Concerning violence, tyranny, poverty and oppression and all those Kingly virtues.

[Bergolilac]

Tolkien seems to quibble on the trials and tribulations of despots and benevolent despots in his stories, even though democratic Britain had just fought a world war against a despot. Aragorn is the model humble benevolent despot who fought for Gondor because he genuinely loves it and wants what is best for it's people and he seems to realise that he has the same weakness as his human ancestors to become a tyrany. Yet after he comes into power he does not realise that not all of Gondor's future kings will be benevolent despots alike himself and decide to enstate a libertarian democracy with a constitution which enforces the people's right to the freedom of speech. The magna carta and election/tribal representative structure of the Danes and Anglo-saxons were very important libertarian impulses in medieval europe, yet not a glimpse of such a governmental struture is apparent in his various countries. There only seem to be military dictatorships, some of which are unrealistically benevolent.

Why is this?

The middle ages and dark ages were rife with rape and oppressive despotism. Kings in the middle ages were like Josef Stalin or Saddam Hussein and the majority of the population lived like animals and were treated as such by anyone with military power. Tolkien of course could not avoid the reality of life in the middle ages, but he obviously did not want them to override his story, after all, how could hobbits exist in such a violent world?

Tolkien's solution seems to simply have men of honour as kings, who's natural tendancy to become corrupt is only activated by dark forces. Though this argument seems to come up against a wall when you look at the Easterlings and Dunlanders. There is no mention of how these humans became evil, was it their natural state and are they merely being used by dark forces, or were they once good, but turned to evil by the dark powers alike their good opponents? The Dunlanders seemed to have been turned from good to evil by Saruman as he roused them into attacking Rohan, but they seemed pretty ragged and wild before hand which begs the question were they evil to begin with? Or perhaps just normal humans. Then again a theme in Tolkien is that things which are ugly or scary may not be evil as they first seem. For instance the wood elves who eventually help the men of the lake and the wood elve's view of the dwarves, who were only trying to pass through Mirkwood.

What was going through Tolkien's head? Were his humans simply capable of good and evil, waiting to be assimilated be the forces of good or evil? Or does he believe that they have a natural tendancy to do evil and the only way to stop this is to simply persuade them to be good, rather than both persuade peope to do good and prevent it as in a representative government.

"WOMAN: Well, how did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,... [angels sing] ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up, will you. Shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?"
http://homepage.eircom.net/~odyssey/Quotes/Popular/Films/Monty_Python.html

[Nóm]

New member! :D... hullo Bergolilac!

Well here are my opinions and observations.

The reason certain people, like the Dunedain were usually more honorable and wise than those in the East and South is that originally all Men were turned to evil and it was those few who tried to reject this and go West who reached the High Elves and become more wise from their friendship with them. One thing they learned of the elves is the truth about divine matters. It seems that in JRRTs mythology this kind of wisdom goes hand in hand with a man being good. (I beleive the main reason this makes a man more likely to be good is that he takes a more positive view on what was originally called the Gift of death, but which came to be seen as the Doom of men.) Anyhow at the end of the First Age these elf-friends went to the island of Numenor, though they did visit Middle-earth. Eventually most of them fell into darkness (on account of wanting immortality) but not all of them. Meanwhile some men of western Middle-earth such as those who became the Rohirrim, had at least rejected evil long ago and headed wes, although unlike their kinsmen they did not reach the High Elves at that time and become close in friendship with them, become elf-friends.

The story of the South and East is quite different. Though much of it is mysterious we do know a few things. 1) They generally were not descended from those who repented and tried to go west originally. 2) They did not learn divine truths from the High Elves.3) Morgoth made alies of some Easterners during the First Age, and after his defeat Sauron did the same.

These men were quicker to believe any lies told to them by the Dark Lord since they (not just individually but as whole cultures) were ignorant of the truth that the High Elves had. These men were therefore ignorant about God, and without the good influence of Dunedain among them. Through the Third Age the same basic idea continues. Those men in distant lands remained as they had been, misguided and ignorant presumably.

An additional aspect is that goodness seems to be more hereditary in Middle-earth than it is in our world. I say seems because one could argue it was passed along through teachings and better circumstance.

In summary, I believe that it is JRRTs intention that knowledge of God is a kind of wisdom that gives Men more potential to be good, though even good men fall back into evil.

There is really a lot that can be said on this subject but I will wait for a reply. :)

[HLGStrider]

Hobbits exist because they are given their own protected, individual state.

In Tolkien's world we see two ideals: the ideal of a good king; the ideal of a sort of free state where people basically live and let live.

The second is Hobbiton. People in Hobbiton willingly obey the law without enforcement simply because "they are the kings laws and are good" even though there hasn't been a king for several generations at the time this is stated. I would argue that this is partially because Hobbits are made out to be naturally peaceful creatures, sort of the ideal every-day man.

Men, however, are portrayed as more ambitious and powerful, by nature or will I am not sure. Bree, for instance, seems to exist on much the same level as the Shire, but the men are of a different sort than the Rangers.

Now The Shire is ideal partially because it is protected. The Rangers keep the evil from the North.

I would say it is likely that the realm of Gondor offers a very similar but more open protection in the south. The king, in return for taxes, I am guessing, grants military protection from invaders and evil things.

Tolkien's world has the ability to be more clear cut than ours. In our world the evil things and the non-evil things are generally of the same species (human). In Tolkien the evil things are Orcs who are never good so they don't really need a justice system to identify them.

The only justice system we see in the Lord of the Rings itself actually resembles more a military tribunal (the judgement of Beregond). We are not told if the king also decides civil suits or not. There is probably some info in the Unfinished Tales, but as I have never found a copy of this at a reasonable price. . .

Anyways, Tolkien sets up a somewhat ideal world. Hereditary means something. Nobility exists in as a natural phenomena.

[Bergolilac]

Well, if the dunedain are an emulation of the medieval belief that kings were chosen by god anyone could see the eventual future of Gondor. The constant state of war would come to a close and Gondorians would migrate into the new fertile volcanic soils of Mordor, populations would stay in one place for generations, an agricultural revolution would take place and populations would increase. There would still be wars with the Easterlings and other upstarts, but eventually somone would invent gunpowder and power would lie only in the hands of large rich empires, reducing petty rebellions and creating large nation states with emphasis on military technology. The growing trading/artisan/professional middle classes would begin to gain political power in the growing towns and cities and threats to those in military power would come from a vital and integrated part of their society. These people would be able to shrug off the paranoia used to keep agricultural labourers in line and begin to question their dunedain rulers, supposedly touched by grace and ordained by Eru, and civil wars would start to take place. Eventually they would form some sort of representative government and overthrow their old rulers.

I think tolkien believed good and evil were choices and that political systems worked depending on how good and evil the people were. Maybe he believed that democracy would be evil if the inhabitants were evil and that despotism can be good if the leaders chose to be good. Maybe he was a royalist? Or maybe he was just emulating the thoughts and culture of the dark ages.

Or possibly even suggesting benevolent despotism is a good idea, that indoctrinating rulers from infancy to be benevolent is a good idea. This might have worked in a world where being evil could genuinely bring you down as it had done in the past to various people and countries I assume, however if this were so then it must have been a royalty only system as only the Rohan royalty responded to the curse on King Theoden. Perhaps Denethor was a normal despot as he wasn't royalty, but as Gondor was a large empire with many factions to keep happy the Stewards were forced to have libertarian/representative qualities, thus preventing a complete mind corrupting ownage of the empire by dark forces. Or of course the palantir and it's connection to Sauron was so powerful that it undid Denethor's indoctrinated mind completely, by trickery and uncertainty.

How did Denethor get corrupted? What about other kingdoms involved with elves, who clearly had a role in turning men to good? They must have indoctrinated some humans into dunedain and sent them out with their military technology to be a force for good in human civilisation or something. Maybe the elves who could have a benevolent despotism thought the same could be done for humans. What did the elves tell the dunedain?

[Daranavo]

I believe that even in our own world, if we were presented with a common threat, we too might eventually exhibit a similar loyalty to one another. When threat of extinction loomed over us, I believe it would no longer matter who's wedding ring was larger. Or what the price of gas was at.

It is this obvious and altogether life threatening race in Tolkiens world that binds everyone. To know that if you are told as a young person not to ride too far from the farm it is because that threat is always near. To disobey is to die. Like a soldier who falls asleep at his post. He is treated VERY harshly because he risks the life of everyone in his troop. In most cases to steal or break the laws was to be thrown out of the King's protection, which most probably ment death.

[HLGStrider]

I think you are making a mistake in putting real world political philosophies in Tolkien's world.

For instance, you bring up technilogical advancements. I see no sign that Tolkien planned to include this in his ideal world. Middle Earth goes through many many generations and has little or no technilogical advancement. I think Tolkien planned for Middle Earth to progress only slowly and not technologically. Progress is even villified in Tolkien.

In our world progress saves lives. In Middle Earth it cuts down pretty trees. Tolkien's world isn't ours.

Maybe he believed that democracy would be evil if the inhabitants were evil and that despotism can be good if the leaders chose to be good.
I think this is somewhat true, though there is some emphasis placed on form of government in Faramir's line that he would have Gondor be as a queen among queens rather than a lady among slaves. That, however, deals more with what we might call the sovereignty of nations than how Gondor treats its own subjects.

[Valandil]

I don't believe that Tolkien is necessarily advocating for government by absolute monarchy. But I think the formation of a democracy would have been very much out of place in the mythological / fairy tale backdrop of Middle Earth.

[Inderjit S]

Tolkien was an anarchist, I guess the shire 'state' would have best shown his picture of a 'ideal' state. Absolute monarchies in Middle-Earth come from the Elven Kings-Feanor, Fingolfin, Turgon, Thingol-all seem to be absolute monarchs, though all of them are 'better' than Men in this world all of them made mistakes which lead to their own death or that of their subjects.

Freedom from coercion, not matter how 'wise' the adviser is a salient point in Tolkien's works and in part reflects his politics, perhaps he would also described as a liberal.(In the classical sense.)