It is not an exaggeration that Plato is the starting point of the Western philosophy. There are numerous reasons for his excellence, such as the variety and depth of his knowledge as Whitehead mentioned, the most unique point is that he asserts “sophocrachy” or the rule of wisdom in advance, when power rules over state in his era. And his such view is well reflected on The Republic, with the cold criticism on democracy. This essay argues that Plato's criticism of democracy is not fully sound because of Plato's disregard for the totalitarian risk in aristocracy and the possibility of democracy for gradual improvement. Nevertheless, it concludes that it still applies today due to the remaining public's problem.
Before delving into Plato's criticisms of democracy, it is essential to elucidate his view of states and democracy. Plato categorises governments into five regimes: aristocracy, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny. They have a close correlation in that each degenerates into the inferior one, deviating further from the aristocracy due to limitations and problems within the regime itself. Accordingly, Plato (1994) argues that democracy arises from oligarchy, as the poor overthrow the wealthy minority (557a). After the success of revolutions, people have equal political rights and can enjoy infinite freedom. In other words, Plato's democracy can be summarised into two attributes: political equality and limitless liberty - and these are the main grounds for his criticisms of democracy.
Plato's first critical point lies in isonomia, or political equality. In aristocracy, everyone is assigned distinct roles that suit them best, corresponding to three classes: guardians, auxiliaries, and producers. Plato defines justice as the state where each class performs only its duties; hence, it is only justifiable that guardians, who have wisdom, can rule over the state (434c). In contrast, democracy "dispenses equality to equals and unequals alike (558c)." Regardless of whether one is merited, all citizens have equal rights to rule over themselves. This ends up in an imbalance between, in Aristotle's expressions, numerical and proportional equality, resulting in the unfairness of equality. It is inferred from this part that Plato forewarns the peril of mobocracy. Indiscriminate equality opens the door to the ignorant by allowing all to rule in politics, wherein the public's support from artful rhetoric and good reputation only matters (558b).
He also points out insatiable liberty as another defect of democracy. Had once enjoyed boundless freedom, everyone would not want to be subordinate to anyone/thing but, simultaneously, in synergy with equality, want to rule. Letting people do and say without regulations will finally lead to an anarchic state since nobody would abide by any laws, customs, social relations, and authorities anymore (563a-e). In this chaos, one calling itself a "protector" of the people arises with popularity; eventually, escorted by mobs, it becomes a tyrant (565e-566a).
Plato's such views stem from then Athens' political situation. After the death of Pericles and the defeat in the Peloponnesian War, Athenian democracy quickly regressed to mobocracy, where Arena replaced Agora. Its evils peaked as Socrates was sentenced to death by the youth in the ekklesia, which might consolidate Plato's aversion toward democracy. Indeed, he quit politics after Socrates' death. Observing the iniquities and vulnerability of the Athenian democracy, Plato thought that only competent people should rule - i.e., aristocracy ruled by a philosopher-king. In summary, his criticisms of democracy can be restructured as follows:
(P1) Every citizen has equal political rights (unfair equality).
(P2) Every citizen has unlimited liberty (anarchy).
(C1) Democracy falls into disorder, ending up in tyranny.
(P3) Aristocracy is just and well-ordered.
(C2) Democracy is inferior to aristocracy.
For depth and length, this paper will mainly focus on the soundness of these five points.
Firstly, regarding (P3), it is unsound because aristocracy can pose an identical problem to democracy. That is, Plato's ideal state under the philosopher-king also has a danger of transforming itself into tyranny - even more straightforward and vulnerable than democracy. This is because Plato's idealism demands utopian engineering, which requires a blueprint of the ideal society and determines practical action by considering the best means for realising the ultimate political aim (Popper, 2011, p. 148). When the ends are established, however, it is very less likely for many people to endorse it since it is challenging to judge whether the blueprint is proper. Thus, any difference of opinion between Utopian engineers must, therefore, lead, in the absence of rational methods, to the use of power instead of reason, i.e., to violence (Popper, 2011, p. 151). Hence, the aristocracy, by nature, is more prone to become a totalitarian regime. In other words, the philosopher-king in Plato's ideal state inevitably turns into a totalitarian dictator, forcing people to fit into his own perfect frame.
Plato's requirements for the philosopher-king show well the totalitarian nature of his aristocracy. By his definition of justice, three classes should be strictly distinguished to maintain the ideal state; otherwise, discord among classes must lead to the degeneration of states in sequence. In order to prevent this, therefore, Plato requires the philosopher-king to provide auxiliaries with rigid education (Books II&III), to make guardians co-own everything (Book III), to deceive the ruled for the benefit of the state in terms of eugenics (Book V). Here, the philosopher-king corresponds more to a tyrant who detests change than a truth seeker. As the best form of the state is already in perfection, he never accepts any shifts. He also considers individuals as mere means for the wholeness of the perfect state. Hence, if someone deviates from this class order, the philosopher-king will ruthlessly suppress it since it is the source of injustice. Compared to a tyrant aroused from democracy, some questions might arise: "Which one is better?" or "Are the mobs different from those educated by dictators?". Yet, Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mussolini's fascism, Stalin's Soviet Union, and numerous cases in our history have already answered: the attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell (Popper, 2011, p. 441).
Thus, (P3) cannot be true because, ironically, Plato's logic in criticism of democracy, (C1), nullifies it. Consequently, (C2) is also wrong since both aristocracy and democracy are under the same threat.
Popper (2011) also criticises Plato for posing the question, "Who should rule?" in political philosophy. Due to its attribute, the discourse on politics maintains concentrating on such things as the best, the wisest and the ruler, which inherently leads to totalitarianism. Instead, he replaces the question to focus on: "How can we organise political institutions so that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage? (p. 115)" - and democracy has developed in this Popper's concerning point. In other words, by designing mutual checking devices within the system, democracy can survive its perils originating from liberty.
For instance, today's most democratic states are predicated upon the rule of law. It denotes that not only do individuals - the ruled - abide by laws, but, more importantly, the rulers and institutions do also. Moreover, the separation of power strengthens it, completing the system of checks and balances. We have the same level of freedom as the Athenians, but ours is mutually more constrained within laws and systems. So, as Popper assumes, if a bad and incompetent ruler seizes power, it cannot execute its authority and liberty boundlessly. By fighting against the greatest and most urgent evils of society (Popper, 2021, p.148), contemporary democracy prevents chaos while simultaneously guaranteeing the right to freedom to all citizens - even broader than in Athens. Therefore, (P2) is rejected.
Nevertheless, Plato's stress on the competence of rulers is still appealing. Reconsidering the death of Socrates, for example, "who should rule" does matter in democracy; if rulers are unqualified, it must end up in mobocracy, making wrong decisions. Consequently, modern democracy accepts some of Plato's criticisms to resolve this. Athenians completely denied the difference in one's ruling capacity so that everyone could directly participate in politics by "lots," whereas democracy now runs "elections" to select whom to operate politics. It underlies that we admit differences among each ruling ability itself - even though it is inaccurate. Hence, we elect one of those whose job is a politician as our representative. Some may merely attribute today's representative politics to large populations and their costs; however, the point is that people try to vote for "more appropriate" candidates - and this is why they compete with one another. Similarly, other areas also accept epistemic authority. Monetary policies led by economic specialities or judges passed by exams are quintessential examples.
It is identical that everyone has equal political rights. However, equality in politics in the current democracy does not mean equal capabilities but equal opportunities. Hence, by adopting Plato's meritocratic elements, it does not result in the unfairness of equality by treating unequals differently. Further, it distances itself from mobocracy by the incompetent. Eventually, since (P2) is also not true; consequently, nor is (C1). Democracy has survived its weakness in equality and liberty, complemented by various devices.
Some may assert that Plato's ideal form of state cannot directly apply to reality but only as a guideline. Also, it is hasty to conclude from the simple comparison between ancient Athens and today, as they differ. However, Plato's idealism does not mean it is theoretical but more a practical manifesto (Popper, 2011), meaning he regards the philosopher-king as the ideal we can realise. Indeed, throughout his later life, he was involved in the politics of Syracuse, where he tried to transform a tyrant, Dionysius I, into the philosopher-king - albeit failed. Later, he retried it to Dionysius II, yet it failed again. As shown, his later life first confirmed that his philosopher-king is not just a theoretical opinion. Secondly, his trials also ironically contradict his argument (P4), as his attempts not only failed but also caused more chaos afterwards, leading to the death of Dion. Undergoing these experiences, he recognised the limitation of his ideal state and asserted the rule of law in Laws. Although Plato endorses neither democracy nor aristocracy, he refutes (P2), which he points out as the biggest problem in democracy. In short, even Plato's life confined to his era itself shows his arguments' weakness.
Despite the limit of Plato's argument, his criticisms have still influenced our contemporary politics. Even though we overcame the unfairness of equality, as mentioned earlier, that does not indicate that we are safe from the peril of mobocracy. All people still elect politicians by themselves, and they reflect their opinions and sentiments on politics by votes. Moreover, democratic societies open the door to everyone who wants to become a political player, too. In other words, the exact mechanism Plato criticised can still operate: if society falls into disarray, the public possessing equal political rights then votes for demagogues or populists who are would-be tyrants - and people eventually transform themselves into mobs. After the Great Depression in 1929, the German people elected Adolf Hitler, who legitimately destroyed the democratic system in democracy. Experiencing the economic turmoil, the Venezuelans made Hugo Chávez a president four times. As the housing price increased, the Koreans selected Yoon Suk-Yeol, who is weakening our system, in 2022.
These three characters are all different in time, region, political ideologies, and intensity of crises, but only one is common: they are "democratic" leaders chosen by the people. Likewise, equality in political rights connotes the possibility of a thoroughly wrong collective decision. As long as the people become or remain mobs, Plato's warning of mobocracy will always catch up with our fate.
Moreover, boundless liberty matters again alongside technological advances. Via social media, everyone can produce and consume tremendous amounts of information, often leading to fake news also. For instance, Donald Trump slandered Barack Obama as a "non-American" in the 2016 election, and Boris Johnson spread wrong information about Brexit for his election. Their supporters are also mobs escorting the "protector of the people", referring to the US Capitol riots in 2021. The COVID-19 pandemic also confirmed that the free people's desire for more insatiable freedom led to quasi-anarchy and contributed to the re-emergence of extremists.
In brief, though democracy complemented its weakness in the system itself, it cannot do so to the public who runs it. Thus, Plato's voice will hover around us forever unless we change ourselves.
To conclude, Plato disregards the totalitarian risk of aristocracy and the gradual improvability of democracy. Nevertheless, his criticisms of democracy still have implications today, emphasising the peril to mobocracy and the significance of our awakening.
Bibliography
Plato., & Waterfield, R. (1998). Republic. Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. (2011). The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge.
Writer: Sungbin Jo
High School : Chungshim International Acadamy
University : LSE PPE
(The London school of Economics and Political Science)
Commentaires