DURING A period of ancient Greek history, tyrants regularly arose and flourished as rulers of the city-states. This was before democracy, as the ancient Greeks understood it, began to flourish.

Unlike the modern negative connotations attached to the term, in the original Greek meaning 'tyrant' carried no ethical censure at all. A tyrant was simply anyone who overturned the established government, often with popular support, and established himself as ruler. Military threats and econo-mic difficulties facilitated the rise of these tyrants and, indeed, made them quite popular as defenders and sustainers. A bit like our community dons.

Tyrants, more often than not, came from wealthy aristocratic families. So they had been brought up with a real familiarity with government and how it worked. Many of the tyrants of Ancient Greece took over the government because they recognised how unstable the government was and wanted to change it.

Discontented classes

Greek tyranny was, in the main, an outgrowth of the struggle of the discontented popular classes against the aristocracy, or the priest-kings whose right to rule was sanctioned by traditions and mythology. Tyrants generally came to power by popular coups and, surprisingly, to the modern mind at any rate, were often popular rulers, at least in the early part of their reigns. The trouble is they couldn't be got rid of by peaceful means when they had worn out their popular welcome. But neither could kings or the aristocracy.

Some good things, in fact, came from tyranny, for example, military techniques and strategy were advanced. Remember, many of them arose in response to military threats. Also, many of the Greek tyrants were great supporters of art, literature, and built beautiful and historic buildings and monuments that still stand today. Tyranny also focused on equal living among the overall community and encouraged trade with other countries which, in turn, helped to raise the standard of living.

The poor were, generally, large supporters to the tyrants, as the tyrants made many promises to the lower class in order to gain their approval and favour. Tyrants made promises such as the cancellation of debts, ending debt bondage (a form of slavery) and the redistribution of land. Because of this the upper class did not like the tyrants - and, being able to read and write, they were the scribes, the recorders of history.

The negative connotation of the word really took root in fifth-century Athens, where the democrats more or less created the tyrant as their anti-type. Writers like Herodotus and Thucydides make it clear that democrats thought that the power of tyrants was uncontrolled, so that they easily became violent and cruel despots, surrounded by sycophants. Democracy, in this philosophy, was the exact opposite: People were free to speak and power was controlled and balanced.

We are facing difficult times. Not from external military threats, but from economic crisis and internal crime and violence. This has led to calls for a Government of National Unity (GNU). Nobody has tyranny in mind - certainly not the modern kind of cruel totalitarian dictator with a secret police peeping into every crack and crevice of our lives and hauling dissenters off to jail. But what really is to prevent this fromhappening?

At the heart of tyranny, as the pre-democratic Greeks understood it non-pejoratively, was the usurpation of legitimate authority, how-ever defined. And the fundamental problem of tyranny, although not exclusive to tyranny, was how to peacefully get rid of the tyrant. Most of them, in the manner of kings and aristocrats, sought to bequeath power to their heirs.

Opposing collaboration

A real Government of National Unity, as opposed to merely greater cooperation and collaboration, let it be clearly understood, must mean a suspension of elements of the democratic Jamaican Constitution. And here the term 'democratic' has clear and specific technical meaning beyond the famous Abraham Lincoln definition of 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people'. Jamaican democracy, modelling its British parent, is calculatedly constructed on a division and balancing of state power among a number of branches of government, and in the Legislative Branch between a governing side and a rather ill-named opposition side.

There is a very clear political philosophy underpinning this division: The power of the Government can be, and must be, held in check by a vigorous opposition. There used to be a very clear moral foundation underpinning this political philosophy in the modern western world, perhaps best articulated by that famous British historian Lord Acton: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Let us be quite clear about the matter: Here, there and everywhere, the political class, across party lines, constitutes a genuine political aristocracy for oligarchic rule in its own interests, especially for self-perpetuation and for the control of state resources towards their own ends, unless held in check. Our safety from them lies in playing them off against each other with careful rules of play, which is exactly what the wise and reasonable democratic Constitution arranges. To suspend the Constitution or elements of it, small or big, for a GNU is both reckless and short-sighted.

Division of Parliament

Without any reference to, or necessity of political parties whatsoever, the Jamaican Constitution divides the Parliament into Government and Opposition, for very good and clear reasons. Section 70(1) authorises the governor general in his discretion to appoint as prime minister [the head of the executive branch, "the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgement, is best able to command the confidence of a majority of the members of the House".

Similarly, the governor general is constitutionally bound to appoint a leader of the Opposition. Section 80(1) and (2) says, "There shall be a leader of the Opposition who shall be appointed by the governor general. He shall, in his discretion, appoint the member of the House of Representatives who, in his judgement, is best able to command the confidence of a majority of those members who do not support the Government [or] the largest single group of such members who are prepared to support one leader."

There is a good deal of cricket here. Of gentlemanly [and ladily] negotiation to make this contrived system of balancing power work. The critical function of the badly named Opposition, itself a part of the constitutional Government, is to critically scrutinise the executive Government and to hold it to task on behalf of the demos, the people.

Much can be learned from business where there is fierce, but rules-bound competition among firms in the market, but sensible collaboration in business organisations around common interests and in the face of common threats.

It is the Jamaican failure to play parliamentary cricket, which law alone cannot rectify, which is exciting several influential people to call for a suspension of the rules of this constitutional game in favour of what is essentially ancient Greek tyranny on the childish assumption that a 'good tyranny' is better than a 'bad democracy'.

Most of these tyrant-makers have their roots on the Left with its stubborn belief in the inherent goodness of humankind and the perfectibility of the race by the social engineering machinations of an omni-competent state, never mind how often history and social reality debunk that myth. Just how do we propose to control the 'tyrants' and peacefully detyrannise the polity in the future are questions postponed until we arrive there.

The Greeks adored philosophy. Philosophy means the love of wisdom. Cardinal features of wisdom is being able to learn from the past and being able to anticipate the future and the consequences of present choices.

Martin Henry is a communications consultant who may be reached at medhen@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.