Essay: Plato and democracy

The core of Plato’s beliefs about the democratic form of government is that democracy is a cloak that conceals the desire for power, and that the democratic soul will closely mirror the state due to the fact that it is the people that determine the type of government in power. The democratic soul is divided, incapable of choosing an appetite to rule, and never learning to make the turn towards the Good and allow Reason to rule. This is because we are all trapped in our own wants and desires, willing to give power to whomever promises us the most “freedom.” By selling our souls for a greater sense of “freedom” and “self-will,” the democratic soul is simply further enslaving itself to its own appetites.  This process will continue until the tyrant comes along and enslaves the democratic state. Plato’s critique of democracy encompasses the innate, primal desire of the unreasonable human soul for the power to choose and inability to balance those choices in life which creates the reckless, albeit beautiful, democratic soul.
Plato’s issue is that democracy purportedly stands for freedom, variability, and individuality. Democracy began when oligarchy increased to the point the poor majority rebelled against the wealthy minority and demanded equality. In this new form of government, no one is forced to take public office, enforce laws, or serve in the military. Eventually a leader rises because he panders to the people and, as his popularity rises, so does his power. This is almost the worst form of government according to Plato, surpassed in its flaws only by tyranny. The central flaw in democracy, in his view, is the uncontrolled desire for freedom, which devolves into anarchy, thus leading to tyranny. Plato witnessed this during his life because Athens was briefly controlled by an oligarchy, which rapidly decayed into a democracy, whose leaders executed Socrates. The execution of Socrates is an example of the contingent nature of the democratic soul. This type of soul is willing to follow which ever individual promises them the most freedoms and opportunities. When Socrates challenged the state, their inner desire for power reared its head out of fear of losing the power to control their own lives.  Democracy attempts to allow unnecessary desires to run unbridled until the burden on the state becomes too much. Once this happens, the cry from the lower classes for equality of these unnecessary desires will ring out. Democracy is an equality of unequals; it is based on the presumption that all men are created equal, but throughout the entire book Plato has rejected this as a premise. Instead of supposing that every man is innately good, Plato holds that every man has a right to pursue the Good. Conceptually, democracy understands that part of making the turn towards the Good is letting go of what we think we deserve based on inheritance, but does so incorrectly because it postulates that what we deserve is what we can work to gain in this world. Democracy thus stems from the souls and beliefs of its citizens. The democratic man moves from moment to moment, without moderation or order in his life, and thus accomplishes little. This is because his soul attempts to make all of the appetites equal, and by giving their appetites this power of equality, the hierarchy of the soul breaks down by not allowing Reason/Wisdom to rule. The democratic soul forfeits the leadership of Reason making him subject to the caprices of the appetites.
Given that the state will mirror the soul, Plato is accurate in his analysis of democracy and is correct to warn the democratic man not to regard “anarchy as freedom, extravagance as magnificence, and shamelessness as courage.” However, there are redemptive qualities of this type of city/soul. Plato admits that there is a certain loveliness to this kind of government, for it is like a cloak that is beautiful because it has many colors. In fact, because democracy is so striking and beautiful, many people become mistakenly convinced that it is the best kind of government. Democracies are useful to philosophers like Socrates, who are interested in studying all kinds of governments or souls, because they contain such a variety of people and leadership styles. It is in this way that it becomes necessary to have a democracy because without it the philosopher could never truly learn the different types of souls that exist and the role that they play. Without democracy, the philosopher may never learn why it is so important to have a hierarchy of the soul, a balance of the appetites, and why it is impossible for people, much like appetites, to function as equals. Although, on the one hand, democracy creates an unstable government that ultimately gives way to tyranny, it is necessary. On the other hand, it allows the philosopher to be able to learn that the only way that humans will ever be at peace is if they can make the turn towards the Good and become whole.
Ultimately, democracy is characterized by the unchecked desire for many things from a set of uncontrollable appetites. This lack of control ultimately will lead to the downfall of the democratic state and allow a tyrant to form in order to regain control. Having no moral restraints or conception of the Good, the tyrant does not need to obey laws nor any sanctions against his behavior. Plato teaches that the lesson of the tyrant is that the illusion of unlimited freedom in a democracy makes the slavish limitation of tyranny possible. Unlimited freedom, as Dostoyevsky warns, means “everything is permitted,” and a thinly veiled tyranny may be slightly better than outright oppression, especially when it is covered with a veil as diverse and teaching as democracy.