Back to Plato: Some thoughts on Civic Life in the 21st Century

 Plato grew up during the Peloponnesian Wars which lasted until he was 23 years old and in a city (Athens) at war.  The downfall of Athens occurred in 404 BC.  When Plato was young he met Socrates.  

Socrates was a philosopher who thought outside the box. His influential views and thoughts on society and governance were so astute that they have percolated down to the global, present Century.  He wrote little, if anything, thought a lot, and persistently discussed and asked ethical questions in order to gain knowledge.  One of his projects was to discover what made a 'good society'.  In order to find out he asked people what they meant by the terms justice, courage or self-control, for example.  Whilst he increased his own knowledge base, in this way, he found that those he questioned, did not really know, or could not really say what they meant.  What he also learned was that although he was aware of his own ignorance, the public seemed to be unaware of their own.  He thought that the cure for ignorance was knowledge, and that knowledge was gained via asking questions and engaging in dialogue - ie talking things through and  exchanging ideas.  For example he believed that  if people knew what justice was they would behave justly.  Socrates might have been the first Social Scientist!

This did not make him popular with the ruling elite  of the time, who did not like being questioned re their motives or about the way in which they were ruling.  Socrates was sentenced to death by his own hand - poison - which he was forced to drink in 399 BC.

The forced suicide of  his friend Socrates had a profound effect on Plato.  This led him to confront and reject politics, in favour of philosophy.  He later established an Academy to teach statesmanship in order to produce a new kind of politician, hopeful that he might produce philosopher rulers.  In his later work he emphasised the importance of law and governance.

During his lifetime observations, he managed to identify the several styles of governance which had emerged and had been 'tried'.  Timarchy had evolved in Sparta and was a type of servitude by the individual, to the State along military discipline lines; where simplicity was encouraged; where although individual wealth, was not allowed, it became a requisite for entry to the ruling, elite strata of society.

Plato was of the view that Democracy, a system based on the freedom of the individual, where everyone did as they pleased, could lead to eventual chaos. Diversity and variety could also lead to social disintegration since it fostered a dislike of any authority, moral or political. In a democracy the vote was confined to the adult male citizen only.  This meant that, at the time, the voting population was around 35 - 40,000.  It also disadvantaged around 40-50 % of the population - ie women.  A citizen was defined as someone being born in a particular Greek city state.  The Assembly was the mass meeting of all such citizens (probably once per month) and which dealt with the business of the state.  Those on the Assembly were chosen by lot from amongst the citizenry and could only serve for one year; no citizen could hold membership more than twice.  The assembly remained supreme.  The law courts were also in popular control, and nearly all cases were tried before panels of jurors chosen by drawn lot and election from the citizen group. 

However, critics at the time, felt that it was committing the conduct of state affairs to the whims of the multitude' (Thucydides Book 11: 65). it was also felt that  'the common man had no experience of such things as foreign policy or economics' ... thus 'he will judge  on impulse, sentiment and prejudice.  Although his 'heart might be sound, his head would be muddled'.  Leadership thus became an important factor in the equation. Another criticism of the democratic system was that people's judgment when it came to choosing their leader was not always good either.  Added to this was the issue that the leader, reliant upon his position and income and on the whim and favour of the people, would be tempted to retain that favour somehow - even if this meant telling citizens comfortable lies as opposed to burdening them with uncomfortable truths. Plato thus felt that 'popular leaders were as devoid of true knowledge as are the people they lead'. He also saw is as a divide between the rich and the poor which would lead to a 'duel' to decide who might win the larger portion of  any available wealth.

Oligarchy was viewed by Plato as power and prestige wedded to wealth.  Since the rich were fewer in number than the poor, political power was in the hands of a minority (Plato: 25).  He disliked the emphasis on profit/gain and the 'political influence of private wealth'.  Society's acquisitiveness.  He could see the possibility of a growing exploitation of the poor by the rich, an increasing degree of social maladjustment and disunity, leading to eventual bitterness and revolution; (ibid: 26).      

 Plato saw Tyranny as a byproduct of chaos which had resulted from too much freedom advocated by democracy.  Many tyrants, he ventured, had 'started off as popular leaders', and that 'extreme social disunity which may, by reaction, produce an extreme authoritarianism' (1988:29).

For him tyranny was a 'personal rule'.  The tyrant needs followers and 'bodyguards', a private army 'bound to each other by ties of guilt and common interest' (ibid).   Since he is the leader, 'his rule is essentially the exercise of his own personal preferences, the arbitrary rule of an individual' (ibid).  The tyrant admits no rivals  so that prominent personalities  amongst his followers must be banished and any one who stands up to him must be eliminated.  He needs constant wars, and external crises, to distract any attention and/or focus from his internal misrule (ibid).  

Plato sees such characteristics as 'self-destructive'. Plato goes on to compare the tyrant as a type, with the criminal as a type 'who are said to combine the characteristics of drunkard, sex-maniac and madman, and to state that the tyrant with his master passion is  barely sane and his life is one of criminal indulgence.'   Even if his private life is less dissolute, this would not mean he is less repressive and violent or less criminal (ibid:30).

This, Plato argues, is how societies began to organise themselves.  How they dealt with social and economic issues, formulating rules to govern action in a systematic way, became 'the system' which evolved and became codified in rules and regulations to be followed.  What is noted is the patriarchy of all the systems (apart from Sparta where women were given equal status when it came to military training), how each was deficient in some way and how each became easily corrupted by inept or self-interested leadership.

Twenty-first Century governance, as practiced globally, is usually an application of one or several of the above typologies.  Although the term Democracy is applied by many to their state, its meaning has changed from the original.  In the 21st Century the concept of freedom that Greek democracy advocated and adopted is currently being 'readjusted'.  Leadership in inept but purposeful hands, could steer a society towards Timarchy, Oligarchy or Tyranny.      

Plato then went on to construct his notion of a perfect state.  His Republic.

He had noted that each government enacted laws which would be in their own interests, as the strongest party. For example a tyrant would enact tyrannical laws which the population would have to obey or be punished.  It is recognised that Leaders and Administrations make mistakes. Plato believed that skilled craftspeople did not make mistakes.   If they did then they would not be skilled because they lacked the knowledge which underpinned both their skill and craft.  Thus a republic must have a leadership who have the knowledge  and the skill with which to govern it.

Those who rule also need to be just - ie know what the right thing to do is.  Justice requires knowledge and excellence.  If not it must be unjust.  It is important, therefore, for those who rule to know the difference between the two.   Injustice causes quarrels and encourages hatred and enmity between themselves and those who are just and who know what justice is.  Excellence helps an individual to perform their function well.   Injustice never pays better than justice. However, to work, it must appear that injustice must seem just even when it is not.  Thus 'a perfectly unjust person must be perfect in his wickedness and get himself a reputation for probity.  If he makes a mistake he must be able to retrieve it and if any wrong doing comes to light, be ready with a convincing defence, or when force is needed be prepared to use force'  using his own 'energy, or making use of his friends or his wealth.' (Ibid 107).

To avoid being found out, Plato asserts, the unjust will form clubs and secret societies and learn the art of persuasion, also force in order to avoid penalty of doing our neighbour down (bid:112).  Plato then goes on to prove that Justice is preferable to injustice, and that justice can be characteristic of an individual and of a community.

For a community to survive it needs food and shelter and individuals with different aptitudes for doing different jobs.  As a community becomes larger and more prosperous it needs 'Guardians' to protect it.  These Guardians come to be the 'ruling class' of the community.(ibid 122).  In order to fight enemies they need to be aggressive, but gentle towards their fellow citizens and dangerous only towards their enemies, otherwise they will destroy each other before others can destroy them (ibid :126). They will also need a philosophic disposition (ibid 128).   

For justice to work in a community, a community must be able to recognise truth and distinguish it from fiction, misrepresentation and lies.  It is also important not to be deceived about the truth via propaganda and circumlocution, which today we term 'spin'.  'Detesting anyone who tells them the truth' is also detrimental to community well being (ibid:194).  Thus the four important  virtues for a state to be just and good are: wisdom, courage, discipline and justice (ibid:196).  All of these come with self-discipline, and should be found and present in a community's leadership  as well as in the community itself. (ibid:218-219).  Leaders therefore need to be chosen with care.  

The final question posed by Plato is:  does it pay to act justly and behave honourably and be just irrespective of appearances, or to do wrong and be unjust provided that punishment if escaped and also  consequent improvement (ibid:223).    

 Unfortunately modern civic life appears to be tending to the latter.  In avoiding improvement it is also avoiding any change to its ways of working.  This might explain why modern administrations seem to be constantly, repeating the same, costly mistakes, and constantly shooting themselves in the foot.