<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<br>jaSwa':<br><div>> if it is augmenting the power one has and uses, "tyrant" works because a just ruler would have</div><div>> less power in concept because one's ethical code prevents certain powers from being used in</div><div>> certain ways (even though one's position allows it by definition), while a tyrant would in theory</div><div>> have more power since he or she has no such limitation. The more I think about it, the more I</div><div>> think "tyrant" might fit pretty well for HI''a'.</div><div><br></div><div>This may be my favorite explanation yet. A <HI'> uses his absolute power to run the country. A <HI''a'> uses his absolute power to go a step further and control the people. Since dictators almost always need to exert some amount of control over their objectors, whether a leader gets called <HI'> or <HI''a'> may depend on the perspective of the individual applying the label. In this way it seems to very closely mirror the English terms "dictator" and "tyrant".</div><div><br></div><div>janSIy</div> </div></body>
</html>