This idea began to be used in the framework of politics in Ancient Greece. At that time, this term did not have the negative connotations it does now, as the tyrant was the ruler who came to power for the purpose of satisfying the needs of the people and with the intention of ending a period of social unrest . Tyrannicide
The idea evolved and over time it was understood that the tyrant is one who exercises power in a single person and with totalitarian criteria opposed to the majority of society.
The list of despots, dictators and tyrants who were executed is not exactly small. In recent history, we can highlight the following cases: in 1961, President Rafael Leonidas Trujillo of the Dominican Republic; in 1989, the execution of Romanian President Nicolae Ceacescu and in 2006, the hanging of Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s top leader .
All of them were tyrants who exercised power with totalitarian criteria and their execution or murder is considered tyrannical. Tyrannicide
Difference between magnicide and tyrannicide
Both terms are somewhat similar, but in reality there is a notable difference between the two. Magnicide occurs when a leader is murdered, usually by a fanatic or a terrorist, but it is a crime that is unrelated to the tyrannical power of the ruler (for example, the Kennedy and Benazir Bhutto assassinations belong in this category).
On the other hand, tyrannicide is found within a historical context with a series of characteristics:
1) a political leader exercises power in a despotic way,
2) a large sector of the population revolts and
3) finally the agent is captured and after a summary judgment his execution takes place.
The legitimacy of tyrannicide has been a widely debated issue throughout history.
In the first century d. C the Roman philosopher Cicero defended tyrannicide as a form of civil resistance to compensate for the lack of citizen freedom (some historians consider this argument to justify the assassination of Julius Caesar promoted by a conspiracy of some Roman senators). Tyrannicide
In the 16th century, some Spanish Jesuit theologians justified popular resistance when a monarch exercises power in a despotic manner.
When a king imposes his will disproportionately and without respecting the laws, it would be legitimate to end his life. This theory was defended by the Jesuit Juan de Mariana in his book “About the King” and served as a theoretical justification for the execution of two French monarchs: Henry III and Henry IV.
In the 17th century , the English philosopher John Locke asserted that tyrants who impose themselves on their people through violence are subject to popular reaction and, consequently, may end up being victims of tyrannicide. Tyrannicide
