Ancient and Medieval Political Theory - Essay Example

ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL POLITICAL THEORY Introduction The simultaneous existence of justice and democracy, as the two most important parts of any political system, has long been debated among scholars, theorists and experts from various dimensions of the global plethora. While on one hand, the political system of an economy cannot function without its sound and strong judiciary system, it must also allow dignity and the required level of freedom to its citizens in order to respect the right to democracy. This particular issue has evidently been a long debated one, rooted ever since the ideology of democracy was developed at the time of Plato and Aristotle. Different theorist has offered the definition of justice in a different manner. The fundamental beliefs related to justice and democracy can correspondingly be observed as conflicting wherein the former agues about having control and authority on the system to avoid any harmful occurrence, while the latter sustains on the idea of freedom. Even the most general and simplest definition of these terms can be observed to have a degree of friction persistent amid the ideologies. Based on these grounds that majority of the scholars even today have doubts on the compatibility of these ideologies. Thesis Statement. Irrespective of its simple definitions, the implications of justice and democracy, as political reform measures have been quite complex and wide-ranging. Perhaps, it has been owing to the focus on its current implications that debaters often find it challenging to segregate between the two ideologies and confirm if they can reside together. With this belief, emphasis will be provided on the earliest notions of justice and democracy as delivered by Plato and Aristotle in their texts titled The Republic and Politics, respectively. Discussion Plato’s The Republic Plato defined ‘justice’ as a virtue that helps in developing a basis of order with proper integration of the role played by the society1. The meaning of justice, as depicted by Plato in his The Republic, grounded many controversies contradicting the rationale that could be developed on the basis of fair play, based on the conceptualization presented by Plato2. In justification to his arguments, Plato further noted that justice is a mere tool of the stronger section of society. Plato also deemed that justice was only used to provide the aristocrat section with an advantageous position within the then society. Accordingly, elaborating on interesting practical facts from the then surrounding, Plato argued that individuals designated with the responsibility to deliver justice are from the aristocrat backgrounds and thereby, the justice delivered by them are seldom for the good of the common people. As a result, this particular sector of the society was entertained with higher degree of political power, which they were further using to exploit the inferior group and suffice their personal objectives3. Hence, Plato depicted justice to be a false value rather than being an authentic reflection of the true ethics laid down by the system. Accordingly, to justify the appropriate meaning of justice, Plato took reference from his virtue ethics theory in relation with his concept of happiness4. Apparently, Plato stood against the notion of justice followed in the then society, but rather than arguing against its inherent meaning, his focus was solely on the way it was being implemented for the benefit of one particular section in the then society. Reflection to Plato’s text suggests people being ignorant about the inherent meaning of justice, which could be proven with reference to the notion of virtue. Similarly, when the Plato defined democracy in his text, he considered it a state that has all sorts of people belonging from the different classes, cultures, races and religions and thereby, following different rules. Plato also argued that the democratic state would have many rules. However, Plato’s explanation about democracy was criticized as vague in the book, The Republic5. In order to counter these contradictions and further justify his standpoint, Plato took the help of his teacher Socrates. Through the words of Socrates, Plato intended to provide a distinction between the meaning of justice and its importance in the society. Plato even postulated age-old injustices that were practiced by men who had the ability to make laws6. From a critical perspective, it becomes quite apparent that Plato was not against the meaning of justice but he was opposing the way of its implementation within the society, which acted in contradiction with the notion of democracy. Plato argues for the need of a system that looks after the virtue and the good of others within the society, irrespective of their distinctions in terms of social or economic classes. This particular thought resides in agreement with the notion of democracy but against the loopholes persistent in the social practices emphasizing justice. Through the words of Socrates, Plato makes repeated attempts to justify the fact that justice is a tool to design all the needs of the rich and the powerful section within the society7. Subsequently, he was able to prove that the justice practiced in the society was not in liaison with its inherent meaning but was acting against the concept of democracy. It is in this context that Plato’s claim that Athens is a democratic city and that most people are to be tested based on their argument depicts the fact that even in a democratic country a person may face severe instances of injustice. This particular thought also argues against the notion that justice and democracy can reside together. Notably, the concept of justice possesses many limitations that often reside in opposition to the notion of democracy owing to which, even in a democratic country, if a person strives or struggles for justice, it is possible that the person would face adverse situations, as the power to justice resides among the top class of the society. It is in this context that corruption can be argued as the main cause of friction between justice and democracy, if referred to the notions presented by Plato. As argued by Plato in The Republic, especially in Book I, the corrupt practices of the nation have been imposing threats to its democratic policies and affecting the ethical practices of the then authoritative bodies8. Based on these affirmations given by Plato, it can be argued that justice and democracy can reside together in a single societal context provided the society is free of corruption, which again indicates to a plausible doubt wherein a social system can exist without corruption. Aristotle’s Politics In his own way of course, Aristotle supports the views of Plato arguing on the fact that a virtuous life could only be led by means of the different lifestyles supported by the political community. Thus, if the political community of a society is affected with corruption and lacks soundness in its justice system, the true meaning of democracy within the society is also likely to get lost gradually. However, rather than criticizing the then practiced justice system, Aristotle emphasized the ways through which, both democracy and justice can benefit a society together. From a comparative perspective, while Plato argued that democracy and justice could not reside in accord in a society owing to the persistent level of corruption, Aristotle focused on the conditions, which can make the two notions persist within the society9. For instance, Aristotle, in agreement with the view of Plato, argued on the need for appropriate education and development of political knowledge among common people that would make them capable to develop a better insight towards the political community and power to demand for their democratic rights fighting against the corrupt practices of the powerful classes. According to Aristotle, as he argued in Politics, it is only through adequate awareness amid the common people that equality can be boosted within the society, which in turn would confirm the compatibility between justice and democracy. Aristotle clearly depicts the fact that while eradicating corruption from the society may not be as realistic as argued by Plato, equality could only be the basis of bringing in compatibility between justice and democracy10. Unlike Plato, Aristotle claimed that justice comes with financial power and thus, is commonly observed to reside within the upper class of the society. On the contrary, democracy is mainly demanded by the lower class of the society affected by poverty, lack of sufficient education or dignity within the class, as was argued by Aristotle. Drawing inferences, from these particular thoughts, it can be argued that perhaps, it is the focus of these two notions, which also causes friction and incompatibility amid them. To justify his standpoint, Aristotle argued as many societies follow the oligarchy rule, people enjoy justice only if they are economically powerful11. Aristotle also asserts that most of the people are not even acquainted with the actual meaning of equality of justice and therefore, a few policy makers belonging to the aristocrat backgrounds enjoy it. Even in a democratic nation, it is often noted that justice and equality are often pleaded by the weaker section of the nation, whereas the economically strong sections hardly need any attention. Aristotle even claims that in practicality, the merit of democracy has been just the opposite of ultimate justice and therefore, he, also argued that the two notions could not ultimately reside with compatibility12. Conclusion Both Plato and Aristotle argued with emphasis to the notions of justice and democracy and their compatibility with each other. However, the view points of both these authors were observed as different, they agreed at one point that with the persistent discrepancies of corruption, unequal power distribution and lack of adequate education, the true meanings of justice and democracy are quite likely to remain vague. Moreover, it is owing to such vagueness that the two concepts may never reside in a society with equal significance and compatibility. Nevertheless, a critical observation to these studies also helped identifying the underlying causes and possible remedies that can ensure better compatibility within these two political notions. While Plato argued to control corruption, according to Aristotle, the society needs to boost education and awareness amid the society that would offer power to the poor and weaker section of the society and subsequently, make the richer and powerful section obligated to preserve sound justice system. It is only then that both justice and democracy can ultimately be compatible. References Aristotle. Politics. Digireads.com Publishing, 2004. Plato. The Republic. Yale University Press, 2006. Read More