24.11.2012
Paweł Sanak
SSP II
247561
Types of regimes in Plato’s thought
Plato (427 - 347 BC) was a Greek philosopher, apprentice of Socrates and mentor of Aristotle. He is the author of many philosophical works (mainly dialogues and letters) which let us get to know the unique essence of his consideration. His real name was Aristocles but in early years he got the pseudonym “Plato”, which means muscular, broad.
Death of his master Socrates, which Plato was a witness, was an unforgettable memory for him and it provoked him to start serious consideration of the ideal regime and main disadvantages of Athenian democracy. Death Sentence for Socrates was undeniably a failure of majority decisions, which is characteristic for democracy. Then Plato realized that only wisdom shall be main feature of the ruler and all regimes shall be based on rationality. After that his studies went double-track. He analyzed the inevitable degeneration of Greek regimes from the timocracy to the tyranny and also he created his own ideal concept of state, which solves all problems of governing.
In Plato’s opinion the timocracy is a quite good type of state, actually best from all exist. He defined it as type of regime where dominate warriors and typical soldier virtues like valor, self-restraint, thriftiness, modesty. People want to be honored because of their achievements gained during wars. This attitude could be good but on the other hand it lead into ambition and lust for honors instead of wisdom and intellect. Moreover it lead into domination of warriors over philosophers what of course is undesirable. This regime probably follows ancient Spartan regime but it was not ideal at all.
Plato thinks that the timocracy usually change into the oligarchy because warriors stop wanting to be honored for their war achievement and become simply greedy. It is known that a rich man is never satisfied with his fortune and still want to be wealthier and wealthier. Where form the group of rich there of course have to be a group of poor people who live in poverty and are dependent on rich people. The oligarchy is impermanent because always the poor is more than the rich therefore poor people start to think of changing the state by a revolution, assassination, coup d'état or riots. The rich are conscious that the strength of crowd is overpowering their safety precautions for example personal guards therefore rich people accept to decrease their power but survive. It is even possibly that evolution from oligarchy to democracy can proceed in peaceful way but only if the rich anticipate their weak position and forthcoming revolution.
The common will of equality and freedom makes that oligarchy come to an end and transform into democracy. In Plato’s opinion democracy is certainly degeneration of oligarchy because in democracy people are possessed by “the rage of freedom”, which inevitably lead into anarchy or mythical chaos. Plato says that when everybody is allow to do everything someone may judge it as the best regime in the world, but Plato warns that it as wrong as apparent. Unpredictable actions of people make the democracy totally unstable regime. Citizens afraid of utterly radical actions “start putting in chains” the whole community, which is first step to the tyranny.
Plato points out many serious dangers of democracy for instance lack of responsibility and the demoralisation of citizens. Demoralisation has an influence on moral values: arrogance is called good manner, prostitiution - independence, debauchery - generosity, rudeness - virtue. Eventually “ teacher is afraid of pupils and starts to flatter them but pupils despise him and disrespect him.” It is obvious that rather negative judgment of democracy in Plato’s thought is the result of personal experience of Athenian democracy, it’s decomposition and especially death of his master Socrates. Plato as rationalist judged very poorly the system of governing in democracy – choosing unqualified and incompetent civil servants at random. It results in worse relationships in community, lack of traditional virtues, public disorder and uncertainty. People suspect aristocracy, aristocracy conspire against people and in result nobody trust anybody.
In that situation it’s easy for a smart and sneaky demagogue to flatter people and gain the trust. He would act as defender of people and after that step by step takes over control of state. It can be also coup d'état when after single action one man gets power to govern the state. Regardless the method, democracy turns into tyranny- final step of state degeneration. Plato thinks that the tyranny is the reaction for extreme freedom of people. What is important the tyranny is radically different because it limit the freedom significantly. We can easily point out some partial virtues in other regimes (timocracy, oligarchy, democracy) but in tyranny there is total lack of any virtues, desirable values and positive manners. The governor is suspicious, hypocritical and people live in a permanent fear.
The sequence of degeneration may show Plato as a pessimistic and criticizing person, but besides outlook on common types of state he created the ideal state concept which he described in dialogue “Republic”. Plato says that there is solution for the tyranny. He explains that a wise and outstanding man may appear and transform tyranny into “ideal polis”, which supreme values shall be common good and wisdom. Plato thinks that citizens should be divided on 3 social class: philosophers, warriors, people. Each class has a dominating virtue philosophers - wisdom, warriors - courage, people - self-restraint. Virtues refers to Platonic concept of justice, which is base on balance of wisdom, courage and self-restraint therefore such features are present and desired in the ideal community. In fact there is the hierarchy of citizens which is necessary, also the exclusivity feature provides the efficient and justice governing. In Plato’s concept all people are divided on the ruling and the ruled. Supreme power belongs to philosophers – the wise and rational people (including women). In Plato’s thought the wisdom elite is same as the governing elite. The elite should live together which means not only sharing items and facilities but as well make a family, so it can be called even communism. Men and women would be match together at random to eliminate egoism from the highest class. Children wouldn’t be “personal” but they would belong to whole community of philosopher to prevent individual caring and to judge them in rather objective way. Moreover whole individual happiness is subordinated to universal happiness, because universal good is a supreme value. Other social class don’t have to fulfill this postulates because it’s not natural for them, but it is expected from elite. The aim for second class –warriors- should be simply protecting the state and prevent any revolution or external threats. The third class would provide food and other material goods. Very important in Plato’s concept was education and upbringing of citizens. Selected children (future philosophers) should be initiated step by step into state secrets and knowledge which is a reflection of elitism. Educating whole community may result in appearing people who want reform which is undesirable in the ideal polis.
The concept of the ideal polis was attempted to put into practice but it failed totally. After several years Plato reconsidered his concept, he started to doubt in it even. He understood that practicing the ideal polis completely is impossible as well as Forms (Ideas) are unknowable, beyond our ability to notice and we can examine only noticeable, visible reflections of Ideas (the allegory of the cave).
Value of Plato’s political though is certainly great. He widely describes the decomposition of Athenian state, criticizes common regimes and proposes his own ideal and universal state concept. His typology was one of the first and it is somehow the starting point of discussion about types of states. For instance Aristotle refers to Plato, the Roman philosophers and medieval refers to Aristotle etc. The sense of Plato’s thought is that he believed in idealism which was the core of his whole consideration. Some people may call him an utopist, a daydreamer, but if we take into consideration that he was an ancient philosopher – one of the first, who described the community and the state he should be rather admired as the visionary.
bibliography:
Chojnacka K. Olszewski H., Historia Doktryn Politycznych i Prawnych. Podręcznik akademicki, Poznań, Ars boni et aequi, 2004,
Kundera E., Maciejewski M, Leksykon myślicieli politycznych i prawnych, Warszawa, C.H.Beck, 2009,
Sylwestrzak A., Historia Doktryn Politycznych i Prawnych, Warszawa, LexisNexis, , 2003,
Tatarkiewicz W., Historia Filozofii t.1, Warszawa, PWN, 1970.