Anacyclosis by Hossam Badrawi

Anacyclosis
Written by: Hossam Badrawi
On the occasion of the approaching US presidential elections and the failure of the Democratic Party’s attempts so far to remove former President Trump, the chances of his success and return to power are close to 50% in opinion polls, which brought back to my memory a webinar I had attended at Princeton University in the United States by Dr. Anna Grismala Bass, professor of public relations. International, Dr. Francis Fukuyama, known for his book “The End of History,” and others, about what they call Trumpism, named after President Trump as a deduction from the populism that represents his approach.
What is the meaning of “Anaschalosis,” the title of this article, and what is populism by which they mean?
Let us start with the definitions and return to the references and then discuss the topic.
Anacyclism is a theory in sociology and politics that claims that the development of political systems has a cyclical movement. The theory is based on the fact that there are three classifications based on the systems of constitutional government in ancient Greece: rule by a person, rule by a few, and rule by many.
Anacyclism also states that there are three basic systems of government that are considered “benign” (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) and that they are inherently weak and unstable, and tend to deteriorate rapidly.
There are three basic systems of government that are considered “malicious”: (tyranny, oligarchy, and demagogue government). The “government of the demagogue” refers to the rule of the mob, not the concept of democracy as we know it now.
According to the theory, “benign” systems of government have everyone’s interests in mind, while “malignant” systems only care about a few people. However, political corruption makes all systems deteriorate and shift from one system to another in a circular motion.
The origin of the theory and its concept
It goes back to the Greek historian and politician Polybius, and it was used and developed by Plato and after him by Aristotle in their books.
The theory shows that the political circular movement began with the development of man in the primitive stage in which man lived in the tribe. Each tribe chooses a king who is the wisest. But then royal rule is passed on to sons who are not as wise, who will abuse their power and become tyrants, and the system of government will shift from monarchy to tyranny.
After the stage of individual tyranny, a small group of people will emerge who are dissatisfied with that tyranny, turn against it, transform the tyranny into a new system, which is the aristocracy, and the rule of the few begins.
As is the case with monarchy, aristocrats will inherit power to their children who will rule, and aristocracy will turn into oligarchy, which is defined as rule by the few that relies on corruption and tyranny.
Days pass, and after that the people reach the stage of explosion and demand a broader rule in which the majority of the people participate. This rule is what we call (rule by a large number of people).
Over time, people will demand unreasonable things, believing that they deserve them, without planning, and the people’s representatives will become demagogues who tell people everything they want to hear instead of telling the truth or what is reasonable.
Democracy turns into the rule of demagogues and mobs. It is natural with this rule that chaos results and political promiscuity increases in order to win over the mob, and there becomes a struggle between demagogues in order to control the chaos. The rest of them are then liquidated, and a person emerges from among them who demands absolute power since he is the savior, and this cycle ends with a return to individual rule, which combines monarchy with tyranny for the benefit of the people, according to his point of view.
As for the mob, the rabble, and the mob, the mob in language means the sound, the commotion, and a mixed lot of lowly people. As for the mob, they are the common people, and it is said a man of the mob, meaning a sorcerer who manipulates the minds of the people. As for the mob, they are the basest, ignorant, and foolish people. Unfortunately, the mob includes segments that belong to social media now, and they have influence and status that they do not deserve. Some of them have low morals, are polluted in thought, quarrel with every shouter, and curse every thinker.
For as long as I have read about the events of history and the roles that the mob or the vulgar played, I did not find that this group had an honorable role worthy of praise or commendation. Rather, we find that they are the ones who plunder, plunder, assault property and honour, dare to shed blood, and incite tribal and sectarian strife. This is the behavior of the demagogues, who in every society constitute varying proportions according to the society’s civilization and sophistication. This category exists in slums and some human gatherings, such as the gatherings of some unstable professions that are not regulated by the authority of law and order. Such groups carry a moral readiness to practice chaos and are motivated to do so at every opportunity. Favorable.
Now there are demagogues of a new kind, and they are the ones whose minds are manipulated by lies and conspiracy theories, so they believe that they are absolutely right and others are absolutely wrong, regardless of the institutional and legal methods that say otherwise. These people are no different from religious fanatics whose minds are manipulated by clerics in the name of God
Unfortunately, there are always those who are aware of the importance of this group, and their behavior is contained through programmed religious discourse or embellished ideological discourse, or with lies disguised in the name of need or aspiration without values, to curse in the name of the adopted ideology. One person or a specific group or groups would not have achieved their goals without them. They are the fuel that drives social chaos, tribalism, and fanaticism.

What I heard and saw in this webinar begins with the definition of populism, and that the reasons for its emergence are the failure of the current ruling regimes and all parties to achieve the aspirations and rights of the peoples. The truth is that the populist trend ultimately aims to cause chaos using these approaches, knowing that mob rule is always unsustainable, and that in the end there is a group that will monopolize the rule for its own benefit and return the mob to its place. Populist rule begins by questioning the judiciary, oversight and law enforcement institutions, and uses the media to turn groups of people against each other.
Populist rule begins chaotically and ends authoritarian… after the erosion of democratic institutions, and the people’s skepticism about them.
As soon as the populist comes to power, he finds himself in a dilemma. He either implements demagogic solutions to preserve his supporters at the expense of the state, or searches for another rival after he overthrew the ruling politicians before him.
Democracy is not only about the majority winning power for a specific period, but also about the minority accepting the results of the elections.
The question is, what if the ruler refuses to hand over power?
In this case, the ruler will use the mob to threaten the Houses of Representatives and pressure the members to reject the election results and return them. This may lead to acts of violence and democracy will be severely undermined. (This is a partial description of what happened in the US Congress with Trump supporters after the last presidential elections, which no one imagined would happen.)
In ancient democratic countries, I still believe that constitutions and customs will be respected in the end, but after what happened in the recent American elections, the division of the American people may continue, and Trumpism and chaotic populism will bring out the worst in the American person, especially the white man’s fanaticism against people of color and new immigrants and not accepting the election results. And a return to the eradication of freedom of expression and security interference in universities as we see now, let alone what is happening and will happen in developing countries.
Democracy does not depend on the number of demonstrators, but on the ballot box, in light of the freedom of citizens to nominate and vote without pressure, intimidation, prevention, bribery, or manipulation of minds using religion as a means or with lies using the media and social media.
The principles of human rights are indivisible if belief in them is real.
In a democracy, the power of armies does not appear by seizing power by exploiting a situation under the pretext of ensuring security and eliminating chaos, because they do not swear to protect a person, party, or ruler, but rather swear to protect the Constitution and the law only, as the Chief of Staff of the United States explained to former President Trump when he tried to win him over. This is also what Abu Ghazaleh did when the Egyptian army descended to protect the state during the events of the Central Security Forces in 2005, which does not happen in most third world countries, where security institutions become the alternative absolute ruler, and we return to the theory of Anacyclosis, where rule is limited to one institution without transfer of power, then There is a single ruler in political turmoil that takes poor countries into more poverty and into a lack of freedoms and rights of citizens. There are many examples before us throughout history.