Plato on Democracy

We generally think of Athens as the birthplace of modern democracy.  It was in fact, far more directly democratic than the United States is today.  Individual citizens were given the power to vote on individual issues, not just for political leaders. And politically ambitious citizens, who were not aristocracy, sometimes made it to high-ranking positions.  To be clear, only free men who had completed their required military obligation were allowed to vote on legislation, and that subset of the population probably amounted to about twenty percent, and idea of women voting would come centuries later.  But Athenian democracy was radical for its time. Since we have been talking about Plato these last few weeks let us take a look at how he viewed this system of government. 

Socrates was a mentor of Plato and he was killed after challenging the status quo thinking in Athens at the time.  It is reasonable to assume that one of Plato’s biggest concerns with Athenian democracy was its tendency to execute people that it considered trouble makers.  Plato described Socrates’ trial as, “a doctor being persecuted by a pastry chef and judged by a jury of children.”  In Plato’s ‘Apology’ he mentions that Socrates’ close friend asks the oracle at Delphi who was wiser than Socrates in all of Athens. The oracle responds that none was wiser than this Greek philosopher.  In a classic example of the Dunning-Krueger effect, (where smart people think they are less smart, and less smart people believe themselves to be smarter than they really are^[1]) Socrates vows to prove the oracle wrong and heads out to find out the wisest man in all of Athens. He meets various statesmen, poets, and citizens in all walks of life, but comes to the realization that all those who proclaim to be intelligent really are not.  He concludes, reluctantly it seems, that the oracle was right.  He concludes that he is the wisest only because the rest of the citizens falsely believe in their own wisdom. As you may imagine, this conclusion doesn’t sit well with the leaders of Athens. He is put on trial for “refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state” and of “corrupting the youth.” He is found guilty and drinks hemlock as his sentence. ^[2] 

In addition to Socrates execution there were many others.  For instance, after a naval engagement, six commanders were executed for the dereliction of failing to pick up survivors, but the state later executed those who accused the commanders of this dereliction.  Presumably this was an act of repentance after reconsidering the case.  During the Peloponnesian war, ten treasurers were accused of embezzling funds from the Athenian treasury. All but one were executed before it was discovered that an accounting error accounted for the discrepancy.  Plato did not trust the outcomes of the legal system because it appeared to be driven by things other than the law.  Ultimately these are mechanical objections that were more about the way Athenian democracy operated rather than an objection to democracy itself.  But that said, neither did Plato trust democracy.  

In Plato’s Republic, he describes five forms of government that can be understood in order of the most desirable to least desirable as:

1.             Monarchy and Aristocracy (Rule by philosophy and reason.  A traditional “benevolent” kingdom)
2.             Timocracy (Rule by honor; as in a “benevolent” military, Sparta would be an example),
3.             Oligarchy (Rule by the wealthy and those who possess land; a capitalist state),
4.             Democracy and Anarchy (in Aristotle’s terms, “rule by the many;” a free citizen)
5.             Tyranny (Plato viewed this as an illegitimate form of government).

Remember from when I previously mentioned the “Republic”, that Plato described the various types of people who live in a country as ranging from those who are driven by their appetites who were most suitable as productive labor, to those driven by spirit who would make good defenders, and finally those who possessed reason, who should be rulers once they had the proper education and training. He used the metaphor of the chariot driver to illustrate this.  The driver has skill and wisdom, one of the horses in his two-horse team is strong and willing, the other is far less so but still can be managed.  When viewed as a political metaphor, it illustrates a country with a balance of reason, spirit and body. A benign, rational, knowledgeable driver is necessary to keep the team moving in the correct direction, while understanding that different types of people are part of each country.  If we were to let the unwilling and unruly horse drive the team there would be chaos.  If we were to let the spirited and strong horse run the team, that would be better than the unruly horse in that there would be movement, but the chariot would not have the same direction as it did with reason driving.  Plato felt that same metaphor could be used to describe a person’s make-up.  As individuals we are possessed by appetites, spirit, and reason.  As long as reason is in charge, the other two characteristics could be managed and even indulged a bit.  But if the baser characteristics are in charge, the natural result is chaos.  

But back to democracy.  Plato describes how each form of government will descend from the higher one.  Democracy, arises from the revolt of the those who have gone without in an oligarchy. While this state is ‘full of freedom and frankness’ and every citizen is able to live as he pleases, those same citizens are ruled by their unrestrained desires and will consume more than they produce.  Because this is what democracy demands, it will come to be ruled by those least capable of doing so.  

Plato preferred something different.  He believed that a small group of men, carefully educated and selected, should be the rulers.  And that this group of “guardians” should own no property, and be provided just the bare necessities by the state.  He believed that because of this life of deprivation, they would be the happiest of men.  A tyrant, on the other hand, would have an unsettled soul because he would be hated and surrounded by enemies who would constantly seek his demise.  Therefor the best people to govern were those least likely to want that role, and the worst would be those most likely to seek power.  

Given this, which of the forms of government is the least bad? Remember from our last discussion that Plato believed that there was good and the absence of good.  The government of one is the best and the worst because it could be a noble and benign king or a tyrant.  The government of few is less good and less bad because it is less good than a benign and capable king but it is not as bad as rule by the mob.  And finally, democracy, the government of many is the least good because it will inevitably be ruled by those incapable of doing so, and the least bad. In other words, democracy is the worst of all lawful governments, and the best of all lawless ones, ‘in every respect weak and unable to do any great good or any great evil.’

^[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/dunning-kruger-effect

[2] “The Suicide of Socrates, 399 BC,” EyeWitness to History, www.eyewitnesstohistory.com (2003)