February 28th 2011
Freedom, Democracy and the Role of Government: A Platonic View
٭٭٭
President Abraham Lincoln must have established one of the most beautiful descriptions of a democracy in his Gettysburg Address: “… and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth” (Gettysburg.com). Since the end of the Civil War, Lincoln’s vision has been evolving firmly as the most powerful nation in the world was born out of this magnificent idea. Under the United States’ influence, democracy, which is widely seen as the best protector of human’s freedom and liberty, spreads like wild fire across the globe and becomes the most popular and favorable form of government. However, Plato and his work Plato’s Republic show us that we have all been deceived and led in the wrong direction of evolution, if any. While initially describing democracy as an “entirely noble form of government” (Plato 313), Plato quickly condemns democracy for its excess of liberty and freedom, which leads the republic and its own citizens to an ultimate path of destruction. The truth is that Plato views democracy as one of the worst forms of government and that censorship, or strict governance, is indeed vital to a republic and its citizens. However, by no means the Platonic view against democracy is an absolute ignorance of the values of liberty and freedom. In fact, Plato offers an alternative concept of freedom, “a self-restrained democracy.” In order to establish this Platonic view on democracy, we should first review the principles of the human soul, the concept of a “self-restrained democracy,” then identify the harms that an unrestricted democracy can inflict upon individuals and the society, and finally examine the necessity of maintaining a degree of governing and censorship in a society.
Throughout the work, Plato shows us there is a direct linkage between a republic and its individuals: “We now agree that the same three basic forms existing in the republic also exist in the individual” (161). Thus, Plato, or any rational beings, can point out that what is best for an individual will also be best for the republic, and vice versa. Let us then keep this idea in mind and examine one of Plato’s main ideas: the “Tripartite Soul.” In Book Four, Plato argues that there exists three different forms in a human’s soul: the appetitive soul, the spirited soul and the rational soul, which represents human’s wisdom and reasons and which governs the lower two parts and is the ultimate point a human being must always strive for. Here the idea of a “self-restrained soul” is established by Plato:
Just people are their own masters. When they have harmonized the three principles within themselves, which may be compared with the high, low, and middle notes of the musical scales ... then they are at peace with themselves. When they have bound all these together and become a single, moderate, and perfectly integrated unity, then they will be ready to act ... In all actions of that sort they will call just and good only the ones that preserve and support this internal order ... Any action that destroys this order will be called unjust ... (165, emphasis added)
Further, let us then keep in mind this powerful idea of internal unity and return to Book One to study the consequence of an “unrestrained soul.” In Book One, Thrasymachus argues that justice belongs to the strongest, and ironically, 2400 years later, his argument still dominates today’s world. It is simply because we human beings tend to let our appetitive soul dominate our human nature, and we constantly run in this infinite rat race to satisfy our repetitive needs, as Thrasymachus claims: “ ... so the only reasonable conclusion is that everywhere there is but one principle of justice: the interest of the stronger” (18). Plato points out to us that Thrasymachus’s argument serves only one’s independent self-interest and is the best description of selfishness in human nature: “And isn’t injustice equally suicidal when it exists in an individual? In the first place it makes that person incapable of action, lacking internal unity. In the second place such an individual becomes its own enemy and an enemy of the just” (38, emphasis added). In fact, the root of human nature is interdependency and clearly history has shown that human existence and evolution depend on collaboration and unity of all individuals, the seeds of the republic. Thus, Thrasymachus’s argument, regardless of how popular it is, should not prevail if human beings still wish to escape from suffering and misery and to seek the highest form of goodness and happiness.
Let us then draw a connection between this characteristic of the individuals and the republic. Early in Book Eight, Plato claims that there are five forms of government, of which four already possess injustice and are called “the four flawed forms of government” (294), while the first and the most just, aristocracy, represents a society of reason. In order of descending justice and happiness, Plato ranks these four types of governments as timocracy, oligarchy, democracy and tyranny. In fact, Plato’s ranking of the governments corresponds to the nature of the appetitive soul, with timocracy representing the lover of honors, oligarchy the lover of necessities, democracy the lover of excessive luxuries and tyranny the lover of power, which Thrasymachus is perhaps the best representative.
Thus, democracy is clearly placed as the second worst form of government, according to Plato. Now it is timely for us to examine the commonly misunderstood difference between a “self-restrained democracy,” or a democratic aristocracy, which Plato praises, and the concept of an “unrestrained democracy,” which Plato condemns and describes in detail in Book Eight. Indeed, a “self-restrained democracy” is a society in which its citizens should wonder whether they deserve this freedom and liberty. They should ask themselves: “What is this virtue of freedom for?” Indeed, this simple concept is usually overlooked by many, as humans being have a tendency of taking their possessions for granted, especially when those possessions become excessive: “Excessiveness of anything generally causes a reaction in the opposite direction ... Too much liberty, whether in individuals or in republics, turns into oppression” (321).
Thus, only when they lose this liberty that human beings start assessing its true value. Only when people start appreciating this virtue, can a democratic aristocracy, ruled by reason and wisdom, come into existence, and is truly the best form of government. Until then, let us examine a degraded form of democracy as described by Plato.
In Book Eight, not only is democracy[1] clearly born out of the flaws timocracy and oligarchy possess, but it also bears some of its own: “ … this new individual [who represents democracy] devotes as much money, effort and time on unnecessary pleasures as on necessary ones. With good fortune, and if not totally intoxicated by the charms of unrestrained appetites, as time passes it is possible that some of the exiled inclinations will be allowed to return to this soul as it matures … ” (317, emphasis added). Clearly, Plato points out to us that democracy is indeed born out of the appetitive soul of human nature. Since the appetitive soul is the lowest form, democracy should not be highly regarded, even amongst the four flawed forms of government. In fact, Plato’s main argument against democracy is that although at first democracy seems to possess some of the best qualities that suit human’s needs, such as equality and the liberty to pursue personal interests, over time it could lead to an excess of freedom and a devaluation of order in society:
Well, it seems that the insatiable desire for freedom and the neglect of other values brings about the transformation from democracy to tyranny … The crux of the matter is that the citizens become so sensitive that they rebel against even the smallest hint of coercion. As you know, they eventually lose all respect for the law, whether written or unwritten, because they will not allow anybody to tell them what to do. (319-320, emphasis added)
Using the phrase “insatiable desire,” Plato points out to us that freedom and liberty are essentially similar to our appetite for food, drink and sex. Not only can one hardly ever seek a way to satisfy these appetites as they will keep repeating until death, but also it is worthless to do so if one would like to seek the ultimate goodness or form of a human being, which is one of the most important aspects of Platonic philosophy and one that every human being should aim at. A final point that Plato makes in his argument against democracy is its inevitable offspring: the tyranny, the worst forms of government and the most enslaved.
Then this child has become a parricide, cruel and unnatural offspring of a father [democracy] who ought to be cherished. This is true tyranny. These people tried to avoid the smoke of being slaves of free people and they wound up in the fire of being the slaves of slaves. Freedom, when taken to its extreme, ignoring order and reason, becomes the most bitter form of slavery! (330)
Finally, in Book Three, Plato has Socrates and Glaucon paint the perfect picture of a republic and how the rulers of that republic ought to be shaped. Those who are not familiar with Platonic principles and ideals will find Plato’s ideal republic appalling as to how authoritarian it is. Not only are children of the ideal republic given and chosen to follow their assigned roles very early in their lives, they are to follow a preset way of life in terms of education and development. Here Plato offers us a valid solution to having an optimal republic, as a strict and authoritarian society may be the only way out of an “unrestrained democracy,” whose detriments have been examined earlier. A passage at the end of Book Three sums up Plato’s idea of censorship and how rulers and guards of the republic should be educated:
Then let’s consider what way of life is appropriate for them [rulers of a republic]. First of all, they should have only the amount of property that is absolutely necessary … They will have common meals and live together, as in military camp … If they acquire land and money of their own, they will become farmers and caretakers instead of guards- enemies and tyrants instead of helpers and allies … This will be our law! (125-126)
Here we clearly see what Plato deems necessary for a republic and what is harmful to it. Earlier, we have identified that excessive liberty and freedom bring about the demise of democracy and a republic. Here in Book Three, Plato proposes the ideal picture of a republic. Plato may be unrealistic in his form of a government, but to establish a true democratic aristocracy, the best form of government, this is what it takes to end all suffering and is indeed the only solution.
It is ironic to see that an idea so flawed as an “unrestrained democracy” can be so widely spread and applied as the core of most constitutions and bodies of governments in today’s world. In Plato’s view, democracy is the second worst form of government as it only serves the appetitive soul, the lowest form of human nature by promoting liberty and democracy. As a result, democracy risks tyranny, the worst form of government and the most enslaved. Looking at Plato’s ideal republic, one at first can find the suggestion of an authoritarian aristocracy to be shocking and even against human nature, yet one should not disregard this idea if he or she fully understands the true nature of mankind and the optimal point that every human being should aim at. Many may doubt if Plato’s argument is still valid in our contemporary world. Have we not seen the destruction that democracy and loose government brought upon Somalia and many other countries in Africa, as a result of the so-called “democratic intervention” by the United States? Have we not seen the current unrest in Egypt and Libya brought upon by their own citizens’ thirst for democracy and freedom? Already, this beautiful idea comes with a dear cost: it has brought about not only tears, bloodshed, and separation but also thousands of deaths. Still, everything has just begun. Hosni Mubarak left Egypt with a legacy of extremely poor structure of governance, and with the rising power of countless Muslim Brotherhoods, when shall the Egyptians taste the sweet fruit of freedom? Once they do, if ever, what is this freedom really for? An idea born out of violence and injustice, is this still an idea that we all should long for?[2]
“I pledge my honor that I have neither received nor provided unauthorized assistance during the completion of this work.”
Works Cited
Lincoln, Abraham. The Gettysburg Address. 2009. 22 February 2010. Web.
Plato. Plato's Republic. Trans. Benjamin Jowett; rev. Albert A. Anderson. Millis, MA: Agora , 2001. Print.
Works Consulted
SparkNotes LLC. Sparknotes on The Republic. 20 February 2011. Web.
[1] Note that the word demos is translated as “people,” and the word krates is translated as “rule.” To be consistent with Plato’s text, the word “democracy” from now on will be used to represent the “unrestrained democracy,” unless otherwise noted. The author would like to acknowledge Professor Ronald Waite’s help when clarifying this information.
[2] The author would like to express appreciation towards Professor Ronald Waite for his assistance during the completion of this work.
