Plato’s Republic vs. Democracy
Ogochukwu Okpala
Introduction
In this era when individuals are questioning the legitimacy
and wisdom of unregulated free markets, issues are raised about the most
efficient form of economic activity and the best role for government in an
economy. These issues have been discussed at many points in the past, and
different societies have come to different conclusions regarding political and
economic systems. In the United States, and many developed nations around the
world, the view has often been that democracy accompanied by capitalism, offers
the best, most efficient use of resources and governments guided by those
principles assure the best outcomes for their populations.
Other countries
have adopted very different governing principles. Communist doctrine, as
adopted by some nations, endorses the establishment of an egalitarian,
classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of
production and property
( Communism: The failure of an utopian system, 2008). The
civilization is governed by an individual, or individuals, whose function is to
ensure the efficiency of the society as a whole. As an ideal, the communist
doctrine defines a just city as one that eliminates the need for its citizens
to wish to exploit each other. History appears to indicate that in practice, however,
the communist vision cannot be fulfilled since “absolute power ( which is given
to the leader) corrupts absolutely” (Martin,
2009).
Human nature does not appear to manage total supremacy well.
When authorities are left unchallenged, their characters
appear to be altered, inverting their true selves with alter egos incapable of
putting the welfare of others before their own.
History
provides examples of autocrats who brought tragedy and
devastation to the people that they governed. Many were
appointed in an attempt to bring relief in times of turmoil, but ended up by
using their political prowess to dictate and oppress. Adolf Hitler, once a
social misfit, became one of history’s most infamous tyrants whose attainment
of power spiraled from the aftermath of the Treaty of Versailles (Hitler’s
foreign policy, 2007). Against the backdrop of these various choices made by
different nations throughout history, democracies have viewed the choice of
that political system as obviously superior. Current events, however, once
again raise questions about the optimal means of governance and the optimal
form of economic activity that accompanies it.
While
the track record of ruling individuals, or classes, is
somewhat spotty, the concept of a ruling elite finds a strong
proponent in the philosopher Plato. While recognizing the fundamental flaw in
humankind so clearly manifested in the “Hitlers” of the world, Plato believed
in the appointment of one supreme guardian (the philosopher king), an
individual, who with the proper education, was competent enough to decide on
legislative policies. In Plato’s work The
Republic, such a knowledgeable being determines the laws in the
city. Plato believed that the philosopher king was incorruptible since his only
desire was knowledge (his thirst for knowledge surmounting that of any vice).
In spite of history’s lessons, is it
plausible to believe that a society can be governed in such a manner? Or is
democracy, “[where] the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they
must” (Boyle, 2007) , the ideal form of governance when the true nature of
humankind is considered? Further, given the current and past crises arising out
of capitalism accompanied by democracy, could it be true that democracy is no
less flawed than those other forms of governance? Plato’s arguments, made so
long ago, resonate in the current world in much the same way as they did when
they first appeared. Times of crisis remind us of the need for ongoing review
of the assumptions we make regarding the best way to govern and the best way to
manage those scarce resources available to us. Plato provided one view of the
best form of government, and consequently, offers some insight into the issues
under review today.
The Just State
The
Republic was arguably Plato’s most influential work. It portrays
several dialogues between the philosopher Socrates and several observers in
which they discuss a political theory for a just state. The central belief is
that “justice and happiness stand and fall together. Not because good
consequences…follow from being just, but because justice itself is so great
that nothing gained by injustice could be greater” (Boyle, 2007).
Socrates
unified a just person and a just city, claiming that an
individual’s soul contains three parts (three desires). The
first part is the desire for wisdom and truth, the second for honor, and the
last for gains. The individual’s parts correspond to those of a city’s. The
portion of the soul that desires wisdom and truth is the principle role of the
guardians of a city. The portion that desires honor is the principle role of
the auxiliaries. The last portion that desires gains is the principle role of
the producing class.
Socrates
believes that “guardians” should run a city because
they are the only ones with the knowledge and the desire to
do so. When contrasting this doctrine to the democratic process in American
society, the question is raised as to whether Socrates’ republic would be more
practical. A democracy allows for virtually all to take part in the election of
a leader (with the possible exceptions of children, illegal immigrants and
convicts). Campaigns may span years during which candidates debate in a
national forum. Interviews are held to allow voters to gain knowledge of the
candidates’ policies.
In spite of
this, how many Americans evaluate all policies and
subsequently vote based on what is relevant to them? In
fact, how many Americans understand the relevance of so many events that would
allow them to make a truly informed decision? The media portray a narrowminded
view of the world, showing only portions of what could impact life in the
States. Many people knew nothing about Afghanistan and the injustices forced
upon its people by the Taliban, until the events of 9/11. If people are not
fully informed about events, domestic and foreign, then how can they understand
any candidate’s proposed policies?
Without
complete and relevant information, the American
democratic election process
becomes a popularity contest. People favor the charismatic contender whether he
is the best candidate or not. Is this how a country should be governed? To
allow the public to vote based on emotions rather than an informed decision
could be detrimental to the structure of a society. The logical conclusion is
that it may be best to allow those who are truly informed (the wise) to
determine what is best for the group.
Those
individuals who might disagree with such an idea on
the basis that it is
undemocratic should be advised that such practices already occur in democratic
states. By its nature, a democracy allows for elected leadership to make
decisions for the group. Events are concealed from the public at large for a
variety of reasons, homeland security being a popular rationale currently.
Given the power that this endows in a leadership, it stands to reason that such
a leadership should be made up of the best, most informed, minds available.
Plato’s View of Democracy
Plato showed
no fondness for democracy (where power is held by the people) because he
believed that not all members of society were capable of making wise decisions.
As voiced through Socrates, the Platonic principle is that only a few people in
a just city (those individuals known as the philosophers) possess the principle
portion of the soul that desires for truth and wisdom. Since this portion forms
the majority of the philosophers’ souls, these individuals will primarily
strive for truth and wisdom. Furthermore, since this portion of their souls is
also rational, this ruling cadre will be just, assuring that the city they rule
is also just.
Justice does
not form the basis of rule in a capitalistic society,
and by extension, will have a lesser role in a democratic
republic. In a capitalistic system, where free markets (uncontrolled by the
government) are endorsed, buyers and sellers come together in the exchange of
goods and services. Money has a large influence in this society. America’s
strength lies in its wealth. It plays a role in United States (U.S.) foreign
policy tools (where sanctions and embargos are used to coerce other nations),
and in U.S. domestic affairs (where tax policies and government contracts
spread wealth to specific groups of citizens).
Plato
did not believe in money because he understood its power
to corrupt. He believed that a society would be happier
without it. When questioned how the city would defend itself without money,
Socrates replied in The
Republic that neighboring cities would come to their aid when
promised the spoils of war. In contrast today, in the name of advancing
democracy, war may be viewed as a source of increasing national wealth;
manipulating oil sources in Iraq is justified since the country’s government
was overthrown to be remade in an image viewed as preferable.
Leaders not motivated
by justice will find ways to rationalize
immoral actions, or inactions, using the ends (increased
wealth or control) to justify the means. Instances of inaction include the
examples of the lack of attention paid to countries like Darfur and Rwanda
where genocide occurs while the Western world turns a blind eye. Democratic
nations see no political gain to be had from interference in foreign
governments where innocent people suffer but no wealth or control is to be
gained.
The Republic proposed the
view that morality outweighs
rationality.
If money and wealth are not at the forefront of society’s value system,
morality dictates that all societies will be on an equal footing. In
consequence, a society will have fewer wars since there would not be financial
gains to be desired and mutual respect across nations would forbid war being
used as a means of control of other nations.
Leadership Determination
A distinction between the democratic state and Plato’s
Republic lies in the appointment of its leaders. “Democratic elections
are....competitive, periodic, inclusive, definitive elections in which the
chief decisionmakers in a government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad
freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present alternatives”
(What is democracy?,
2008). In a democracy, after the candidates have campaigned and voiced their
policies, the people are called upon to vote.
In
the U.S. version of democracy, people do not vote directly for
a president. They are in fact voting for an elector who is a
part of the Electoral College. The elector then votes for the candidate to whom
he or she is pledged. The candidate with the largest number of electoral votes
wins the Presidency. This indirect method of choosing who fills the highest
office in the land may work well but relies on electors fulfilling their pledge
and may create distrust in voters. In the election of Bush versus Gore, where
each candidate was declared the winner at different intervals, confidence in
the system was severely strained. Greater transparency and clarity in the
system might create greater trust in the voting public and greater confidence
in the outcome. Further, the question raised earlier regarding the motives of
democratic leaders that value gain more than morality, is likely to lead to
distrust in the population. Leaders motivated by wealth are susceptible to
temptation and may not be trusted to do the right thing.
A system like
that electoral system used in U.S. presidential
elections is
not consistent with Plato’s vision on two levels. First, the average individual
may not have the wisdom to be involved in the appointment of a leader and
second, potential leaders’ abilities should be carefully and objectively
scrutinized before nomination. Those individuals that Plato described as
“guardians” are the only ones with the knowledge, wisdom and virtue to run a
just city. They are the ones with the education and the thirst for knowledge to
make decisions based on morals rather than emotions.
Moreover, of
all the guardians, one particular philosopher is
needed to govern the city: the philosopher-king. In the
Platonic system, guardians were subjected to several tests in order to
determine which of that select group could be that king. The most important
test was their grasp of the idea of the “Form of the Good” (described by
Socrates as “beyond being”- the origin of life). Through their understanding of
this idea, the selected guardian would reach the highest level of knowledge and
be capable of becoming the philosopher-king.
This
ruler was described as the supreme ruler who is at the top
of a hierarchy, followed by the auxiliaries, and finally the
producing class. For Plato, this described the perfect society—a leadership
capable of, and a system designed to optimize the happiness of its citizens.
The strength
of Plato’s political vision is not dissimilar from
that of a democratic, capitalistic system in that it
recognizes the strength of reward to motivate behavior. Where it differs is
that that the guardians were not to be rewarded with private wealth, given
their natures (carefully selected individuals) their reward was what they most
desired, that is truth and wisdom. Such a city was designed to be free of
corruption. The auxiliaries, whose primary desire was for honor, act as helpers
to the guardians and police the producing class who are those who desire gain.
All parts of
the city are rewarded with what they most desire
and each sector’s desire guarantees the overall happiness of
all. These rewards are not monetary, as there is no money in the city, thereby
removing a major source of corruption. A potential strength of a
Republic as envisioned by Plato
is that it is governed by a small group. With few in leadership roles, it is
easy to congregate, set an agenda and come to a united agreement. This
government of small numbers allows for order and unity.
Weaknesses of the Platonic Ideal and of Democracy
The weakness of Plato’s vision is that it requires
exceptionally high standards for the moral nature of human beings. In this
view, Plato puts a great deal of emphasis on the soul as rational and assumes
that people, who choose occupations based on their desires, will be just.
What
about those who use their passions to deceive and
manipulate? For instance, “Machiavellians…check their
passions so that they can practice even greater injustice” (Boyle, 2007).
According to Plato’s doctrine, given that they are following the desires of
their rational soul, they must be behaving in a just manner. Another weakness
of this doctrine is that it puts too much power in the hands of a selected few.
It is dangerous to allow so few to govern so many. Without the checks and
balances seen in a democratic society, an environment of tyranny is fostered.
In contrast, a
weakness of democracy is that the masses are
given the ability to govern the country. As a group, they
are susceptible to a “group think” mentality; voting based on the collective
mentality rather than individual ideals. Economic gain is central in a
capitalist society and will influence people’s decision making. The group may
vote based on emotions rather than thought. Also, a large number of people may
be unable to focus on one agenda since different people have different ideals,
agendas and motivations. That said, it may be safer to leave power in the hands
of the many rather than the hands of the few and collectively people may object
to that which seems tyrannical.
Plato’s
doctrine seems to center around “theocracy…militarism,
nationalism, hierarchy,
liberalism, totalitarianism, and the complete disdain of economic structures of
society” (Boyle, 2007) . A republic such as this has never existed, making it
an ideal. The dilemma with idealism is that it is counter-intuitive to reality.
Ideals may not function in reality. They serve more as a moral compass than an
actual function basis of governance. So what is the solution? The best form of
governance is that which combines idealism and realism.
What Is the Ideal Form of Governance?
Is the best form of governance the original form of
democracy, as mapped by the founding fathers, grounded by economic realities
regarding the greed of some individuals, rather than the democracy of today
where unfettered capitalism creates periodic crisis? The current interpretation
of democracy appears to work better for some members of society than others and
often democratic ideals are sacrificed (again for some) in order to accommodate
the so-called free markets which appear to be freer for some then they are for
others.
The founding
fathers believed that in an ideal society those who own property, have an
income and meet age requirements, should govern the country and fight its wars.
The reason is that they are the individuals who have the most to lose. In
today’s society, the vast majority of these people would be the middle class.
They pay the majority of the nation’s taxes and own a large proportion of its
land. Because of this, the middle class would fight harder in wars and choose a
leader whose policies are best for the collective. Following this argument, the
poor should not vote because they may not truly be informed about politics and
have less to lose should poor decisions about leadership be made. Their primary
concern is likely to be to vote for leaders who would distribute more aid to
them.
Again reality
intrudes on such an argument. The middle class
shows no sign of an inclination
to sign up for military life to defend their way of life. Rather they are
content to allow the poor to do so. And the middle class is no less likely to
vote to promote their own welfare than the poor, regardless of what might be in
the best interests of the nation overall. Relegating the poor to the sidelines
of power raises the specter of racism as well, an ongoing American problem. Poverty
is frequently identified with black and Hispanic citizens and a larger
proportion of those citizens are likely to be poor. The ideal of democracy, as
originally envisioned, would serve to amplify the problems of racism, alienate
a large group of minority families from the political process and further drive
a wedge between the races. The reality of economics again intrudes on the
historic democratic ideal.
Conclusion
In modern America, it is best that all people participate in
their society’s governance. In spite of Plato’s arguments and any inconvenience
and inefficiency, placing the reins of democracy in the hands of the masses is
safer than relegating power to only a few. Plato was correct in requiring that
leaders be informed, and equally correct in believing that the uniformed masses
are less likely to make good decisions, but the way to address this is not to
exclude people. Rather, as part of the political process, people should be
educated about all of the facets of the process, as well as about the
candidates, their policies and political ideologies.
In addition to
education about the candidates and the process,
the population requires a more general education in order to
allow it to follow its desires, in terms of career and the contribution that
each individual might make to society. As in The Republic, allowing people to perform jobs
which best suit their desires would give each individual a stake in the welfare
of the nation overall, allowing for a more efficient use of labor resources and
a motivation for all members of society to work for the collective good of the
whole.
Given the
economic realities of capitalism, where some have
resources to manipulate the government in their own best
interests, modern democracy requires some reining in of free markets. The
reality of greed and the existence of those who would put their own desires
before the welfare of the nation overall, necessitate a government that
regulates those who control more resources. In other words, economic realities
cannot be ignored or wished away as in a Platonic ideal. But just as the
communist ideal seems somewhat naïve in a modern era, so is the concept of
unfettered capitalism as the only efficient economic system.
The greatest
contribution of Plato to our modern understanding of appropriate governance may
be the emphasis the philosopher placed on the power of knowledge and wisdom.
Some investment in those attributes might allow for a better informed voter and
a more reasonable form of government where democratic ideal is blended with an
understanding of economic necessity and the realities of human nature. Perhaps
what has become most apparent from the current crisis is that some sense of
collective good, as well as a sense of collective responsibility, must be incorporated
into the notion of democracy.
References
Boyle, B.
(2007). Platonic thoughts. Wilson
Quarterly. 31, 107-108.
Communism: The failure of an
utopian system. (2008). ThinkQuest.
Retrieved
October 25, 2008 from Oracle Education Foundation: http://library.thinkquest.org/07aug/00858/en/index.html.
Hitler’s
foreign policy. (2007). BBC Home. Retrieved
November 17, 2008, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A828317.
Martin, G.
(2009). Meanings and origins of phrases and sayings. The Phrase Finder. Retrieved November 5, 2008, from
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/288200.html.
Okpala,
O, A (2009, January, 25) [Interview with Chukwuemeka Okpala] (Unknown), (2008).
What is democracy? Retrieved
September 24, 2008, from International Information Program Web site:
www.usinfo.state.gov
