate.

However, the cultural and psychological dimensions may be just as important. Building a strong civic culture that values pluralism, individual liberty, and healthy dialogue across group lines is essential. As political theorist Russell Muirhead argues, "The real antidote to majoritarian tyranny is not better procedures but better democrats, citizens who appreciate the difference between what James Madison called ‘the cool and deliberate sense of the community‘ and the ‘mischiefs of faction.‘"[^7] [^7]: Russell Muirhead, "The Future of Democracy‘s Citadel," Noema Magazine, January 13, 2022, https://www.noemamag.com/the-future-of-democracys-citadel/

Instilling these democratic values requires continuous civic education, a diverse but constructive media and online environment, and grassroots efforts to build understanding across partisan, ethnic, religious, and cultural lines. Minority groups themselves must actively participate in democratic governance and civil society while asserting their equal rights and humanity.

Democracy, in the end, is an act of humility, in which the winning majority recognizes the basic political equality of minorities, and the losing minority accepts the legitimacy of the majority‘s victory. This humility is always a work in progress, never guaranteed. But by learning from the struggles of the past and present against the tyranny of the majority, we can do the hard work to sustain an open society of free and equal citizens.

Related posts:

• The Tragic Tale of Princess Charlotte: Britain‘s Lost Queen
• Tortured Remedy: The Shocking History of the Straitjacket
• The American Civil War and the Transformation of the Cattle Industry
• The Rise of the Romanovs: The First 7 Tsars of Imperial Russia
• The Hanoverian Monarchs: A Dynasty That Shaped Modern Britain
• The Curious Tale of Tipu‘s Tiger: A Mechanical Marvel from India‘s Colonial Past
• Unveiling the Origins of a Scientific Giant: Isaac Newton‘s Early Life and Childhood
• 25 Expressions from Nelson‘s Navy That Shaped the English Language

Is America uniquely vulnerable to tyranny?

What a brilliant new book gets right — and wrong — about America’s democracy.

by Zack Beauchamp

If you buy something from a Vox link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

In The Odyssey , Odysseus and his crew are forced to navigate a strait bounded by two equally dangerous obstacles: Scylla, a six-headed sea serpent, and Charybdis, an underwater horror that sucks down ships through a massive whirlpool. Judging Charybdis to be a greater danger to the crew as a whole, Odysseus orders his crew to try and pass through on Scylla’s side. They make it, but six sailors are eaten in the crossing.

In their new book Tyranny of the Minority , Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt — the authors of How Democracies Die — argue America’s founders faced an analogous problem: navigating between two types of dictatorship that threatened to devour the new country.

The founders, per Levitsky and Ziblatt, were myopically focused on one of them: the fear of a majority-backed demagogue seizing power. As a result, they made it exceptionally difficult to pass new laws and amend the constitution. But the founders, the pair argues, lost sight of a potentially more dangerous monster on the other side of the strait: a determined minority abusing this system to impose its will on the democratic majority.

“By steering the republic so sharply away from the Scylla of majority tyranny, America’s founders left it vulnerable to the Charybdis of minority rule,” they write.

This is not a hypothetical fear. According to Levitsky and Ziblatt , today’s America is currently being sucked down the anti-democratic whirlpool.

The Republican Party, they argue, has become an anti-democratic institution, its traditional leadership cowed by Trump and a racially reactionary base. As such, it is increasingly willing to twist legal tools designed to check oppressive majorities into tools for imposing its policy preferences on an unwilling majority. The best way out of this dilemma, in their view, is radical legal constitutional reform that brings the American system more in line with other advanced democracies.

Tyranny of the Minority is an exceptionally persuasive book. I think it is almost inarguably correct about both the nature of the modern Republican Party and the ways in which it exploits America’s rickety Constitution to subvert its democracy. I come to some similar conclusions in my own forthcoming book on democracy, The Reactionary Spirit (which, full disclosure, has benefited significantly from Levitsky’s feedback in drafting).

Yet at the same time, I believe he and Ziblatt slightly overweight the significance of America’s institutions in its current democratic crisis. Institutions matter for how authoritarian parties take power, but ultimately they may be less decisive than the social strength of the forces arrayed against democracy.

If a reactionary movement is popular or aggressive enough, it’s not clear that any kind of institution can stop it from threatening democracy. Hence why other advanced democracies with distinct institutional arrangements, like Israel , are currently going through democratic crises with root causes strikingly similar to America’s. It’s true that America’s institutions have paved a swift road for the Trumpist right’s attack on democracy. But they may not be quite as central to the story of its rise as Tyranny of the Minority suggests.

The American right’s turn against democracy

Ziblatt and Levitsky are two of America’s very best comparative political scientists, with expertise that makes them uniquely well-equipped for the subject they’re examining.

Ziblatt is the author of an important study of European conservative parties , concluding that their strategic choices played a unique role in determining the health of continental democracy in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Conservative parties, by their nature, represent those forces in society — including the wealthy and powerful elite — opposed to radical social change. For this reason, Ziblatt found, they are especially important in determining whether defenders of the status quo attempt to stymie social change from within the democratic system or whether they reject elections and political equality altogether.

Levitsky is a Latin America specialist who, along with co-author Lucan Way, wrote a prescient analysis of a new style of autocracy back in 2002 — a system they termed “competitive authoritarianism” that subsequently emerged as the premier institutional means for turning a seemingly stable democracy into an autocracy (see: Hungary ). Competitive authoritarian governments masquerade as democracies, even holding elections with real stakes. But these contests are profoundly unfair: The incumbent party ensures that the rules surrounding elections, like who gets to vote and what the media gets to say, are heavily tilted in their favor. The result is that the opposition has little chance to win elections, let alone pass their preferred policies .

Tyranny of the Minority analyzes the United States in light of these two broad themes, the importance of conservative parties and the ever-evolving institutional nature of authoritarianism. The first half of the book analyzes how and why the Republican Party went down an anti-democratic path. The second focuses on how the peculiar design of American institutions has created opportunities for the GOP to undermine democracy from within.

Around the world, they find two conditions that make political parties more likely to accept electoral defeats: “when they believe they stand a reasonable chance of winning again in the future” and when they believe “that losing power will not bring catastrophe — that a change of government will not threaten the lives, livelihoods, or most cherished principles.”

In the 21st century, these conditions no longer held among the GOP’s conservative white base. Democrats were no longer a mere political rival, but avatars of a new and scary social order.

“Not only was America no longer overwhelmingly white, but once entrenched racial hierarchies were weakening. Challenges to white Americans’ long-standing social dominance left many of them with feelings of alienation, displacement, and deprivation,” Levitsky and Ziblatt write. “Many of the party’s voters feared losing ... their country — or more accurately, their place in it.”

This, they say, is what made the party vulnerable to conquest by someone like Trump. Rather than fight the base in democracy’s name, traditional Republican elites like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) acted as “semi-loyal democrats”: leaders who say the right things about supporting democracy and the rule of law, but value partisan victory over everything else — including basic, non-partisan democratic principles. This enabled the entire party to become a vehicle for an anti-democratic agenda.

“Openly authoritarian figures — like coup conspirators or armed insurrectionists — are visible for all to see. By themselves, they often lack the public support or legitimacy to destroy a democracy. But when semi-loyalists — tucked away in the hallways of power — lend a hand, openly authoritarian forces become much more dangerous,” they explain. “Throughout history, cooperation between authoritarians and seemingly respectable semi-loyal democrats has been a recipe for democratic breakdown.”

How America’s system makes life easy for would-be autocrats

In the US, Levitsky and Ziblatt see a democracy made vulnerable by its own Constitution.

The Constitution’s framers were the first to take Enlightenment ideas about freedom and translate them to an actual political system. The only historical democratic experiences they looked at were from antiquity , in places like Athens and Rome. Classical sources repeatedly chronicled threats to democracy, even outright collapse, emanating from mob rule.

Though the founders knew that democracy was at heart about majority rule, they took the Greco-Roman experience seriously and designed a system where majorities were severely constrained. The tripartite separation of powers, bicameral legislature, indirect election of the president and senators, lifetime Supreme Court tenure, the laborious process for amending the Constitution: all of these were built, in whole or in part, as limitations on the ability of majorities to impose their will on minorities.

Some American counter-majoritarian institutions emerged not from well-intentioned design but political necessity. Leading founders like James Madison bitterly resented the basic structure of the Senate, where each state gets two seats regardless of size; Alexander Hamilton called it “preposterous” during a constitutional convention debate. It was included purely to mollify small states like Delaware and Rhode Island, who were refusing to join the Union absent sufficient protections for their interests.

Over time, the US shed some of these minoritarian trappings — senators are now directly elected, thanks to the 17th Amendment — but deepened others. In 1803’s Marbury v. Madison , the Supreme Court gave itself expansive power to strike down legislation that was not explicitly granted in the Constitution. More recently, the filibuster emerged as a de facto 60-vote requirement for passing legislation in the Senate — a practice similar to the supermajority vote that the founders explicitly rejected early on.

Levitsky and Ziblatt show that almost every other peer democracy went in the opposite direction.

The United States is “the only presidential democracy in the world in which the president is elected via an Electoral College,” “one of the few remaining democracies that retains a bicameral legislature with a powerful upper chamber,” and “the only democracy in the world with lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices.” Moreover, they note, “the U.S. Constitution is the hardest in the world to change” — making it extremely difficult for reformers to do anything about America’s minority-empowering institutions.

These institutions allow the Republican Party to rule despite being a distinctly minority faction — one that holds extreme positions on issues like taxes and abortion , and has lost the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections.

So long as the party retains appeal among a hard core of racially resentful supporters, efficiently distributed around the country to take advantage of the Senate and Electoral College’s biases, it can remain nationally competitive. The right’s control over the Supreme Court will likely last decades, thanks to lifetime tenure, allowing it to remake American policy and institutions with impunity. The GOP’s disproportionate national power enables its cadres at the state and local level to pursue explicitly undemocratic policies for holding power, like felon disenfranchisement and extreme gerrymandering, without fear of federal intervention.

Hence the titular “tyranny of the minority”: The Republican Party, having broken with its core commitment to democracy, has now embraced a peculiarly American strategy for taking and wielding power undemocratically.

“America’s countermajoritarian institutions can manufacture authoritarian minorities into governing majorities,” they write. “Far from checking authoritarian power, our institutions have begun to augment it.”

Can good institutions save a rotted society?

Levitsky and Ziblatt are, in my mind, clearly correct about both of their two major points: that the GOP has become an anti-democratic faction, and that America’s minoritarian institutions have given them a straightforward pathway to wielding power undemocratically. The evidence for both propositions is overwhelming, and the book’s style — engaging historical case studies accompanied by a precise deployment of data — hammers them home persuasively. Tyranny of the Minority is an exceptional book, one of the very best in its genre.

But there are some tensions inside of it: in this case, a subtle conflict between the two halves of the argument.

The United States, Ziblatt and Levitsky note, is hardly the only wealthy democracy to have experienced the rise of far-right parties hostile to social change — citing the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and “all of Scandinavia” as prominent examples. Yet those democracies, in their view, “remain relatively healthy.”

The key difference, Levitsky and Ziblatt argue, lies in the institutions. Because those countries are considerably more majoritarian, it is far harder for an authoritarian minority to corrode democracy at a national level. Therefore, they conclude, the best way to safeguard America’s institutions is to make them more like our peers abroad: abolish the Electoral College, eliminate lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices, end the filibuster, switch to proportional representation in Congress , ban partisan gerrymandering, and make the Constitution easier to amend.

The obvious objection to these proposals is that they are impractical, that the very nature of the problem — Republican control over minoritarian institutions — makes reforming them infeasible. But there’s a deeper, and more interesting, question raised by Levitsky and Ziblatt’s diagnosis: Is it really the case that our institutions are what make America unique?

America’s minoritarian institutions certainly create a particular pathway for our domestic revanchist faction to gain power and wield it against democracy. But there are plenty of other ways for a democracy to eat itself.

Israel, for example, has an extraordinarily majoritarian political system. It is a parliamentary democracy, meaning limited separation of executive and legislative power, whose legislature is elected on a purely proportional basis. There is a simple majority requirement for passing legislation and even amending the Basic Law (its constitution-lite). The judiciary is, for all intents and purposes, the only check on unfettered majority rule.

Yet Israel is, at the moment, in the midst of a democratic crisis every bit as serious as America’s, perhaps even more so , in which an anti-democratic governing majority seeks to remove the court as a barrier to its radical agenda. The root cause of the crisis is very similar: a far-right faction of the population that wishes to protect existing social hierarchies from the threat of change. But the extremist strategy for cementing their power is the polar opposite: exploiting majoritarian institutions, not minoritarian ones. It’s the founders’ fear come to life, the Scylla to America’s Charybdis.

The point here is not that there are only two options for institutional design, America’s vetocracy or Israel’s blunt majoritarianism. Most advanced democracies fall somewhere in the middle, adopting a mix of majoritarian and counter-majoritarian institutions designed to generally permit majority rule while also preventing abuses of power.

Rather, the United States and Israel put together illustrate that institutions are an at-best-imperfect check on far-right authoritarian movements. The American far right has built a strategy tailored to American institutions; the Israeli far right has adopted a strategic approach tailored to the Israeli context. In both cases, the root of the problem is that there’s a sufficient social foundation for far-right authoritarian politics: one that provides the raw political muscle for bad actors to attack democracy using its own institutions.

Other democracies are not immune to far-right surges, including some that Levitsky and Ziblatt cite as relatively healthy.

The AfD, Germany’s far-right party, is surging in popularity, topping recent polls in four German states . A survey in May found that Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Rally, would defeat President Emmanuel Macron in their second rematch by a 55-45 margin . The UK approved Brexit by a majority referendum. Even in Canada, one of the most democratically stable Western democracies, extremist-linked legislator Pierre Poilievre is leading the traditionally center-right Conservative Party, which is currently ahead of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals in the 2025 polls .

Not every far-right victory is a threat to democracy, of course, but it’s hard to be sure until they have power. Some Western far-right parties, like the AfD , are already showing troubling signs.

And in the US, where the far right is clearly undemocratic, surveys show a real chance that Trump wins the 2024 US election with an outright majority — not just in the Electoral College, but in the popular vote .

At root, Levitsky and Ziblatt appear a little too confident in their argument that the GOP’s extremism dooms the party to minority status.

It’s true that their agenda is out of step with the majority of Americans. But many voters, especially swing voters, don’t always vote on policy or ideology. They make ballot box decisions based on things like gas prices, inflation, and whether the party in power has been there for too long — factors that are often out of the president’s hands. Even if they do not agree with Trump that Mexicans are rapists or that the 2020 election was stolen, they’re willing to vote for him if they’re sufficiently frustrated with either the status quo or the other party’s option.

The same is true in other countries. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government was briefly dethroned in the 2021 election — only to return to power in 2022 after voters experienced life under a fractious coalition that spanned the right-left continuum. Marine Le Pen’s recent rise seems to be less about a majority of voters agreeing with her on immigration than a sense that she’s the only real alternative to an unpopular Macron .

Far-right parties, even potentially anti-democratic ones, can be politically viable under nearly any set of institutions. The key is to establish sufficient support among a large segment of the population that agrees with them, enough for there to be a large ideologically driven backlash. Once that happens, the party can establish itself as a viable alternative to the mainstream. And once that happens, they gain the potential to win over less ideological swing voters who simply have frustrations with the political status quo and look to any port in a storm.

This is not to let America’s institutions off the hook. Levitsky and Ziblatt are absolutely right that its outdated constitution makes it easier for the GOP to travel down an authoritarian path.

But “easier” doesn’t mean “necessary.” While Levitsky and Ziblatt ultimately take an institutions-first approach, seeing their reform as our way out of America’s crisis, I take a more society-first view: that America’s problems are primarily the result of deep social fissures exacerbated by outdated and poorly designed institutions. Even if the United States had a more authentically democratic institution, we’d still be riven by divides over race and identity that have unerringly produced the worst political conflicts in the country’s history.

It follows from this that institutional reforms are not enough: In addition to policies for political reform, we also need to think about ways to reduce the social demand for extreme politics. More bluntly: If widespread hostility to social change enables the GOP’s far-right authoritarian lurch, we need to figure out ways to shift Americans’ beliefs in a more egalitarian direction.

But such a proposal should be considered in addition to Levitsky and Ziblatt’s proposals, not in replacement of them — much as my critique of their book more broadly is less a fundamental concern than a difference in emphasis.

Tyranny of the Minority is one of the best guides out there to the crisis of American democracy. It just puts a touch too much focus on institutions at the expense of the deeper social forces rotting their foundations.

Most Popular

Trump wants the supreme court to toss out his conviction. will they, 10 big things we think will happen in the next 10 years, take a mental break with the newest vox crossword, why north korea dumped trash on south korea, the secret to modern friendship, according to real friends, today, explained.

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

More in Policy

This is the world’s best investment

America’s misunderstood border crisis, in 8 charts

Israel is not fighting for its survival

This changed everything

Serial transformed true crime — and the way we think about criminal justice

Biden’s sweeping new asylum restrictions, explained

India’s election shows the world’s largest democracy is still a democracy

Trump’s New York conviction is not enough

MDMA’s federal approval drama, briefly explained

What we know about the police killing of Black Air Force member Roger Fortson

Backgrid paparazzi photos are everywhere. Is that such a big deal?

2. Democracy without justice is tyranny. 2022

Introduction

The aphorism “Democracy without justice is tyranny” highlights the fundamental interdependence between democracy and justice. In this essay, we will explore the intricate relationship between these two concepts and delve into the implications of an unjust democratic system. By examining the inherent connection between democracy and justice, we aim to shed light on the critical role that justice plays in upholding the principles of democracy, ensuring equity, and safeguarding individual rights.

I. Understanding Democracy and Justice

Before delving into the intricate relationship between democracy and justice, it is essential to establish a comprehensive understanding of these terms. Democracy, at its core, refers to a system of governance in which power resides with the people, who participate in decision-making through elections and other democratic processes. Justice, on the other hand, encompasses the fair and equitable treatment of individuals, the protection of their rights, and the establishment of a just social order.

This section will explore different dimensions of democracy, including representative democracy, participatory democracy, and deliberative democracy. Additionally, it will delve into the concept of justice, examining notions of distributive justice, procedural justice, and social justice. By understanding the nuances of these concepts, we can better grasp the essential connection between democracy and justice.

II. The Role of Justice in Democracy

Justice serves as a cornerstone of democracy, underpinning its very essence. A just democratic system upholds the rule of law, ensures equal protection under the law, and guarantees the rights and freedoms of all citizens. Without justice, democracy risks devolving into a mere façade, allowing for the manipulation of power, the erosion of rights, and the suppression of marginalized voices.

In this section, we will explore the vital role that justice plays in maintaining a healthy democratic society. We will discuss the importance of an impartial judiciary, fair electoral processes, and mechanisms for accountability. Furthermore, we will analyze how justice serves as a safeguard against corruption, inequality, and the concentration of power. By upholding principles of justice, a democracy can foster inclusivity, protect minority rights, and promote the well-being of all its citizens.

III. The Consequences of Injustice in Democracy

When justice is absent or compromised within a democratic system, tyranny can emerge. Injustice manifests in various forms, such as systemic discrimination, lack of access to resources, and unequal treatment under the law. This section will examine the repercussions of injustice within democracy, including the marginalization of certain groups, social unrest, and the erosion of trust in democratic institutions.

Additionally, we will explore case studies and historical examples where the absence of justice within democracies led to the subversion of democratic ideals. From the suppression of civil rights movements to the rise of authoritarian regimes exploiting democratic structures, these examples illustrate the potential dangers of justice being undermined within a democratic framework.

IV. Strengthening the Connection: Building a Just Democracy

To prevent democracy from descending into tyranny, it is essential to strengthen the connection between democracy and justice. This section will discuss strategies for nurturing a just democratic system, including the importance of a robust legal framework, an independent judiciary, and mechanisms for accountability. It will also explore the significance of education, civic engagement, and social movements in advocating for justice and holding democratic institutions accountable.

Moreover, we will explore the role of international human rights standards and the importance of global collaboration in fostering just democracies worldwide. By recognizing the interconnectedness of justice and democracy, societies can work towards creating inclusive, equitable, and participatory systems that uphold the rights and well-being of all individuals.

The maxim “Democracy without justice is tyranny” encapsulates the profound interdependence between democracy and justice. Democracy can only flourish when justice is upheld, ensuring the protection of rights, equal opportunities, and fair treatment

Q8. Fill in the Blanks.

Q7. write short notes on any two of the following:, q6. discuss the obstacles in the way of good governance in pakistan. in your view what steps can be taken to achieve the goal of good governance, q5. separation of east-pakistan, though a tragic part of history of pakistan, was not the negation of two-nation theory.” discuss., q4. the location of pakistan has given the strategic strength to the state. what are its physical features and narrate its advantages and disadvantages, leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Please enter an answer in digits: five × 5 =

 Yes, add me to your mailing list

Please enter an answer in digits: six + five =

Enter something special:

Don't have an account?

Adblock Detected

• EXPRESS NEWS
• URDU E-PAPER
• ENGLISH E-PAPER
• SINDHI E-PAPER
• CRICKET PAKISTAN
• EXPRESS LIVE
• CAMPUS GURU
• EXPRESS ENTERTAINMENT
• FOOD TRIBUNE

Democracy sans justice

Meanwhile, the absence of justice defies the foundational norm of democracy

Justice and democracy are two corresponding and complementary concepts in political philosophy. As a central ideal of liberal political morality, the former accords distinctive appeal and application to the latter in modern times, while the latter stands as a practical manifestation of the former. Though elections, inclusion, freedom of expression, accountability and liberty form the ingredients of real democracy, their existence is inseparably linked to that of justice.

Meanwhile, the absence of justice defies the foundational norm of democracy. Without justice, democracy is nothing more than a facade for tyranny. It serves as a tool for legitimising totalitarianism and the interests of tyrants. It is mainly because stakeholders deceitfully obtain public mandates in ritualistically fixed elections and portray themselves as public representatives and guardian angels. Threats to their vested interests, disguised in democracy, are deliberately perceived by them as a threat to democracy itself. To this end, draconian laws aimed at demonising dissenting voices solidify and make their stakes almost unchallenged.

The unchallenged facade of democracy gradually evolves into a tool of direct and systematic tyranny. The direct faces of tyranny include crackdowns on dissenting voices. Intimidation, coercion, torture and trials under different pretexts, including treason, religiosity, and regionalism, often manifest direct state tyranny against its people. Meanwhile, systematic brutality encompasses all policies and practices that put the subjects into perpetual desperation. Divisive state policies and planned sensitisation of ethnic, regional and religious lines engage people in petty matters and stifle their intellectual growth. Crony capitalism, chronic poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, skyrocketing inflation and brain drain often exemplify this.

Democracy without justice ultimately transforms into a totalitarian, Machiavellian and Orwellian culture where brutality overrules genuine democratic norms. The rule of lawlessness and the absence of justice enable megalomaniac and greedy individuals to govern affairs through rigged elections. Since there is no justice or accountability, they are at liberty to perpetuate oppressive practices and policies without fearing consequences.

Additionally, the ruling powers deliberately deprive the masses of freedom of expression, the right to information and education, as an enlightened populace, would threaten their stakes by demanding justice. Consequently, the interests of the powerful become national interests, and all tactics — implied or explicit — to achieve them become the law of the land.

Moreover, an unresponsive and authoritarian regime indulges in all forms of loot and plunder of public resources, leaving little, if at all, for the public. It subjects the masses to socioeconomic deprivation. These public miseries are capitalised upon in the name of the facade of democracy during rigged polls by selling false hopes of prosperity. These parasitic practices and policies place the public at the receiving end, chaining them in the systematic shackles of poverty, illiteracy and unemployment, resulting in the lowest socioeconomic and human rights indicators.

Furthermore, the facade of democracy shields the state’s tyrannous practices. Under the pretext of public support, laws are made that only serve the powerful at the expense of the people.

In addition to other forces of the status quo, two sections that strengthen the democratic façade and benefit the most are the clergy and the so-called intellectuals, mainly related to the media. The former manipulates sentiments by professing divine authentication of the status quo while the latter trades truth and creates misguided public opinion. Both tend to paint shambolic democracy as the best possible form and portray stakeholders in saintly and angelic colours.

And unfortunately democratically clothed totalitarian regimes are more oppressive and sustainable than openly declared authoritarian ones. This is because, unlike totalitarian regimes where people question and oppose their government on legitimate grounds, the facade of democracy suppresses public resistance in the name of their consent in dramatic elections.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 25 th , 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook , follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Imran Khan appears before SC | PM in AJK | Express Tribune News Headlines 10 PM

Xi and Putin Cement Strategic Partnership with New Agreements | Latest News

Bennifer Divorced? J.Lo and Ben Affleck's Marriage Hits Rocky Patch | Breaking News

Rishi Sunak Clarifies UK's Position on Arms Sales to Israel in Parliament | Breaking News

Former PM Imran Khan's First Court Appearance in Nine Months | Pakistan News | Breaking News

Record-Breaking X8.7 Solar Flare Lights Up the Sky - Insights and Impacts | Breaking News

Ismail Haniyeh Blames Israel for Stalled Ceasefire Talks | Latest News

Imran Khan to Appear in Supreme Court Following Bail Grant

Govt slashes petrol price | Imran Khan Bail Granted | ISPR | Express Tribune News Headlines 10AM

Faisal Vawda takes a jab at the judiciary over interference claims | Babar Sattar | Breaking News

Imran Khan's Comeback: Public Appearance Via Supreme Court Livestream | Breaking News

Supreme Court Notice| Azad Kashmir Protest Updates | Adiala Jail |Express Tribune News Headlines 3PM

Modi Vows to 'Make Pakistan Wear Bangles' in Election Speech | Latest News

Kashmir Protests Conclude After Government Concedes to Protesters | Pakistan News | Latest News

King Charles Unveils First Official Portrait Since Coronation by Artist Jonathan Yeo | Breaking News

Is Pakistan failing its public school students?

LNG graft travesty to keep haunting investors

Not a replay of 2019?

Time to transcend the obsession with growth

Hamas, Israel and a changed world

Lurking fears

$15.4b debt restructuring proposed

SC serves notices to Vawda, Kamal over contempt

SC takes notice of Vawda’s presser

Poland urges Pakistan to protect foreign investment

Pakistan’s debt soars to record Rs81tr

A true ustad who painted love and hope

• Life & Style
• Prayer Timing Pakistan
• Ramazan Calendar Pakistan
• Weather Forecast Pakistan
• Online Advertising
• Subscribe to the Paper
• Style Guide
• Privacy Policy
• Code of ethics

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, redistributed or derived from. Unless otherwise stated, all content is copyrighted © 2024 The Express Tribune.

Liberty, democracy, and the temptations to tyranny in the Dialogues of Plato

William altman . [email protected].

It is not unusual for a collection of papers originating in a conference to lack cohesion, but it is rare for such a collection to convey something of what it was like to attend the conference. Thanks to the evident amiability of Charlotte C. S. Thomas, the conference’s organizer and this volume’s editor, one gets a sense of how collegial and indeed fun the 2019 conference on “Liberty and Tyranny in Plato” at Mercer College (Macon, Georgia) must have been. In her introduction to the book, Thomas not only celebrates the eleven essays it contains but helpfully situates Plato in the context of Athens’ “mysterious success at Marathon” (xii), invoking in the process the distinction between liberty and libertinism (xv-xvi). The theme of “liberty” receives emphasis because the conference was sponsored by the McDonald Center for America’s Founding Principles, and, since the Straussian orientation of most of the conference participants reflects the continuing influence of Leo Strauss (who died in 1973), it should surprise nobody that the Plato who emerges from the collection is at best a qualified supporter of liberty in any recognizably American sense, or that liberalism, even in the broadest sense, is subjected to a Platonic critique, or at least a critique that is made to seem Platonic. In this context, Thomas’s amiable collegiality—epitomized by her decision to invite the distinctly non-Straussian scholar Nicholas Smith—combined with her emphasis on the Miracle of Marathon, mitigates a certain predictability of emphasis among those who address the conference’s theme effectively.

Unfortunately, not all of the papers do so, and thus the collection suffers from the lack of cohesion typical of such proceedings. This problem is most evident in the contributions that take a narrow focus, as does the paper of Alex Priou on Alcibiades —an essay which fascinates by revealing a scholar in transition between a first book on Parmenides and what is obviously a new book project—Devin Stauffer on the tripartite soul, Mary Townsend on the treatment of women by Protagoras in Protagoras and Gorgias in Meno , Keven Honeycutt on the scant information he can piece together about the otherwise unknown Callicles, Khalil Habib on the dubious connection between Plato and Machiavelli’s Mandragola , and Jennifer Baker’s interesting but out-of-place essay on the relevance of the Athenian Stranger’s preludes to the flaws of our own criminal justice system. Baker’s emphasis on Laws is salutary, but it comes too late; this dialogue should have played a much larger part in a conference devoted to “Liberty and Tyranny in Plato” that is otherwise almost exclusively dominated by attention to Gorgias and Republic . Perhaps the greatest offender in this regard is Peter Ahrensdorf’s otherwise fine and detailed essay on Socrates and Achilles, which relies on the Republic to discriminate between the two on the fear of death but does so without discussing Socrates’ comparison of himself to the son of Thetis in the Apology .

The collection gets off to a mixed start with Catherine Zuckert’s “Plato on the Connection between Liberty and Tyranny.” Zuckert is generous and repeatedly acknowledges her debts to Arlene Saxonhouse in particular. But even though this important and often innovative scholar also cites a broad array of sources in the notes, Zuckert falls into the practice of summarizing Plato’s Gorgias in a manner that inevitably emphasizes some passages at the expense of others, forcing the reader to decide what is being ignored as well as what is being emphasized. In the end, one comes away from reading such paraphrases with impatience, and I trust that every Straussian would agree that there are far better reasons to reread a Platonic dialogue than to discover which passages a scholar has “passed over in silence.” And as her penultimate footnote indicates (20n17), both Zuckert and the conference’s other participants—apart from Baker, that is—needed to be considerably less silent with regard to Plato’s Laws. A fair-minded assessment will discover more of value in Nick Smith’s well-argued “Pity the Tyrant” than in Zuckert’s coy defense of at least some measure of tyranny.

The most provocative essay in this collection is Richard S. Ruderman’s “Plato on the Tyrannical Temptation,” and it deserves careful attention. Its power can be detected first in the addition of “temptations” to the book’s title, and its core claim is to establish a close connection between the tyrannical and philosophical impulses, predictably linked by the kind of ἔρως that tends to become indistinguishable from Nietzsche’s Wille zur Macht . Ruderman’s most interesting notion is that there is a connection between the lawlessness of philosophical dialectic and the tyrant’s political subversion of law. What makes this essay so important is that Ruderman imagines the first step in a philosopher’s education as overcoming what he calls “the lure of the noble” (68), a process that culminates in “the refutation of the noble” (68n13 and 72). The way he introduces “the noble” therefore deserves to be quoted: “If the noble attracts us with its promise to offer something that transcends our mere self-concern—that appeals to our desire to act for others or the common good, even at a cost to ourselves—then the law and justice would seem to be the paramount exemplars of the noble” (67). Ruderman needs to link “the noble” to law in order to join dialectic to lawless tyranny; he ignores the fact that the law of Callipolis—indeed the existence of Callipolis—depends on the philosopher’s obedience to the demands of “the common good” ( Republic 519e), explicitly linked to justice just a few lines later ( Republic 520d). There are other treasures here, as when Ruderman states that Strauss “simply passes over in silence the passage on dialectic” that is the foundation of the essay’s characteristic ambivalence on tyranny, and his single reference to the master’s On Tyranny (71) points in an even more illuminating direction. After reading Smith’s essay, it is likewise enlightening to consider Ruderman’s claim that Socrates’ description of the tyrant “contains within it the troubling concession that the life of tyranny is the alternative to the best life, the life of philosophy” (72; emphasis in the original). In short, particularly with respect to “the refutation of the noble,” Ruderman’s essay should be required reading.

But the collection’s crown jewel is Jeffrey Dirk Wilson’s “ Gorgias as Reductio ad absurdum Argument: Socrates as True Politician but Failed Teacher.” Wilson’s is a unique scholarly voice: he has published little but has thought deeply, and his exuberant seriousness is evident in his engagement with Plato, the secondary literature, and the other conference participants. As delivered at Mercer, Wilson’s paper was a more or less standard “insufficiency of reason” reading of Gorgias , and he is scarcely unique in supplying the dialogue with an inexorably unpersuaded Callicles, the ending which Plato himself “passes over in silence.” [1] Wilson’s thesis is that Plato turns to myth at the end of Gorgias because reason has failed, for it is Socrates’ failure as a teacher that performs a reductio on his claim to being a true politician (174). What makes Wilson’s paper unique is that he supplemented it after delivery with an excited and exciting coda calling for “De-Cartesianizing Our Reading of Plato” that would make room for “an appeal to the imagination” embodied in the eschatological myth. He explains the addition of this section in a fascinating footnote (179n15): “After the conclusion of the formal session, Smith, along with Catherine Zuckert, Alex Priou, and one or two others and I walked together from the room where our formal sessions were held to the hotel. Smith and I continued the conversation, the dialogue, continuing as Socrates [in the Q&A immediately following Wilson’s talk, ‘Nicholas D. Smith, Socrates-like, rose from his seat’] with a chief interlocutor and others along the way.” Even if he misconstrued Smith’s position as based on something more profound than a neo-Aristotelian distinction between an intellectualist Socrates and a more ἀκρασία-friendly Plato, it is most refreshing to hear Wilson describe this dialogue as “an epiphanic moment for me, for which I thank Professor Smith” (180n15). Like any number of other scholars, this reviewer has found a silver lining in the replacement of the in-person conference by means of Zoom: it is free, easy, and less psychologically draining. Wilson’s words are a timely and eloquent reminder of the gold that goes missing when there are no such conversations on the way back to the hotel.

Table of Contents

Introduction, Charlotte C. S. Thomas (xi-xx) Catherine Zuckert, “Plato on the Connection between Liberty and Tyranny” (1-21) Alex Priou, “The Socratic Turn to Alcibiades” (22-41) Nicholas D. Smith, “Pity the Tyrant” (42-58) Richard Ruderman, “Plato on the Tyrannical Temptation” (59-79) Devin Stauffer, “The Myth of the Tripartite Soul in Plato’s Republic ” (80-97) Peter Ahrensdorf, “Socrates’ Critique of Homer’s Education in the Republic ” (98-120) Mary Townsend, “Sophistry, Rhetoric, and the Critique of Women: Plato’s Gorgias and Protagoras on Female Injustice” (121-145) Kevin Honeycutt, “Notes on the Character of Callicles” (146-170) Jeffrey Dirk Wilson, “ Gorgias as Reductio ad absurdum Argument: Socrates as True Politician but Failed Teacher” (171-193) Khalil Habib, “Liberty, Tyranny, and the Family in Plato and Machiavelli” (194-218) Jennifer Baker, “The Worst and Less Humane Way: The Platonic Condemnation of a Criminal Justice System Like Ours” (219-235)

[1] Only Kevin Honeycutt, Thomas’s colleague at Mercer, mentions Werner Jaeger’s suggestion “that Callicles is Plato himself, or, rather, a Presocratic Plato” (147n5). I am grateful to Nick Smith for his helpful comments.

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

A Wolf in the City: Tyranny and the Tyrant in Plato's Republic

Cinzia Arruzza, A Wolf in the City: Tyranny and the Tyrant in Plato's Republic , Oxford University Press, 2019, 296pp., $74.00 (hbk), ISBN 9780190678852.

Reviewed by Richard Kraut, Northwestern University

Plato's reflections in the Republic on democracy and tyranny, and the way the former can engender the latter, now seem, in the age of Trump, more pertinent than ever. Cinzia Aruzza's study is therefore especially welcome and rewarding. She does not herself mention Trump's presidency or the features he shares with our common conception of the tyrannical character type. But she links Plato's time to our own in her concluding chapter, which refers to "the modern phenomenon of Bonapartism" -- the manipulation of the anti-elitist sentiments of the public by charismatic and demagogic leaders. Plato's "psychopathology of the tyrannical leader," she observes, "could serve as the faithful psychological portrait of a number of contemporary tyrants" (253).

Her work puts the Republic's portrait of tyranny into two larger contexts: (a) the historical events and literary texts to which Plato is responding, and (b) the way in which that portrait contributes to his larger aims in the dialogue as a whole.

With respect to (a), she argues that Plato was responding to what she calls "the crisis of Athenian democracy" -- a crisis that included two oligarchic revolutions, the rise of powerful "leaders of the people" (demagogues), and the widespread fear, expressed in literary discourse, that Athens was but one step away from its subjugation to a tyrant.

With respect to (b), she argues that Plato gives the tyrant a leading role to play in the structure of the Republic : the entire dialogue, as she reads it, is built around the contrast between philosophical and tyrannical rule. But, she adds -- and I take this to be her most important and provocative claim -- Plato's portrayal of the tyrant as a depraved and miserable human being, and of tyranny as the worst of all regimes, also plays an essential role in his critique of the democratic personality and of democratic Athens. In effect, Plato is telling his audience: "You supporters of democracy like to think of it as the opposite of tyranny. But you are wrong. Tyranny arises from democracy, because at bottom they are the same in kind. The tyrannical personality that obtains absolute power does not differ significantly from who you are or what your democracy is." This is, for Arruzza, the central political message of the dialogue.

These aspects of the book -- its setting the Republic within its historical context, and its insistence on the centrality of the tyrant in the structure of the dialogue -- take up the first half of the book. The second half is devoted to a detailed and systematic discussion of the psychology of Plato's tyrant: his greed, his sexual appetite, his shamelessness, his violent savagery (and in this respect his similarity to a common conception of a wolf). Arruzza rounds out her depiction of the tyrant by noting that, according to Plato, he also has a powerful intellect -- in fact, had he not been corrupted by his social environment, he might have become a true philosopher. He is "the philosopher's alter ego . . . a figure of extreme moral corruption, in whom exceptional natural talents are perverted" (249). With respect to intellect, then, he is unlike Trump. But, Arruzza notes, rather like Alcibiades.

She sums up her position as follows:

Plato's intention in describing such a type of man was not to provide a generalization of the features belonging to tyrants based on empirical observation of actual tyrannies. . . . Plato's depiction of tyranny mobilizes anti-tyrannical democratic tropes in order to subvert democratic discourse and undermine the purported polar opposition between the values of democracy and those of tyranny. Alcibiades, while not explicitly mentioned, lurks behind the pages devoted to the corruption of philosophical natures and represents the figure of an exceptionally talented man who, instead of following Socrates' advice to take care of his soul and practice philosophy, developed into a greedy, licentious, appetitive, and overly ambitious demagogue and scoundrel . . .  (250)

According to Arruzza, the Republic should not be read as primarily about the best condition of the soul, and only secondarily about the best condition of the polis . She notes in her introductory chapter that the Neoplatonic philosopher, Proclus, struggled with this question -- what is this work's subject matter? -- and she argues that he answered it correctly. The dialogue does have a single subject:

the discussion of the justice of the soul and of the just form of government cannot be separated from each other or ordered into a hierarchy between primary and accessory subject matter. They are, in fact, two aspects of the same justice, as there are no distinctions between justice in an individual, in a household, or in a city . . . (2)

That interpretation, it seems to me, is difficult to reconcile with what Socrates tells Glaucon in Book IV of the Republic , after it has come to light that justice in the individual soul consists in each of its three parts doing its proper job. He says:

It was . . . a sort of image of justice, this principle that it is right for someone who is, by nature, a shoemaker to practice shoemaking and nothing else . . . In truth, justice is, it seems, something of this sort. Yet it is not concerned with someone's doing his own job on the outside. On the contrary, it is concerned with what is inside; with himself, really, and the things that are his own. (443c-d, Reeve)

This shows that for Plato it is not true, as Arruzzo thinks, that "there are no distinctions between justice in an individual [and] in a city." Justice in a city consists in each citizen behaving in certain way towards other citizens; justice in the individual soul consists not in external behavior but in a feature of one's inner mental life. True, these both come under the broader rubric of a part doing its job within a larger whole. But political justice, Plato tells us, is a mere "image." What it is an image of is the primary topic of the Republic . The dialogue is more about the best state of the soul than the best state of the city. This should be obvious: Socrates turns to a depiction of the just city only in order to bring greater clarity to the great question raised in Book I and the beginning of Book II: what good is justice for someone who is just? As Socrates says, when we are trying to "identify small letters from a distance," it is of great help "if the same letters existed elsewhere in larger size and on a larger surface" (368d, Reeve). The point of looking at the large letters (justice in the city) is to able to solve the more obscure problem: what is justice within an individual?

My disagreement with Arruzza about this point allows me to accept her claim that Plato's portraits of tyranny and the tyrannical soul in Books VIII and IX play a fundamental role in carrying out the main project of the dialogue, which is to show how great a good justice is for the individual. Arruzza is of course right that Plato's way of doing this is to portray two opposite types: the most just individual (even when he is deprived of every other good) and the most unjust individual. The latter, it emerges, is the tyrannical personality who has achieved his dream and actually acquires tyrannical power.

But Arruzza insists that the critique of tyranny also plays an essential role in Plato's political project, a project she thinks is every bit as important to the Republic as its portrayal of the philosopher as the most just individual. That project is Plato's intervention in "the crisis of Athenian democracy." What Plato thinks is wrong with democracy, she argues, emerges most fully only when the reader is brought to see that democracy and tyranny, so far from being opposites (as champions of democracy typically suppose), are tightly connected. Not only does Plato allege that the former leads "naturally" and "logically" (her words) to the latter; she also claims that for Plato the demos is a tyrant -- she speaks of his " identification of the demos as a tyrant " (130, my emphasis). For just as a tyrant recognizes no authority outside of himself, so too the collective democratic citizenry recognizes nothing superior to its authority to make decisions and laws. And just as the soul of the tyrant is ruled by his appetites, so too the democratic personality type is basically hedonistic and appetitive. Arruzza therefore rejects the thesis, proposed by a number of scholars, that Plato offers a mixed picture of democracy's good and bad features. His critique, she thinks, is not "limited" but "a general rejection of democracy tout court " (123).

Is Plato therefore advising his readers to take up arms against Athenian democracy and to put in its place a city like the one depicted in the Republic ? Is that his solution to "the crisis of Athenian democracy"? Arruzza, as I understand her, does not take the dialogue to have this immediate political ambition. In fact, it is far from clear whether the Republic was meant by Plato to have any direct and immediate political agenda. He seems, on the contrary, to warn his readers to avoid the ordinary business of politics (participating in councils or assemblies, holding office, and so on). Although he insists that there is nothing that would make the ideal city of the Republic an impossibility, it is only a city we might hope and pray for, not one that he supposes can be imposed by his contemporaries on democratic Athens by means of a violent revolution.

The final words of Book IX are pertinent here.

Glaucon: So he won't be willing to take part in politics . . . Socrates: Yes, in his own city, he certainly will . . . Glaucon: I understand. You mean in the city we have been founding and describing; the one that exists in words, since I do not think it exists anywhere on earth. Socrates: But there may perhaps be a model of it in the heavens for anyone who wishes to look at it and to found himself on the basis of what he sees. It makes no difference at all whether it exists anywhere or ever will. You see, he would take part in the politics of it alone, and of no other. (592a, Reeve)

The Republic , in other words, can always be put to good practical use because it tells one how one ought govern oneself and why one should do so. It is, in this respect, more about the care of the individual's soul than about intervening in democratic politics. No matter what our political circumstances, it bears on our understanding of what is valuable in human life and what is not. That does not mean that the dialogue could not, over time, make a political difference. It reveals the deficiencies of the sorts of constitutions with which its readers are familiar, and it shows how philosophical study could, in the right circumstances, ground a far better constitution. Perhaps, then, if philosophers have some influence on the values of a society, something like Kallipolis could arise. But if that is one of the ambitions Plato has for the Republic , he tells us, in so many words, that "it makes no difference at all whether it exists anywhere or ever will." By implication, then, even if we are unable to improve the societies in which we live, the depiction of an ideal polis will help Plato's readers, by providing an image of how the soul should be ruled. The dialogue's practical value, then, is primarily ethical rather than political.

I turn back now to Arruzza's thesis that for Plato democracy and tyranny are not opposites (as Athenian democrats liked to think) but rather similar in kind. I accept her claim that his depiction of tyranny adds to his critique of democracy, insofar as he presents a genetic story that shows how a democracy could lead to a tyranny. But that strikes me as an addendum to his critique of democracy, rather than a fundamental component of it, as Arruzza claims. In any case, it is not by itself a terrible fault of democracy that it could lead to tyranny. Vigorous exercise can lead to injury, but that does not show that we should abstain from it -- only that we should be cautious about it. And just as we may quickly recover from an injury, so too a tyranny might be short-lived. A democracy that endures for many generations, as Athens did, is not shown to have been ill founded and entirely bad, if it eventually produces a brief period of tyranny. So, if one of Plato's complaints about democracy is that it has the potential to degenerate into a tyranny, it is a rather weak point, and certainly not one that could stand on its own as a sufficient reason to reject democracy.

Further, the fact that in the Republic democracy is the second-worst regime should not tempt us to assume that for Plato the differences between it and the worst are of little significance. On any list of bad things, the item closest to worst might be thought by the list-maker to be much better than the worst. When we ask, as we read Books VIII and IX of the Republic , "if one had to live under a democracy or a tyranny, which would be the better alternative, so far as the population's well-being is concerned?" it is obvious how Plato would respond. He has no interest in challenging the common idea that in democracies citizens treat other citizens much better than tyrants do their subjects. His depictions of how life goes for those who are subjected to a tyrant and of what life is like in a democracy do not suggest that there is little to choose between them. There is, in other words, something inherent to democracy and something else inherent to tyranny that makes the latter far worse than the former: the injustices one must endure are far greater in a tyranny. Arruzza's interpretation loses sight of that point.

Much as I disagree with her on these issues, I have no hesitation in recommending the book enthusiastically. It is major contribution to scholarship. Its detailed analysis of the psychological condition of the tyrant is the fullest and best treatment we have of this subject. Its setting of Plato's portrait into its literary and political context is equally impressive and valuable. It is a book that should be read by every scholar and student of Plato's moral and political philosophy.

Tyranny and Despotism in Plato’s Republic and Laws

• First Online: 29 May 2020

Cite this chapter

• Orest Ranum 2  

415 Accesses

Plato on tyranny in the Republic and the Laws . Tyranny appears when moral-civic rectitude decays in democracies. Tyranny is the complete opposite of rational civic-centered politics. The tyrant is fearful and feared. The tyrant does whatever he desires. Plato sought, and failed, to modify the conduct of the Syracuse tyrant Dionysius I (432–367 BC).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Plato, Republic , tr. F.M. Cornford (Oxford, 1941), 292.

M. Richter, “Aristotle and the Classic Greek Concept of Despotism,” Journal of European Ideas , 12 (1990), 175–187.

Plato, Republic , 292.

Plato, Republic , 283ff.

Plato, Republic , 297.

There also is, however, attention to metaphorical beasts, Plato, Republic , 316. Would this passage inspire Erasmus, or is his monster a medieval one?

Plato, Laws , transl. and commented on by T.L. Pangler (New York, 1980), 511.

The dominant rhetorical mode under a tyrant is flattery. C.H. Tarnopolsky, Prudes, Perverts, and Tyrants. Plato’s Gorgias and the Politics of Shame (Princeton, 2010), 41ff.

Plato, Laws , 661.

Plato, Laws , 710a.

Plato, Laws , 735d.

Plato, Laws , 777e.

Plato, Laws , 832c.

Plato, Laws , 661b.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

Orest Ranum

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Ranum, O. (2020). Tyranny and Despotism in Plato’s Republic and Laws . In: Tyranny from Ancient Greece to Renaissance France. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43185-3_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43185-3_2

Published : 29 May 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Pivot, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-43184-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-43185-3

eBook Packages : History History (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter

3 Tyrannical Democracy

• Published: October 2018
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter addresses the argumentative dimension of Plato’s claim that democracy generates tyranny. In contrast with readings of the analysis of democracy that suggest a benevolent view of the democratic regime, the chapter unpacks the argumentative logic of Plato’s claim that the demos is the tyrant’s father. This claim should be understood as referring to two main aspects: On the one hand, the corrupting effects of democracy’s institutional mechanisms and of the collective action of the demos when acting as a sovereign body; on the other, the similarity between the appetitive natures of the demos and of its political leaders. The figure of the tyrant privatizes and embodies a fundamental feature of the demos understood as a collective body: its freedom understood as both freedom from any superior authority and license of appetitive enjoyment.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

House Floor Remarks: Justice Under the Left

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-05) today delivered remarks on the House floor discussing the weaponization of the judicial system.

Text: Justice Under the Left June 3, 2024 The American Justice system has always been the pride of our nation and the envy of the world.  In America, justice is portrayed as blindfolded, because it doesn’t matter whether those who seek it are rich or poor, weak or powerful, Republican or Democrat.  Equal justice under law means exactly that: everyone is treated the same. It is this central principle that gives the law its moral authority.  Without it, law simply becomes raw force, devoid of legitimacy.  Respect for the law breaks down, and without that respect, civilization gives way to the law of the jungle.  This is the well-trodden path to tyranny, taken by many nations through history.  We Americans have always believed that it can’t happen here. And yet, it HAS happened here, and we are watching it in real time. The turning of the law against our democracy began with the IRS harassment and intimidation of the Tea Party movement during the Obama Administration.  One of the principal players was the same Jack Smith that the Biden administration tasked to pursue federal charges against Mr. Biden’s political opponent. During the 2016 election, corrupt officials at the FBI used the terrifying powers they were entrusted to advance a monstrous lie concocted by the Democrats that Donald Trump was conspiring with the Russians.  Democratic political activists within the government used that lie to spy on Mr. Trump’s campaign, terrify his supporters and interfere with the election.  When that failed, they used it to undermine and obstruct the lawfully elected President. But nothing comes close to the demons the Democrats have now unleashed.  They have broken every political norm, civil tradition and due process protection that have shielded Americans from the convulsions of banana Republics.  We can now clearly see the full power of leftist lawfare.  Politically corrupt prosecutors, ethically compromised judges, and a partisan and biased jury pool can concoct specious cases and turn them against their political opponents under circumstances that make the show trials of Russia look like models of enlightened jurisprudence. The genesis of these cases is damning.  All were brought when Donald Trump dared to run again for the Presidency.  Two were brought by leftist prosecutors who campaigned on targeting Donald Trump.  Biden’s number three official in the Justice Department left to spearhead the New York prosecution.  The Atlanta prosecutor strategized for hours with the White House counsel in advance of filing that case.  Biden’s Attorney General dispatched Jack Smith, with a long history of prosecutorial abuses, to apply a glaring double standard to prosecute a former president over a civil dispute involving handling of records. Legal experts from left to right have excoriated the double standards and violations of due process and have condemned the appalling judicial misconduct of the judge. The Democrats believe this is their path to electoral success: abusing our laws to declare their opponent “a convicted felon.”  Well, in the history of kangaroo courts and despotic regimes, I’d say Mr. Trump has some pretty good company: Nelson Mandela – a convicted felon; – Natan Sharansky – a convicted felon.  Sir Thomas More – a convicted felon.  Under Geroge III’s 1775 Proclamation, every one of the American founders would have been convicted felons. By traducing the American traditions of political tolerance, respect for democracy, equal protection of the laws, and simple fair play, the left is destroying the legitimacy of our legal institutions and the respect they once commanded in a concerted campaign to subvert democracy itself. I still believe our American judicial system will ultimately prove itself resilient and this glaring miscarriage of justice will eventually be overturned.  But the damage that this has already been done to the rule of law and the sanctity of our elections is immense. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamato supposedly said that he was afraid that all they had done was to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve. I believe the Democrats who are celebrating this travesty are about to discover the same thing.  The American people are known throughout history for their common sense, their innate fairness, and their devotion to the institutions that have maintained their freedom through 12 generations. The brazenness of the abuses by this administration and its confederates is obvious to any who care to look, and an awareness is building that democracy is indeed at stake in this election.

Election Updates: Wisconsin charges Trump allies in 2020 fake electors scheme.

• Share full article

Jazmine Ulloa

President Biden’s immigration order closing the border to asylum seekers when crossings soar has been the type of action that conservatives have long called for, but anti-immigrantion advocates and conservative groups today scorched the move as political. Lora Ries, director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at the Heritage Foundation, called it “a campaign stunt that isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.”

President Biden’s executive order on immigration is drawing criticism from some top Latino lawmakers and advocacy groups. In a statement, María Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, which registers young Hispanic voters, called for more pathways to citizenship, saying her group has “never believed the solution to immigration should be a wall.”

In his own prepared remarks on Biden’s executive order on immigration, Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, said his members were “very disappointed” the president hasn’t used his executive powers to provide work permits for undocumented workers who have been in the country for five years or more.

Tracey Tully

Senator Bob Menendez’s son is locked in a close race for re-election to the House that has everything to do with the senator’s corruption trial . A challenger, Ravi Bhalla, the mayor of Hoboken, N.J., has sought to define his Democratic primary race against Representative Rob Menendez as a referendum on patronage and boss politics. The margin of victory is likely to be narrow.

Nicholas Nehamas

In announcing his new border policy , President Biden said his hand was forced by Congress failing to pass a bipartisan deal on immigration — which he accused former President Donald J. Trump of sabotaging for “cynical” political purposes. “Republicans in Congress — not all of them— walked away from it,” Biden said. “Why? Because Donald Trump told them to.”

Michael Gold

Former President Donald J. Trump accused President Biden, who signed an executive order allowing him to temporarily seal the U.S. border with Mexico, of waiting too long and doing too little. Trump argued in a video posted to social media that the order was “all about show,” would do little to curb migration and that Biden was acting only because of the presidential debate coming this month.

Democrats in New Jersey will cast ballots today on a newly designed ballot. A judge ruled that the old design was unconstitutional after a challenge by Representative Andy Kim, the front-runner for Senator Robert Menendez’s seat. The old design allowed party leaders to group their preferred candidates for every office on a single line. Now, candidates for each office will appear together in a block.

Oddly enough, only Democrats will vote today in New Jersey on newly designed ballots. In most parts of the state, Republican candidates endorsed by the county party will still be grouped together in a single row or line. This is expected to change, but a judge ruled that the legal challenge filed by Representative Andy Kim and two other Democrats applied only to their party’s races.

The Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee today announced a new program, Swamp The Vote USA, meant to promote the use of absentee and mail ballots and early voting, practices that have recently favored Democrats. Donald J. Trump has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims that such voting methods are rife with fraud, but he is now telling his supporters to “make a plan, register, and vote any way possible.”

Theodore Schleifer

A fund-raiser for Donald J. Trump in San Francisco, one of America's famously liberal cities, is officially sold out, according to the latest copy of the invitation. The Thursday dinner will be hosted by a pair of influential venture capitalists, David Sacks and Chamath Palihapitiya. A guest a spot on the host committee cost $300,000, and $50,0000 bought a “V.I.P. attendee” designation.

Maggie Astor

Josh Stein, the Democratic candidate for governor of North Carolina, launched a TV ad on Tuesday that compiles remarks on abortion by his Republican opponent, Mark Robinson. “Abortion in this country is not about protecting the lives of mothers,” Robinson says in one clip. “It’s about killing a child because you weren’t responsible enough to keep your skirt down.” He adds, “It’s not your body anymore.”

Neil Vigdor

Wisconsin’s attorney general has brought felony charges against three of Donald J. Trump’s advisers in connection with a fake electors plot there in 2020. It is the fifth battleground state to prosecute allies of the former president for their attempts to overturn his defeat.

Jess Bidgood

Representative Rob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, faces a tough primary challenge today from Ravi Bhalla, the mayor of Hoboken, who has tried to turn the race into a referendum on patronage and corruption. Why? Menendez is the son of Senator Robert Menendez, who is on trial over accusations that he accepted bribes. The younger Menendez is not accused of wrongdoing.

Senator Mark Warner, the Virginia Democrat who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, told The Associated Press that he believed the United States may be more vulnerable to foreign disinformation now than it was at this point in the 2020 campaign. He said that Russian and Chinese disinformation is more sophisticated now and that A.I.-based deepfakes are a greater threat.

In a rare sit-down interview with the mainstream news media, President Biden told Time Magazine that he was fit to serve another term, despite many voters expressing concerns about his age. “I can do it better than anybody you know,” said Biden, 81. “You’re looking at me, I can take you too.”

Neil Vigdor and Danny Hakim

Wisconsin charges three Trump allies in fake electors scheme.

Wisconsin brought felony charges on Tuesday against three onetime advisers of former President Donald J. Trump in connection with a fake electors plot there in 2020, becoming the fifth battleground state to prosecute his allies for their attempts to overturn his defeat that year.

Kenneth Chesebro, an architect of the Trump campaign’s plans to impanel slates of bogus electors in several states that Mr. Trump lost, was named as a defendant in the action by Wisconsin’s attorney general, Josh Kaul, a Democrat.

The other men charged were James R. Troupis, a former judge who was working for the campaign in Wisconsin, and Michael Roman, who was Mr. Trump’s director of Election Day operations.

All three face a single count of forgery-uttering, a felony in Wisconsin that carries a penalty of up to six years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

During a news conference in Madison on Tuesday, Mr. Kaul said the state’s investigation into the matter was continuing. He declined to elaborate on the details surrounding the charges, which were laid out in complaints filed in Dane County Circuit Court.

“We feel confident in the charges we’ve brought,” Mr. Kaul said.

In total, 52 people have been charged in criminal cases in five states stemming from efforts to overturn the 2020 election, a group headlined by Mr. Trump, who was indicted last year in Georgia under a state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act law, and who also faces a federal election-interference case. He was also named as an unindicted co-conspirator in Michigan.

Several defendants have already pleaded guilty or reached cooperation deals, including Mr. Chesebro, who in October pleaded guilty in a criminal racketeering indictment in Georgia and agreed to cooperate with state prosecutors. He has emerged as a key witness for prosecutors in other states.

Manny Arora, one of Mr. Chesebro’s lawyers in Georgia, declined to comment on Tuesday about the Wisconsin case.

In one of the criminal complaints , an investigator for the state described the three defendants as having played key roles in drafting and circulating a certificate that was signed by a group of Mr. Trump’s Wisconsin allies under the guise that the fake electors had been duly appointed.

The certificate did not contain a disclaimer that the slate of electors had been impaneled as a contingency, in the event that Mr. Trump’s team succeeded with its legal challenges of the election results, the investigator said.

The complaint alleged that the three men participated in a clandestine effort to circulate the document before a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, to certify the election results, a process that was disrupted by a mob of Mr. Trump’s supporters.

Wisconsin is the third state to charge Mr. Roman, after Georgia and Arizona, where he is scheduled to be arraigned on Friday. A lawyer for Mr. Roman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

Mr. Troupis has drawn attention for having recruited Mr. Chesebro to Mr. Trump’s legal team and for an email exchange between him and Mr. Chesebro after the 2020 election in which the two discussed how the Trump campaign could get false-elector documents into the hands of members of Congress.

Phone and email messages seeking comment from Mr. Troupis, a former judge, went unanswered on Tuesday.

A spokesman for Mr. Trump’s campaign did not immediately comment on Tuesday.

Wisconsin’s governor, Tony Evers, a Democrat, praised the charges against Mr. Trump’s allies in a one-word statement on Tuesday.

“Good,” said Mr. Evers, whose office pointed out that he had been calling for those involved in the fake electors plot to be held accountable.

Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, who had sowed misinformation about the results of the 2020 election, called the charges “outrageous” in a social media post.

“Now Democrats are weaponizing Wisconsin’s judiciary,” he wrote. “Apparently conservative lawyers advising clients is illegal under Democrat tyranny.”

Wisconsin will host the Republican National Convention next month in Milwaukee. There, Mr. Trump is scheduled to accept the party’s presidential nomination, just days after he is set to be sentenced in his New York hush-money case. A Manhattan jury on Thursday convicted him on all 34 felony counts.

Reid J. Epstein contributed reporting.

Reid J. Epstein and Michael Gold

Fingers point as Biden closes the border to asylum seekers.

At the beginning of his remarks from the White House on Tuesday announcing that he would prohibit migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border , President Biden tried to make clear just whose fault it was that he was taking action by executive order.

The White House, Mr. Biden said, had struck an agreement with congressional Republicans earlier this year on what he called the “strongest border security agreement in decades.”

It did not take. Republicans bailed on the deal.

“Why? Because Donald Trump told them to,” Mr. Biden said. “He didn’t want to fix the issue. He wanted to use it to attack me. That’s what he wanted to do.”

On this, Mr. Biden proved correct.

Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee set to face Mr. Biden in the general election, indeed attacked the president a couple of hours before his border announcement. Mr. Trump, who has made hard-line immigration policies the center of his political identity since the start of his 2016 campaign, derided Mr. Biden’s executive order as too little action taken too late, and he argued that it was timed to benefit the president politically.

“After nearly four years of his failed weak leadership — pathetic leadership — Crooked Joe Biden is pretending to finally do something about the border,” Mr. Trump said in a video posted to his social media site. “But in fact, it’s all about show, because he knows we have a debate coming up in three weeks.”

The former president’s rhetoric echoed much of the reaction from allied Republicans. The Republican National Committee has adopted the alliterative “Biden’s Border Bloodbath.” Representative Richard Hudson of North Carolina, the chairman of the House Republicans’ campaign arm, predicted that voters would be so angry about the border that “in November they will deport House Democrats from their seats for enabling this crisis.”

And Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, a rival of Mr. Trump’s during the presidential primary who has become a staunch surrogate, criticized the executive order as a “Band-Aid” that would do little to curb border crossings. “President Biden would rather posture than do anything meaningful to secure our southern border,” he said in a statement.

Democratic reaction centered largely on blaming Mr. Trump and Republicans for not taking the deal they had negotiated earlier this year.

“President Biden sent Congress a comprehensive immigration reform plan on Day 1, and repeatedly requested more border resources from Congress, only to be blocked by Republicans,” said Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a key Biden ally whose office listed actions she had taken to “secure the border” with Mexico, which is about 1,500 miles from her home state — though the one with Canada is just across the Detroit River.

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut said he was “skeptical” that Mr. Biden’s executive order would withstand legal scrutiny. Yet he, too, blamed Republicans for forcing the president’s hand.

“Rather than working with Democrats to solve the problem, they’ve ensured we just have more of the dysfunctional status quo when Americans want the exact opposite,” Mr. Murphy said.

Luke Broadwater

Reporting from the Capitol

After Trump’s conviction, House Republicans vow again to target his foes.

House Republicans have spent the past 18 months vowing to use their majority to attack what they claimed was a “weaponization” of government against conservatives , including the prosecutions of former President Donald J. Trump , but have made little headway in doing so.

But following Mr. Trump’s felony conviction last week, they are promising again to use every congressional tool at their disposal to avenge their party’s leader, seeking to show their fealty and fire up the G.O.P. base.

Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday announced a “three-pronged approach” for how Republicans on Capitol Hill would push back against the prosecutions of the former president.

Mr. Trump was convicted last week of 34 counts of falsifying business records, prompting widespread outrage in the G.O.P. and a rush by Republicans to capitalize politically on it. Mr. Trump faces three other criminal cases, including two brought by the Justice Department over his handling of classified documents and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

“We’re looking at various approaches to what can be done here,” Mr. Johnson said at a news conference, “through the appropriations process, through the legislative process, through bills that will be advancing through our committees and put it on the floor for passage, and also through oversight. All those things will be happening vigorously, because we have to do that because the stakes are too high.”

Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, laid out some of the proposed cuts in a letter to the Appropriations Committee , which determines spending levels.

Mr. Jordan recommended prohibiting taxpayer funding for any new F.B.I. headquarters facility; eliminating any federal grants for those prosecuting Mr. Trump, including Alvin Bragg in Manhattan, Fani Willis in Atlanta and Attorney General Letitia James of New York; and cutting all funding for the special counsel Jack Smith’s office.

“We have rogue prosecutors around the country that have drug President Trump through this process because of who he is,” Mr. Johnson said. “Everybody knows if it wasn’t him, the charges in Manhattan would never have been brought.”

Mr. Jordan also pushed for cuts to federal law enforcement last year, including some of the same ones he is proposing now, and other Republicans introduced bills to defund Mr. Smith’s office, but the G.O.P. did not have the support in its own ranks to win passage of any of those measures, and they were never enacted.

Chris Cameron

Primaries will cement a crucial Senate race in Montana.

Primaries today in Montana will officially kick off a closely watched Senate race , where Senator Jon Tester, a Democrat, is expected to face off against Tim Sheehy, a Republican who is the heavy favorite to win the primary after former President Donald J. Trump squeezed out a rival right-wing candidate by endorsing Mr. Sheehy early.

The race against Mr. Tester represents one of Republicans’ best shots at taking back the Senate this year. The seat is one of just three rated by the Cook Political Report as a tossup race , with most other seats listed as leaning toward Democrats.

Three more states and the District of Columbia will hold presidential primaries today, some of the last contests before the Republican and Democratic nominating conventions this summer.

In addition to the presidential primaries, Montana, New Mexico and New Jersey will hold primary contests for Senate and House candidates, while South Dakota and Iowa will host House primaries.

Representative Andy Kim of New Jersey is also the favorite to win the nomination for the Senate seat held by Senator Bob Menendez, who is on trial on bribery charges and has filed to run for re-election as an independent .

Mr. Kim was once an underdog, facing an uphill battle against Tammy Murphy, the wife of Gov. Philip D. Murphy, and the powerful Democratic Party machine backing her in the race. Ms. Murphy ultimately dropped out of the race, transforming Mr. Kim’s position from the scrappy insurgent to the clear front-runner.

President Biden and Mr. Trump are the presumptive nominees of their respective parties, but many other candidates are still on the ballot in today’s presidential contests, and three of the states have “uncommitted” or “no preference” ballot options, leaving open the potential for a protest vote against either candidate.

Elise Young

Senate and House races to watch in New Jersey.

For decades, New Jersey’s congressional and U.S. Senate primary elections were typically low-drama affairs. But this year’s dozen contests involve considerable intrigue.

Among the unexpected factors in the June 4 contests: the corruption trial of Senator Robert Menendez, who bowed out of the Democratic primary but has suggested he might run as an independent in November; and a court ruling that forced Democrats to redesign election ballots across the state.

Seven candidates are vying to replace Senator Menendez, a Democrat who is standing trial in Manhattan. And his fate has had considerable impact on two down-ballot races as well. In the Eighth Congressional District, a freshman congressman — Senator Menendez’s son, Representative Rob Menendez — is facing strong competition when he had been expected to coast to a second term. And in the Third District, a pair of former political allies are fighting for the House seat that became open when the incumbent, Representative Andy Kim, jumped into the Senate race.

The ballot design ruling will affect every Democratic primary in the state, after a federal judge barred the party from using a longstanding layout called “the line,” which gave prominent placement to candidates endorsed by party leaders. (Republicans, who were not party to the lawsuit that led to the decision, are free to continue using it.)

The ruling was hailed by watchdog groups and scholars, who said the century-old design, used in New Jersey and no other state, violated constitutional rights.

The June 4 primary will be the first election since the ballot ruling. New Jersey voters will consider Democratic and Republican candidates for the Senate as well as 11 of 12 congressional seats. (In the Tenth House District, a special primary will be held on June 16 and a special general election on Sept. 18, to finish the term of the late Representative Donald M. Payne Jr. of Newark.)

Here is a look at the state’s three most-watched contests:

U.S. Senate

Senator Robert Menendez, 70, who has pleaded not guilty to federal criminal charges including bribery, corruption and obstruction, will not appear on the Democratic ballot, but his trial has loomed large over the primary. Three Democrats and four Republicans are competing for a chance at his seat.

Representative Andy Kim, after fending off a fight from Tammy Murphy, the first lady of New Jersey, is the front-runner on the Democratic side. An April 15 poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University also gave Mr. Kim a nine-point edge over the two leading Republicans, in a state that has not sent a Republican to the Senate since 1972.

In the Democratic primary, voters will choose among Mr. Kim, a former Obama administration official; Lawrence Hamm, who headed Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign in New Jersey; and Patricia Campos-Medina, a workers-rights scholar and organizer.

Mr. Kim, 41, has $4.2 million in campaign funds on hand, while his two challengers have a combined $69,000, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Mr. Kim was a plaintiff in the ballot design lawsuit and said he wants to end New Jersey’s political cronyism. “What I hope people see in me is someone who wants to do the work,” he said in an interview.

Mr. Kim voted for the $95.3 billion aid package to Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan that President Biden signed in April. In May, he called for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas “to preserve the possibility of peace through a two-state solution.”

Mr. Hamm, 70, said his record of political activism and community organizing runs 53 years, “longer than my competitors have been alive.” He said he supports a universal income and free college and health care.

Ms. Campos-Medina, 51, said her focus would be on immigrants and low-income residents. “The richest 1 percent own 40 percent of the country’s wealth,” she said by telephone. “That’s not sustainable for democracy.”

At a May 13 debate, the Democratic candidates found much common ground: Each would vote to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, scrap the Senate filibuster and push to increase access to abortion.

The two most high-profile Republican candidates are Curtis Bashaw, a 64-year-old Cape May developer, with $825,000 cash on hand; and Christine Serrano Glassner, 60, the Mendham Borough mayor, with $3,800 in her campaign account, according to federal records.

“I’m a political outsider, a business guy, and I’m good at bringing people together to get things done,” Mr. Bashaw said by telephone.

Ms. Serrano Glassner has the endorsement of Donald J. Trump, who in the New Jersey presidential election in 2020 finished 16 percentage points behind Mr. Biden. In an email, she said of Mr. Kim: “He has voted with Biden 100 percent of the time, making him equally responsible for this disastrous economy.”

The other two Republican candidates are Albert Harshaw of Jackson, a Navy veteran; and Justin Murphy of Tabernacle, a former deputy mayor.

8th Congressional District

Representative Rob Menendez of Jersey City, 38, is facing a Democratic primary challenge from Ravi Bhalla, the 50-year-old mayor of Hoboken; and Kyle Jasey, 41, of Jersey City, who runs a real-estate finance company. The lone Republican is Anthony Valdes, 43, of West New York, a building inspector.

Representative Menendez has not been accused of wrongdoing and has not been implicated in the legal case against his father. He said those seeking to oust him are opportunists who regard him as vulnerable because of his father’s legal trouble.

“You look at Ravi’s messaging — it’s largely about my father, not so much distinctions between him and I,” Mr. Menendez said by telephone. Though internal polls have him and Mr. Bhalla statistically tied, Mr. Menendez’s $1.8 million in campaign cash is double that of Mr. Bhalla, and he has collected endorsements from political leaders, organized labor and civic groups.

In an interview, Mr. Menendez said his office has resolved 1,600 cases for residents who had problems with the federal government, “the large percentage of those which are immigration-related.” He said he was instrumental in securing $11 billion in federal money for Amtrak’s Gateway passenger-rail project. “In Washington we’ve developed a profile in the caucus of someone who does the hard work,” he said.

As mayor and a former councilman, Mr. Bhalla has led a safety campaign to end traffic-related deaths and injuries in one of New Jersey’s most densely populated cities, on the Hudson River across from Manhattan. He also oversaw the first lawsuit by a New Jersey municipality against the oil industry, claiming its contribution to climate change has contributed to his city’s catastrophic flooding.

“Mayors have to solve challenges,” Mr. Bhalla said. “I have that experience.”

Mr. Jasey, who has less than $9,000 in campaign cash on hand, said he initially wanted to run for the senior Menendez’s Senate seat, then saw a shot at unseating his son.

“You’ve got this clear case of nepotism in the district,” he said in an interview.

3rd Congressional District

Mr. Kim’s Senate bid put his House seat in play, and five Democrats and four Republicans are hoping to replace him. Since 2018, when Mr. Kim unseated a two-term Republican, Tom MacArthur, redistricting has made the district significantly more Democratic.

The most prominent Democratic candidates are two State Assembly members: Carol Murphy, 61, who took office in 2018 and in the past worked for lawmakers; and Herb Conaway, 61, a physician who also has a law degree and was first elected in 1997. He has received endorsements from the Democratic organizations in Burlington, Monmouth and Mercer counties, which would have given him the most visible ballot position under the old system.

“Had ‘the line’ remained, he would have been considered the overwhelming favorite,” said Ben Dworkin, director of the Rowan University Institute for Public Policy & Citizenship. “Without the line, he is favored, but he doesn’t have that added benefit of preferred ballot position.”

Mr. Conaway and Ms. Murphy worked together in the Assembly and had similar voting records. As congressional candidates, both said they would champion reproductive rights.

“I will continue to defend a woman’s right to choose and a patient’s right to consult with physicians to direct their health care,” said Mr. Conaway, who has been Assembly health committee chairman for 18 years.

Ms. Murphy, the majority whip with six years in the Assembly, said she is a more natural fit on reproductive matters. “As a woman, it is relevant to this race, and I will keep using my voice as a woman,” she said.

Also running as Democrats are Joe Cohn, a lawyer from Lumberton; Brian Schkeeper, a 44-year-old teacher from Medford; and Sarah Schoengood, 30, a seafood business owner who was a plaintiff in the ballot lawsuit.

The Republican candidates are Michael F. Faccone of Freehold; Shirley Maia-Cusick of Medford, an immigration consultant; Rajesh Mohan of Holmdel, a cardiologist; and Gregory Sobocinski of Southampton, a financial adviser.

Reporting from Greenwich, Conn.

Biden goes after Trump’s felon status at Connecticut fund-raiser.

President Biden, prodded by Democrats to confront former President Donald J. Trump head-on about Mr. Trump’s criminal conviction in his New York hush-money case, heeded those calls on Monday night during a big-dollar fund-raiser in Connecticut for his re-election campaign and for the party.

Mr. Biden railed against his rival at a reception in Greenwich, telling a group of supporters who included Connecticut’s governor and its two sitting U.S. senators that the campaign had entered “unchartered territory” when a jury on Thursday found Mr. Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts that he had been facing.

He said Mr. Trump had cemented the distinction of being the first former president and convicted felon to seek the Oval Office.

“But as disturbing as that is, more damaging is the all-out assault Donald Trump is making on the American system of justice,” Mr. Biden said, according to a pool reporter covering the event.

Mr. Biden called Mr. Trump “unhinged” and said he was undermining another democratic institution with his vitriol after the verdict.

“It’s reckless and dangerous for anyone to say that’s rigged just because they don’t like the outcome,” he said.

A spokesman for the Trump campaign, responding to a request for comment on Monday night, attacked Mr. Biden in a statement and said the president was trying to divert attention from the federal gun charge trial of his son, Hunter, that opened on Monday.

Mr. Biden’s bluster at the reception, hosted by Richard Plepler, the former chief executive of HBO, was a notable shift in his approach to Mr. Trump’s conviction by a Manhattan jury.

When asked on Friday by reporters at the White House about the verdict, Mr. Biden grinned and walked away silently after making remarks about the war in Gaza. His reluctance to weigh in on the issue tracked with his general strategy to avoid personally engaging Mr. Trump about his legal woes.

Mr. Biden’s remarks at the fund-raiser echoed portions of a televised statement at the White House on Friday before he outlined his administration’s latest efforts to end the war between Israel and Hamas. Still, Democrats had called for him to be more aggressive.

Mr. Trump’s offender status was not the only line of attack for Mr. Biden during the fund-raiser.

Mr. Biden brought up the time when Mr. Trump suggested during a White House coronavirus briefing four years ago that bleach could be used to treat the disease, medical advice that was instantly debunked .

“He must have injected it into his brain,” Mr. Biden said, according to a pool report.

Trump and the R.N.C. announced a $141 million haul in May, fueled partly by his felony convictions.

Former President Donald J. Trump and the Republican National Committee collected a combined $141 million in May, campaign officials said on Monday, an enormous haul fueled in part by his criminal conviction last week.

That sum should help Mr. Trump continue his quest to close his yawning financial gap with President Biden and his own allied groups. Mr. Biden has yet to announce May fund-raising numbers, but based on Monday’s figures, he is likely to be outraised for the second month in a row. The $141 million figure matches what Mr. Biden and the Democratic Party raised in March and April combined.

The figures announced by Mr. Trump’s campaign, which cannot be verified until federal filings are released publicly this month, represent, by far, his strongest single month of fund-raising in 2024.

The fund-raising was powered by what Lara Trump, the Republican National Committee co-chairwoman and the former president’s daughter-in-law, said on Sunday was $70 million raised by Mr. Trump and the R.N.C. in the 48 hours after Mr. Trump’s conviction.

The reported $141 million total consists of so-called hard dollars, which can be spent directly by aides at the Trump campaign and the R.N.C. The Trump campaign also said that even more cash, $150 million, had been secured last month by some unidentified “organizations supporting President Trump,” presumably a few of the outside groups that have backed his bid so far. These outside groups cannot coordinate spending with the campaign itself and have to pay more for units of advertising, and so the money they raise is generally seen as less efficient dollars.

The main super PAC backing Mr. Trump, MAGA Inc., declined a request for more specific information on its monthly fund-raising. Another, newer pro-Trump group, Right for America, has also had some early fund-raising success .

Even before his guilty verdict in Manhattan, Mr. Trump had been significantly improving his fund-raising performance since emerging as the presumptive Republican nominee.

Mr. Biden has consistently held an advantage in cash on hand, or the amount available to be spent. But in April, Mr. Trump and his allied groups outraised Mr. Biden and his groups for the first time. And in the 24 hours after Mr. Trump’s conviction, his campaign said that it had raised nearly $53 million online , a number that is presumably included in the $141 million May fund-raising total.

A Biden campaign spokesman declined to provide fund-raising numbers for the president and his allied groups.

In addition to his grass-roots support, Mr. Trump has been successfully reeling in major Republican donors who declined to support him during the primary race and have only recently returned home.

On Monday afternoon, for instance, the billionaire venture capitalist Doug Leone, who renounced Mr. Trump after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, and then donated millions to a group backing Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida during his presidential campaign, said that he would back Mr. Trump again.

Shane Goldmacher and Nicholas Nehamas contributed reporting.

Reid J. Epstein

Reporting from Washington

A climate group is running ads on Biden’s policies in Wisconsin and Michigan.

A climate group with ties to Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington State is running $1 million of television advertising in Michigan and Wisconsin that aims to highlight President Biden’s record on renewable energy.

The ads, which feature two Democratic governors, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Tony Evers of Wisconsin, are among the most significant third-party ads to be broadcast in presidential battleground states so far this cycle.

The group funding them, Evergreen Collaborative, was founded by staff members of Mr. Inslee’s 2020 presidential campaign. Over the past three years, the group spent about $2.5 million on issue advocacy ads in Michigan, Nevada and Wisconsin to promote the Inflation Reduction Act, a Michigan clean energy bill and federal pollution standards.

The new ads are set to begin broadcasting on Tuesday and will run for three weeks in Milwaukee and in the Flint and Grand Rapids television markets in Michigan.

What the ads say

Evergreen’s Michigan ad features Ms. Whitmer playing up Mr. Biden’s record — as well as her own — on investing in renewable energy in the state.

“Make it in Michigan,” Ms. Whitmer says while standing in what she says is a job-training center. “It’s what we’re doing every single day.”

As footage of Mr. Biden at the Detroit Auto Show rolls, Ms. Whitmer says that “batteries that used to be made in China are being made all across our state,” an appeal to voters who have been attracted by the anti-China policies of Mr. Biden’s Republican rival in the presidential race, former President Donald J. Trump.

The Wisconsin ad doesn’t show Mr. Evers until the end. It focuses on solar projects, which the ad says will power 750,000 homes in the state.

“Governor Evers is working with the Biden administration to do even more,” the ad’s narrator says as photos are shown of Mr. Evers and Mr. Biden touring a Milwaukee factory last summer . “Your home value goes up and your energy bill goes down.”

The ad concludes with footage of Mr. Evers’s annual State of the State address. “Wisconsinites, this is the future we spent years working hard to build together,” he says.

What the ads are trying to do

These ads are an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Ms. Whitmer and Mr. Evers, who polls show are far more popular than Mr. Biden in their states.

Because Evergreen is technically an issue-advocacy organization, it is prohibited from making an explicit push to vote for Mr. Biden, but the message here is not subtle. The Michigan ad, with Ms. Whitmer wearing a leather jacket and speaking from a factory floor, could be a Biden campaign ad on its own. The argument boils down to: You like what I’ve done, so support President Biden.

Neither ad mentions the Inflation Reduction Act, the $891 billion law Mr. Biden signed in 2022. Relatively few Americans have heard of the law, and the Democratic Party’s top strategists have discouraged campaigns from referring to it by name.

Instead, with these ads, Evergreen is seeking to remind voters that something they like — building car batteries in Michigan and using solar power in Wisconsin — is brought to them by the Biden administration. Less than six months out from the presidential election, Mr. Biden has failed to convey that message to voters, leaving supportive outside groups and Democratic governors to do it for him.

Advertisement