Oriental despotism

Oriental despotism is a term used to describe a despotic form of government that opposes the western tradition. Historically, the term's meaning has varied and today it is hardly ever used at all, largely because of all the issues surrounding the concept of orientalism.

Origins in Ancient Greece

Of all the ancient Greeks, Aristotle was perhaps the most influential promoter of the concept oriental despotism for it was his student, Alexander the Great who conquered Persia, ruled by the despotic Darius III last king of the Achaemenid dynasty. Aristotle asserted that oriental despotism is based not on force, but on consent. Hence fear cannot be said to be its motive force, instead the power of the despot master feeds upon the servile nature of those enslaved. Among Greek society, a man is free, capable of holding office and ruling and being ruled; among the barbarians, all are slaves by nature. Another difference Aristotle espoused was based on climates. He observed that the peoples of cold countries, especially those of Europe, are full of spirit, but deficient in skill and intelligence; and that the peoples of Asia, although endowed with skill and intelligence, are deficient in spirit, and hence are subjected to slavery. Possessing both spirit and intelligence the Greeks are free to govern all other peoples (Politics 7.1327b[1]).

For the historian Herodotus, it is the nomos of the Orient to be ruled by autocrats and, even though Oriental, the character faults of despots are no more pronounced than the ordinary man's - but they are given much greater opportunity for indulgence. The story of Croesus of Lydia is a case in point. Leading up to Alexander's expansion into Asia, most Greeks were repelled by the Oriental notion of a sun-king, and the divine law that Oriental societies accepted. Herodotus' version of history advocated a society where men became free when they consented lawfully to the social contract of their respective city-state.

Edward Gibbon suggested that the increasing use of Oriental-style despotism by the Roman emperors was a major factor in the fall of the Roman Empire, particularly from the reign of Elagabalus:

As the attention of the new emperor was diverted by the most trifling amusements, he wasted many months in his luxurious progress from Syria to Italy, passed at Nicomedia his first winter after his victory, and deferred till the ensuing summer his triumphal entry into the capital. A faithful picture, however, which preceded his arrival, and was placed by his immediate order over the altar of Victory in the senate-house, conveyed to the Romans the just but unworthy resemblance of his person and manners. He was drawn in his sacerdotal robes of silk and gold, after the loose flowing fashion of the Medes and Phoenicians; his head was covered with a lofty tiara, his numerous collars and bracelets were adorned with gems of an inestimable value. His eyebrows were tinged with black, and his cheeks painted with an artificial red and white. The grave senators confessed with a sigh, that, after having long experienced the stern tyranny of their own countrymen, Rome was at length humbled beneath the effeminate luxury of Oriental despotism. (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Book One, Chapter Six)

Marxist ontology

Oriental Despotism is the quality ascribed by Karl Marx to large cities of the Middle East and Asia, which would not have been truly independent, mainly due to their geographical location.

The premise is that there existed some forms of state, which were ruled by tribute-collecting despots based on the system of production-property relations, described as "Asiatic mode of production". Oriental despotism is, thus, the political superstructure that was developed in succession. It was explained to have prevented states from progressing, or, as Marx said, "Asia fell asleep in history". Dynasties might have changed, but overall the structure of the state remained the same - until an outside force (i.e. Western powers) artificially enforces "progressive" reforms.

Within such socio-economic formations, the most obvious of which being the agrarian-based empires of Ancient Egypt and China, an absolute ruler farmed out the right to collect tribute from peasant villagers to a hierarchy of provincial petty officials, who also had responsibility for organizing the construction and maintenance of extensive irrigation works, upon which agricultural production was dependent. Extorting tribute from village communities became the universal mode of enrichment by the ruling class of military-priestly nobles. The divine kings also wasted resources on useless monument-building.

See also

• Orientalism
• Karl August Wittfogel
• Hydraulic empire
• Emperor of India
• Tsarist absolutism