When Dogmas Met Caesars

Few historical occurrences can have worse consequences than when a powerful autocrat seizes upon some ‘unquestionable’ doctrine that has attracted a fanatical following. 

The classic dogma-meets-Caesar scenario has to be when Emperor Constantine decided to proclaim Christianity as the religion for the Roman Empire in the early 4^th century.  In the centuries that follow, absolute imperial rule was infused with a sense of infallibility – anyone deemed deficient in one’s devotion to the emperor or  his ‘God’ (and the two were of course aligned) could be tortured or executed.  This invocation of ‘God’-sanctioned power would manifest itself down through the days of the Spanish Inquisition to contemporary theocratic regimes in a number of Islamic countries.

However, ‘God’ doesn’t always have to come into it so long as you have a doctrine that commands fervent belief in certain quarters.  Indeed, the very first documented case of the unfortunate coming together of a dictator and a dire dogma is to be found with Qin Shi Huang, who as China’s ‘First Emperor’ (reign: 221-210 BC) embraced the Legalist doctrines which declared that a ruler must set down punitive sanctions against everything that might undermine his power, and enforce them ruthlessly to secure total compliance.  The Legalists maintained that anyone putting forward rival ideas must not be given a hearing.  Accordingly, Qin Shi Huang ordered the burning of books that offended Legalist sensibility, and the burying alive of scholars who dared to disagree with Legalist teaching.

During the French Revolution, Robespierre and other like-minded extremists showed how even a word such as ‘reason’ can be capitalised and used as the name of a quasi-religious cult.  Picking out ideas from Rousseau that would imply a single lawgiver could discern the ‘General Will’ even if ordinary people do not subscribe to it, Robespierre declared that on behalf of the General Will he would take whatever action he deemed appropriate – such as instituting the execution of thousands of people, including those whose ‘crime’ was to plea for more moderate policies.

Into the 20^th century, the mass intimidation and killing of civilian by dictatorial leaders armed with oppressive dogmas got only worse.  Antisemitic white supremacist ideas found a home with the Nazis whose murderous intolerance destroyed millions of lives when opposition was theoretically and institutionally ruled out as unacceptable.  Racist delusion and militarist obsession were also fused together by Japanese usurpers who put an end to parliamentary democracy in their country, and in the name of their unquestionable national and spiritual destiny brought suffering and devastation that rivalled that caused by the Nazis.

Marxist doctrines about some indubitable Dialectic that would ensure the lower class overthrow the economically dominant class, were taken up by revolutionaries who would argue that they were merely acting in line with historical inevitability when they eliminated all opposition to their rule, destroyed anyone suspected (rightly or wrongly) of doubting communist ideas, and carrying out sweeping changes that led to the deaths of millions of people.  Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, were all alike in possessing neither reservation nor remorse in crushing countless victims who got in their way.

What about ‘free market’ doctrines such as those propagated by Milton Friedman?  They were presented as ‘scientifically’ correct beyond question. With total certainty they assert that with deregulation, privatisation and cuts to public social spending, prosperity would arrive (more specifically, it would arrive for the wealthy minority who will benefit from the system rigged in their favour, while the vast majority are likely to suffer lower standards of living and greater economic insecurity). In the 1970s, military coups were carried out by Jorge Rafael Videla in Argentina and Augusto Pinochet in Chile to get rid of democratically elected regimes, leaving them to implement Friedman’s doctrines with the help of widespread tortures and executions. A wealthy elite emerged to get richer, and the majority suffered from poverty and unemployment – not to mention fear of getting ‘disappeared’.

Autocrats are inherently a menace.  But if they should get their hands on some ‘unquestionable’ doctrines that make them think they could do no wrong, the danger they pose skyrocket to a whole new level.