Introduction
As humanity has evolved since the days of Plato and Aristotle, a vast array of political systems have been identified, many of them altered within the processes of the nations holding to them. For example, the originally strict form of Monarchy in England was shaped into something more resembling a Constitutional Republic, or a titular Monarchy resting on constitutional rights of the people greatly limiting its power. Modern history has also revealed variations in Communist governments such as Cuban and Chinese which, upon examination, are in fact nothing more than extensions of Tyranny and/or Oligarchy. What then is seen is that the basic forms of rule defined by Plato and Aristotle ultimately manifest themselves, no matter the nations’ insistence on having developed “new” models of government. As the following will affirm, understanding government today requires little more than a knowledge of the regimes of government defined thousands of years ago by Plato and Aristotle.
Plato’s Regimes
As is famously known, Plato’s ideas of governments are inextricably connected to his definitions of the human soul. As there are ultimately only five types of human natures, so too can there be only five types of governments, as the character of the former generates the quality of the latter. He consistently holds to Aristocracy/Monarchy as the highest form of government, in that a natural order of human value dictates who must have authority within the state. It is in fact interesting how formulaic Plato is in assessing regimes. He acknowledges the the best type of human being, for example, is uncommon. The just and virtuous man is the correct leader of the state, so a Monarchy is correct when such a man emerges; dedicated to the highest ideals, he alone is fit to rule. When, however, more than one virtuous man exists, the Aristocracy is enabled, in which a stronger collective of virtuous men rule (Steinberger 228). As is obvious, everything Plato considers important in regard to politics stems from his conviction in virtue ethics, and this is important to understand. His philosophy of power relies, not on ideas of social and governmental controls upholding good, but on humanity’s natural course of producing those who are superior and those who are not. Consequently, Plato is powerfully drawn to the “benevolent despotism” of the virtuous ruler of the Monarchy and the superior force represented by the Aristocracy. The latter is better because, simply, there are more virtuous men holding authority, but the underlying concept is the same.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Plato’s Regimes".
The processes of procreation weaken and defeat, to an extent, the glory of the Aristocracy. Plato believes that it is inevitable that, when great men have children, there will be a diffusion of the parental greatness within them, and the quality of the regime will suffer because the succeeding generation will be of lesser quality. Plato turns to mathematics to support this view which, if questionable, enable him to foresee that great rulers, ignoring the calculable cycles of births, will breed diminished rulers who will neglect the arts, sciences, and even physical education (278). This is the Timocracy which, if inferior to the Aristocracy, is still a good regime in Plato’s estimation because the Constitution set in place by the Aristocracy must be good. These three regimes then go to parallels in history which emphasize the basic validity of the models as such. It is important, first of all, to recognize that the Monarchy and Aristocracy proposed by Plato are based on ideals of certain individuals; the many unjust Monarchies of history, in other words, do not contradict the logic because they are not true Monarchies. Consequently, rulers such as Charlemagne and Alfred the Great represent the Platonic Monarchy, as they embodied the imperative of the superior man to guide and benefit the state. Gandhi may also be pointed to as a modern example of a virtuous leader having authority over a nation, if not in strict kingship form. Plato’s Aristocracy is less easy to defend, simply because neither ancient nor modern history provides many examples of a noble such regime. Then, and interestingly, Plato’s Timocracy is far more common in terms of how ordinary it is that great rulers are succeeded by inferior offspring in Monarchy regimes. The formula is by no means absolute, even when it is again remembered that Plato relies on ideals. For example, Henry VIII’s virtue as a monarch is at best questionable, his daughter Mary’s succession was disastrous to the state, yet his other daughter Elizabeth’s reign was a model of justice. Nonetheless, that those following greatness will be less great is a logical supposition supporting Plato’s structures of regimes, just as those noted fall within the parameters of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Timocracy.
Far more relevant to modern cases of governments are Plato’s views of Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny, which unfortunately goes to how rare Platonic ideals of character are. Plato’s Oligarchy is in fact a Plutocracy, as he defines it as the system in which the individual’s ability to gain property and wealth determines fitness to rule (280). This is a further degeneration of the Timocracy, and it may be seen – arguably – in the modern “Democracy” of the United States. Interestingly, Plato makes little distinction between Oligarchy and Democracy, because both are based on a “disease”: the standard of property as dictating class, which goes to authority (287). Certainly, it is well known that, in the U.S., only those with immense personal resources can hope to gain high political office. In theory, the poor man may rise to the presidency, but the reality of the regime virtually eliminates any such possibility, as great wealth is necessary to reach the public and generate votes. More disturbing is how this type of government so easily evolves to Tyranny, the most despised regime. It is the final form of government when the core moves from virtue to property, which would suggest Tyranny as a capitalist product. It is then all the more interesting how a Castro in Cuba, ostensibly a Communist leader, is essentially a tyrant because his power rests on maintaining the support of the wealthy. Castro is in fact a classic example of Plato’s “champion of the people” corrupted by the power vested in him (288). Similarly, the Socialist and Communist regimes in China invariably reflect Tyranny, if only because these regimes require the wealth supporting the military power necessary to them.
Aristotle
For Aristotle, the city-state is a virtually organic development reinforcing, and set in place by, man’s nature as a political animal. As the hand or foot cannot exist with the whole of the body, the individual cannot survive without the collective of the city-state (378). At the same time, he engages extensively with Socratic thought and carefully examines the elements of government type, citizen, property, constitutions, and virtue. In terms of conclusion, Aristotle asserts that the safest model of constitution is that which is based on, and supports, the “middle,” or larger population possessed only of some property (404). It must be reiterated that Aristotle explores in detail all facets of regimes, and his view that moderation is pivotal is then reasonable. It is also reflected in the modern conflict within the U.S., certainly as represented by thew Occupy Wall Street movement, in which the people – and on international levels as well – are fiercely insisting that corporate wealth not be permitted to impact on government, or that government focus its resources on maintaining those with wealth. If Aristotle does not present a specific regime, he nonetheless so comprehensively assesses those of Plato, as derived from Socrates, that he is able to offer a rationale for government based on moderation, the participation of and regard for citizens, and constitutions created to meet specific state needs.
Conclusion
It may be that the varied identities given to governments arise from each nation’s and era’s need to present them as “new,” and because there is usually widespread disenchantment with known regimes. It is not the regime, however, that creates itself, but the people, and this is the crucial point revealed in Plato and Aristotle. Governments decay because the values of the people decay, and the Platonic ideal of the Aristocracy, theoretically valid, weakens because the state weakens. More to the point, no government is removed from the regimes as presented by Plato because his models encompass all, and even when the presented identity strongly goes to another.
Ultimately, then, understanding government today demands only a basic knowledge of the regimes of government defined thousands of years ago by Plato and Aristotle.
- Steinberger, Peter J. (Ed.) Readings in Classical Political Thought. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
