Aristotle argued that a tyranny, worse even than despotic rule, is not really a form of government but only has the appearance of a form of government. If there is no real state apparatus, then it is impossible for the state to have any monopoly, let alone one on violence. Consequently, tyrannicide is outside the rule of law but only because the rule of law has already been broken.
But admittedly, there is a very open question as to whether or not Rome held to the same idea regarding the office of a tyrant as did Aristotle.
Cicero's view is overly expansive and dangerous. I have some empathy for tyranny being the absence of state/constitution, but the self-interest inherent in the violence to restore the constitution also makes me quesy. It is an interesting exploration of the over-lapping areas between private violence, politics and private determination of justice.
'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
Another consideration is that in the ancient world, the definition of a constitution was far more expansive than it is today. We tend to think of the Constitution as a document that serves as the highest law of the land. Folks in antiquity tended to view the entire government as manifested as the constitution. Even if no laws were changed, by becoming `Caesar', Caesar changed the constitution, the form of the government. Seen in that light, it's easier to see how tyrannicide could be considered saving the constitution.
Comments