As a classics professor, I know that concerns about authoritarianism go back millennia. A first discussion appears in the work of Herodotus, a Greek writer of the 5th century BC (around 484/-425), whoseHistory –sometimes called Stories– is considered the first great prose story in Western literature.
Herodotus analyzed the invasion of Greece by the Persians, the decisive event of his time. To understand how Greece, a much smaller power, managed to achieve a major victory over Persia, he studied the nature of effective leadership, which he considered a determining factor in the outcome of the conflict.
An unexpected upheaval
Persia was already a vast empire when it invaded Greece, a small country made up of independent city-states. The Persians expected a quick and easy victory.
Instead, the Persian Wars lasted over a decade, from 490 to 479 BCE. They ended with the defeat of the Persians, an unexpected event. Persia then abandoned its westward expansion, while various Greek cities formed a fragile alliance (the Delian League), which lasted nearly fifty years.
To explain this surprising result, Herodotus described the evolution of Persian and Greek societies before this decisive conflict. According to him, the fact that many Greek cities had representative governments allowed them to achieve victory.
These systems allowed individuals to participate in strategic discussions and led Greeks to unite to fight for their freedom. For example, when the Persian fleet was heading towards mainland Greece, the Athenian general Miltiades stated: “We have never been in such great danger. If we give in to the Persians, we will suffer terribly under the tyrant Hippias.”
Herodotus tended to place his political thoughts in the mouths of historical figures, such as Miltiades. He brought together his thoughts on government in what historians call the “constitutional debate,” a fictional conversation between three very real people: Persian nobles named Otanes, Megabyza, and Darius.
The rise of Persia
For centuries before invading Greece, Persia was only a small region inhabited by various ancient Iranian peoples and dominated by the neighboring kingdom of the Medes. Then, in 550 BC, King Cyrus II of Persia overthrew the Medes and expanded Persian territory to found what became the Achaemenid Empire. Because of his effective rule and tolerance of the cultures he conquered, historians call him “Cyrus the Great.”
His son and successor, Cambyses II, was less successful. He added Egypt to the Persian Empire, but, according to Herodotus, Cambyses acted erratically and cruelly. He desecrated the pharaoh’s tomb, mocked the Egyptian gods and killed Apis, their sacred bull. He also demanded that Persian judges change the laws so that he could marry his own sisters.
After the death of Cambyses II, without an heir, various factions vied for the throne of Persia. It was in this period of instability that Herodotus situated his reflection on alternative political systems.
The arguments in favor of democracy
Otanès, the first speaker of the “constitutional debate”, declared: “The time has passed when a single man among us can hold absolute power.” He recommends that the Persian people take charge of state affairs themselves. “How can the monarchy remain our norm, when a monarch can do whatever he wants, without any accountability?”asks Otanès.
Even more serious, a monarch “overturns the laws”as did Cambyses II. Otanès advocates the government of the greatest number, which he calls “isonomy”, that is to say “equality before the law”. In this system, he explains, political leaders are elected, must be held accountable for their behavior and make their decisions transparently.
Oligarchy and monarchy, an inevitable fall?
Otanes’ noble companion Megabyzes agrees that the Persians should abolish the monarchy, but he expresses concerns about rule by the people. “The mass is useless, nothing is more senseless and violent than a crowd”says Megabyze. According to him, the “common people” do not understand the subtleties of the art of governing.
Instead, Megabyzes proposes oligarchy, or “rule by a few”. Choose the best men in Persia and let them rule the others, he insists, because they “will naturally find the best ideas”. But Megabyze does not explain who could be considered part of the “best men”or who would be responsible for selecting them.
The third speaker, Darius, views democracy and oligarchy as equally flawed. He points out that even well-meaning oligarchs argue among themselves because “everyone wants their opinion to prevail”. This leads to hatred and worse.
Darius asserts on the contrary that“By exercising good judgment, a monarch will be an impeccable guardian of the people”. He argues that since Persia was liberated by one man, King Cyrus II, the Persians must maintain their traditional monarchy.
Darius does not explain how to ensure the good judgment of a monarch. But his argument wins. It must have been so, since, in fact, Darius became the king of Persia. Kings, or “shahs,” ruled Persia—which took the name Iran in 1935—until the Iranian Revolution of 1979 abolished the monarchy and established the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Lessons to learn from Herodotus
Herodotus himself was largely supportive of democracy, but his “constitutional debate” did not advocate a single type of government. Rather, it values principles of good government. Among them: responsibility, moderation and respect for “nomos,” a Greek term that encompasses both custom and law.
Herodotus emphasizes: “In the past, large cities became small, while small cities became large.” Human fortunes are constantly changing and Persia’s failure to conquer Greece is just one example.
History has seen the rise and fall of many world powers. Will the United States fall in turn? Current President Donald Trump is not technically a monarch, but some believe he acts like one. He and his administration have ignored court rulings, encroached on the powers of Congress and sought to silence its critics by attacking freedom of expression, even though it is protected by the US Constitution.
Herodotus considered that the Persian monarchy, whose kings considered their own supreme authority, constituted the weakness which led to their crushing defeat in the battle of Plataea, in 479 BCE.
