Platos Republic and Modern Day Totalitarian Politics - Term Paper Example

Plato’s Republic and Modern Day Totalitarian Politics Prominent philosophers like Plato believe that democracy presents an inferior or a weaker structure of government. Democracy, on the other hand, often presents a dilemma for the present political philosophers since, most of these philosophers are either dismissive or out rightly hostile to the idea of democracy, viewed as a better form of governance. For example, Plato did not defend democracy as the better form of establishing a government, and preferred a number of incarnations such as the monarchical governments. This anti-democratic perception or view as held by some canonical writers seems to be at odds, compared to view by current political philosophers (Michels 518). In the contemporary society, every individual identify themselves to political legitimacy while, elected leaders believe their election provides them with a political mandate, and also legitimacy. Conversely, authoritarian leaders or politicians believe their decisions is in line with citizen’s interest, and suggest their rule only prevails until the citizens can take over. Hence, when viewed in popular discourse, it can be said that authoritarians too claim that their legitimacy is depended on a popular mandate. Most leaders, and especially dictators often reiterate that their acts are not against the popular legitimacy. Plato is viewed as being anti-democracy, and among the originators of the school of thought of totalitarianism. Plato himself believed it is ideal to appoint one supreme guardian also referred to as, the philosopher king (Michels 522). This according to Plato should be individuals withholding proper education and is competent to implement legislative policies. Further, as reiterated by Plato, the philosopher king needs to be someone incorruptible as a result of his own desire being, knowledge. The Republic described by Plato presents various dialogues between Socrates and other observers in regard to political theory resonating with a just state. Plato never believed in democracy, and focused on a perception that not every individual in the society had the ability to make wise choices or decisions. As stated by Socrates, the Platonic principle revolves around a few people within a just city considered possessing wisdom. Further the Platonic principle suggest that the majority should place their trust on the few people whose desire is truth and wisdom, to provide leadership. In addition, such people are considered to be rational, and as a result, provide a ruling cadre that is just, and ensure the city that they rule is also just (Michels 526). According to Plato, Justice is not a tenet for ruling within a capitalist society, and contribute minimally within democratic republic. Plato never admired or believed in money since, he regarded its power as corrupting the mind. Plato believed the society would exist in harmony without the presence of money. When a question was raised in the Republic of how the city could protect itself, yet there is no money, Socrates responded that the neighboring cities would come to their aid if promised what remains after war. In the world today, as part of advancing democratic principles, war is seen as a source of amassing national wealth. In essence, leaders who are motivated, not by justice often find means for rationalizing their immoral actions and use the ends for purposes of justifying the means. As a result, The Republic advocated for a view where morality should outweigh rationality (Brooks 51).The Plato’s assertion of leaving power into the few chosen who have the wisdom and desire to make the right choice can be associated with the emergence of totalitarianism in the modern world. Individuals gain power today and forms a belief system that power is a reserve for a few and establishes a dynasty, as a result. A number of governments across the world that today practice a totalitarian rule push their way into power as a result of popular consent from the population believing in their ability to make wise choices for the benefit of the entire population. However, while in power, rulers seal any loop that they view as a threat to their rule and establishes a totalitarian governance. Plato’s vision in essence, focuses on high morals to be upheld by human beings, however; in this light, Plato focuses on the soul to be rational and believe individuals selecting occupations based on desires, are just. However, situations may arise where, individuals use their passion as a way to manipulate other people. For example, Machiavellians, who check their passions as a way of practicing even better injustice (Brooks 51). As stated in Plato’s doctrine, following one’s desires in relation to a rational soul entails behaving in a manner that is just. A weakness with this doctrine is that, it places too much power in the hands of a few people within the society. This is dangerous when, a few people are left to govern the majority. Plato’s doctrine plays greater influence in the modern day totalitarian rule in the sense that, it is a normal occurrence to find countries where there is only one party, theocracy is practices or there is a military junta. These systems forms an establishment separate from the population as a whole, and tend to suppress the majority to bow to their wits. In such systems of governance, the population is often subjected to manipulation by the minority who hold power. The Plato’s doctrine further creates a situation where checks and balances lacks, as evident in a democratic society. In Plato’s Republic, the chance of fostering tyranny is high compared to a democracy. Further, Plato’s doctrine of leaving leadership to a few can be viewed as an idealism and not realism since, leaving power in a few hands results in the over control of the majority(Brooks 55). As a way of promoting his doctrine, Plato further criticized democracy as being anarchical, and this is evident on Plato’s attack on democratic governments, as being libertarian societies. In such society according to Plato, citizens are able to arrange their own life in whatever way they wish thus; creating an anarchical society. Plato’s argument is a way of ensuring that the population is under the rule of a philosopher king capable of making wise decisions. However, in this case, the population becomes the victim as a result of being denied their freedom. The modern politics today still applies Plato’s doctrine in a number of ways. Most leaders often find themselves in political office as a result of being elected by the electorates or citizens of a country. However, after a longer stay in the Office, most of these leaders are not often ready to quit their position. As a result, they become dictators, and convince the public that there are the right persons to hold the Office as a result of their wisdom, to direct the country to greater development. In order for such leaders to make sure they have full control over the country or the state, they established a centralized system of rule (Brooks 62). Through this system, such a leader is able to exercise full control of the government and its functions. In order to stamp their authority and create fear within the population, leaving power in the hands of a few result in such people suppressing citizens’ rights and eliminating competition entirely. In such a state, citizens end up being denied the freedom of speech since it is only the highly ranked government officials and the philosopher king have the wisdom to decide the direction for the country or state (Bengio 198). The philosopher king would provide a better rule compared to the democratic majority and may result in a tyrannical rule either in good or bad way. Plato’s vision focused on establishing an ideal city which, can function efficiently and make people happier. However, the influence of Plato’s doctrine in modern day totalitarian politics has resulted in denying people their rights. In essence, Plato’s political views in modern days has resulted in some negative consequences. This includes leaders elected democratically being dethroned from power through a military coup or civil unrest resulting from a population dissatisfied with a totalitarian rule. On the other hand, in an ideal situation, power in the hands of a few who can make wise choices and in a rational manner is not a bad idea. However, practically, relinquishing power in the hands of certain individuals cannot work despite their noble intentions for the population as a whole. Power without check and balances leads to ills that are contrary to the principles required in a state considered being Just. In essence, leaving power in the hands of a few may result in such persons committing wrong acts while still in Office, and as a result, decide to hold on power for fear of being persecuted for the crimes committed while still in Office(Bengio 198). As a result, such leaders may forget their values and engage in heinous act only to hold on power, and this may involve even political assassinations to suppress dissenting voices. This is why Plato’s republic should be viewed as an ideal situation and not realism since, in reality, Plato’s doctrine is not possible since people are more aware of their rights than the period of The Republic. However, a number of countries have applied the Plato’s doctrine, but success with such a system only prosper by suppressing dissenting voices. In Africa in particular, the longstanding rulers or leaders are always viewed as the only persons with the knowledge and experience to rule. As a result, such leaders have created a dynasty for themselves where leadership moves within the family. For example, when the father dies or retires, the son or daughter takes the mantle of leadership. Other parts of the world influenced by Plato’s ideal governance include the Middle East where rulers are against the idea of establishing democratic structures (Bengio 199). In conclusion, a comparison of Plato’s ideal Republic and modern day totalitarian governance suggest a situation where leaving power to a few hands has its negative consequences regardless of the noble intentions. Power in a few hands across the globe explains the continued rise in civil wars and unrest by citizens dissatisfied with a totalitarian rule and a clamour for individual rights as practiced in real democracy. Works Cited Bengio, Ofra. Republic of Fear. Middle Eastern Studies 36.1 (2000): pp.198-199. Brooks, Thom. Knowledge and Power in Plato’s Political Thought. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14.1 (2006): pp.51-77.Print. Michels, Steven. Democracy in Plato’s Laws. Journal of Social Philosophy 35.4 (2004):pp. 517- 528. Print. Read More