On Tyranny

The Bolshevik revolution forcefully replaces a budding republic with a vast and brutal dictatorship that causes decades of hardship for its people. That it succeeds at all, much less rules for most of the 20th century, becomes a warning to those who assume that democracies easily can withstand threats from within. Along with Nazi Germany, the Soviet regime serves as a reminder of the dangers that threaten republics if they let down their guard. 

Free republics prevail over tyrannies in World War II; later, the Communist threat collapses. People begin to believe history has come to an end and the future will simply refine the inevitable liberal democracies that have arisen from the ashes of old regimes. This belief coddles a people, who, lulled by the relative ease of Western life, cease to believe there are any remaining threats to democracy. At this point, they can become victims of a demagogue who promises eternal security.

When a people believe history is over, they cease to concern themselves with the ongoing dynamism of their republics. Thus disengaged, they can be fooled by a demagogue into believing that history is in fact cyclical, that the best time was in the past, and that the past can be revived through the will of the tyrant. History, though it sometimes recycles old events, is nonetheless always chancy and conditional. Anything can happen in the future, especially given the rapid changes to society brought about by technological advances. Citizens therefore must accept responsibility for the maintenance of their republics, whose survival is never a sure thing. 

A civil society encourages open-mindedness, debate, dissent, participation, and tolerance. As such, it stands as a major obstacle to potential dictators, who must find ways to tear down such a culture before they can rule. The care and feeding of a civil society, then, is a vital counterweight to the ambitions of would-be tyrants.