Anacyclosis
I. Monarchy
Before there was civility or nations or laws, or a consensus of right and wrong, men herded together like animals. And like animals, men came to be governed by the strongest one among them. Food was scarce, life was dangerous and harsh, and war was perpetual. These first tribes lived and were governed according to force and instinct, and their government is called MONARCHY.
II. Kingship
In time, food and shelter were secured, and a knowledge of civility and of right and wrong emerged within these first tribes. Peace was won, and tribes similar in custom and language united to form a state under the banner of a single ruler. As long as rulers governed according to such customs and as long as they lived modestly among their subjects as one of them, their authority was met with assent and approval. Now, no longer owing their authority to brute force, but to the reasoned consent of the ruled, monarchy yielded to KINGSHIP.
III. Tyranny
But as time went on and food and comfort continued to accumulate, and a surplus was achieved, luxury came into being. Exempted from a life of labor or hardship by birth, the children of kings fell into distinguishing themselves from others in nearly every possible way. Believing that no limit should be imposed upon them whatsoever, they lost all concern for the welfare of their subjects or the state and came to do, take, and say whatever they wished, in defiance of morals and laws and the traditions of their ancestors. Such excess caused great hatred and resentment, and kingship degenerated into TYRANNY.
IV. Aristocracy
When tyranny became intolerable, almost the whole state wished for its end. It was not base or lowly men who managed to overthrow the tyranny, but the most upstanding. The people hailed those who abolished tyranny as liberators, and no longer trusting to be ruled by one alone, assented to the government of the few instead. These serious few solemnly accepted the responsibility of power and at first endeavored to govern wisely in accordance with custom, and in line with common notions of right and wrong. So for a brief period, the leading men of the state accordingly possessed some measure of ideals and principle, as tyranny was cast off by ARISTOCRACY.
V. Oligarchy
But again, powerful men and their successors came into a life devoid of difficulty and misfortune. Born into privilege, their children acquired wealth and power without effort. As soon as they were old enough, these few devoted their lives either to competing with one another in the pursuit of riches and in ostentatious displays of wealth, or to indulgences and trivialities of every kind. Driven by greed or lust and with little regard for equality or their fellow man, they beheld the world with envy and contempt. These few defied and injured the many for the sake of wealth and pleasure, and met with hatred and resentment, just as the tyrants that came before them. And just as the kingship that fell before them, aristocracy was perverted into OLIGARCHY by its own successors.
VI. Democracy
It was finally decided by many of the people that one or a few could not be trusted to rule rightly. With the crimes that had befallen previous generations still fresh in the minds of the people, they did not fail to grasp the opportunity to make themselves the rulers when it stood before them. DEMOCRACY is the name that was given to their dominion over the government, and at first, equality and freedom were held in the highest regard. For as long as reason and moderation prevailed, and as long as the injustices of preceding generations were remembered, the people were reasonably content and vigilant in their watch over the public affairs of the state. Here, too, the private affairs of the people were marked by stability, independence, and self-restraint. Thus for a short time—for as long as the people were content to be equal to one another and not greater than each other—prosperity and comfort were within the reach of all.
VII. Ochlocracy
"But when a new generation arises and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become so accustomed to freedom and equality that they no longer value them, and begin to aim at pre-eminence; and it is chiefly those of ample fortune who fall into this error. So when they begin to lust for power and cannot attain it through themselves or their own good qualities, they ruin their estates, tempting and corrupting the people in every possible way. And hence when by their foolish thirst for reputation they have created among the masses an appetite for gifts and the habit of receiving them, democracy in its turn is abolished and changes into a rule of force and violence. For the people, having grown accustomed to feed at the expense of others and to depend for their livelihood on the property of others... degenerate again into perfect savages and find once more a master and monarch."* Thus, at the end, when democracy degenerates into OCHLOCRACY, civility and the knowledge of right and wrong are forgotten, and men live together, herding like animals.
History
Rome
According to legend, the KINGSHIP of Rome was founded in 753 B.C. by Romulus. The seventh and final king was Tarquinius Superbus, whose arrogance and acts of intimidation and violence transformed the kingship into TYRANNY. An ARISTOCRACY, led by Lucius Junius Brutus and the Roman Senate, overthrew the tyranny in 509 B.C. and the Roman Republic was established. Tradition holds that from then on, the Senate and People of Rome were free, and would never abide to be ruled by monarchs. Notwithstanding this aristocratic sentiment, it quickly became evident that Rome was an OLIGARCHY ruled by the elite patrician upper class. The Conflict of the Orders, a long political struggle between the patricians and lower class plebes, dominated much of the Republic’s history. Emerging from the conflict were a number of laws that advanced the political standing of the plebes, most notably the Lex Licinia Sextia in 367 B.C. and the Lex Hortensia in 287 B.C. These and other plebian advances during the Conflict of the Orders indicate a gradual evolution toward DEMOCRACY. OCHLOCRACY was sparked when the supporters of Tiberius Gracchus forcibly removed Octavius from the Tribunes in 133 B.C. in order to advance Tiberius’ agenda. Tiberius’ murder—the first of many instances of bloodshed in Roman politics—was arranged shortly thereafter by the oligarchical Senate, motivated by their fear of populist demagoguery. After the Gracchi, Roman politics took the shape of violent partisan struggle between the Optimates and the Populares. The socio-military reforms of the Populare Marius in 107 B.C. had, by the end of the Social War and the Civil War, weakened loyalty to Rome and supplanted it with loyalty to individual politicians. The pervasiveness of ochlocracy at the end of the Republic is clear, with Roman society tearing itself apart through factional strife motivated by selfish interest, led by ambitious men seeking only glory for themselves. But Sulla, who perhaps could have made himself monarch in 82 B.C., restrained himself. The Populare Julius Caesar, however, did not, and in 44 B.C. declared himself dictator perpetuo. With this, Rome once again had a monarch. In the span of roughly seven centuries, anacyclosis had run its course in Rome, from Romulus to Caesar.
England
The withdrawal of the Romans in 407 A.D. returned England to a state of MONARCHY. Food was scarce, and life was dangerous and harsh. Various Anglo-Saxon dynasties then ruled England for centuries. Later, Vikings invaded in pursuit of riches and established the Danelaw. It was Alfred the Great who halted the Viking’s advance in 871. As the first King of the Anglo-Saxons—and a just and wise ruler—Alfred and his successors mark the transition from monarchy to KINGSHIP in England. In 1066, William the Conqueror invaded England from Normandy, claiming to have been designated heir to the throne. His arrival ended a period of dynastic uncertainty and inaugurated a period of relative TYRANNY ruled by largely absentee kings who did not even speak English, which basically continued until the reign of King John. The barons who curtailed the tyranny signal the gradual development of ARISTOCRACY, when John was forced to ratify the Magna Carta in 1215 and Henry III the Forest Charter in 1217, and when Parliament assembled under Simon de Montfort in 1265. Though this humbling of the king was aristocratic, such aristocracy was eclipsed by the undercurrent of OLIGARCHY that characterized manorial society, both before and after Runnymede. Accordingly, aristocracy became oligarchy. Ultimately, however, this period of oligarchy was interrupted because the nobles ruined themselves in the Wars of the Roses, allowing a temporary resurgence of the monarchy to occur under the Tudors in the 1500s. By the time of the Glorious Revolution and the acquiescence of William of Orange to the Bill of Rights of 1689, the authority of Parliament—and the oligarchy—was finally unquestionable. The agrarian oligarchy thereafter continued, evolving into a commercial oligarchy after the Industrial Revolution of the late 1700s. Regardless of form, the excesses of the English oligarchy became intolerable, inspiring the emergence of democratic movements over the last several generations. The road to DEMOCRACY in England is marked by the growth of the middle class, the victories of the labor and suffrage movements, and the strengthening of the House of Commons. In the aftermath of the Second World War, OCHLOCRACY may be emerging in England, as its people now promote many popular ideas to excess.
Japan
Most of the early history of Japan is defined by MONARCHY. Like medieval Europe, Japan experienced a manorial system characterized by nearly constant warfare. Food was scarce, and life was dangerous and harsh. Oda Nobunaga began the unification of Japan in the 1570s. Although brutal by contemporary measures, he started to bring order to the nation. He was a patron of the arts and an excellent administrator, dispensing offices on the basis of merit, promoting sound economic policy, easing debt, and embracing knowledge of the outside world. His accomplishments approximate the development of KINGSHIP in Japan. But his successors established a harsh caste system, lived vainly and lavishly, closed Japan to the outside world, and inaugurated more than two centuries of martial law in the TYRANNY of the Tokugawa Shogunate. The Satsuma-Chōshū alliance against the Tokugawa, led by Sakamoto Ryōma, Ōkubo Tishimichi, Saigō Takamori, and Kido Takayoshi, led to the resignation of the last Tokugawa Shogun in 1867 and the arrival of ARISTOCRACY, the high ideals of which were enshrined in the Charter Oath of 1868. The people welcomed the fall of the Tokugawa, and far-sighted Meiji reformers foresaw and prevented the exploitation of Japan by western powers, securing Japan’s independence and extraordinary prosperity. Their reforms also lessened the plight of the commoners and abolished the old caste system. But the early achievements of the Meiji administrators quickly became an OLIGARCHY controlled by the Satsuma-Chōshū families and zaibatsu conglomerates for the next several generations. The beginning of DEMOCRACY in Japan is found in the 1920s. The suffrage was extended to all males over 25 in 1925, and the legislation of Katō Takaaki promoted health insurance and trade unions. The worldwide economic depression of the 1930s, however, caused a loss of faith in democracy that was exploited by the military. In subsequent years, Japan vigorously pursued an imperialistic foreign policy. After Japan’s defeat by the Americans in 1945, democracy was imposed on a society in which it had already taken root, and democracy, peace, and prosperity flourished. More recently, however, there is evidence that Japan is experiencing a general loosening of traditional values, particularly among its youth, which foreshadows the inevitable transition from democracy into OCHLOCRACY.
France
MONARCHY begins in France when Rome ends. After Rome, life in France was characterized by regular warfare, subsistence agriculture, and local allegiances. Not until the end of the Wars of Religion in the late 1500s were most of the nobles subdued. KINGSHIP in France begins with Henry IV in 1589, who cared for his subjects and whose judgment was widely approved by the people. But his successors were first ruthless, then extravagant, and finally apathetic. French kings removed themselves to Versailles where they came to be regarded as symbols of arrogance and frivolity, and kingship degenerated into TYRANNY. 1789 was the year that the tyranny of the Ancien Régime was resisted. Sieyès and Lafayette, the Tennis Court Oath, the formation of the National Assembly, the abolishment of feudalism, the Declaration of the Rights of Man: all these coalesced to form an ARISTOCRACY attempting to channel the ideals of the Enlightenment to the benefit of a hungry and oppressed citizenry. But the citizens soon became too frantic and paranoid to tolerate slow change. Foreign interference in French political affairs, poor harvests, and financial chaos led to such unrest that political stability was lost and the natural course of anacyclosis interrupted. OLIGARCHY was thus bypassed. The establishment of the First Republic in late 1792 and the Constitution of 1793 were attempts to stabilize France, and both embodied ideals of DEMOCRACY and egalitarianism. Any such democracy in France at this time was very tenuous, however. Within a year, the Jacobins, deploying mobs of sans-cullotes, rose to dominance, and the ideals that inspired the revolution were taken to excess. The violence and bloodshed of the Reign of Terror showed that whatever democracy may have existed in France was quickly overshadowed by the mob savagery that characterizes OCHLOCRACY. Chaos wracked the nation. There were riots and reprisals. Famine set in. In 1799, Napoleon staged a coup d’etat and by the turn of the century became First Consul, and five years later, Emperor. Thus did ochlocracy return to MONARCHY, as appointed by anacyclosis. In the span of roughly thirteen centuries--from the defeat of the Romans in 486 to the ascension of Napoleon in 1799--anacyclosis ran its course in France.
United States of America
To the American colonists, the government of King George III and his Parliament was TYRANNY. Reviling what they regarded as the imposition of taxation without the right of representation, the American colonists agitated against the British. In 1776 a declaration of American independence from the British was made, and the tyranny was cast off by the early American ARISTOCRACY, which bore names like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. A new republic was established, and given a moderate constitution. But the young republic was beset from the start by conflicts that would only be overcome by civil war. The aristocratic founding generation yielded to the OLIGARCHY of the slaveholding plantation owners. After the Industrial Revolution and the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865, the political influence of the agrarian oligarchy was largely transferred to an industrial and commercial oligarchy. The corruption and graft of the Reconstruction Era and Gilded Age inspired the labor, suffrage, and civil rights movements that characterized the march toward DEMOCRACY. The liberalization of American society is expressed partially by its laws; the Civil War Amendments, the Nineteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and labor laws all testify to the advancement of the political standing of the people. The political advancement of the people was complemented by untold prosperity in the aftermath of the Second World War, and the creation of a substantial middle class. By the middle of the twentieth century, democracy had arrived in America. The widespread affluence of the post World-War II era, however, has brought with it the first semblance of OCHLOCRACY. Finding a consensus between what is right and what is wrong grows more elusive in the United States, as is the maintenance of order, even among its own children. Millions have ruined their estates and plunged themselves into debt through lavish living. Millions more have developed an appetite for gifts, and have fallen into the habit of receiving them, and virtually all seem to aim at preeminence. The decrepit oligarchy still rules the United States, and the people are increasingly rallied against them by their leaders. As is required by ochlocracy, political faction will continue to escalate, gradually and inevitably.
Brazil
The Portuguese arrived in Brazil in 1500. By the end of the 1600s, Brazil had become Portugal’s most important colony. Although consistently treated with arrogance and haughtiness by the Portuguese, Brazil was briefly elevated to the rank of kingdom during the Napoleonic Wars. This, however, was only because the Portuguese royal family took refuge in Brazil during Napoleon's conquest of Europe. King João VI quickly overstayed his welcome, and upon his return to Portugal in 1821, Brazil was demoted to principality and treated scornfully by the mother country. The Portuguese monarchy thus came to be regarded as a TYRANNY by the Brazilians. The ARISTOCRACY that cast off the yoke in 1822 was led by Dom Pedro I along with the founding father of Brazil--José Bonifácio de Andrada e Silva--and his two brothers. A man of the Enlightenment and a student of the American and French revolutions, José Bonifácio was a radical who cared for the welfare of the people of Brazil, and who advocated the abolition of slavery three generations before it was abolished in 1888. But the resilience of the institution of slavery, and barriers to land ownership, revealed where the true power in Brazil was ultimately found: in the hands of the landed OLIGARCHY, the latifundia coronelismo. The São Paolo and Minas Gerais coffee and milk barons were the real power in Brazil until they were eclipsed by later oligarchies controlled by the military and the commercial bourgeois, respectively. Through the Empire of Brazil, the Old Republic, the Estado Novo (during which time Getúlio Vargas was backed and then later deposed as dictator by the military), the Lead Years, to the present day, the ultimate power in Brazil belonged to an oligarchy. The franchise expanded and contracted throughout the twentieth century, but it was not until the late 1900s that the electorate constituted a significant proportion of the population. The expansion of the electorate and growth of the middle class mark the development of DEMOCRACY in Brazil, which is still in its early stages. Yet in spite of the arrival of democracy, its advancement has been slow, and Brazil is characterized by an extraordinarily high degree of economic inequality and corruption.
India
The TYRANNY of the British Raj was successfully resisted by an ARISTOCRACY led by the peaceful, nonviolent Satyagraha movement of Mahatma Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, and Sardar Patel, among others. After gaining independence from the British, and under the leadership of Nehru—the first prime minister—India's government took steps to limit caste discrimination, promote education, and facilitate economic growth. Despite the virtues of India’s founding generation, however, the corruption and graft of OLIGARCHY soon became evident. The India National Congress party was created to promote Indian independence, and was intended by Mahatma Gandhi and other party leaders to be dissolved once independence was achieved. But the Party maintained an iron grip on power for 30 unbroken years after independence. The Party continues to be preeminent in Indian politics, and the Nehru-Gandhi family has dominated the Party for most of its history. The curtailment of civil liberties at the hands of Indira Gandhi during the National Emergency, the forced vasectomies and sterilizations and displacement of the poor committed by her son Sanjay, and the accusations against her other son Rajiv in connection with the Bofors scandal, all show the corrupting influence of power on the successors of the aristocracy. The government continues to be widely regarded as corrupt by the people, and unequal distribution of wealth in India is still extreme. Despite this, recent developments have marked India’s advancement into DEMOCRACY. These include the dismantling of the License Raj and the liberalization of the economy in the 1990s, which has made the development of a middle class possible, which in turn makes the advancement of democracy possible. Cognizant that high rates of illiteracy prevent many Indians from escaping poverty, the government is heavily promoting universal elementary education. The initiatives of the most recent five-year plan demonstrate the government’s intent to promote social and political equality. The Indian electorate is engaged in the political process, the country is becoming urbanized and industrialized, the middle class is growing, and the percentage of the population living in poverty is decreasing. India is accordingly enjoying the early stages of democracy, and it appears that India will continue to become more democratic with the passage of time.
World
Africa
Africa is dominated by tyranny and oligarchy. Tyranny is seen in the many recent dictatorships on this continent that have demonstrated little or no regard for the welfare of their subjects. Oligarchy is seen in the fact that what little wealth does exist on this continent is hoarded by very few powerful individuals who exercise a disproportionate share of influence over the affairs of government. Monarchy also exists to a degree in Africa, as much of the population still lives in a tribal form of society. War is common, the political stability of some states is questionable, and many people are poor and hungry. Conditions are somewhat better for people living in the extreme north or south of Africa. Tyranny and oligarchy will persist throughout most of the continent over the next several generations, while democracy will slowly advance in a few scattered regions in the near future. Africa has undoubtedly advanced the least of all inhabited continents on the cycle of anacyclosis.
North America
The prevailing characteristics on this traditionally democratic continent are oligarchy and ochlocracy. Oligarchy has lately been the dominant trait, as most wealth and political influence by far is concentrated in the hands of a few whose behavior demonstrates great concern for their own interests, but very little for the public welfare. At the same time, ochlocracy is increasing while the older rural democracy is declining, as growing numbers of inhabitants have ruined their estates to appear wealthy for the sake of enhancing their reputations. Ochlocracy is also seen in the increasing difficulty among the inhabitants in finding a consensus between competing notions of right and wrong, foreshadowing a return to a primarily monarchical basis of political authority—force and instinct. As older generations of democrats dwindle, North America will likely become increasingly ochlocratic in the near term, but the extremely powerful oligarchy will not disappear anytime soon.
Europe
Europe is clearly ruled by oligarchy and ochlocracy, but it is very difficult to say with certainty which one prevails. Oligarchy, which appears to have already embarked upon its slow decline, but which remains very powerful, is manifested here by the concentration of vast amounts of wealth in the hands of relatively few powerful individuals who maintain for themselves a significant share of the region’s political influence. Ochlocracy can be seen—especially in the west—in the large numbers of inhabitants who have developed a powerful sense of entitlement, who have grown accustomed to living off of others, and who find it very difficult to accept or abide by old traditions. The inhabitants in the east seem to act somewhat more moderately, and it may actually be more accurate to regard this region as democratic. Regardless, owing to the prevalence of ochlocracy, it is safe to say that Europe has progressed the furthest of all continents on the cycle of anacyclosis.
Asia
Asia is dominated primarily by oligarchy, but democracy will soon be visited upon on the greatest proportion of humanity. Oligarchy is evidenced in Asia, as in other places, by the accumulation of inordinate wealth and power in the hands of a few, and by what little regard those few hold toward the principles of equality or liberty or the common welfare. Democracy, however, has already started to emerge on the Subcontinent and in some places in the Far East. Economic growth will promote the creation of a larger middle class on the mainland which will demand democracy. Asian states will eventually become more democratic as they become more prosperous, just as prosperity brought democracy to Europe and North America. But prosperity will also strengthen the influence of the oligarchy for many generations to come. Over the next several generations as Asia becomes wealthier, democracy will accordingly continue to increase, while oligarchy will remain dominant.
South America
Oligarchy is undoubtedly the dominant trait in South America. It is seen here, as it is elsewhere, in the concentration of most of the continent’s wealth and influence in relatively few hands. In some regions, however—such as the Southern Cone—it is apparent that democracy is emerging. There the people remain largely moderate with respect to their private affairs, yet are assuming an increasing role in the administration of public affairs. But even within the Southern Cone, there remains considerable economic inequality and corruption. In many remote northern regions of the continent, it may be said that monarchy still exists to a certain extent, as much of the inhabitants there live in tribes and devote a considerable amount of time to cultivating subsistence crops. Oligarchy will surely dominate South America for the next several generations, while it is probable that the influence of democracy will continue to increase, especially in the south.
Oceania
The prevailing traits in Oceania are oligarchy and democracy, with democracy being the dominant characteristic for the greatest number of inhabitants. Both characteristics are found mainly in the southeastern region, where most of the population of Oceania resides. Democracy is seen in the large numbers of people that participate in the administration of public affairs, but who also exhibit some degree of moderation in their private affairs. As is typically the case, oligarchy is manifested by the concentration of much of this region’s wealth and power in relatively few hands. It also seems that monarchy exists to a significant extent in the northern islands of Oceania, as much of the population here continues to live in tribes and devote much time to the acquisition of food. In general, what democracy exists in Oceania will probably be marked by a transition into ochlocracy as this continent becomes more affluent, while oligarchy will also strengthen.
Rules
I. Anacyclosis can only be expected to run its full course in a political unit resembling the "nation-state". The political centralization, economic stability, territorial integrity, and national identity which are necessary for the formation of a "nation-state" are also required for anacyclosis to run its course uninterrupted. This explains why anacyclosis has not been everywhere seen—at least one aspect has usually been lacking.
II. Anacyclosis is driven by human nature. Aristotle observed that, "WHEN INFERIOR, PEOPLE ENTER ON STRIFE IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BE EQUAL, AND WHEN EQUAL, IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY BE GREATER."** This observation captures what it is about human nature that drives anacyclosis, and indeed virtually all political change, once a "nation-state" (or a "state" for short) is finally constituted.
III. When those who are politically inferior (i.e. the ruled) enter on strife in order to be equal to the rulers, the state transitions from the worse phases of anacyclosis into the better ones. When first constituted, a state is generally first ruled by ONE. The desire of the FEW to be equal to the ONE transforms the state from tyranny into aristocracy. The desire of the MANY to be equal to the FEW carries the state from oligarchy to democracy.
IV. When those who are politically equal (i.e. the rulers) enter on strife in order to be greater than the ruled, the state transforms from the better phases of anacyclosis into the worse ones. The desire of ONE to be greater than ALL others changes kingship into tyranny. The desire of FEW to be greater than MOST plunges aristocracy into oligarchy. The desire of MOST to be greater than THEMSELVES perverts democracy into ochlocracy.
V. Anacyclosis will advance only as far as the state’s inhabitants share political power (i.e., are "equals" in respect of political power). If only one person in a state has power, anacyclosis will advance as far as tyranny; if a few share power, as far as oligarchy; and if many are equals in political power, then all the way through.
VI. Political traits accumulate as anacyclosis progresses, and older traits are not extinguished by the arrival of each new phase. For example, virtuous and excellent men will still be present after aristocracy degenerates into oligarchy, and the influence and greed of the oligarchy persists even when a state is called a democracy.
VII. Each phase of anacyclosis does not always run its course within one or a few generations. Rather, each phase—especially monarchy or oligarchy—might persist for centuries. And the opposite can also be true, as any particular phase of the cycle can run its course within a very short time.
VIII. The nature of each phase must be judged primarily by reference to preceding and subsequent phases within each state’s cycle, without reliance upon foreign or anachronistic standards. England’s experience with anacyclosis—or with tyranny, oligarchy, or democracy for that matter—is not the same as Japan’s or Brazil’s.
IX. The beginning and end of anacyclosis do not necessarily require the disintegration of a state and a return to primitive monarchy. If a state survives the conclusion of the cycle (as Rome did) then ochlocracy will yield to either kingship or tyranny, depending on the character of the one who brings the fighting to an end.
About
Anacyclosis is the cycle of political evolution, attributed to the Greek historian Polybius. This website is merely an introduction to the theory. I do not know whether anacyclosis is "true", but here is what I say in its defense:
In a stable and secure political system, such as an established "nation-state", something resembling anacyclosis seems to occur. Anacyclosis usually takes a while to run its course, somewhere on the order of three or four centuries. Accordingly, if the entire cycle of a typical state were reduced to one year, from January to December, anacyclosis would probably not be very helpful in forecasting the next day’s political events. But the great movements of states exhibit a certain regularity, just like the seasons of the year. And just as the seasons, where there can be warm days in winter and cold days in summer, there are anomalies in the course of political evolution. Yet, as the seasons, what is normal and natural always prevails in the end. Because the lives of states are so much longer than our own, each of us is unlikely to witness more than a season or two in the great cycles of anacyclosis. Only by reference to history is it possible to achieve an understanding of politics broader than our own meager experience. We need perspective, and perspective is what anacyclosis gives to us. Thus, just as the curvature of the Earth can only be seen from very high up, the curvature of history—the cycle of anacyclosis—can only be seen from very far back. From far back, a curvature—a cycle—is what I see. Until we achieve either political perfection or political moderation for all time, a cycle is what there will be.
ferguson@anacyclosis.org
http://anacyclosis.blogspot.com/
* VII. Ochlocracy: Polybius, Histories, Book VI. Translated by W.R. Paton ©1923 Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Remainder of text on "Anacyclosis" page adapted from the original Polybius.
** Aristotle. Politics. 1302a. Translated by H. Rackham. ©1932, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
©2008 Timothy R. Ferguson. All Rights Reserved.