@ pam

Are we living in his definition of democracy? It’s interesting how political parties can divide a country, especially in democracies where both oppression and individual choice coexist. As I was exploring global economics and political ideologies, I picked up *The Republic* by Plato (again). The first time I read it, I only read the book on the Allegory of the Cave and it felt enlightening. This time around, I read through all the books and I thought to myself : *this is absolutely nuts!* Over 2,000 years ago, *The Republic* imagined a world disturbingly similar to Gattaca or 1984. For a quick rundown, Plato believed in a police state, eugenics, a caste system, and brainwashing people through state-controlled media and education. Sounds wild? I thought so too. And for some reason, Plato had a serious grudge against art. To him, art was deceptive and emotionally manipulative. Maybe because there was a skit making fun of Socrates at that time by Aristophanes (the father of comedy) or maybe because he struggled to deal with emotions, we will never know. Plato obviously wasn’t a fan of democracy as he wanted a dystopian world. But to be fair, he genuinely thought that his ideal world (Kallipolis) was a utopia. Maybe someone who loves extreme order and control might think the same but I sure don’t. His teacher Socrates was also not a fan of democracy because he believed the mass majority were too ignorant to govern and only those intelligent enough could. His student, Aristotle, was more moderate but still critical, seeing democracy as vulnerable to corruption and mob rule. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were around the Classical Greek era, 5th to 4th century BC. The idea of democracy existed long before them. The first recorded version was in Athens during the 6th BC, developed by leaders like Solon and Pericles. It was a direct democracy where free male citizens (non-slaves) could vote on laws themselves instead of electing representatives. These guys influenced how we think about democracy today. But looking around, I wonder, did we end up in Plato’s dystopian world? ### **Plato’s take on democracy** Plato’s lack of trust of democracy stemmed from Socrates’ death. Socrates himself was a fierce critic of democracy, as he believed governance should be based on wisdom rather than popularity. Other thinkers, like Pythagoras and Herodotus (father of history), also examined different political systems, but Socrates was the most influential critic. He warned that allowing the uneducated masses to choose leaders would lead to poor governance, as they could be easily swayed by persuasive speakers rather than guided by knowledge. Athenian democracy relied on large citizen juries and was particularly vulnerable to rhetoric and public sentiment. In the end, Socrates became a victim of the very system he criticized. His relentless questioning of widely accepted beliefs, now known as the **Socratic Method**, earned him powerful enemies. Socrates’ constant probing forced them to confront uncomfortable truths. It annoyed people so much, that it eventually led to his trial and execution. Socrates was condemned to death by popular vote. I wonder, if we applied the Socratic Method today to challenge both the left and the right on the merits of the opposing side, would they be open to expanding their perspectives, or would they react with the same hostility? This questioning technique is now also used in some schools and universities as a teaching method, encouraging open-ended discussion where students contribute their own thoughts rather than passively receiving information. But how open a school, system, or educator is to broad perspectives depends largely on their own biases and beliefs. Even with open-ended questions, the direction of the conversation can be shaped by those in charge, potentially limiting the range of perspectives explored. Socrates’ brutal death deeply grounded Plato’s belief that democracy, without intellectual rigor, was nothing but a mob rule. He saw it as a system doomed to chaos, where the unqualified, driven by emotion or manipulated by rhetoric, made decisions that ultimately paved the way for tyranny. ### **The Republic** *The Republic* was written around 375 BC, after the Peloponnesian War. One of its most famous sections is the Allegory of the Cave, where prisoners are stuck watching shadows on a wall, thinking that it’s reality until one breaks free and sees the real world. That’s when the person becomes enlightened, using knowledge and reason to escape ignorance. They return to free others, spreading the truth. I love this idea of breaking free from suppression through knowledge and awareness. But as I went deeper into Plato’s work, I realized what the plot twist was. Plato wrote this book for strict state control. He wanted total control over education, media, and even families like in the book 1984. He argued that people should be sorted into a caste system, typically workers, warriors, and philosopher-kings so that society runs like a well-oiled machine. The “guardians” would police the state and everyone would go through physical and military training. To top it off, kids would be taken away from their parents and raised by the state for the “greater good.” like in the movie Gattaca. If that sounds a little too Orwellian, that’s because it is. Plato believed that only philosophers, the truly enlightened ones from that “cave”, should rule. To him, democracy was a joke, a breeding ground for corruption and tyranny. I found it completely ironic that this book that warns about brainwashing in the Allegory of the Cave also pushes for a state-controlled society, where thinking for yourself isn’t really an option. And yet, looking around today, I wonder, are we really any different? We live in a world where oppression and enlightenment exist side by side. Plato was slightly progressive in that he thought men and women should have equal education, but only for the ruling Guardian class. In *The Republic*, Plato didn’t focus much on economics or capitalism as we understand them today. His philosophies were more concerned with justice, governance, and the ideal structure of society. He did touch on wealth and property, particularly in *The Republic and Laws* but it was more on being against wealth accumulation by rulers (philosopher-kings had to live communally and without private property). While these ideas echo elements of socialism, he never outlined a full economic system like capitalism or socialism. ### **The hatred for art** Plato was deeply skeptical of art. He believed that it appealed to emotions over rational thought and distorted reality. In *The Republic* (Book X), he argued that art is an imitation of an imitation, pulling people further from the truth. If he had his way, much of modern entertainment, including poetry, drama, and even certain types of music, would not exist in their expressive forms. Despite Plato’s distrust of the arts, his time was a golden age for Greek drama, sculpture, and philosophy. Ironically, the very city where he built his Academy, Athens, was flourishing with the kind of creativity he wanted to censor. Even medicine, which thrived under Hippocrates (the father of medicine), was considered an art requiring lifelong mastery. His quote, ‘**Life is short, and art is long**,’ reflects the long span of time it takes to cultivate and appreciate knowledge and skills, which was something Plato valued. Yet, he dismissed most art as a distraction from truth. Plato particularly criticized poets and playwrights like Homer, as he claimed they spread false ideas about gods and morality. He was also wary of Aristophanes, as he believed his work stirred emotions rather than encouraging rational thought. It probably did not help that Aristophanes mocked Socrates in his play *The Clouds*, which may have influenced Plato’s views. What’s clear is that Plato didn’t hate art because he didn’t understand it. He deeply understood the power of storytelling and its ability to mold societal beliefs. He argued for banning poets entirely from his “ideal city” to prevent them from misleading the public. But he did value some forms of art. After all, he was a writer himself, and writing is a form of art. He approved of artistic expressions that promoted moral and intellectual virtue, such as hymns, architecture, and patriotic poetry, as long as they served the greater purpose of instilling order and wisdom in society. ### **Plato’s five regimes** Plato believed governments naturally decay over time, moving from order to chaos. He outlined five regimes, which he considers each to be worse than the last. 1. *Aristocracy (Philosopher-King rule)* : This is his pitch, the ideal state, ruled by wise elites who value knowledge over power. Some aspects of modern authoritarian states echo this model 2. *Timocracy (Military rule)* : A government driven by honor and discipline, like Sparta. Over time, ambition overtakes virtue, leading to oligarchy. 3. *Oligarchy (Rule by the wealthy)* : The rich seizes power and deepens inequality. Many democracies today show oligarchic tendencies, where money dominates politics. 4. *Democracy (Rule by the masses)* : The people overthrow the elites, prioritizing freedom over order. But without stability, democracy becomes fragile, and vulnerable to demagogues and external manipulation. 5. *Tyranny (Dictatorship)* : When democracy collapses, a charismatic leader rises, promising order but seizing absolute power. What begins as freedom ends in oppression. Modern politics seems stuck in a cycle, shifting between democracy, oligarchy, and authoritarian control. If Plato was right, no system is permanent and only the illusion of stability remains. ### **Does Plato’s ideal state exist in any country today?** Some aspects of modern *benevolent dictatorships*, like Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, or *socialist states* like China, may resemble Plato’s vision in their emphasis on elite rule, long-term planning, and state control. But, these governments operate pragmatically, balancing governance with economic power, political strategy, and public influence rather than strictly adhering to philosophical ideals. Could this be compared to Taliban rule, given the censorship, authoritarian control, and rigid social hierarchy? While there are superficial similarities, the key difference is that Plato valued knowledge, reason, and meritocracy, while the Taliban enforced religious fundamentalism and theocratic rule. Plato’s Kallipolis also included some level of gender equality for the ruling class, whereas the Taliban’s system is heavily restrictive, especially toward women. While Plato’s ideas echo in certain authoritarian-leaning states, his rigid caste system, philosopher-led governance, and rejection of democracy set his vision apart from any modern political system. ### **Aristotle’s take on democracy** Aristotle wasn’t Athenian, but he documented and analyzed 158 constitutions, including Athenian democracy. He studied at Plato’s Academy for over 20 years, growing up in a world influenced by Athens’ democratic experiment. He lived through the tail end of Athens’ golden age, witnessed its decline, and experienced how different forms of rule influenced politics and the mindset of the people under them. For Aristotle, governments were good or corrupted. The good ones were monarchs, aristocracy (wise elites), and polity (a constitutional gov’t where the middle class keeps power balanced). The corrupted ones were tyranny (monarchy gone wrong), oligarchy, and democracy. Aristotle saw how democracy, if unchecked, could spiral into chaos or be co-opted by populist leaders. But unlike Plato, who rejected democracy outright, Aristotle believed it could work if properly structured. His concept of ‘**polity**’ was a constitutional government that balanced democratic participation with stability, relying on a strong middle class to prevent both mob rule and elite domination. This idea of checks and balances, a mixed government, and middle-class stability make polity the closest to modern constitutional democracies today when compared to all 3 of the Greek philosophers. ### **What happened after Athens?** Of course, democracy didn’t end with Athens, it evolved over time. After Athens’ golden age came Alexander the Great (Aristotle’s student and the king of Macedonia). He conquered Greece, Persia, Egypt, and part of India, creating the largest empire of his time. After his death in 323 BCE, his empire split among his generals, marking the beginning of the Hellenistic period. Rome saw a shift from the fall of the Roman Republic to the rise of the Roman Empire under Augustus moving away from democratic ideals to centralized rule. But the Western Roman Empire fell about 500 years later largely due to internal decline and invasions by the Germanic Tribes (modern-day Sweden, Switzerland, Germany). The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire, based in Constantinople or modern-day Turkey) rose and survived for nearly 1,000 more years until it fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. During the Medieval period (5th–15th century), Europe saw a rise in monarchies and feudalism. Power shifted to kings, nobles, and the church, with little direct participation from ordinary people. Some democratic elements survived in places like Venice and Florence, where wealthy merchant families controlled city-states. By the 17th century, democracy started creeping back into political thought, though not without skepticism. Machiavelli and Hobbes weren’t exactly fans of democracy, but they had plenty to say about power and governance. Later on Machiavelli hinted on the possible idea of a republic/mixed government in the *Discourses of Livy * Meanwhile, England was going through its own struggles with power. The English Civil War (1642–1651) was a showdown between King Charles I, who wanted absolute power, and Parliament, which wanted more influence. Charles ignored Parliament and was executed in 1649. England briefly became a republic under Oliver Cromwell, but the monarchy returned after his death. In 1688, the Glorious Revolution forced King James II (Charles I’s son) to flee to France. Parliament then invited William of Orange (a Dutch Protestant) and his wife Mary to take the throne. In 1689, they signed the English Bill of Rights, which limited the monarchy’s power, strengthened Parliament, and guaranteed certain rights to citizens. This was a significant moment in history as it effectively ended the absolute monarchy and established a constitutional monarchy in England. The American Revolution in 1776 and the French Revolution in 1789 pushed democratic ideals forward but still excluded women, slaves, and the poor. Historian Luciano Canfora, in his book* Democracy in Europe*, argues that early liberal democracy was full of contradictions as it preached equality, yet economic and social exclusion remained. (Note: If you want to understand the history of *anarchism*, the French Revolution is a key starting point. It influenced early anti-authoritarian thought, which later evolved into socialist and anti-capitalist movements. Over time, libertarians adopted anarchist principles, leading to the development of anarcho-capitalism. The concept of anarchism in politics has taken nearly two centuries to emerge in its modern form). The 19th and 20th centuries saw the expansion of democracy. But as Canfora explains it, it also saw its exploitation and manipulation. Although industrialization and social movements pushed for broader suffrage, democracy remained controlled by elites who feared true mass participation. Democracy became a tool for maintaining power rather than a true expression of the people’s will. According to Canfora, the Cold War turned democracy into a geopolitical tool, with Western powers supporting or opposing democratic movements based on strategic interests rather than principles. Today, there are many versions of democracy from direct democracy to representative democracy, presidential democracy, social democracy, religious democracy, constitutional democracy, communist democracy, and more. And is often viewed as a brand name for “good governance”. But are they? ### **In the end, was Plato right?** At a meta level, Plato’s argument was about control, be it controlling what people read, hear, and even think. The debate often centers on curated knowledge vs rhetoric. Plato believed that absolute obedience would bring harmony, even at the cost of individuality. Today, we call that totalitarian or dictatorship But when we take a second look at things, are we already living in Plato’s world? Governments across the globe control education, influence media narratives, and regulate speech. Many so-called democracies aren’t as free as they claim to be. So maybe Plato’s influence on modern democracies runs deeper than we realize. Another key debate today is that, unlike Plato’s time, most people *are* educated. However, much of this education is still designed by state systems, which can influence how people think and vote. How do we balance empowering people through education while ensuring true independence in a system built on critical thinking rather than one that merely feeds information? Truth is, democracy has never been a pure, people-driven system. It has always been influenced by power struggles, wealth, and manipulation. Often it has been an instrument of control rather than liberation. Yet, the people have always resisted. In the past, they gathered in the streets, risking tear gas, rubber bullets or being dragged into Black Marias. Today, digital activism has allowed for mass mobilization with fewer risks. In many countries especially in third-world countries, online movements on platforms like Twitter during Jack’s time, forced governments to overturn policies. This may be the closest we've come to real democracy which is direct action without the usual state violence. But with this rise in digital activism comes the counterforce through government and corporate requirements for censorship, algorithmic manipulation, and the quiet steering of public discourse. Platforms once seen as tools of liberation can become tools of control. *Facebook mood experiment* in 2012 tested positive and negative content on 700,000 people and proved emotions can be manipulated at scale. *Cambridge Analytica* was exposed in its attempt to manipulate votes. This is where decentralized networks like Nostr matter as a fundamental resistance to centralized control over speech. If democracy is to return to the people, it must also break free from algorithmic gatekeepers and censorship. Because the so-called ‘ignorant masses’, the very people Plato dismissed, are the ones who fight for freedom. Because real democracy isn’t about control. It’s about freedom. It’s about choice. It’s about the people, always.