By George Monopatis
On his way to Thebes Oedipus met the Sphinx. Τhe monster presented Oedipus with a riddle to let him pass; otherwise, it would kill him.
“What has four legs in the morning, two at noon, and three in the evening?”
The answer to the monster’s riddle was “man“. This single world tore the Sphinx apart. In this article, we have a different riddle for you.
“Who rules in democracy, oligarchy and tyranny alike?”
Just as in the case of Oedipus, the answer actually remains the same.
In spite of anarchy in the international system, ruling has been an essential part of human nature. it’s in our nature to rule and consequently to be ruled. The necessity stems from the societal establishment – societies being vital for survival and development.
For example, in ancient times some people were hunters while others stayed in the village to farm. Beyond food related roles, others chose to be soldiers or practised skills and professions related to productivity. Everyone has their role, but it’s not at the same level of hierarchy. In some societies of the present, doctors and lawyers are seen as superior professions, while, within these markets, they compete against each other with internal hierarchies of their own – a trainee lawyer is “ruled” by a partner and an aspirant is “ruled” by the clinic’s director.
Politically speaking, rulers took many names and titles throughout history. Their “occupational profile” ranges from kings, khans, generals, sultans to tsars, premiers, presidents, prime ministers – all titles to crown an individual human being. What may seem as a complex political system is always simplified to the human factor. In other words, complex bureaucratic and decision-making procedures behind ruling often serve the ruler’s legitimacy – not the function itself.
Even if checked and balanced, politics are often shaped by the decisions of extraordinary individuals, men and women – rulers supported by a small core team. Furthermore, in many scenarios, even crucial decisions are made on the spot and intuitively. For example when Alexander the Great reached the river Granicus, his old generals advised him not to cross the river as it might lead to slaughter. Alexander chose to cross it and he did. To quote another fearless individual who can tear the Gordian knot with their teeth, Mike Tyson “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face”. Many rulers are inclusive and actively listen to their core or broader groups of people, until they or somebody superior disagrees. Which is also why some referendums fail.
Of course, it must be mentioned that Alexander, as a leader, had excellent companions, such as Parmenion, Hephaestion and Ptolemy who greatly supported his path. In fact, his education during the start of his life was handled by Aristotle himself. The collective guidance shaped his internal system of decision-making, ultimately achieving a positive result that shaped the European space as we know it today.
Another individual whose actions shaped the future of ancient Rome, having a month named after him, was none other than Julius Caesar. Best known for his conquest of Gaul, Caesar changed the course of history when he crossed the Rubicon. By crossing the river with his army, Caesar essentially waged war against democracy, something that led to his assassination. His death, however, pushed Augustus to take over and become the first Roman emperor. With the crossing of the Rubicon, Caesar transformed Rome into an empire. Of course, Caesar was not alone; at his side was the experienced general Mark Antony and his heir Octavian, the future Emperor Augustus.
Going East, the riddle echoes in languages sounding exotic, but the answer remains the same when translated. Our next reference is Temujin, or better known as Genghis Khan, who created one of the largest empires in the world very rapidly. A strong leader, but at the same time open to all cultures and respectful towards them – that is – if they followed his lead. During the Pax Mongolica, a great commercial and cultural expansion took place across Eurasia. Though the international system is anarchic, individuals can greatly shape it.
Another example comes from Great Britain, one of the most emblematic rulers of all time, with a 44-year reign of prosperity. During her reign, Elizabeth managed to defend the islands from the terrifying Spanish Armada, which she managed to annihilate. This had a huge impact, creating a snowball effect that transformed Britain into a world class power, proving that the Spanish were not unbeatable and opening the way for the expansion of third European countries.
Democracies allow the rule of individuals as well. Perhaps the most suitable case is the one of Lyndon Johnson. Though hardly as memorable or important as other presidents, like Francis Delano Roosevelt, he was one of the most legislatively active ones. He managed to pass the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Public Broadcasting Act and Medicare. This is all thanks to the notorious Johnson Treatment – his method of intensive and intimidating persuasion.
In his work “Man, the State and War”, Kenneth Waltz left behind an intellectual milestone, which desensitized scholarly thought towards the human factor behind major global events. He argued that nations fight because of the nature of the international system – not because of human nature. While the international system is indeed the terrain that determines the roll of a dice thrown, it is advised to dig deeper into the minds of individual leaders – regardless of the regime. The key is understanding their own perceptions of the international setting; their knowledge or lack thereof, illuminating realistic scenarios for the future.