The idea that autocrats, otherwise called dictators, are by necessity tyrants is the result of fallacious thinking. An autocrat is someone who rules with a great degree of power, while a tyrant is one who rules through illicit fear--particularly by unjust threats or unjust force. Having great or even absolute power over a group of people does not itself mean that one will abuse that power or impose it in illicit, sinful manner.
For instance, an autocrat who rules using the right set of just laws is not a tyrant (Biblically, autocracy itself is not sinful, but it could be used in sinful ways). Even if an autocrat had absolute power he or she will not necessarily be cruel. This is demonstrable simply by comparing the concept of a tyrant to that of an autocrat, for one can see that the two are not synonymous; although an autocrat could become a tyrant, such a thing is never an unavoidable outcome. People who argue that autocracy is evil because of what might come about from it commit the slippery slope fallacy.
Am I saying that autocracy is obligatory? No! I am merely pointing out that it is not some inevitably destructive thing that must, by necessity, end in malevolent, selfish tyranny. Autocracy, like monarchy [1], is neither sinful nor obligatory. I am not arguing for autocracy, only proving that it is not what some represent it as being. Autocracy is not an automatic indicator of corruption or evil. In fact, an autocrat who rules justly is better than a leader who has a more limited power and yet acts unjustly.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-moral-theology-of-monarchy.html
No comments:
Post a Comment