Plato and Modern Democracy
In books VIII & IX of the Republic Plato referring to the Athenian democracy and the general form of democracy in its metaphysical sense – he portrays it as a political system based on the extreme of liberty and equality. The paper’s purpose is to see (1) why did Plato think democracy is not a good regime, (2) how Athenian democracy is different from modern one and (3) is there anything we can value today from Plato’s teachings about the role and function of the state?
Plato's theory and states degradation.
Set around 550 BCE Athenian democracy remained remarkably stable and well maintained. Athens is often regarded as the birthplace of democracy and the cradle of western civilization. Remarkable that Platonic perspective on democracy has a very low position in a hierarchy of government systems of the time. Plato thinks that all virtues that Ideal city is built upon have no value in democratic society due to wrong values of its citizens (Ideal City, as Plato admires, is very problematic, but it’s not a concern of this paper). It means that values are going trough the long way of “degradation”, as Zena Hitz puts it, where virtues changing from regime to regime and as result, replaced with its “shadows”. Citizens stop to respect old laws and seek satisfaction of necessary and unnecessary desires.
The main theme of Republic is Socrates’ prove that just life always is better than an unjust one. Plato suggests it in a variety of ways and levels, and the regime is the one – the rule of unreason or injustice is both ubiquitous and undesirable – and without the rule of reason, inevitable. This leads to “degradation of states” that is, according to Hitz, occurs when: (a) conflicts between weak rational or lawful structures are appetitive forces, personal or political, i.e. extended conflict between reason and appetite; (b) without the rule of reason, one has no ability to weigh appearances critically and to make decisions based on those critical evaluations.
Degradation takes its roots from the ideal city and slowly turns into tyranny. Plato explains that this happens gradually: first, preference to gymnastic as a form of education leads to the incapacity of reason (when the spirit is overtaking reason); incapacity of reason means the loss of power of persuasion over the appetite, and within degradation of reason appetite grows. “One’s political standard ultimately determines the practical choices one makes about political institutions and laws” (Zena Hitz “Degenerate regimes in Plato’s Republic” p. 105). Here we can assume that the government directly affected by citizens’ souls and how far appetite strikes its roots in. The claim suggests that decline of reason leads to poor political choices and as an outcome, equally unjust regime. Plato claims, unless the most reasonable ones will rule (philosopher kings), there will be “no rest from evils”(Rep. 473d).
Degradation regimes built upon appetitive ends of wealth and power are violent and unstable, since if one faction of the city has more of these and another has less. Then less reasoning involved into governing, than the state is more exposed to violence, conflict, instability and ultimate collapse. Plato suggests that degradation of reason and growth of appetite are equally proportional to the state degradation, each type of governing introduced by Plato is progressing failure of the rule of reason. Hitz suggests this decline is anthropological, because “it starts with a human being (and a city) in a natural condition and decomposes it piece by piece” (Degenerate regimes in Plato’s Republic” p. 109.
Thus, democracy arises from oligarchy and becomes the tyranny at the end, the worse regime possible. Platonic democracy described as free and diverse, but also it is the unstable regime that can become a tyranny very easily any moment. Why is the absence of structure and order seemed so dangerous, says Socrates? The tripartition of the soul suggests that disability to regulate the order is a major problem – democracy will become the state of lawless, which is the jumping of tyranny.
Hitz highlights the two main differences between five regime-types: the law defining a ruling class and the goal around which constitution is organized. The democracy is characterized by its inclusion of every free man, according to the principle of equality (Rep.557a). The defining characteristics of the ruling class are related to the regime to a regime’s goal. The Democratic goal, according to Plato is liberty, better described as “doing what one wants” (557b), therefore, a share in rule granted to everybody (free-born male, being exact). Liberty in this sense is contributing to tyranny easier than the law of any other regime. In this sense lawlessness of democracy can be explained by its dalliance toward written and unwritten laws created yet in the ideal city. Democracy decays in character of its ruling class, simply, what one happens to desire.
As reason declines, appetites play increasing role; then closer to the bottom of hierarchy regime gets, than more self-destructive its goal is. Reason acts similar for soul and city, it creates order (justice), but in degenerate states reason creates “certain shadows of virtue and goodness” as Hitz argues. Democracy neglects education, and therefore, abandoned standards of virtues. A law of equality (Rep.572b) “justifies” necessary and unnecessary appetites, claiming them moderate, and therefore, stabilizes permissiveness – the main step toward tyranny.
Then, Platonic democracy is the diversity rule, the city “full of freedom and freedom of speech”, “everyone in it has the license to do what he wants” (Rep. 557b) that absence requirements and restrictions. In over 2300 years the definition of democracy changed not even once. Today, democracy is government by the people, ruled by the majority; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections ("Democracy." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d.).
Finally, Plato’s Ship metaphor deserves certain attention in a discussion about democracy. The ship is the society; the captain represents the public as being the largest and ‘strongest’ but slightly handicapped, as a reference to limited capacity to fully grasp ‘knowledge’. The crew represents the democrats (democratic individuals or parties) all arguing and fighting for the control of society – each party thinking they know best. Plato says that none have ever learned the art of statecraft (navigation). They spend all time trying to convince the public of giving them the control. He then suggests that once the captain (public) is pacified the crew (politicians) help themselves to whatever they want (material wealth) and turn the voyage into some type of pleasure cruise (hedonism peculiar to capitalist democracy). Finally, Plato wants to tell us that these politicians have no idea of what skills are required in order to control and navigate the ship ‘of the state”. Plato’s metaphor is based on the conception of an end goal (ship’s final destination); untrained navigators will not be capable of getting the ship to its destination. According to Plato, the knowledge to rule is essential; somebody who has necessary skills and experience has the best ability to rule.
Democracy: then and now.
Comparing Athenian and modern democracies next major differences can be highlighted: In exclusive democracy, peculiar to ancient Athens, only males citizens could vote, not only women were excluded from the democratic process; immigrants whose families had settled in Athens several generations earlier were also excluded along with the huge resident slave population of the city. Modern United States democracy allows all citizens to vote, in spite of their gender, nationality or economic status. This way, modern democracy attempts to respond to a very large and diverse amount of opinions and needs (25,000 of Athenian male citizens vs. nearly 300 millions of potential U.S. voters).
Relationships between Athenian classes were directly affected by the power of appropriation and democratic citizenship. Electoral systems, direct and representative democracies make another important difference. In Plato’s time, direct democracy was performed directly in a public forum, participating in policy-making and voting on decisions in person, whereas today U.S. citizens elect representatives. In a direct Athenian democracy, a strong direct response occurs, due to a smaller group of voters. Today U.S. democracy is more indirect and instead of electing representatives on people’s behalf to make decisions and represent their wishes – in theory; modern democracy has created a class of ‘professional’ politicians, ruling on behalf of those that voted for them and thereby creating a separation between the government and the governed. However, needs to point out that direct participation is extremely limiting in that even in referendums the public has no power to set the agenda, they are merely asked to vote yes or no.
Perhaps Plato considers Athenian democracy such as irrational, unjust, and seriously ill. The city had become sophistical, valuing slick rhetoric over truth (everyone leaves according to their own interests).
Plato’s teachings applied to modern democracy; critique.
In light of previous sections, I will make an attempt to figure out how critical view of democracy in Republic relevant to the current regime in the United States and if it can bring social awareness and reflect on some issues, people often don’t (or don’t want to) recognize.
Application of Platonic criticism to today’s democracy is complicated by many factors: a majority of nations stepped back from traditional and conservative views, globalization and technological development have changed courses of humanity and modern governing. In spite this facts, I want to take a look at the political system, as the system by and for people and apply Platonic view on democracy.
As philosophical, not a political dogma, Republic explains why citizen’s education as important as ruler’s. The state will go trough degradation when people of the state the conduct their affairs on instinct, bias, and false prejudices when they don't possess the knowledge or the experience to make political judgments. If this statement is true, democracy will always produce poor leadership, as politicians appeal to the masses and gain popularity to remain in power. In Plato’s view, democracy is highly corruptible, also because everyone has an equal right to rule. This brings to politics individuals who are power seeking, motivated by personal gain rather than the public good. Based on equality and extreme liberty, democracy presupposes extreme freedom, to do as one pleases. If everybody is equal politically, it is a mercy; Plato believes that in the short term it will lead to an attractive diverse society, but in the long run will be the reason for corruption of political and moral values in society. Some people are clearly not able to rule a country, and we acknowledge it today, but do we acknowledge that politicians who already rule can be in a wrong place? The primary concern is that even if we accept that ruling is a skill – a skill that not everyone is capable of acquiring, it still does not mean that we should allow ourselves to be dictated to by experts.
A just regime, according to Plato, requires rulers that possess the right principles. In short, a man the may be principled but this does not automatically mean that he is a good man. Plato recognised this problem and introduces the following scheme for the person with a harmonious soul: one who knows the world of the forms, who will be principled (all his/her principles will be good), a principled person has a harmonious soul due to reason being dominant in the soul, a harmonious individual will always be just, and the just are always the best, and therefore, can legitimately rule for the welfare of the whole community. In the modern world, this qualities and abilities are even more important for the ruler, because our time becomes far more complex and challenging, as we just started to recognize society wrongs and stepped on a way for improvement. If we accept Plato’s philosophy and the world of forms, we can understand why according to Plato democracy isn’t a good regime.
Firstly, today’s democracy is a vicious circle: people, who have no real knowledge, have the equal right to vote. It means that the direction of society is forever going to be contained to the cave. Secondly, allowing any one of the prisoners arise as a potential representative is to allow the “the blind to lead the blind”. Here Republic is merely a call to reconsider the vote and maybe understand the political situation better, instead of following politicians agenda that fits individual the best. In a light of recent US presidential elections, people response to agenda that referred to them, political debates turn into a promotion to collect votes, and the one who promises ridiculous things, has grown popularity and expensive campaign possibly can win the election. The Ship State metaphor explains this the situation in the best way possible.
Another point is the moral relativism, inherent to democracy, explained by Plato in Republic, is at the golden age. The society will continuously appoint individuals or governments on short-term promises and goals, instead, politicians seem to manage the institutions, which allow for the appetites of the masses to be satisfied. The natural consequence with this outcome is that a government that continuously aims to appeal to the masses will always have contradictory messages – the public wants greater spending on public services and lower taxes, well clearly to achieve both is going to be difficult. Democracy today, in tide with capitalism, promotes individualism to its limit. A Certain level of alienation already exists in society, and it’s very clear that politics completely affected by it, especially when social democrats don’t get as many votes as republicans.
Thanking critical look at U.S. democracy, for example, consequences of imperfect democratic regime appear: the influence of money undermines, the one-man-one-vote ideal, most congressional elections are completely uncompetitive, the party system is not realistically open to the rise of new parties, corruption among high officials is not uncommon. The justice system is usually agreed to be unfair to Latinos and blacks, and America imprisons a far bigger share of its population than any other democracy does. Racism hampers economic mobility. The USA is exceptional, in its power and its, dynamism. All that is described in Republic and needs to be accepted before a citizen can make minor, qualified criticism of the political system and make any decision. Corrupt leadership never will bring justice into the system, but only aggravate the condition.
Partial disregard to virtues and desire for freedom of citizens and rulers “defines as the good and also destroys it [democracy]” (Rep. 562b), the last step of regression, explains Plato will lead to the worst regime possible, tyranny:
“Doesn’t the unstable desire for freedom and neglect of other things change this constitution and put it in need of dictatorship?”
Finally, raises a question: is democracy really able to satisfy needs and appetites of diverse masses? What we have today satisfies the majority, in the best scenario, but there always will be people who are left behind. There is the only way for a minority to exercise power in a democratic regime, to become a majority, but it will create a vicious circle again, where the tyranny of the majority against minorities occurs.
That is why Republic is useful philosophical teaching. Control of appetites on social, governmental and individual levels is to have a healthy society that will change the curse of current development. It makes sense, then and now, in spite of what the current regime is. Order and justice would improve any political system (except tyranny) if properly applied. That is why Plato’s teaching will remain valid, he can teach us to redefine our standards and motivates us to work towards obtaining enlightened understanding.
