Michael Walzer has an article titled Killing Tyrants . He argues that the killing of the tyrant should be the last legal act of the tyrant's legal system before it is replaced by a more moral one. This is an argument for the ritualised killing of a tyrant in order to symbolically end the tyrant's reign. This is morally repugnant.

Walzer's view of tyranny is cast in a comic book style.

Assassinating a tyrant poses no moral problems. Here is a ruler fully empowered and actively engaged, right now, in the oppression of his subjects: his prisons are crowded, his torturers are at work, his death squads roam the country, his tax collectors are extortionate.

He is at war with his subjects - actually, not

metaphorically - and killing him is a legitimate act of war. Tyrannicide is an honorable killing, and the killers are commonly honored.

Under republicanism, tyranny is not so simple a definition and can include all manner of arbitrary government. Tyranny does not need to be absolute to be destructive. It only needs to be insidious, and the two main insidious forms in modern democracy are arbitrary government and the state of emergency.

Walzer's view of tyrannicide, would enable the killing of politicians who are, or have practiced arbitrary government or a state of emergency without the the fear of being charged with homicide.

Walzer's comic book view of a tyrant, would fit the popular impression of a Hitler, a Stalin or a Hussein. But Hitler and Stalin both operated in state's of exception, which removed the political embodiment of an individual, to just its biological form. We commonly call these camps.

In a camp the force of law does reach, but through executive whim, is decided not to be applied. Consequently, if an individual in the camp dies, it is not homicide, as that individual is outside of legal retribution courtesy of the individual having no political life, and the force of law not covering them through executive whim - or tyranny.

The problem for Walzer's stand on tyrannicide is that Australia and America have both produced camps in the last decade. America at Guantanamo and Australia at Nauru, PNG and Christmas Island. Killing a tyrant for being a tyrant is morally repugnant; for the republican a morally just manner must be found to bring them to justice for their crimes against humanity and decency.

Walzer tries to determine of killing a tyrant is just if they have been captured. He asks himself:

But now imagine the same tyrant overthrown: he is a prisoner of war; he cannot simply be killed. Shouldn't he be brought to trial for his crimes and, if convicted, punished in a just and humane way? He is powerless now, locked up, in prison garb - why should we treat him differently than we believe all prisoners should be treated?

Walzer states that a tyrant must be treated differently as his crime is not just against individuals, but against the community, the commonwealth and the idea of political community. Consequently Walzer says he is not an 'ordinary criminal'.

As a result he argues that the tyrant should be treated as an exception, and instead of being tried under the rule of law, the tyrants state of exception should continued until the tyrant can be dealt with under a tyrannical legal system and killed as a full stop.

The tyrant's death becomes a ritualised end to the arbitrary legal system of the tyrant. Walzer writes:

A tyrannical state is always in the killing business, so perhaps a state that is out of the killing business cannot be tyrannical. If that is right, then the execution of a tyrant should be the last execution.

Killing through the rule of law in a republican and liberal democratic system is morally repugnant. Killing a tyrant, rather than subjecting them to the full force of law, remains morally repugnant.

The only method that Walzer's killing of a tyrant can be maintained in a republican system is by establishing, or perpetuating, a state of exception until the tyrant is killed. But by definition this means that it is only possible under arbitrary government, and cannot be republican, liberal, democratic or non-arbitrary.

It is impossible to kill a captured tyrant under the rule of law unless a state of emergency is established to achieve that end. An emergency is by definition arbitrary executive government and an insidious form of tyranny. It cannot be supported morally or politically by Australian republicanism.

More Reading on Michael walzer

• Michael Walzer
• Killing Tyrants
• Tyrannicide
• Rule of Law
• Ritualised Killing and the Replacement of Legal Systems