I’m not an historian, but I do enjoy reading history, regardless of the time or place, but preferably that of Europe or the United States. I am fascinated by the cycle of history, how events seem to reoccur over the centuries, how mankind never seems to learn from the past, but retains its desire to return to a time when life seemed simpler, when people felt safe, providing they were in agreement with those who were their superiors, those who had authority over their economics and culture.
Although people may maintain they want to be in control of their lives, it often appears that they want to be led by those who can offer them the safety they desire. This condition may have originated thousands of years ago when small groups of people gathered together as tribes who went searching for their food under the leadership of their best hunter, the one who knew the ways of wild animals and how to subdue them. A wooly mammoth, a wild boar, or a fleet-footed deer could be killed more readily by a tribe than by a single pursuer.
When those once nomadic tribes settled down in villages and, later, in fortified towns, they were willing to be governed by their elders or by the strongest male in the community, especially if the local gods seemed to favor these rulers. The pharaohs of Egypt and the kings of Mesopotamia were, after all, designated by their gods. The kings, themselves, might even be seen as divine creations who would offer their subjects protection from all of their enemies, all those who sought to destroy them, whether they were foreigners or threatening neighbors. Even the Greek city-states, claiming to be democracies which considered the rights of individual men, had their own divinely appointed rulers.
Some twenty-eight centuries ago, semi-divine twins, sucked by a she-wolf, attempted to found a city-state in Italy. One of them, Remus, made the mistake of jumping over the wall erected by his brother, Romulus, around one of the seven hills located in the city. In their feud, Romulus killed Remus and the city of Rome, rather than of Rem, was begun under the leadership of a royal family of kings. Several centuries later, these kings gave way to leaders elected by the freemen of Rome and their city-state became a republic. After a few more centuries, the citizens of Rome were very willing to allow a single Emperor to become their divinely appointed leader, one who could protect them from invaders and offer them circuses for their entertainment.
By the standards of today, in the twenty-first century after these events, we tend to see those days of the Roman Empire to be difficult ones for ordinary life as we know it. However, for those who, at that time, lived them, this was the age of an Augustinian peace in which the population lived a harmonious life without fear. It was good to live under a dictator, one who addressed the needs of the people as he, himself, viewed his own rules to be just and proper.
With the ultimate fall of the Roman Empire, life under invading Germanic tribes led to a new way of life, one we call the “dark ages,” but well-lived by those who experienced them. The men of Europe willingly followed the leadership of divinely appointed kings and their own elite royalty. Both the nobility and the peasantry looked back to the glory of the lost Roman Empire through the formation of the new Holy Roman Empire which came into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church and the growth of competing empires in France, England and Spain.
The briefly held concept of a Roman Republic governed by men elected democratically was buried under a willingness to be ruled by strong individuals. Until, in the mid-eighteenth century, there were a few men living in colonies established by England, who now desired to re-establish a republic governed by those they, themselves, elected. The United States of America became the first modern democratic nation.
Others followed, but only for short periods. The French Republic became a new Empire under the control of Napoleon. Later democracies in Germany and Italy saw the rise of fascism under Hitler and Mussolini, who, originally, were willing elected by their followers. Other new-born democratic nations quickly came under the control of cultic leaders like Stalin and Mao. It would appear that individuals wish to have their own political freedom for only limited times. When given an opportunity, they are very willing to allow a cultic leader to take control of their political life if everyone is promised safety from invaders and from those whom they believe might take them in cultural directions not to their liking.
The result is a strange paradox. Individuals are willing to give up their authority, their control, to someone who will control what they, the individuals, want to control but feel they, themselves, cannot control! In our modern society, there seems to be a fear that outsiders will cross established borders and bring with them killers, terrorists, drug bearers, poverty-prone non-workers, and others who will change the lives of those living within their borders. A cult leader, even a dictator or tyrant, who offers such protection, is once more desired to be in control. He is admired and followed by all who demand a return to the “good-old-days” of an imagined past.
According to a recent article in Time magazine, “In 2024, more than half the world’s population will go to polls – 4.2 billion citizens across approximately 65 countries in what, from a distance, at least appears to be a stirring spectacle of self-government. At closer range, however, the picture is cloudier, and warning lights flash red from the murk.” The article goes on to quote Staffan Lindberg, director of Varieties of Democracy, a Swedish think tank, who believes: “2024 may be the make-or-break year for democracy in the world, [since] … so many have now empowered leaders or parties with antidemocratic leanings.”
I am reminded of a Latin line written by a Roman poet, Juvenal, in the first century: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” It may be translated as: “Who will guard the guards, themselves?” or “Who will watch the watchmen, themselves?” Perhaps in the twenty-first century we might ask: “Who will control the controllers, themselves?”