Republic Plato Has Often Stressed

Republic

Plato has often stressed the need for an aristocratic government because according to him, this type of community could be most stable. But Socrates knew that every community or form of government could degenerate due to various factors. And this is then replaced by another form of government. Socrates felt that aristocracy degenerate into timarchy, this leads to oligarchy, which ends in democracy. In his book the Republic, Plato expressed Socrates' views not only on these governments but also illustrates the profiles of persons who would be leading such governments. He begins by the discussion of Timarchy, which Socrates argues is based on honor and military ideals. Explaining the reasons for change of political structures, Socrates asserts that political change is instigated by the "actual power-possessing members of society themselves" and it happens when "conflict arises among them" (280). This is because the system wouldn't change if they had no conflicts and if "they're of one mind." (280)

He then goes on to explain that once conflict has arisen, it can result in chaos. Two classes of people would fight for different things and pull in "different directions." How the conflict arises is of little concern since conflict would eventually arise in any system of government no matter how favorable things are for everyone. In this conflict, wealthy would usually emerge victors. They would try to subjugate people who were once their friends and since they have money and do not need anymore, these wealthy people would focus more on militaristic ideals and warfare. This, according to Socrates, would be a system would "fall between aristocracy and oligarchy" and is called Timarchy. Naturally this system would have the features of the system preceding it and the system, which is to follow it while having "its own distinctive features" (282).

In this form of government, members of cabinet will not be chosen on the basis on their intellect and knowledge but instead on their passionate natures because the latter is more befitting to the warfare-oriented nature of this government. These people would not exactly pursue money but will not shirk away from using other people's money. Hence, such a system would be a mixture. "...it is a mixture,' I agreed, 'but thanks to the predominance of the passionate element, there's only one aspect which particularly stands out -- all its competitiveness and ambition.'" (283) the person running this system would be very stubborn in his resolve. He would not display any sensitivity to art and literature though he will approve of culture. He will love those he admires but would certainly be harsh to subordinates. Furthermore, "He'll be excessively submissive to authority, and ambitiously eager for authority himself. He'll regard military achievements as qualifying someone for political office, rather than ability at speaking and so on, and he'll be fond of sports and hunting.'" Looking at history, we can say that Adolf Hitler was one such person. He ruled with an iron hand and military achievement was everything to him.

Timrachy leads to oligarchy. Oligarchy is usually defined as the rule of the few. But in the Republic, Socrates doesn't equate it with this definition but rather rephrases it to say that it is the rule of the wealthy few. In other words, in such a system, the wealthy would be more powerful than the rest and they will share power among themselves. Unlike Timrachy where military achievement was important, in oligarchy people would be interested in pursuing money with religious fervor. This system lacks two important features of the ideal state. It lacks unity among members and it also doesn't work for the common good. Socrates defines oligarchy as "A political system which is based on property value, so that the rich have political power, and the poor are excluded from government.'" (286)

The person running an oligarchy would be obsessive about money. He will also be "thrifty and hard-working." Being an opportunist, he would try to "make a profit out of every situation, and he's a hoarder -- an attribute which is commonly admired in people." (291) Money is important but education would not mean much to him. Such a person would be marred by internal conflict. "he isn't single, he's divided into two. His condition is simply that his better desires by and large control his worse ones." (292) While some of the governments in the world proclaim democracy, there are actually oligarchies. Pakistan would be one such country where traditionally only the wealthy have ruled the nation. This is also true for Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

Once conflicts arise in oligarchy, it will lead to democracy. But Socrates doesn't look at democracy favorably. This system emerges when oligarchy starts disintegrating and there is a revolution. People ask for a system where anybody can rule and not just the wealthy ones. This is a free for all system but like other system discussed above, a democracy has its own share of inherent flaws. The fact that anybody can rule makes it what weakens this system since anyone without merit or aptitude can rule an entire nation. This system lack discipline and the person who runs such a system is also similarly undisciplined.

Socrates explains that democracy comes into being when people realize that their own lack of courage is allowing inept people to rule. The revolution begins in the mind as "Poor people tend to be lean and sun-tanned, and when they stand in the battle-line next to the rich with their indoor pallor and plentiful extra flesh, they notice their breathlessness and utter ineptitude. Don't you think they'll conclude that it's their own cowardice that has allowed the rich to get rich" (295)