Benevolent Tyrant

[SpiritualYogiNerd she/her]

In WoR chapter 67 Dalinar has a conversation with Wit and asks him 

Quote

am I a Tyrant?

Wit says that he is, but then adds:

Quote

Do not Sorrow, It is an era for Tyrants. I doubt this place is ready for anything more, and a benevolent tyrant is preferable to the disaster of weak rule. Perhaps in another place and time, I'd have denounced you with spit and bile. Here, today, I praise you as what this world needs.

I wonder what Sanderson believes...

This statement got me contemplating, especially now, since in less than three weeks here in Israel we are going to have elections 6 months after the previous ones. This is the result of the parties not succeeding to form a coalition and government. The way it looks, things are not going to go much better after the coming elections...  

Are we in an era where leadership is gained by power? Half of the world is still ruled by dictators. In the other half where we have democracy, is it power or benevolence that leads?

[Toaster Retribution he/him]

Technically, a dictatorship is great. It has the potential to be a lot more effective. The problem tends to be that power corrupts, and dictators tend to look out for themselves. Furthermore, why should one person get to make the calls? We are equal, so that doesnt make sense, which is why we have democracy. 

I think Wits point is Alethkar is close to disaster, and the Highprinces are squabbling and looking out for themselves. Thus, they need a man like Dalinar who is just and can make good calls. Does that mean that Dalinars leadership can be justified, if we look at it with the lens that we have today? No. Dalinar is a former warlord, usurped a throne and rules without the mandate of the masses. But right now, he is Roshars best option. 

I think that the bottom line is wether it is okay to have a tyrant, if that tyrant is our best hope for salvation. And that is a very complex philosophical question, which has been debated for centuries. 

[Ammanas]

I think that the sequel trilogy to the original Red Rising (by Pierce Brown) trilogy does a great job asking questions like this. They fought so hard to have a republic with with representatives and that creates just as many, if not more, problems than the old system. 

[Karger he/him]

Wit's point is that tyranny is at least expedient at the current time.  Having an actual mandate to rule is necessary long term but in the mean time they don't have any good options.

[Elegy he/him]

Even a "working" dictatorship is not good, since it can never ensure that it will "work" tomorrow. A benevolent dictator might be replaced by a terrible one. It technically paves the way to despotism, so whether or not this potential is made use of, a dictatorship can never be "great" by defition. A working political system is not defined by what's done with it but by what can theoretically be done with it. Also:

On 31.8.2019 at 5:16 AM, SpiritualYogiNerd said:

 I wonder what Sanderson believes...

Brandon has repeatedly stated that his character's views do not stand in any relation to his own, so, while I understand why that question would be raised, that debate is kinda out of place in that context. He just makes characters discuss a topic, not to make us think what he thinks, but to express how the characters feel about these topics.

Edited September 1, 2019 by Elegy

[Friendshipspren he/him]

Look at Iraq , Saddam was far from benovalent but compared to the Taliban or Kim jong un , he was an angel. He promoted hierarchies , he was a nepotistic bastard  , but how is different than a highprince or the kholins in that regard. And he was able to give the ppl atleast some semblance of security and stability And then America invaded and all the stability vaporized into thin air. Now Iraq is a hotspot of violence between all sorts of different factions . Weak rule reigns. And it's a greater destroyer of peace and prosperity than Saddam ever was. I always thought about this when Wit said that.  

And now hey I'm from India and this is just my perspective. I'm not here to attack American politics .But I think this is a good example. Iraq could have been handled in a much better way . 

 

But this is just an example of benovalent , well , barely benovalent tyranny versus weak rule . 

Edited September 3, 2019 by PrinceGenocide
A little polishing

[soulcastJam he/him]

Sanderson's theology contains a historical figure who is a benevolent monarch. He gives a speech to his people when he is older, talking about the problems that come from having an unrighteous king, and also all the strain that is put on a king. He points out that if you could always have a good and moral king then it would be good to always have a king. But the negative impact of just one bad king is too great. So he sets up a system of elected judges with higher and lower judges (the higher can judge the lower, and a group of lower can judge the higher) that will go into effect after his death.