Ancient Greek thinkers like Socrates and Plato hated democratic elections.
They saw democracy as part of an endless cycle of regimes — destined to slip into mob rule. Plato in his works, particularly "The Republic," outlines his vision of an ideal state ruled by philosopher-kings, who possess the necessary wisdom and knowledge to govern justly. He contrasts this with democracy, which he sees as a system driven by popular opinion rather than informed judgment. Plato feared that democracy could lead to a "tyranny of the majority," where the desires of the uninformed populace could override the well-being of the state. He believed that such a system could result in short-sighted policies driven by emotion rather than reason.
Socrates and Plato believed that power should be based on knowledge and expertise rather than popularity. They valued a system that prioritized reason and philosophical wisdom, arguing that political decisions should be guided by those capable of understanding the complexities of governance.
Nonetheless Polybius a Greek historian had a different preposition. He knew how to break the cycle. To this we will get a bit later.
Socrates likened the state or democratic government to a ship. The uneducated voting in elections is like a ship taken over by a crew with no knowledge of sailing. When selecting a captain, the crew is easily swayed by whoever is best at persuasion - not navigation. Voting, thought Socrates, is a skill to be learned.
In Plato's 5 forms of government, democracy ranks only above tyranny, which it will inevitably become. Why?
Systems that maximize freedom and equality lead us to pursue selfish pleasures, not the common good. When votes are cast based not on what is good, but what is desired by the masses, demagogues emerge. Like the ship, he with the best rhetoric wins by playing on selfish interests and emotions, not reason. Once in charge, he creates a system of dependancy: "He is always stirring up some war so that the people may be in need of a leader..."
Therefore, Plato thought the ideal system was aristocracy. Voting should be a profession like any other, and only those with expertise should participate. Those with knowledge of "good" (the philosophers) should rule.
But later Plato admitted this too is doomed to fail. When aristocratic rulers are no longer motivated purely by reason, but prioritize public approval, things fall apart again. 200 years later, a man named Polybius proposed a brilliant solution.
Who was Polybius? He (l. c. 208-125 BCE) was, whilst a Greek historian, a Roman historian, in that his work dealt with explaining how Rome came to be so great. Polybius was born into a prominent Greek family and was originally from Megalopolis in Arcadia, a region in the Peloponnese. His family's political connections allowed him to become involved in public affairs and witness several key historical events.
He lived during a time when Greece was increasingly influenced by the growing power of Rome. As a result, he had firsthand experience of the political changes in the Mediterranean region. Polybius wrote his major work, "The Histories," in 40 books, although only a fraction has survived. The work is characterized by its systematic approach to historical analysis and focuses on the events leading to the Punic Wars between Rome and Carthage.
Polybius remains a significant figure in ancient history for his profound exploration of the rise of Rome and the dynamics of political systems. His analytical methods and emphasis on the interconnectedness of events continue to resonate in historical writing and political analysis today. His legacy invites ongoing reflection on the lessons of history and their applications to contemporary governance and conflict resolution.
Polybius argued that regimes were in an endless cycle, and the three basic forms of government are destined to degenerate into their lower forms — and lead back to anarchy.
According to him there's a way to fix it...
To break the cycle, you need to combine elements of each system. Polybius admired this in the Roman Republic: Consuls (monarch-like leaders), Senate (aristocratic body), and Assemblies (democratic element).
This idea of separation of powers was refined and developed by Montesquieu, and led ultimately to the American system that we see today. Montesquieu, whose full fancy name is Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689-1755), was a French lawyer, philosopher, and political thinker best known for his contributions to political theory and sociology. He is widely regarded as one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers, and his ideas significantly shaped modern political thought, particularly in the realms of liberty and governance.
One of Montesquieu's most significant contributions is the concept of the separation of powers. He proposed that the political power of government should be divided into three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. Each branch should operate independently and provide checks and balances on the others to prevent the abuse of power.
Montesquieu's ideas on separation of powers greatly influenced the framers of the United States Constitution, as well as other democratic governments around the world.
The Presidency (monarch-like), the Senate (aristocratic) and the House (democratic) - plus the Judiciary to add balance. Montesquieu's ideas were pivotal in the development of modern political systems and constitutional law. His advocacy for the separation of powers has been integrated into numerous constitutions around the world, and his influence is evident in contemporary discussions about governance, democracy, and the rule of law.
His insights continue to resonate today, highlighting the enduring importance of balancing power and safeguarding individual rights within any political system. Through his work, Montesquieu significantly shaped the evolution of political thought, laying the groundwork for a more rational understanding of governance and the rights of citizens.
There isn't a true aristocratic element in Montesquieu's system(by birth or wealth), but Senators are noblemen in some sense. They have longer terms than representatives, represent states not populations, and were originally chosen by state legislatures, not the public (until 1913).
Going back to Socrates, his concern was that democracies are unsafe in the hands of ordinary people. But instead of a privileged voting class, he wanted everyone to think rationally enough to become worthy of participating.
Democracy, he thought, is only as good as the education system surrounding it — and Jefferson had much the same concern: "If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was & never will be". Pura Vida! Rashad
Comments