When presidents and prime ministers make and enforce their own laws under the pretext of "emergency powers," then citizens should not be surprised when their leaders discover an endless supply of "emergencies" requiring urgent action.
The opposite of tyranny is not democracy, but rather liberty and individual rights. Is it not startling, then, that Western leaders extol democracy, yet pay such little homage to personal freedoms?
Yet freedom, liberty, and individual rights are rarely mentioned. In their stead, political leaders cherish the "virtues" of democracy and little else. It is as if a linguistic sleight of hand has robbed Western citizens of their most valuable heritage.
Is it not strange that Western leaders laud democracy over authoritarianism while simultaneously diminishing the power of their voters and strengthening the authority of foreign institutions [such as the EU, the UN, and the WHO]? Shouldn't "democratic" nations decide their own fates?
Why should bigger, broader forms of international government, however, be seen as more virtuous and less corrupt than their national forms?.... For that matter, had Hitler's Nazi Party succeeded in conquering all of Europe, would his "European Union" have deserved greater legitimacy than the national governments of Poland, Belgium, or France?
When national populations are denied self-determination and personal liberties are treated as privileges, not rights, then tyranny is never far from taking hold.