While Plato built on the idea of aristocracy as his method of governance in an ideal society (Kallipolis), he laid down heavy criticism towards democracy as a form of government in the process as well. In this essay, I will explore these arguments but first establishing what Plato’s conception of a democracy is. I will first discuss Plato’s assertion of the eventual disintegration for each type of regime followed by his critique of the form of leadership in a democracy.
Plato’s interpretation of democracy is defined through the co-dependency of a just city and a just man. A just city is one ruled by the philosopher kings who have knowledge in the form of justice as it is in itself and not what it appears to be. In a just Kallipolis, each individual has their own function to fulfil and must not meddle with others. The philosopher kings rule over the guardians, protectors of the city from enemies, and artisans whose purpose is to provide the materials for the citizens consumption.
‘And when the whole soul follows the philosophical principle, and there is no division, the several parts are just, and do each of them their own business, and enjoy severally the best and truest pleasures of which they are capable?’
A democratic man may possess the desired virtues of a just man in a just city but his soul is divided. He does not fulfil his function and instead is motivated by the consumption of unnecessary desires that are associated with divisions in the soul in order to seek pleasure. These desires could be driven by conflicts such as sexual desires. Hence Plato’s definition of democracy is a state comprising of democratic men driven by the motive of maximizing their own utility, rather than that of the community or the citizens. This leads to Plato’s argument of the eventual disintegration of each type of regime.
‘For everything that has come into being there is decay, not even a composition such as [the aristocratic city] will remain for all time.’
When discussing the five types of governments (Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Tyranny) Plato comments on how democracy eventually emerges from oligarchy as a result of the fallibility of human nature. Each generation rears the next one so each father upbrings his son in a relatively degrading environment and this has a negative impact on the just city. Plato argues that the value of knowledge and wisdom constantly decays over time in favour of materialistic interests. He observes that the son of an oligarchic man is subject to the influence of democratic thought in his youth. The son will prefer consuming unnecessary pleasures, those “of which a man could rid himself if he were to practice from youth on and whose presence, moreover, does no good—and sometimes even does the opposite of good,” (Plato, The Republic 558d-559d) over necessary pleasures which Plato characterizes as necessities for sustenance. The oligarchic man’s son is exposed to the thought of freedom, laying emphasis on the importance of eq¬¬uality in society; “All the world are agreed that he who minds his own business is an idiot, while a busybody is highly honoured and esteemed” (Plato, The Republic pp.550). The son will make the transition from an oligarch to a democrat and actively consume unnecessary desires. He will be under the belief that unnecessary desires are equally valuable as necessary desires. This democratic man will advocate for freedom amongst the citizens of the city in determining who comes to power and hence a ruling party would be elected based on the majority opinion of the citizens and this party would cater towards that majority group, foregoing the rest of the city. This idea of a democracy goes against Plato’s ideal Kallipolis which is based on the concept of a hierarchy where the ‘best of the children’ are chosen by the philosophers in order to succeed them. Plato argues that this system of hierarchy ensures that the interests of the city as a whole are taken care of rather than that of one group. Plato through Socratic dialogue remarks “but that our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole” (Plato, The Republic pp.420b).
In Plato’s opinion, the democratic state not only goes against the principles of his ideal state, but also paves way for the final form of his five types of regimes, tyranny; which he argues is the worst of all. Plato argues that the tyrant is the most unhappiest of men and will lead the city into a state of anarchy as he says “when he has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader” (Plato, The Republic pp.566e). It can be argued that Plato’s version of a democratic regime foregoes the establishment of institutions to keep checks on the balance of power in a democracy, an argument further discussed by Machiavelli who states that “since each form would serve as a check upon the others in a state having monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy at one and the same time” (The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli pp. 94)
Plato further comments on the flaws in the form of leadership in a democracy through the analogy of a ship and the sailors on board. Since a democratic form of government is characterized by the ideals of freedom of action and free speech, it will enable individuals who are the most skilled in persuading the citizens of the polis to elect them rather than those who are the most capable to rule to come to power. On a ship, each sailor will be determined to convince the ship owner that he is most worthy of taking command of the rudder and “if the helm is refused them, they drug the captain’s posset, bind him hand and foot, and take possession of the ship” (Plato, The Republic pp.488). The ship’s captain will thus be selected on whom manages to persuade the owner the best rather than who is the most skilled sailor. In a democratic regime, the sailors can be likened to the politicians, motivated to convince the ship owner (citizens) to elect them into power. The democratic regime thus rewards those best skilled at persuading the people of the state and neglects the philosopher kings, the most knowledgeable and fit to rule.
A notable example in history that it can be argued can be likened to the flaws of democracy highlighted by Plato is that of Benito Mussolini - an admirer of Plato’s Republic as claimed by Member of British Parliament Richard Crossman - “Mussolini is a brilliant thinker whose philosophy, though unorthodox, flows out of the true European tradition. If he is a myth-maker, he is, like Plato's guardians, conscious that “the noble lie” is a lie”. He came to power through Italy’s democratic system in 1922; by 1925, he had dissolved Italy’s democratic institutions and established himself as a fascist dictator. Mussolini established a system of hierarchy, reminiscent to that mentioned in Plato’s Republic. He also militarized Italy creating a ‘New Empires’ force indoctrinating the youth and this force can be likened to that of the guardians in Plato’s ideal Kallipolis. Although Plato’s main purpose of an aristocratic form of government and class collaboration was to achieve the creation of a just society, Mussolini’s aims were driven politically towards the accumulation of power.
It can be concluded that Plato’s criticisms of democracy are a product of its contrasts from Plato’s ideal form of governance, aristocracy. While Plato advocates for class collaboration, he criticizes the emphasis a democracy lays on the principles of equality. This puts forth the question whether Plato’s criticisms of democracy are valid independent of the context of Plato’s ideal society. It can be argued that Benito Mussolini’s dictatorship in Italy provides evidence of these arguments’ credibility. While Italy was not a picture of Plato’s Kallipolis, it paved the way for Mussolini to come to power through democratic institutions and establish a politically motivated dictatorship that one can argue, can be likened to the eventual degradation into a tyranny.