Few political science books surpass The Republic by Greek philosopher Plato in erudition and analytical depth. Most students first read it in graduate school and may occasionally refer to it to remind themselves how societies move along from aristocracy to timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and, inevitably, to tyranny. It is a valuable tome to all those who cherish liberty and who, mistakenly, assume that freedom lasts.
A recent BBC News report rekindled Plato’s relevance, in light of developments in Washington and several western countries, with critical elections scheduled next in France, Germany and, perhaps, the United Kingdom. How relevant is Plato and what can be done to stop the onslaughts that threaten our liberties?
The relevance of the question is due to the fact that a good portion of western populations strenuously object to what is perceived as a loss of identity and, equally important, of feared socio-religious “invasions”, which presumably intend to change their Christian norms. Yet, there is much more at stake, as anticipated by the Greek.
Plato divided his political vision into distinct phases, starting with aristocracy, which he defined as a form of government that entrusted power to a philosopher king. Such a figure is assumed to be wise and, in the framework of surviving Arab monarchies, best suited to rule over the masses. Although aristocracy is privileged, all subjects are allowed, even encouraged, to own property and produce goods for themselves. Above all else, the aristocratic philosopher-ruler is an individual with character, imbued with an impeccable sense of justice, and who has faith in the Creator, whose truths he upholds.
Plato believed that, over time, aristocracy degenerates into a timocracy because the philosopher-monarch is not always well served by his advisers. When the production of wealth reaches a certain level in any society, the Greek foresaw that cultivating virtues for its own sake and upholding the highest selfless standards, are no longer satisfactory to those anxious to aggrandise their interests. It must be emphasised that the chief danger of a timocracy is to strip the philosopher-ruler of intrinsic abilities to reason and, instead, engage in unwise activities like war, because raw and simple-minded features replace calculated and high-spirited goals. Power replaces intellect that, for Plato, highlighted the mechanism through which a society drifts from aristocracy to oligarchy.
To be sure, Plato found some merit in timocracies, including a desire to rule according to clearly enunciated laws, though what he lamented was the loss of virtue. What troubled the philosopher is the ease with which a timocratic ruler displays his cravings for power, relying on military might and absolute authority, instead of focusing on the virtues of his soul.
Plato defines oligarchy as a system of government that distinguishes between the rich and the poor, empowering the former disproportionately. Under oligarchy, what truly matters is the accumulation of wealth for its own sake and, over time, money takes over virtue as those entrusted with governance alter laws to further encourage the lust for materialism. Plato foresaw how oligarchs amend whatever constitutions exist to restrict political power as much as possible or to give the advantages to the super-wealthy.
Of course, such moves create a plethora of consequences, including how power is distributed that, ironically, removes the wise and the virtuous from all governance responsibilities. Incompetent officials are substituted, according to Plato, who in turn encourage class warfare to better divide and rule. As income disparities widen, an oligarchy aims to pit the rich against the poor, to implement laws that encourage some to enrich themselves through exploitative contracts and to further strip the poor of whatever savings they may have assembled under shady pyramid schemes.
As the oligarchic state increases the lust for material goods, poverty increases, popular anger builds, and revolution threatens the state from within. The chief weakness of oligarchic rule is the inevitable loss of the military, given that those who control wealth fear for their very own safety and seldom trust those who allegedly protect them.
According to Plato, a democracy is thus established, as the French, British, Russian, American and Chinese revolutions, among others, amply illustrated. What distinguishes a democracy is freedom for all. Clearly, the masses are the winners as “citizens” opt to exercise free will. High tolerance levels are introduced, which may even lead to anarchy, though Plato laments that democracy fails to tame unnecessary desires, which will often lead to disorder. One is tempted to splurge in excesses, including vices, all in the name of liberty.
This, according to Plato — and which we ought to reflect upon with utmost care — is the real danger that confronts democracy: The ease with which it can fall into tyranny where chaos dominates. As freedoms are taken for granted, tyrants introduce fear and cajole increasingly domesticated citizens into full docility that, inevitably, will allow for the rise of those who “seize” power, even in those instances when such tyrants are “elected”.
Fortunately for us, past tyrants are eventually removed from power, though the threat in 2017 is for the rise of neo-tyrants, individuals who pretend to be just when they are not, and who allege to uphold the law when that is the last thing on their minds. Tragically, neo-tyrants lack both wisdom and honour, still the two essential ingredients to preserve liberty. When a society produces a leader who lacks both, citizens truly suffer, as all concerned lose their humanity and sense of justice.
Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is the author of the just published The Attempt to Uproot Sunni Arab Influence: A Geo-Strategic Analysis of the Western, Israeli and Iranian Quest for Domination (Sussex: 2017).
