Opinion: Non-Democratic States Making the Best Rulers

In modern Western ideology, the question of what system of government is best and is most likely to produce a good ruler is normally answered with democracy. This adoration of democracy, however, was—historically—not the universal assumption. Instead, many foundational thinkers of politics and political theory made arguments against democracy and in favor of states ruled by one or the few. This paper will argue how good states and good rulers are characterized by non-democratic governments. By analyzing the arguments of Plato in his work The Republic and Aristotle in Politics, it is evident that monarchical states are the ones most likely to produce and promote a good ruler. 

To begin to understand the question of what states are most likely to produce a good ruler, it is essential to understand what a good ruler even is. An understanding and synthesis of Plato and Aristotle’s ideas reveal how this good ruler is, essentially, a good man. Plato’s definition of a good ruler and his specific type of good man is a philosopher. As explained in Plato’s Republic, a philosopher is someone who is a “lover of wisdom” (484a2, pg. 186). Being this lover of wisdom means that philosophers will be inquisitive and try to fully understand as many things as possible. It follows, according to Plato, that this love of wisdom will then lead to a philosopher being “a friend and kinsman of truth, justice, courage, and self-discipline” (487a5-6, pg. 190). Philosophers, by being a “friend” to justice in the abstract—the philosophical way—will then also pursue justice in the real world. By having an adoration of the ideals of “truth, justice, courage, and self-discipline,” this philosopher is shown to be a good person. This pursuit of justice would have philosophers, in positions of power, work to better the common good. By bettering the common good through their pursuit of justice and wisdom, it reasons that—for Plato—it is the philosopher who would be the best leader of a state. 

Aristotle’s answer to the question of what a good ruler is complementary to Plato’s answer and falls under the umbrella of the concept of a good man. In Aristotle’s Politics, he cares much about virtue. The promotion of virtue is essential both in the idea of living well and the creation of a good leader. Aristotle explains how “a good man’s virtue to be ruling virtue” (1277a27-28, pg. 57). In other words, the qualities that show how a man is good and has virtue are identical to the virtues found in a quality ruler. Both Aristotle and Plato find continuity in the idea that for someone to be a good ruler, they must be a good man; a “philosopher” in Plato’s terminology and Aristotle’s virtuous man. 

A related question to ask in a similar vein is to wonder what a good government with a good ruler would do. Plato and Aristotle both argue that a good state is one that promotes the common good. Plato’s philosopher, through his previously discussed love of wisdom, truth, and justice, would promote these concepts to the rest of the state. The promotion of these ideals to the entire state would be to the benefit of the common good. This concept of the common good is one that is present in Aristotle’s works as well. Aristotle’s consideration of creating virtue is linked to his term of the “common advantage” (1279a33, pg. 61). Aristotle makes a distinction of states that work to better the common good and states that work to help the private advantage. States that promote the common advantage work to increase the virtue of people. Aristotle vastly prefers these states that promote the common good, explaining how “those constitutions that aim at the common advantage are…correct” (1279a17-18, pg. 61). As seen in both the works of Plato and Aristotle, it is states that are beneficial to the common advantage that are good. If a state is good, it will help the public. 

With an understanding of what a good ruler is—a good man—and what a good government would do—help the common advantage—it is now essential to wonder what sort of government this good ruler is likely to be produced in. I specify produce to mean both creating this good ruler and giving him political power; if a state is able to make a good man, one who is virtuous and a philosopher, but systematically rejects them from becoming their leader, I do not believe this sort of government should be considered a positive example. Aristotle again finds continuity with Plato in their answer to this question. For both of them, monarchical states are the ones best equipped to produce a good ruler. After seeing the democratic city of Athens succumb to mob mentality and force the death of his mentor, Socrates, Plato developed a pessimistic view of democracy and the governments of his era. Plato complains in The Republic that all of the states that he has seen are not fit for creating a true philosopher. He explains that “there is no present-day political regime which lives up to the philosopher's nature” (497b1-2, pg. 201). Every state is not sufficient to create this good ruler—they all will make “his nature twisted and transformed” (497b3, pg. 201). Plato’s experience—vastly shaped by the democracy in Athens—leads him to think that no state is likely to create this true philosopher. While Plato may not be able to use a specific, historical example of what state could produce this good ruler, he doesn’t struggle to make clear that a democracy ruled by the masses will always fail. Plato’s main anti-democratic argument lies in the fact that it is not reasonable for all people to be philosophers. He claims that “it’s impossible…for the masses to be philosophical” (494a5, pg. 198). Plato’s definition of a philosopher is very strict; one must devote their life to philosophy, wisdom and justice in order to be a philosopher. It is obvious, therefore, that for most people, they can not be philosophical due to their obligations of daily life. As the masses can not be philosophical and philosophers will not spend their efforts on convincing the public of their goodness, Plato further argues that “people who are philosophers will inevitably be unpopular” (495a7, pg. 198). Since the anti-philosophy masses dislike the philosopher, they would not elect him to be their ruler. Since this democracy would fail to promote good people to be their leaders, it reasons that this system of government would be unlikely to have a good leader emerge.  

Since it is evident that democratic states will fail to produce good leaders, Plato’s reasoning seems to lead to the result of kingships being the best form of government for good rulers to emerge in. Plato’s preference of states ruled by one is illuminated in his analogy of the ship. In this analogy of the ship, the crew is constantly trying to convince the shipowner that they are the best person to be captain, even though they lack the skills to be captain. The person who becomes captain would be the person best at convincing the shipowner of his ability. The person best suited to actually become captain, Plato argues, is the one who actually knows how to run the ship and “everything to do with his art” (488e1-2, pg. 192). This person, who deserves to become the captain and would be the best one, is dismissed and called “a stargazer” (489a1, pg. 192). This ship analogy is supposed to represent how democratic governments fail to select good leaders; they instead select rulers who are the best at convincing the public (the shipowner in the analogy) that they should rule the state. To select the philosopher—the best ruler—democracy should not be used. Instead, having a non-democratic state would allow this good ruler to emerge. If the masses are not considered when picking the ruler and the shipowner is instead one person, then it is more possible for the selected ruler to be a “stargazer.” By limiting the power of demagogues with a monarchical government, a true philosopher-king has the chance to emerge and be a good ruler.

Aristotle’s reasonings for the best government align themselves well with Plato to help reveal the good possibilites of monarchies. Aristotle’s argument flows from his concerns about the masses. Aristotle claims that “the virtue of a good man cannot be had by all” (1277a3, pg. 56). Instead, only a certain few within a society have the chance and ability to become a virtuous person. Since a state is not made fully of virtuous people, Aristotle argues that the best constitution to promote the common good is not a democracy, but a kingship. Aristotle claims that monarchy is “the first and most divine constitution” (1289a39, pg. 85). By being the most “divine” state, a kingship is the one that can best promote virtue and the common advantage. Through this promotion of the common good and virtue, monarchy is the government which is best equipped to lead to the creation of virtuous men. It follows from this reasoning that Aristotle believes that it is in monarchy that a good ruler is most likely to emerge. 

Some people may disagree with this conclusion and believe that democratic forms of government would best allow for good leaders to emerge. They could also use the works of thinkers like Aristotle to promote their support of democracy. One concept that Aristotle promotes is the idea of the wisdom of the multitude. This is the concept that multiple people will be able to make up for the flaws of others in the group. Aristotle claims that “each can have some part of virtue and practical wisdom, and when they come together, the multitude is just like one human being, with … their characters and thought” (1281b3-6, pg. 66). By being all in unison, this group of people is able to make themselves better and more grand. While some might look at this as evidence for Aristotle believing democracy is the best sort of government, that isn’t necessarily true. There are two perspectives that allow this reasoning to not go against his support for kingship. First, if there is a person who is truly virtuous, then he couldn’t be made more virtuous by being part of a group—he doesn’t have “some part of virtue,” but is completely virtuous. So, by not being made king, this person’s exceptional virtue is being missed out on. Secondly, this evidence does not say that this union of people comes about through democracy. This combination of wisdom to complete an imperfect man—if we’re assuming that the king is not a perfect man—could be his advisors and other ministers in the government; they would increase his virtue while not directly holding power. This could still be a kingship, breeding the most possible virtue and including the added wisdom of more than just one person. 

Through an analysis of Plato and Aristotle, we have seen how a non-democratic state like monarchy would be the most likely scenario in which a good ruler would emerge. Whether this good ruler is Plato’s true philosopher or Aristotle’s virtuous man, it is in a kingship that this good man is both more likely to be created and then granted positions of power. In our modern world, the working assumption can be that democracy is always the best form of government with the best leaders. But, by analyzing the works of classical Greek philosophers, we have expanded our consideration to see how other, non-democratic states may be better suited at producing a good ruler. 

"Parthenon, Athens, Greece" by GothPhil is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.