Justice Triumphant

A conflict of interests arises between A and B, A attacks, they fight it out, at the end A carries the day. What conclusion(s) could be drawn out of this abstract?

It would be reasonable to conclude that A was stronger -in one way or another- than B and was therefore capable of defeating his opponent. Would it be fair to also infer that A's cause was the righteous one? That A was the Party of Good that prevailed over B, the Party of Evil? Not quite, for it is self-evident that being stronger, smarter, prettier, etc. would not in and of itself make you a moral person or transform your conduct into an ethical one. Sounds pretty straightforward but is it?

The story of little David smiting colossal Goliath epitomizes the victory of Right over Wrong. The virtuous may suffer temporary setbacks but at the end of the day he has to win; no ifs ands, or buts. Of course we may stretch this argument by stipulating that, even if one does not get his/her grievances redressed in this life, surely a day of reckoning would set everything straight in the afterlife. For this post, however, I would like to stick to what is tangible and postpone theological nuances and metaphysics indefinitely.

The Book of Samuel reveals another aspect of King David, not as noble but an uninteresting one nonetheless. Uriah the Hittite was a soldier in David's army whose wife Bathsheba, was coveted by the slayer of Goliath. David's innovative solution to resolve the dilemma was to engineer the murder of the husband so that he could dally with the wife with impunity. The sordid affair is detailed in the Holy Bible for those interested in saucy tales. Setting aside all ethical arguments and counter-arguments, my purpose of relating this story is merely to illustrate what I think is the truer nature of ANY successful ruler; something that was masterfully elaborated by Machiavelli in his famous political manual: “the Prince”. Irrespective of whether David, Goliath, Bathsheba, or Uriah were historical figures or -far more likely- fictional characters, the story retains it validity as to what makes a despot (or a politician) “good” or “bad', or for the purpose of simplification, a success versus a failure. David, the murderer and the adulterer is far more plausible a template for a ruler than David, the dashing youth gallantly risking his life in what seemed as a hopeless battle, only to win it against overwhelming odds.

Powerful men or women are neither honest nor nice. They may be bright, good looking, charming, charismatic... but “nice” they most certainly are not and honesty is totally out of the question. They usually are opportunistic, ruthless, perfidious, mendacious, untrustworthy... The latter qualities are not necessarily bad in a ruler as long as they work to the advantage of his subjects, at least the largest possible number of them. My dad used to tell me an axiom he attributed to Antun Saadeh (founder of the SSNP) that could be loosely translated as follows: “to an honest man, I'd give my daughter 's hand in marriage but entrusting him with my fate would be another issue”.

I think Classical Rome had a better grasp of what's “virtuous” and what's not. For the word “Virtue” originated from Latin “Virtutem” meaning “manliness” and begat the derivative “virile” that had a most positive connotation in the writings of Winston Churchill. The Romans did not fathom “Virtue” the way we do. For our modern understanding it's about compassion, love, charity, sympathy; honesty, hard work, mercy, altruism, chastity..... for them it was about audacity, stoicism, power, might, victory... A Roman might wage war, destroy, kill, enslave and still be virtuous; not despite of his cruelty but in consequence of it. All is allowed as long as you win and once you do, you can conveniently pass the task of glorifying your exploits to poets and historians who would highlight your achievements and ignore or minimize the trail of death and desolastion you left behind.

History, all history, everywhere at any time, is a collection of lies and partial truths. Historiography might as well sample the Assyrian Annals that provided a useful adjunct to archeological studies and where the record demonstrates Assyria's propagandists assiduously documenting the exploits of its kings exalting their prowess in warfare as well as their often gratuitous cruelty. Rome' s apologists followed practically the same path traced by Assyria's annalists: glory to the victor and death or ignominy to the vanquished (Herodotus' analysis was more sophisticated as he sought to seek cause -usually hubris- and effect -nemesis- to the conflicts, he also cleverly magnified the achievements of the victorious Greeks by wildly exaggerating the numbers of the defeated Persians).

Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, Suleiman the Magnificent, Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Napoleon the Great... their “greatness” was first and foremost attributed to conquering vast empires at a tremendous cost in human suffering and material destruction. Might is Right.

The notion the justice would eventually prevail is a fiction. A just cause is at least as likely to lose as an unjust one, that is unless we define “justice” and “virtue” in Roman terms. To add insult to injury victors -keenly conscious of their posthumous image- handsomely reward legions of pundits to meticulously highlight their good deeds and whitewash their crimes, however odious. That in mind it should be no wonder that in a generation or two people tend to forget the abominations that spearheaded the impeccable “greatness” of their heroes and delude themselves in a Hollywood style unadulterated “Good” that deservedly thwarted the ultimate “Evil”.