A despotic, tyrannical leader is not the cause of societal ills, it is an expression of societal illness.
The idea of blaming a despotic, tyrannical leader or government for all the ills of society falls apart when I realize that everyone in the world is free to either cooperate or refuse to cooperate with tyranny.
If people are willing to die on BEHALF of tyranny, we are just as capable of being willing to die for DECLINING tyranny. We can risk death in the name of peace just as we risk death in the name of war. And if we choose peace, how would tyranny have any way to function? We can choose peace, we just don’t tend to make that choice, which is totally understandable. But it IS a choice.
This means that, if I have tyranny in my life, I have chosen it (which of course doesn’t mean I meant to).
I don’t have to mean to choose tyranny in order to choose it. All I have to do is be confused about what I’m free to do and not do and whether or not it’s ever better to choose the risks of declining tyranny (like the threat of isolation or intimidation or imprisonment or torture or death) over the consequences of living under tyranny (like living in fear and stress and constriction of spirit and self-silencing and performative othering and living in opposition to my loving true nature).
There can be no tyrants without this confusion. Their power relies on people going along. I never have to go along. I never have to participate in violence and shaming and rejection and othering and the destruction of apparent enemies. Even if that means my own death. I can live peacefully RIGHT UP TO THE MOMENT OF MY DEATH. If I get all the way to that moment in perfect peace, where’s the problem?
We are all free (when we notice - and it seems like we’re not free when we don’t)
Gandhi was as free as it gets - even under the tyranny of the most powerful army in the world, because he was willing to die for peace and dignity before he was going to suffer the indignity of complying with or participating in tyranny.
Tyranny could not control him and routinely gave up trying, only to try again, and give up again. Ultimately, he gave his life. But he gave it living in love and peace and total internal freedom (the only kind there is) right up to the end. Even though he lived among and was consistently challenged by tyrants, he chose not to live under tyranny.
To fully consider this point, it’s important to clarify what it means to DECLINE tyranny: It does not mean FIGHTING tyranny (which just makes me a tyrant in the reverse direction), it means to choose to never participate in or engage in tyranny in any way.
When I think I can punish the “bad” in the name of “good” I become the very tyrant I’m fighting. When I fight for “good,” I just replace the tyrant’s tyranny with my own tyranny - a “good” tyranny (eye roll). I want to murder the murderers - with a “good” murder (eye roll). I want to steal from the thieves - for the “good” of “good” people (please). These are the justifications used by all tyrants. How do I know? I’ve made the mistake of setting aside love in the name of “good” and witnessed my own tyranny (as we all have).
When there is tyranny in my life, it’s because I’m supporting it, either by complying with it or by becoming a tyrant myself. I can stop - and thereby remove at least one tyrant from the mix. And when I release myself from tyranny, the world around me becomes less and less tyrannical.
If I really want to live in a world free from tyranny, the only course of action available to me is to decline to comply with or engage in tyranny of any kind and dedicate myself to loving what is.
Every other course of action brings me more of what I want to be rid of.