At least, that’s according to 18th-century historian Alexander Tytler.
He claimed democracies always follow a predictable pattern and are doomed to end in servitude…🧵
Tytler was a Scottish judge, writer, and Professor of Universal History as well as Greek and Roman Antiquities at the University of Edinburgh.
After studying dozens of civilizations, he noticed some intriguing patterns…
He believed that democracies naturally evolved from initial virtue to eventual corruption and decline.
In ancient Greece, for example, he argued that "the patriotic spirit and love of ingenious freedom...became gradually corrupted as the nation advanced in power and splendor."
A pure democracy was a “chimera” or a “utopian theory”—it never existed, and never could exist because a democracy relied on the virtue of its citizens to function properly.
Basically, without a perfect citizenry a democracy devolves into a worse form of government.
Republics also had this problem, and people that disillusioned themselves into envisioning a well-functioning republic were imagining “a republic not of men, but of angels."
All governments, according to Tytler, actually functioned as either monarchies or oligarchies, regardless of how their leaders were elected.
Once a leader is in place, the people must obey. Democracies and republics are no different.
Voters in democracies were always influenced by the “basest corruption and bribery,” but once leaders were in power, these leaders no longer acted in the interest of the people.
The people had to submit to their rule “as if they were under the rule of a monarch"
Tytler also noticed some striking similarities about how democracies end.
Democracies always collapse in the same way—poor monetary policy.
Tytler writes:
“the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship”
From democracy to dictatorship seems like a big leap, but Tytler laid out the steps that these civilizations always follow—this is the “Tytler Cycle,” and it lasts about 200 years.
Civilizations are broken into a series of stages, with each inevitably leading to the next stage.
The stages are as follows:
“From bondage to spiritual faith; spiritual faith to great courage; courage to liberty; liberty to abundance; abundance to selfishness; selfishness to complacency; complacency to apathy; apathy to dependence; dependence back into bondage”
Initially, cultures start out in bondage to superior ones—think America’s colonial past or Israel’s enslavement to Egypt.
But after a courageous revolution, liberty is achieved.
And through liberty great abundance is attained—a civilization grows wealthy and powerful.
Selfishness and complacency are lurking around the corner, though. This is where the decline starts.
Tytler claims that it is a nation's wealth that weakens its people:
"It is a law of nature to which no experience has ever furnished an exception, that the rising grandeur and opulence of a nation must be balanced by the decline of its heroic virtues"
The lack of virtue within a nation leads to its atomization. Apathy toward one’s fellow man—and the system as a whole—is commonplace. Then, tyrants are allowed to seize control.
Which ultimately brings a nation full-circle back to the bondage stage.
Tyter’s Cycle points toward the inevitability of democracies to devolve into tyrannies, an observation other thinkers like Aristotle pointed out too.
But was Tytler’s theory correct? Is democracy doomed to fail after only a couple hundred years?
Where are we now in the cycle?
Enjoy this content?
By subscribing to our newsletter, you'll get access to our reading list:
Ever wonder how the West gained geographical and cultural influence over its global peers?
Historian Niall Ferguson claims in his book “Civilization” that the West gained its power by embracing six killer applications — what are they?🧵
1. Competition
During the 15th century European powers competed globally to acquire resources, especially spices, fueling an arms race in maritime expansion—Europe’s “spice race”.
Meanwhile, China embraced an isolationist policy after Zheng He’s last voyage in the 1430’s.
The extreme political and religious divisions in Europe also differed from the cultural uniformity of the Chinese Empire. These divisions created competition between and within European states, increasing the desire to create colonies overseas.
On May 20th, 1910, nine kings gathered at Windsor for the funeral of King Edward VII.
The photograph they took is a stark reminder of how drastically European leadership has changed—the men pictured remain symbols of a bygone era of monarchy.
Who were they?🧵
King Haakon VII of Norway (top row, far left)
Ruled from November 1905 until his death in 1957. After the 1905 dissolution of the union between Sweden and Norway, he became the first independent Norwegian monarch since Olaf II in 1387.
Tsar Ferdinand of the Bulgarians (top row, second from left)
Ruled as Tsar during the tumultuous First World War. After a series of military setbacks in 1918, he abdicated the throne in a bid to save the monarchy. His eldest son succeeded him, becoming Tsar Boris III.
Thomas Carlyle was one of the most prolific writers of the 19th century. His main thesis?
Heroes are born, not made.
But today he's dismissed — why?
Because his idea threatens everything modern history tries to teach us.
Let’s talk about the Great Man Theory🧵
Thomas Carlyle was a 19th-century Scottish essayist, historian, and philosopher who gave a series of lectures on heroism in 1840, which were later published into a book called “Heroes and Hero-Worship.”
One of the book’s main theses was the Great Man Theory of history.
Carlyle argued that heroes shape history through both their personal attributes and “divine inspiration”—the world essentially turns on the ideas and decisions of elite men.
Rooted in self-confidence, it was known as "Manifest Destiny".
It inspired a people to conquer a continent — and push the boundaries of possibility...🧵
The term “manifest destiny” first appeared in an article by newspaper editor John O'Sullivan in 1845.
O'Sullivan, described as "always full of grand and world-embracing schemes," used the phrase in the midst of the ongoing Oregon boundary dispute with Britain.
He wrote it was America’s destiny to control North America:
“And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty…”