Tyranny
Within The Republic, Plato states that tyranny is "the most diseased"
kind
of society (Republic, 544c). Aristotle echoes this belief when he boldly
asserts
within Politics that great honours should be "bestowed... on him who
kills a
tyrant." (Politics, 1267a15) From these quotes alone, it is clear
that both
share a disdain for tyranny. This essay will compare and contrast
Plato (the
Republic) with Aristotle (the Politics) on the causes and
consequences of
tyranny. In order to grasp how Plato accounts for the
development of tyranny, it
is important to understand how he equates the city
with the soul. Within The
Republic, Plato explains that the soul consists
of three parts: reason (wisdom),
spirit (courage/honour) and appetite
(moderation/desire). The class structure of
Plato’s ideal city also
embodies these divisions: The guardians or"philosopher kings" represent wisdom
and are entrusted to rule; the
auxiliaries represent courage and serve to
protect the city; the producers
represent moderation and serve to provide the
economic and agricultural base for
the city. While, as Plato connotes in this
analogy, all three parts have a place
in constructing the ideal, reason is
the guiding force that mediates and draws
from the competing nature of these
parts to produce a just city. Accordingly,
since "change in every regime
comes from that part of it which holds the
ruling offices," (Republic, 551d)
it is the loss of reason by the ruling class
which destroys the just city and
provides for the eventual onset of tyranny, a
state devoid of harmony amongst
its parts. In explaining how the ideal city
would eventually degenerate,
Plato puts forth a four-stage linear digression
towards tyranny. From the
ideal state, a timocracy is first born from the love
of honour. As wealth
becomes cherished among the citizens, timocracy gives way
to oligarchy. In an
oligarchic state, the desire for freedom or license leads to
the rise of
democracy. And finally, as the desire for freedom increases and
becomes
limitless, the city is said to fall into a state of tyranny. Thus,
for
Plato, a tyrant is a democrat who has lost all restraint. While Plato
views the
decay towards tyranny as a uniform digression, the presence of this
widespread
decay ultimately creates the conditions for one person to rise to
power.
(Republic, 565d) Within this digression, reason is gradually overcome
by
appetite until an "insatiable desire" for freedom transforms a
democracy
into a tyranny. While such terms as "freedom" and "democracy" may
elicit
certain connotations for the contemporary reader, it is important to
keep in
mind that Plato views a regime that promotes freedom and license as
its primary
objective as a place where reason is overcome by desire. While
citizens of such
regimes might equate unrestricted democracy with freedom, as
Plato explains,
"the real tyrant is, even if he doesn’t seem so...in
truth a real slave."
(Republic, 579d) In practical terms, Plato views money
and private property as
the floodgate to this decay: Whenever they’ll possess
private land, houses,
and currency, they’ll become... masters and enemies
instead of allies of the
other citizens; hating and being hated, plotting and
being plotted against,
they’ll lead their lives far more afraid of the
enemies within than those
without. Then they themselves as well as the rest
of the city are already
rushing towards a destruction that lies very near.
(Republic, 417a) Since in the
ideal city or soul, a proper balance of its
parts produces justice, tyranny, in
Plato’s view, is the complete absence
of justice resulting from an emphasis on
the search for private property and
self-gratification. While Aristotle
acknowledges that a philosopher king, as
presented by Plato, should be allowed
to rule, he is skeptical that such a
figure could exist. He is critical of The
Republic as he does not see
Plato’s tripartite construction as a probable or
even desirable structure.
Choosing a more pragmatic lens, Aristotle approaches
politics by drawing upon
the existent structures of government, namely monarchy
as the rule by one
person, aristocracy as the rule by the few and constitutional
government as
the rule by the many. Outlining their negative counterparts,
Aristotle
refers to the rule by the many as a democracy, by the few as an
oligarchy,
and by the one as a tyranny. "For tyranny is a kind of monarchy
which has in
view the interest of the monarch only." (Politics, 1279b) While
this list may
resemble that of Plato’s, Aristotle refutes the linear
digression into
tyranny put forth within The Republic. (Politics, 1303a15-30)
Although
Aristotle advocates a mixed regime or "polity" as the best possible
political
system, he believes that, in certain situations, other types of
government
would not only be successful but also desirable. While a monarchy may
more
easily lend itself to despotic rule, no one regime, in its positive
form,
leads to the creation of a tyranny. As Aristotle states, "...while
one
constitution is more choiceworthy, nothing prevents a different one from
being
more beneficial to some." (Politics, 1296b10) Like Plato, Aristotle
singles
out excessive desire as the force that drives people to tyranny, "for
desire
is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when
they are
the best of men." (Politics, 1287a30) He does not, however, accept
Plato’s
assertion that this desire is an offspring of private property. For
Aristotle,
private property is a means to a non-economic end. He points out
that things
held in common are not as valued and cared for as those things
which people
claim ownership and responsibility for. Used in the proper way,
Aristotle
argues, private property does not lead to tyranny. It is only when
people live
solely for wealth and private property and become "slaves of
their
pleasures" that tyranny flourishes. By making the city analogous with
the
soul, Plato presents the decay towards tyranny as a series of homogenous
changes
within the attitudes of both the ruled and the rulers. Alternatively,
Aristotle
views the onset of tyranny as primarily originating from one
individual. This
trickledown view of tyranny promotes tyranny as the ability
of an individual to
indoctrinate the masses, "for only a great soul can live
in the midst of
trouble and wrong without itself committing any base act."
(Politics, 1253a31)
Although Plato and Aristotle disagree as to the
origin of tyranny, both conclude
that in end a despotic ruler will come to
power. Turning from the analysis of
the causes of tyranny, we find that both
philosophers share some important
points on its consequences. To ensure that
the citizens would not constitute a
threat to the tyrant, both philosophers
surmise that a tyrant must divert the
attention of the masses. To this end,
they point to war as a diversionary tactic
taken on by the tyrant. (Republic,
566e and Politics, 1308a28) As history has
shown us, by providing the public
with the pressing issues of war, a tyrant can
forge and fortify his regime in
the name of national security. By diverting the
public’s attention, as Plato
states, tyrants will "force [the public] to
attend to earning their daily
bread rather than to plot against him."
(Republic, 567a) By structuring
society so that citizens are caught up in their
private affairs, the tyrant
ensures that there is little or no time to focus on
other issues. This is a
particularly important point for Aristotle who, unlike
Plato, sees a
value in public political participation. Within the "polity"
put forth by
Aristotle, citizens enter into politics (to the best of their
ability) only
after they have managed to put their economic necessities or"household" into
order. (Politics, 1328b37) It is only when citizens are
free from having to
focus on the necessities of their private lives that they
can find the
leisure to participate in politics. Since Aristotle defines
citizens as "only
those who are freed from necessary services," (Politics,
1278a10) a city
under the rule of a tyrant, in Aristotle’s view, does not have
citizens.
While both philosophers acknowledge that tyrants need to occupy the
public’s
attention, in noting Plato’s distaste for public participation in
politics,
it is Aristotle who extends the notion that tyrannies depoliticize
the
public. Plato suggests that since the public is not aware of their
political
environment, the tyrant will present himself as a "gracious and
gentle"
leader to further pacify them. (Republic, 560e) To further protect
his rule,
Aristotle believes that the tyrant will sow mistrust among the
citizens, "for
a tyranny will not be overthrown until some people trust each
other."
(Politics, 1314a15) By promoting distrust within the state, the
citizens, who
are already busy with their own work and personal lives, will
be discourage from
publicly expressing any condescending view on the
political regime. Moreover, by
encouraging citizens to be wary of their
neigbours, the people themselves could
serve as an extended type of police.
As both authors connote, deceit alone will
not secure a tyrant’s power. Once
the tyrant has succeeded in becoming ruler,
he must eliminate anyone that
might threaten his rule. As Plato states, "[a
tyrant] must keep a sharp eye
out for men of courage or vision or intelligence
or wealth... until he has
purged them from the state." (Republic, 567b)
Aristotle agrees, saying
"the tyrant should lop off the heads of those who are
too high and he must
put to death men of spirit." (Politics, 1284a29) By
ridding the city of other
potential leaders, the tyrant promotes a type of
mediocrity amongst the
citizens. As a result, scientists, philosophers, and
others whose talents or
wealth might be perceived by the tyrant as a threat will
either meet with
strong oppression or death. Since such violence will likely
result in some
sort of discontent – for even within such an obsessed and
self-serving public
depicted by Plato, the loss of one’s father or brother
will not occur without
some form of disapproval – a tyrant will be forced to
make provisions for his
personal safety. To this end, both Plato and Aristotle
state that tyrants are
compelled to have bodyguards. Both thinkers see the
tyrants drawing their
protectors from the same outside pool: Aristotle states
that while legitimate
rulers "have bodyguards drawn from the citizens...
[tyrants] have their
bodyguards to protect them against the citizens"
(Politics, 1285a25) while
Plato believes that the tyrant will not draw his
bodyguards from the
citizenry, but rather from the slaves (who are not
considered citizens)
(Republic, 567e). In turn these devoted bodyguards will
protect the tyrant
and prevent any popular discontent, much like contemporary
tyrants have done
through the use of their armies or national guard. Plato’s
Republic and
Aristotle’s Politics provide us with some of the earliest
documented theories
of tyranny. While many scholars are critical of some of
these insights, the
two thousand years since their release have demonstrated the
relevance of
many of the key ideas. The contribution of these two philosophers
in this and
many other fields merits recognition. As Issac Newton once said, it
is "only
by standing on the shoulders of giants" that we have come this far.