ABSTRACT
The modern comparative method of regime classification can often become a confusing and problematic exercise in precising definitions to account for a multitude of exceptions. Since the classification of the worst regimes is often conducted with a view to their inevitable transformation into a better form, or the best, modern political scientists are reluctant to call the worst regimes what they are. Instead, they are often assigned labels to signify their distance from the best or adjectives to modify what elements of the best they are lacking. It is possible to illustrate how a return to the classical analysis of regimes, and tyranny in particular, provides not only a more practical way to think about regimes but also offers insights into practical ways to improve the worst regimes. Yet before any improvement can be made in the worst, political scientists should be able to call them for what they are and not what they wish them to become.
