Lessons from Plato's 'Republic'

When I wrote the other day openly supporting the parliamentary form of government, I got quite some reactions.

What I got was agreement on the merits of a parliamentary system, but there were some complaints on the manner in which the parliamentary government will be formed. On constituent assembly or constitutional convention, there was quite a debate. And so with unicameral or bicameral. But all liked federal.

The many reactions are good. I hope our people get interested and participate in the discussions. I am not against the presidential form of government if we have mature voters who cannot be bought and a credible COMELEC. But comparatively, the parliamentary form has more advantages than the presidential. That is why, except the U.S. and Philippines, there does not seem to be a purely presidential form of government like ours.

* * *

Any form of government is good, depending on who is running it. But the presidential has more opportunity for corruption and that is what ails this country. Presidential candidates spend billions.

A parliamentary government is more flexible.

But I hope you have read Plato and his ideal state of utopia. You will see that his ideal state is not democracy. Plato was born some 400 years before Christ, his mentor was Socrates and he taught Aristotle. Aristotle mentored Alexander the Great.

Plato wrote that an ideal state should not be a democracy but a state ruled by a philosopher king.

* * *

Our problem is the fear of the military. Plato wrote that "an ideal society is one ruled by the military and the intellectual aristocracy culminating in a philosopher king."

Under Plato's ideal society the people who have to work for their necessities in life had no political rights. In earlier times poor people were not allowed to vote.

Plato called his book "Republic" but it is not the Republic that we believe it is today.

He wrote, "if society were to be real Republic the whole rigid hierarchy must be devised to insure the whole stability and welfare of the whole rather than of any specific group or person."

* * *

Listen to Plato: "Political inequalities," he said, "correspond to the natural inequality of human faculties and needs."

That is why, he added, "the few who knew how to rule must rule the many who do not know how to rule for the interest of all." A very valid question is if Plato's idea of an ideal state was good, why did Greece not continue to rule? Why was it overrun and devastated by the Macedoniam kings?

Among the Macedonian kings was Alexander the Great, son of King Philip of Macedonia. Remember Cicero and his vitriolic attacks on King Philip. That is why vitriolic attacks are called philippics. Alexander the Great was a warrior and conquered wide tracts of land in Asia, including Persia, now Iran, defeating King Darius and even reached and conquered Punjab, part of India. But he died young, killed by a mosquito. He died of malaria in Babylon in Iraq in 323 B.C.

Talking of Alexander the Great, he was only 20 when he was told of the knot tied by King Gordius of Phyrgia and the Oracle at Delphi said whoever could untie it "would be a great man and rule the East." On hearing it, Alexander looked for the Gordian Knot and on finding it, sized it up, pulled his sword and swung at it, cutting it into two. Then he went on to his conquests as predicted by the Oracle.

* * *

Why did the ideal state of Plato not last?

He had a wrong concept of "republic" after which he titled his book. "Res Publica" means "something that belongs to the people." It was in this concept that gave rise to "demos" or people and "cratos" or rule. Rule by the people, democracy.

Under Plato's concept it was the rule of aristocracy and kings. It was "Res Privata" or "Familiaris" which means private or family matters.

When the Romans defeated the Macedonian kings with the help of Cicero's philippics, they took the power from the private and family and gave it to the people.

* * *

But despite all these why did Rome fall?

In his book, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" historian Edward Gibbon wrote it was because the leaders became corrupt and greedy and the people lacked the will to support their leaders.

The conquerors from the north led by Attila the Hun attacked Italy in 452 and sacked Rome. But Atilla the Hun was convinced by Pope Leo I to withdraw and leave Rome.

He did. Rome, he said, was already destroyed from within.

* * *

It is interesting to learn lessons from history.

Let us have a good form of government. And let us also have a strong President who must be for the people.*

back to top