u/marleyannation62

If we think about it, it would be somewhat contradictory to what the series tries to show.

The series tried to show Adam as someone who, despite having a tragic past, was unjustified in his actions. Someone who carried hatred not only against those who hurt him, but against all of humanity in general.

And well, that's lost if Adam simply caused the brand himself.

As Blake said, Adam has Spite against humanity for what they did to him.

A while ago. Months.

I made a post talking about what role Winter would have in the future.

I mentioned that perhaps, as the new general of Atlas, with Sleet dead, Ironwood dead, and Camila's fate unknown, she would be the only political authority in Atlas.
And well, I said something like that wouldn't be a bad thing because "dictatorship is just another form of government, not inherently bad."

That caused some criticism towards me for implying that dictatorship isn't inherently bad.

And I can understand the confusion, but I feel I was misunderstood. I wasn't 100% serious; in part, I was half-joking. Besides, I was saying it in the context of Winter, a fictional character in a fictional situation.

I don't support dictatorships. But I do think Winter could be a good leader (in a government with checks and balances) for the people of Atlas and Mantle.

What does that have to do with the post? I'll address that in a moment. Normally, when we discuss whether or not Ironwood is a tyrannical dictator, multiple defenses for him arise.
He can't be a dictator because he allowed elections for 3/5 of the political power in the kingdom. And a dictator wouldn't allow that.
He can't be a tyrant because a tyrant orders the arrest of dissenters. And he allowed dissent until before Gravity.

However, I feel that this is a simplistic and even cartoonish view of how a dictatorship and a tyranny work.
After all, a dictatorship and a tyranny are not only determined by what the ruler DOES NOT DO, but also by what the ruler DOES.

How democratic is a government where one person holds 2/5 of the political power? In many real-life democratic governments, military personnel cannot hold political office. That is, they have to retire from military service to hold those positions.

The council doesn't seem to have a separation of powers, considering there's no parliament. That's clearly a problem at the writing level with the worldbuilding. But the point is that Ironwood is complicit in that by forming part of it.

James is the person with the most political power in the kingdom. With the power of the army, the academy, and political power in his person.

Now, that doesn't make him a dictator, but it definitely doesn't present him in the most democratic light.

What people forget is that there are index of democracy. Some countries are more democratic than others.

Regarding tyranny, that's an interesting point. Many of his measures have been perceived as authoritarian, but before addressing the issue of authoritarianism, I want to point something out:

Camilla: General, since the day you were appointed Headmaster, there have been Atlesians who are skeptical of one man holding two Council seats.
Ironwood: Yes, which is exactly why we have checks and balances.
Sleet: We're supposed to, but lately you've been running roughshod all over them, making unilateral decisions without us.
(RWBY: As above, so below)

Something I saw criticized at the time regarding the writing was: How can there be checks and balances if they can be broken?

It's easy, you simply break the law.

Let's suppose there is a separation of powers in a country, yet the president decides to impose laws on his own. It's not that the constitution doesn't limit the president's power, it's that the president breaks laws on his own.

The same seems to be happening here. We don't have many details about what kind of decisions James makes unilaterally. But we do know that he does.

That level of concentration of power in his person is dangerous.

Now, about authoritarianism. Closing borders, declaring an embargo, regulations that curtail freedoms, etc.

Is that authoritarian? Some might say they aren't authoritarian because they are necessary measures. But one thing doesn't negate the other. A measure doesn't automatically become NON-AUTHORITARIAN just because it's good.

That's not how it works.

Am I saying that James was unjustified in implementing those measures? Not at all. I'm simply saying that one should understand that there are certain nuances to his decisions.

Some point out that James is only a general and headmaster. But we've seen him participate in making decisions regarding diplomacy and the economy: border closures and embargoes, respectively.

What am I getting at?
Is Ironwood a dictator? No, but he's not very democratic either.
Is Ironwood a tyrant? No, but he's authoritarian.
Is Ironwood authoritarian? Yes, but he was justified (Pre-gravity).

Personally, I consider measures that curtailed freedoms, such as health regulations and quarantine, to be authoritarian, but despite that, justified and necessary.

For me, pre-gravity, although I disagree with many of its measures from a strategic point of view, Ironood's measures do not seem tyrannical to me.