[Salon] HOW DEMOCRACY DESCENDS INTO TYRANNY | A Classic Reading From Plato’s Republic

[Beverly Spicer <zpycer33@gmail.com>]

HOW DEMOCRACY DESCENDS INTO TYRANNY | A Classic Reading From Plato’s Republic

In this passage from Book VIII of The Republic, Plato describes how democracy can arise from oligarchy and descend into tyranny. Starting with the oligarchical state, in which the rulers aim to become as wealthy as possible, Plato explains how oligarchy reduces many ordinary citizens to poverty. Eventually, the class of citizens who have been reduced to poverty become resentful of the rich and seize political power, distributing property and freedom equally among all citizens.

However, just as an excessive desire for wealth leads to the downfall of oligarchy, an excessive desire for freedom leads to the downfall of democracy. In a democracy, citizens are free to indulge any appetite and live any kind of life they desire. These appetites begin to grow, and the democratic man begins to reject any principle which restricts his ability to satisfy his desires. He starts to chafe at the lightest touch of authority and ceases to care about any laws that interfere with his freedom. When he becomes unhappy with the democratic leaders, he accuses them of being “cursed oligarchs”, and trials and impeachments begin. The democratic city becomes disordered and chaotic, and the citizens look for a leader who can restore order. And so, with the support of the mob, the tyrant comes into power. 

~  Lennox Johnson | November 20, 2020

READING

The following reading is from section 555b – 569c of The Republic by Plato, translation by Benjamin Jowett. The passage is a dialogue between Socrates [the narrator] and Adeimantus. This reading has been edited to increase concision and readability and many sections from the original text have been removed. If you intend to quote or reference this text, especially for academic purposes, it is recommended you use the full text instead.

SOCRATES: Next comes democracy; of this the origin and nature have still to be considered by us; and then we will enquire into the ways of the democratic man, and bring him up for judgment.
ADEIMANTUS: That, he said, is our method.
    Well, I said, and how does the change from oligarchy into democracy arise? Is it not on this wise?—The good at which such a State aims is to become as rich as possible, a desire which is insatiable?
    What then?
     The rulers, being aware that their power rests upon their wealth, refuse to curtail by law the extravagance of the spendthrift youth because they gain by their ruin; they take interest from them and buy up their estates and thus increase their own wealth and importance?
     To be sure.
     There can be no doubt that the love of wealth and the spirit of moderation cannot exist together in citizens of the same state to any considerable extent; one or the other will be disregarded.
     That is tolerably clear.
     And in oligarchical States, from the general spread of carelessness and extravagance, men of good family have often been reduced to beggary?
     Yes, often.
     And still they remain in the city; there they are, ready to sting and fully armed, and some of them owe money, some have forfeited their citizenship; a third class are in both predicaments; and they hate and conspire against those who have got their property, and against everybody else, and are eager for revolution.
     That is true.
     On the other hand, the men of business, stooping as they walk, and pretending not even to see those whom they have already ruined, insert their sting—that is, their money—into some one else who is not on his guard against them, and recover the parent sum many times over multiplied into a family of children: and so they make drone and pauper to abound in the State.
At present the governors, induced by the motives which I have named, treat their subjects badly; while they and their adherents, especially the young men of the governing class, are habituated to lead a life of luxury and idleness both of body and mind; they do nothing, and are incapable of resisting either pleasure or pain.
     Very true.
     They themselves care only for making money, and are as indifferent as the pauper to the cultivation of virtue.
     Yes, quite as indifferent.
     Such is the state of affairs which prevails among them. And often rulers and their subjects may come in one another’s way, whether on a journey or on some other occasion of meeting, on a pilgrimage or a march, as fellow-soldiers or fellow-sailors; aye and they may observe the behaviour of each other in the very moment of danger—for where danger is, there is no fear that the poor will be despised by the rich—and very likely the wiry sunburnt poor man may be placed in battle at the side of a wealthy one who has never spoilt his complexion and has plenty of superfluous flesh—when he sees such an one puffing and at his wits’-end, how can he avoid drawing the conclusion that men like him are only rich because no one has the courage to despoil them? And when they meet in private will not people be saying to one another ‘Our warriors are not good for much’?
     Yes, he said, I am quite aware that this is their way of talking.
     And then democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power; and this is the form of government in which the magistrates are commonly elected by lot.
     Yes, he said, that is the nature of democracy, whether the revolution has been effected by arms, or whether fear has caused the opposite party to withdraw.
     And now what is their manner of life, and what sort of a government have they? for as the government is, such will be the man.
     Clearly, he said.
     In the first place, are they not free; and is not the city full of freedom and frankness—a man may say and do what he likes?
    ‘Tis said so, he replied.
     And where freedom is, the individual is clearly able to order for himself his own life as he pleases?
     Clearly.
     Then in this kind of State there will be the greatest variety of human natures?
     There will.
     This, then, seems likely to be the fairest of States, being like an embroidered robe which is spangled with every sort of flower. And just as women and children think a variety of colours to be of all things most charming, so there are many men to whom this State, which is spangled with the manners and characters of mankind, will appear to be the fairest of States.
     Yes.
     And there being no necessity, I said, for you to govern in this State, even if you have the capacity, or to be governed, unless you like, or go to war when the rest go to war, or to be at peace when others are at peace, unless you are so disposed—there being no necessity also, because some law forbids you to hold office or be a dicast, that you should not hold office or be a dicast, if you have a fancy—is not this a way of life which for the moment is supremely delightful?
     For the moment, yes.
     And is not their humanity to the condemned in some cases quite charming? Have you not observed how, in a democracy, many persons, although they have been sentenced to death or exile, just stay where they are and walk about the world—the gentleman parades like a hero, and nobody sees or cares?
     Yes, he replied, many and many a one.
     These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.
     We know her well.
     Consider now, I said, what manner of man the individual is, or rather consider, as in the case of the State, how he comes into being.
     Very good, he said.
     Is not this the way—he is the son of the miserly and oligarchical father who has trained him in his own habits?
     Exactly.
     And, like his father, he keeps under by force the pleasures which are of the spending and not of the getting sort, being those which are called unnecessary?
     Obviously.
     When a young man who has been brought up as we were just now describing, in a vulgar and miserly way, has tasted drones’ honey and has come to associate with fierce and crafty natures who are able to provide for him all sorts of refinements and varieties of pleasure—then, as you may imagine, the change will begin of the oligarchical principle within him into the democratical?
     Inevitably.
     And if there be any ally which aids the oligarchical principle within him, whether the influence of a father or of kindred, advising or rebuking him, then there arises in his soul a faction and an opposite faction, and he goes to war with himself.
     It must be so.
     And there are times when the democratical principle gives way to the oligarchical, and some of his desires die, and others are banished; a spirit of reverence enters into the young man’s soul and order is restored.
     Yes, he said, that sometimes happens.
     And then, again, after the old desires have been driven out, fresh ones spring up, which are akin to them, and because their father does not know how to educate them, wax fierce and numerous.
     Yes, he said, that is apt to be the way.
     They draw him to his old associates, and holding secret intercourse with them, breed and multiply in him.
     Very true.
     At length they seize upon the citadel of the young man’s soul, and then modesty, which they call silliness, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname unmanliness, is trampled in the mire and cast forth; they persuade men that moderation and orderly expenditure are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them beyond the border.
     The next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.
     Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough.
     Neither does he receive or let pass into the fortress any true word of advice; if any one says to him that some pleasures are the satisfactions of good and noble desires, and others of evil desires, and that he ought to use and honour some and chastise and master the others—whenever this is repeated to him he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.
     Yes, he said; that is the way with him.
     Yes, I said, he lives from day to day indulging the appetite of the hour; and sometimes he is lapped in drink and strains of the flute; then he becomes a water-drinker, and tries to get thin; then he takes a turn at gymnastics; sometimes idling and neglecting everything, then once more living the life of a philosopher; often he is busy with politics, and starts to his feet and says and does whatever comes into his head; and, if he is emulous of any one who is a warrior, off he is in that direction, or of men of business, once more in that. His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms joy and bliss and freedom; and so he goes on.
     Yes, he replied, he is all liberty and equality.
     Yes, I said; his life is motley and manifold and an epitome of the lives of many;—he answers to the State which we described as fair and spangled. And many a man and many a woman will take him for their pattern, and many a constitution and many an example of manners is contained in him.
     Just so.
     Let him then be set over against democracy; he may truly be called the democratic man.
     Let that be his place, he said.
     Say then, my friend, In what manner does tyranny arise?—that it has a democratic origin is evident.
     Clearly.
     And does not tyranny spring from democracy in the same manner as democracy from oligarchy—I mean, after a sort?
     How?
     The good which oligarchy proposed to itself and the means by which it was maintained was excess of wealth—am I not right?
     Yes.
     And the insatiable desire of wealth and the neglect of all other things for the sake of money-getting was also the ruin of oligarchy?
     True.
     And democracy has her own good, of which the insatiable desire brings her to dissolution?
     What good?
     Freedom, I replied; which, as they tell you in a democracy, is the glory of the State—and that therefore in a democracy alone will the freeman of nature deign to dwell.
     Yes; the saying is in every body’s mouth.
     I was going to observe, that the insatiable desire of this and the neglect of other things introduces the change in democracy, which occasions a demand for tyranny.
     How so?
     When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cup-bearers presiding over the feast, and has drunk too deeply of the strong wine of freedom, then, unless her rulers are very amenable and give a plentiful draught, she calls them to account and punishes them, and says that they are cursed oligarchs.
     And above all, I said, and as the result of all, see how sensitive the citizens become; they chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority, and at length, as you know, they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.
     Yes, he said, I know it too well.
     Such, my friend, I said, is the fair and glorious beginning out of which springs tyranny.
     Glorious indeed, he said. But what is the next step?
     The ruin of oligarchy is the ruin of democracy; the same disease magnified and intensified by liberty overmasters democracy—the truth being that the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction; and this is the case not only in the seasons and in vegetable and animal life, but above all in forms of government.
     True.
     The excess of liberty, whether in States or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.
     Yes, the natural order.
     And so tyranny naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme form of liberty?
     As we might expect.
     That, however, was not, as I believe, your question—you rather desired to know what is that disorder which is generated alike in oligarchy and democracy, and is the ruin of both?
     Just so, he replied.
     Then, in order that we may see clearly what we are doing, let us imagine democracy to be divided, as indeed it is, into three classes; for in the first place freedom creates rather more drones in the democratic than there were in the oligarchical State.
     That is true.
     And in the democracy they are certainly more intensified.
     How so?
     Because in the oligarchical State they are disqualified and driven from office, and therefore they cannot train or gather strength; whereas in a democracy they are almost the entire ruling power, and while the keener sort speak and act, the rest keep buzzing about the bema and do not suffer a word to be said on the other side; hence in democracies almost everything is managed by the drones.
     Very true, he said.
     Then there is another class which is always being severed from the mass.
     What is that?
     They are the orderly class, which in a nation of traders is sure to be the richest. The people are a third class, consisting of those who work with their own hands; they are not politicians, and have not much to live upon. This, when assembled, is the largest and most powerful class in a democracy.
     True, he said; but then the multitude is seldom willing to congregate unless they get a little honey.
     And do they not share? I said. Do not their leaders deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people; at the same time taking care to reserve the larger part for themselves?
     Why, yes, he said, to that extent the people do share.
     And the persons whose property is taken from them are compelled to defend themselves before the people as they best can?
     What else can they do?
     And then, although they may have no desire of change, the others charge them with plotting against the people and being friends of oligarchy?
     True.
     And the end is that when they see the people, not of their own accord, but through ignorance, and because they are deceived by informers, seeking to do them wrong, then at last they are forced to become oligarchs in reality; they do not wish to be, but the sting of the drones torments them and breeds revolution in them.
     That is exactly the truth.
     Then come impeachments and judgments and trials of one another.
     True.
     The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness.
     Yes, that is their way.
     This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.
     Yes, that is quite clear.
     How then does a protector begin to change into a tyrant? Clearly when he does what the man is said to do in the tale of the Arcadian temple of Lycaean Zeus.
     What tale?
     The tale is that he who has tasted the entrails of a single human victim minced up with the entrails of other victims is destined to become a wolf. Did you never hear it?
     Oh, yes.
     And the protector of the people is like him; having a mob entirely at his disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen; by the favourite method of false accusation he brings them into court and murders them, making the life of man to disappear, and with unholy tongue and lips tasting the blood of his fellow citizens; some he kills and others he banishes, at the same time hinting at the abolition of debts and partition of lands: and after this, what will be his destiny? Must he not either perish at the hands of his enemies, or from being a man become a wolf—that is, a tyrant?
     Inevitably.
     This, I said, is he who begins to make a party against the rich?
     The same.
     After a while he is driven out, but comes back, in spite of his enemies, a tyrant full grown.
     That is clear.
     And if they are unable to expel him, or to get him condemned to death by a public accusation, they conspire to assassinate him.
     Yes, he said, that is their usual way.
     Then comes the famous request for a body-guard, which is the device of all those who have got thus far in their tyrannical career—’Let not the people’s friend,’ as they say, ‘be lost to them.’
     Exactly.
     The people readily assent; all their fears are for him—they have none for themselves.
     Very true.
     And he, the protector of whom we spoke, is to be seen, not ‘larding the plain’ with his bulk, but himself the overthrower of many, standing up in the chariot of State with the reins in his hand, no longer protector, but tyrant absolute.
     No doubt, he said.
     And now let us consider the happiness of the man, and also of the State in which a creature like him is generated.
     Yes, he said, let us consider that.
     At first, in the early days of his power, he is full of smiles, and he salutes every one whom he meets;—he to be called a tyrant, who is making promises in public and also in private! liberating debtors, and distributing land to the people and his followers, and wanting to be so kind and good to every one!
     Of course, he said.
     But when he has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.
     To be sure.
     Has he not also another object, which is that they may be impoverished by payment of taxes, and thus compelled to devote themselves to their daily wants and therefore less likely to conspire against him?
     Clearly.
     And if any of them are suspected by him of having notions of freedom, and of resistance to his authority, he will have a good pretext for destroying them by placing them at the mercy of the enemy; and for all these reasons the tyrant must be always getting up a war.
     He must.
     Now he begins to grow unpopular.
     A necessary result.
     Then some of those who joined in setting him up, and who are in power, speak their minds to him and to one another, and the more courageous of them cast in his teeth what is being done.
     Yes, that may be expected.
     And the tyrant, if he means to rule, must get rid of them; he cannot stop while he has a friend or an enemy who is good for anything.
     He cannot.
     And therefore he must look about him and see who is valiant, who is high-minded, who is wise, who is wealthy; happy man, he is the enemy of them all, and must seek occasion against them whether he will or no, until he has made a purgation of the State.
     Yes, he said, and a rare purgation.
     Yes, I said, not the sort of purgation which the physicians make of the body; for they take away the worse and leave the better part, but he does the reverse.
     If he is to rule, I suppose that he cannot help himself.
     What a blessed alternative, I said:—to be compelled to dwell only with the many bad, and to be by them hated, or not to live at all!
     Yes, that is the alternative.
     And the more detestable his actions are to the citizens the more satellites and the greater devotion in them will he require?
     Certainly.
     And who are the devoted band, and where will he procure them?
     They will flock to him, he said, of their own accord, if he pays them. If there are sacred treasures in the city, he will confiscate and spend them; and in so far as the fortunes of attainted persons may suffice, he will be able to diminish the taxes which he would otherwise have to impose upon the people.
     And when these fail?
     Why, clearly, he said, then he and his boon companions, whether male or female, will be maintained out of his father’s estate.
     You mean to say that the people, from whom he has derived his being, will maintain him and his companions?
     Yes, he said; they cannot help themselves.
     But what if the people fly into a passion, and aver that a grown-up son ought not to be supported by his father, but that the father should be supported by the son?
     By heaven, he said, then the parent will discover what a monster he has been fostering in his bosom.
     Why, you do not mean to say that the tyrant will use violence? What! beat his father if he opposes him?
     Yes, he will, having first disarmed him.
     Thus liberty, getting out of all order and reason, passes into the harshest and bitterest form of slavery.
     True, he said.
     Very well; and may we not rightly say that we have sufficiently discussed the nature of tyranny, and the manner of the transition from democracy to tyranny?
     Yes, quite enough, he said.

https://thedailyidea.org/how-democracy-descends-into-tyranny-platos-republic/

IMAGE: Plato surrounded by students in his Academy in Athens. Mosaic (detail) from the Villa of T. Siminius Stephanus, Pompeii, 1st century B.C. Roman National Archaeological Museum, Naples, Inv. No. 124545. Source: Wikimedia Commons