Podcast # 30: The Age of Tyrants
Scott: My name is Scott Paton. I am talking today with Allan Colston. He is the author of the book “The Last Days of Tolemac”. This is a book about prophecy.
For those listeners who may be new to this topic, this is another in the series “Signs of the Times”. Welcome Allan to this Podcast. It has been quite a while since we last chatted. How have you been keeping?
I’m fine Scott. Thanks for asking. Glad to be with you once again.
Scott: Since we last spoke, the world seems to have become a much more dangerous and unstable place. What are your thoughts about it all?
I must say that I tend to agree with you. In fact I have been giving quite a lot of thought lately to the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato. As a matter of interest Scott, have you ever read any of his works?
Scott: No. I have to admit that I haven’t.
Well I’m not surprised. Very few people have. In fact, outside of those university scholars who are required to study his work, there are probably no more than a dozen or so people in any given year who take the trouble to read his books.
Anyway, even though Plato’s ideas were formulated well over two thousand years ago, they seem as relevant today as when they were first recorded. And they seem particularly appropriate in light of the sort of things that have been happening around the planet recently.
In Book VIII of his most famous work entitled The Republic, Plato discusses various forms of government, starting with the ideal state and then descending through various other stages until they reach the lowest state of all, which is the enslavement of the people.
In Plato’s view, the ideal state of mankind is what he called Aristocracy, where people are ruled by a philosopher king, who is not only schooled in the art of government, but who devotes his life to the welfare of his people and promotes wisdom, justice and equality for all before the law.
He then went on to argue that no system of government, however perfect, could endure forever. In time, even as good a system as Aristocracy would inevitably degenerate into other less desirable systems, dragged down by the weight of human frailty.
Plato then listed various other forms of government, and referred to them in descending order, starting with Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and then Tyranny. For example, a Timocratic government would be comprised of a ruling class of military generals or warrior kings.
But over time these Timocratic rulers would begin to be seduced by the lure of material wealth, and their rule would give way to Oligarchy, in which the rich would become the ruling class, and an increasing divide would grow between those who had wealth and those who did not.
This Oligarchic form of government would give way in turn to Democracy, in which each citizen participated in the choice of the ruler, and power was distributed equally among the people. In short, it would be a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Scott: So surely then Allan, according to Plato, democracy would seem to be a very desirable form of government.
You might think so Scott, but you would be wrong. In fact Plato had nothing good to say about democracy. And this is why his words have resonated so much with me recently. For in his book Plato went on to describe how democracy would inevitably lead to tyranny.
Although a truly democratic form of government might appear on the surface to be desirable, in the end all democracies fail – and for the same reason. They all carry within them the seeds of their own demise, embedded within what appears to be their greatest virtue.
A government of the people is elected by the people. Not some of the people, but all of the people. Or at least all those who turn up on election day and register their votes. Under this form of government, every vote carries the same value, regardless of the individual involved.
And here lies the rub. As an Indian friend of mine remarked many years ago, democracy is Sudrocracy. At the time I was struck by just how apt that analogy was. For according to their ancient traditions, Hindu society was divided up into four classes or castes.
The highest level of society was represented by the Brahmin or priestly class. Then came the Kshatriyas the warrior or merchant class, followed by the Vaishyas who were mainly farmers. Last of all came the Sudras, which included what we would today call manual labourers.
So in the words of my friend, a Sudrocracy would be a democracy that would be dominated by its lowest common denominator. It would be an electorate determined by a popular vote that would be drawn from the lowest classes of society, as well as the least educated and the least informed.
In order to thrive, every democracy needs an informed electorate, consisting of a majority of the voting public who understand the critical issues that confront that society, and then have the insight to select the right people to deal with these challenges.
But as Plato pointed out, in a complex society, as more and more problems arose in the course of the day-to-day management of human affairs, so those who were elected to solve these problems would find it increasingly difficult to achieve results that satisfied all sectors of society.
These differences would then lead to conflicting views as to how best to proceed, which would split people into opposing parties that would become more and more hostile towards one another. Finally, when matters descended into gridlock, the people would cry out for a saviour.
So the critical flaw with democracy, according to Plato, is that this system of government would inevitably splinter into opposing groups, with each faction operating in a more and more undisciplined and unrestrained way, which would leave them vulnerable to any clever demagogue who came along.
This populous leader could then easily stoke the fears of the public by targeting some group or other who he claimed were responsible for all their problems, and then announce that he alone had the power to save them from this enemy, if only he was granted the power to do so.
Then according to Plato, once that leader had gained power, he would use his power to remove the best social elements and individuals who might challenge his authority, while rewarding those who exhibited the worst qualities. In this way that society would descend into tyranny.
Now you can probably guess where I am going with all this Scott, and you would be right. But then again you would also be wrong, if you will allow me to explain.
Scott: You speak in riddles my friend. Anyway, carry on, the floor is yours.
First of all, we need to remember that Plato’s Republic was a philosophical work, and his thoughts on various forms of government were never intended to be a prescriptive diagnosis on the rise and fall of governments, but rather a shrewd analysis of human failings when it came to the abuse of power.
After all, it was the 19th century British politician Lord Acton who echoed Plato’s argument when he said: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. And then he went on to say something even more telling: “Great men are almost always bad men”.
Furthermore, we hardly need to be reminded that over the course of roughly two and a half thousand years since Plato was alive, there has never been a single instance of a historical leader who fulfilled all the requirements of his “Aristocracy” or philosopher king.
Nor is there likely to be one until the return of the Saviour and the long awaited thousand years of peace.
Instead the history of the world has been replete with reprehensible leaders who, once they have tasted power, have turned into autocratic monsters who have preyed upon and enslaved their people. And what is more alarming is that this process has been getting significantly worse over time.
Within the last hundred years there have been more dictators than at any previous time in our recorded history. And as a result of their actions hundreds of millions of innocent souls have lost their lives simply because they had the misfortune of being born during their reigns of terror.
In fact there have so many Scott, that I would hazard a guess that most people today would be hard pressed to remember more than a few of them.
Scott: Well of course we all know about Hitler and Stalin.
Naturally, because they were the ones who caused the greatest number of victims. But there have been so many others who have been equally ruthless in their pursuit of power. And they keep on coming. In fact you could say that we are now living in an age of tyrants.
Of course we all remember Hitler because of his crusade to create a superior Aryan race that led to the liquidation of six million Jews in the gas chambers, as well as for his lust for world domination that led to the second world war that almost wiped out an entire generation of young men.
And although Stalin was notorious for setting up gulags, or concentration camps that were responsible for the death of millions of Russians, we shouldn’t forget that Lenin was equally ruthless. He even arranged for the assassination of his rival Leon Trotsky in Mexico City by means of an ice-pick.
Lenin was also the source of various quotations that have been embraced by dictators ever since, such as: “If you tell a lie often enough, people will come to accept it as the truth”, and “Give us a child for eight years and he will be a revolutionary forever”.
But in addition to those three there have also been tyrants like Benito Mussolini in Italy, General Francisco Franco of Spain, Josip Broz Tito in what was then Yugoslavia, as well as his countryman Slobodan Miloševic, who became known as the butcher of the Balkans.
In Asia there have been leaders like Chairman Mao of China, who murdered millions of his own citizens in the 1960’s under the banner of what became known as the “Cultural Revolution”. His brutal campaign was matched by that of Pol Pot, leader of the Khmer Rouge uprising in Cambodia in the 1970’s.
In North Korea, the country has been ruled by three generations of ruthless dictators, starting with Kim-il Sung, then Kim Jong-il, and now Kim Jong-un. And in North Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh presided over a one-party state that killed tens of thousands during the land reforms of the 1950’s.
In the Middle East, Hafez al Assad, the father of the present brutal leader in Syria, gained control of the country through a coup that led to the death of tens of thousands of Syrians. But even he paled into insignificance when compared to Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
And in Africa, where the tribal system has traditionally been built around a central chief, dictatorship has become the preferred form of government, that has produced sadistic leaders like Gaddafi of Libya, Idi Amin of Uganda, Sese Seko Mobutu of the Congo and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
And I’m just getting started. In fact a search of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia under the title of dictators, reveals a list of over one hundred and eighty names in various parts of the world since the beginning of the 20th century, and most of them during the last fifty years.
Anyway Scott, I hardly need to belabour the fact that the world has witnessed a multitude of unscrupulous leaders who have gained power, only to use that power to enslave their own people and kill those who have had the courage to oppose them.
However, there is perhaps one other salient point that deserves to be mentioned, and that is that all of the dictators mentioned here have been men, which I suppose is a persuasive argument for electing women as leaders, rather than men. What do you think Scott?
Scott: You’ve got a good point there Allan. But how does that square with Plato’s view that democracies carry within them the seeds of their own demise?
That’s a good question Scott. And in answer allow me to present you with a perfect example of what Plato was writing about. Consider the modern country of Turkey, and in particular its current leader and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Erdogan was born in Istanbul in 1954, so he is now 64 years old. After spending his early childhood in the town of Rize on the Black Sea, his family moved back to Istanbul when he was thirteen. And after finishing high school, he went on to study business administration.
But it was on the soccer field that the young Erdogan first came to the attention of the public, when he became a semi-professional footballer for a local club in Istanbul. It is probably not a surprise to discover that the stadium where he once played is now named after him.
His political career first blossomed in 1994, when he was elected as the Mayor of Istanbul. In spite of fears that he might impose Islamic law, he proved to be a pragmatic administrator who achieved spectacular success by solving problems like traffic gridlock, water shortages and pollution.
In fact you can say Scott, that Erdogan’s track record as an administrator was a model for aspiring politicians everywhere. But despite this early success, he was imprisoned in 1998 for reciting a poem in public that was deemed to be an incitement to violence and racial hatred.
Scott: So Allan, was he forced to give up his position as mayor?
Yes Scott, he was. He was also banned from all political activity. But the authorities could not keep him inactive for long. In 2001, Erdogan established a new political party known as the Justice and Development party, also known as the AKP.
In the following year, the AKP won a landslide election victory, winning nearly two-thirds of the seats. However, these results were cancelled in December 2002. New elections were held, and this time Erdogan was not only elected to parliament, but was chosen as Prime Minister as well.
Under his guidance, the Turkish economy made a spectacular recovery, and for the better part of the next decade was the envy of Muslim countries everywhere. In addition, Erdogan opted for a policy of good relations with all of the surrounding states which ensured nation-wide stability.
During this period Erdogan enjoyed unparalleled success, and won three consecutive elections, all with an increased margin of popular support. Under his leadership Turkey reached the pinnacle of an ideal democratic society. Yet it all began to unravel from within inside of a few short months.
Scott: So what caused things to change so quickly?
Well Scott, it all began in May 2013 when a handful of protestors gathered to complain about the government’s decision to convert Istanbul’s Gezi park into an urban development project. When the police used tear gas to break up this demonstration, more and more protestors began to arrive.
Faced with the largest mass protest in more than a decade, Erdogan responded in heavy-handed fashion by arresting sixteen protestors, including the sons of three of his government ministers, and charged them with corruption, setting off a storm of protests across the country.
It was at this time that five audio recordings appeared on YouTube in which Erdogan appeared to be telling his son to hide very large sums of money. Although Erdogan acknowledged that the voice was his, he claimed that the recordings had been tampered with to include false information.
It was in the aftermath of this uproar, that the ruling party announced that Erdogan would resign as Prime Minister and stand for the office of President in the upcoming elections. And in August 2014 he was elected with a majority of 52% of the popular vote.
Erdogan had already begun to reveal strong authoritarian tendencies before he was elected President, but it was his response to the attempted coup just a few months ago that completed his transformation from pragmatic politician to yet another ruthless dictator.
Scott: Perhaps you could just recap what happened at the time.
Certainly Scott. On 15th July 2016, while President Erdogan was on holiday at Marmaris, a tourist resort on the shoreline of the Turkish Riviera, a group of military officers launched an attempted coup. Fortunately, Erdogan was able to fly back to Istanbul in time to quell this rebellion.
No sooner had this insurrection been suppressed, when Erdogan blamed an exiled cleric by the name of Fethullah Gulen for organising the attempted coup. What made this surprising to many was that Gulen was living in Pennsylvania at the time, and had been there since 1999.
Gulen was a former Imam, or Muslim preacher, who had once been an ally of Erdogan. He had founded what became known as the Gulen movement. It was a movement that promoted a tolerant form of Islam based on altruism, education and hard work. It also supported multi-party democracy.
The former alliance between Erdogan and Gulen turned sour in 2013, when Erdogan accused Gulen of being behind the accusations of corruption that were levelled against him and his son that I mentioned earlier, and of the millions of dollars that were secretly stashed away.
Erdogan immediately turned his wrath on all those who he claimed were followers of the Gulen movement in Turkey. In addition, he denounced Gulen as a terrorist, and demanded that he be extradited by the United States back to Turkey. As of now, we still do not know how they will respond.
But what justifies Erdogan’s inclusion in the list of dictators who have oppressed their own people, was his ruthless response to the attempted coup. He immediately declared a state of emergency for three months, giving himself sweeping powers to do whatever he wished.
And over the period of the last two months or so, more than 81,000 people have either lost their jobs or been arrested, including two provincial mayors, 24 district mayors, 9,000 military and security forces, as well as judges, school teachers, police, journalists and others.
In fact, President Erdogan even ordered the release of 38,000 prisoners from their cells in order to make room for all the new arrivals. But there’s an ironic twist to all this Scott. None of these reprisals would have happened if it had not been for one man’s thumb.
Scott: What exactly do you mean Allan?
Well Scott, as I explained earlier, when the attempted coup in Turkey began, President Erdogan was relaxing at the Marmaris resort on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, when he received a telephone call from a military commander in Istanbul saying that his life was in danger.
He was told that three Blackhawk helicopters loaded with special forces had been despatched to his resort with orders to capture or kill him, and that he only had minutes in which to escape. In a panic, Erdogan was whisked away under armed guard to his private jet waiting at a nearby airfield.
As it turned out, the helicopters arrived a few minutes later and armed troops stormed into the resort in search of the president. But what they did not know at the time was that Erdogan was not staying at the hotel itself, but at a private villa next door that had been loaned to him by a friend.
So, as it turned out, that warning phone call was undoubtedly responsible for saving Erdogan’s life. But the threat did not end there, because in addition to the helicopters loaded with special forces, two F-16 fighter jets were searching the area for any signs of the presidential plane.
But when the pilots of Erdogan’s twin-engined Gulfstream jet realised that they were being targeted by the approaching F-16’s, they altered the electronic signal emitted by their transponder to THY 8456, to make it seem as if they were a routine civilian Turkish Airline flight.
And this is where the thumb comes in. For at the very moment when the F-16 fighter jets approached the president’s plane, one of the pilots had his thumb on the missile release button. If he had just pressed that button, he would undoubtedly have changed the future course of history.
On such tiny things do the fates of entire countries sometimes depend. But in an equally strange way, what happened that night in the skies over Turkey also contributed to the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy about the events that are predicted to happen in the Middle East during the end times.
Scott: Why do you say that, Allan?
As I have pointed out many times on my Blog Scott, the Old Testament prophet Ezekiel predicted that there would come a time, during what he called the “Latter Days”, when a coalition of armies would gather on the borders of Israel.
These armies would come from the “north parts”, which Biblical scholars believe is a reference to Russia, as well as from places like “Meshech, Tubal, Gomer and Togarmah”, which are ancient names for parts of what is now modern Turkey. Ezekiel also refers specifically to Persia, which is now Iran.
It is also undoubtedly significant that one of the first things President Erdogan did after he had suppressed the abortive coup, was to travel to Moscow to meet with Putin, to restore economic relations that had been damaged after Turkey shot down a Russian warplane the previous year.
So now we have three dictators that have joined into an alliance together, Putin, Erdogan and the Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran. I don’t think this is a coincidence Scott. In fact I believe that it brings us ever closer to the dire events predicted by St. John in his book of Revelation.
In fact, as the increasing numbers of dictators all around the world show, democracy is in trouble all over the planet. It is assailed by fear. As history has demonstrated, tyranny is born out of fear. It is sustained by fear. It is ruled by fear, and it is ultimately destroyed by forces generated by fear.
And so Scott, I guess I could sum this all up in the following words. We seem to be living in an age of tyrants, where an encroaching darkness is stealing across the planet, slowly swallowing up all the countries of the world, and enslaving good men and women everywhere as it does so.
And this brings us to the United States, where the coming election is probably one of the most important in their history. Voters are faced with a choice between two starkly contrasting candidates. On the one hand there is Hillary Clinton, who is regarded as a threat and distrusted by many.
And then there is the phenomenon of Donald Trump, who claims to represent the best interests of all Americans, but then goes on to brand Mexicans, Muslims and migrants as the enemy, and who appears to display all the qualities that are the hallmark of a classic despot.
So the world waits to see what they will decide. Will voters preserve the principles that have made the United States the bastion of democracy for the last two hundred years or more, or will they vote for their fears and allow their country to descend into tyranny, just as Plato so long ago predicted?
Scott: Thanks Allan. Once again you have given us a lot to think about. I hope that we can get together soon and continue this discussion.
Meanwhile, you have been listening to Allan Colston, author of the book “The Last Days of Tolemac“. Do join us again for our next Podcast in the series titled “Signs of the Times”.
