You are looking at a map of Ancient Greece, lifted from the Encyclopedia Britannica website.
For the sake of perspective -- and, I promise, I will explain why this is important momentarily -- here is an outline of the State of Illinois superimposed over the modern nation of Greece.
(This was obtained from a site called MyLifeElsehwere.com.)
There was no "nation" of Ancient Greece. While there was a common culture and language, albeit spoken in different dialects (such as Doric, Attic, or Ionic, at least until the time of Alexander the Great), Greek city-states could be found running from Sicily in the west (Syracuse - the home of
Archimedes - most of you have probably heard at least
something of him - was the most important Greek city on that island), across southern Italy (for example,
Naples was once known as Neapolis), across what we now think of as Greece, including all those many islands, to Asia Minor (modern Turkey) in the east. Each was usually independent of every other. They would ally with one another, or go to war against each other, and they would form leagues of one sort or another to pool resources -- but, even when they were members of the same 'league,' each of these places had their own governments.
You may have learned, in school, that Athens, one of those city-states, and often an important one, was "the birthplace of democracy," and perhaps it was. Democracy had to start some place. But a great many of these city-states experimented with democracy at one point or another.
The experiments always turned out badly.
Now, perhaps some of you are old enough that the name Plato came up once or twice in your studies. Plato, in Book VIII of
The Republic, has Socrates identify five forms of government, starting from the best, aristocracy, and, then, in descending order, timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.
"Aristocracy," in this view, is the rule of the best people, philosphers all, under the guidance of a philospher-king. This would be the ideal form of government, in Plato's view, if it could exist, but, if it did, it would probably degenerate into timocracy when the ruling class began to equate the pursuit of honor, and of military and athletic success, with the lofty and laudable pursuit of human excellence and the common good. Timocrats would also, over time, begin to admire the accumulation of wealth, to the point where accumulation of wealth becomes the primary goal of the ruling class and the polity degenerates into oligarchy.
Eventually, the oligarchs will become soft, fat, and ripe for overthrow by the lower orders, all of whom will want their say, and the society will degenerate still further, into democracy. But democracy will soon become mob rule, and, sooner or later, a tyrant will emerge. The tyrant is not concerned with the common good, only his own aggrandizement, and this at the expense of all. This is the lowest form of government.
Plato's "Republic" never existed, nor could it. Human nature prevents the development of the true Philosopher-King, just as it renders impossible the development of the New Socialist Man.
(This seems like a good moment to recall James Madison's famous quote in
Federalist 51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." Angels willing to govern humankind have so far not been found; persons who are all too willing to assume the complete governance of their fellow human beings
are no angels.)
But to return to the main thread: When I was exposed to Plato, a half century ago, this was presented as theory. Philosophy. "Political science." Plato -- including his dim view of democracy -- was just one theorist, Marx was simply another.
This was -- even then! -- a gross and unfair simplification.
The Greeks studied governments; they observed governments. They had so many to observe.
Per Google, the driving distance from Athens to Sparta is about 132 miles. That's less than the distance from Chicago to Galena (163 miles, if you're keeping score at home). And most of the Greek cities you
may recall from school were closer to Athens than that: Megalopolis was just less than 118 miles from Athens, Thebes was about 75 miles away, Sicyon about 68 miles distant. Argos and Athens were separated by no more than 80 miles, Corinth by about 52.
Imagine, if you will, Chicago as an independent city-state. Imagine Galena as a different, but also independent city-state. And Rockford, Freeport, Elgin, Aurora, Hammond (
too soon?), Naperville, Wheaton -- all independent, all with different constitutions and traditions, sometimes allied, sometimes fierce enemies. (Naperville and Wheaton were never independent city-states, but they did almost go to war over which would be the DuPage County seat. Because violence was feared, the DuPage County records were shipped out to a different county seat... the county seat of Cook County... Chicago... where they were in October 1871... but that's a different story).
When the ancient Greeks said that there were only so many different forms of government, and that each of these forms, whichever was selected by a city-state, deteriorated into still worse forms, they were
not talking theoretically. They were speaking from vast experience. They had multiple, multiple data points, over many hundreds of years. They had what the young people might call "receipts." This passage from chapter 4, Book VI of Polybius'
Histories is a summary of extensive observation, not academic speculation:
The first [of the six kinds of government] to come into being is one-man rule, which arises unaided and in the natural course of events. After one-man rule, and developing from it with the aid of art and through the correction of its defects, comes kingship. This later degenerates into its corrupt but associated form, by which I mean tyranny, and then the abolition of both gives rise to aristocracy. Aristocracy by its very nature degenerates into oligarchy, and when the populace rises in anger to avenge the injustices committed by its rulers, democracy is born; then in due course, out of the license and lawlessness which are generated by this type of regisme, mob rule comes into being and completes the cycle.
(Quoted from the translation of Ian Scott-Kilvert, published
sub nom. The Rise of Rome, Penguin Books, 1979.)
And, after mob rule had run its course, and more likely sooner rather than later, someone would wrest control of the mob and the cycle will begin anew. In the modern world, however, the person who emerges on top might eschew the title "king." That person might style himself or herself General Secratary of the Party instead. But he or she will likely be a tyrant nonetheless.
How can a society avoid this vicious cycle?
This was a question that consumed Polybius (c. 200 - 118 B.C.). He was writing his
Histories as the Roman Republic finally destroyed Carthage and sacked Corinth (both in 146 B.C.). He was himself a statesman, with political and military experience in the Achaean League. While he supported Rome in its wars against Macedon, he wound up interned at Rome for a time, as Roman interests began swallowing up more of the Greek peninsula. He did cultivate powerful friends at Rome, including Scipio Aemilianus, to whom he was tutor and mentor. So it's not entirely suprising that he found a lot of good things to say about the Republic, including praise for the Roman constitution.
However, it was not all just idle (or diplomatic or careerist) flattery. The ancient Greeks had an enormously high opinion of themselves. There were Greeks... and there were barbarians. Aristotle may have been tutor to Alexander the Great, but Macedonians weren't true Greeks, even if Alexander's armies brought Hellenistic culture all the way to India. And, if the Macedonians weren't quite Greek enough, how could one explain the successes of those bumpkins from the banks of the Tiber? It couldn't be their people, and certainly not their culture -- browse Plutarch's lives of famous Romans and you'll note that any truly good Roman had a good Greek education, and any defects in an older Roman could be explained by his failure to acquire a proper appreciation for Greek culture. And the Romans lapped this up, too: By the late Republic, every educated Roman was also fluent in Greek. Indeed, as you may have learned in school, the Roman Empire survived for nearly 1000 years after the fall of Rome (until May 29, 1453, to be precise) -- but the language of that 'Roman' Empire was Greek.
So Polybius really
was looking for an explanation as to how the upstart Romans had been able to conquer the world. He found it in the Roman constitution. Polybius found the Roman constitution to be noticeably different from the constitutions of the many city-states he knew -- it was a
mixed constitution, with elements of monarchy, aristocracy,
and democracy, that staved off political deterioration... and enabled an obscure city-state to grow into a great power. This view was quite influential... it greatly influenced America's Founding Fathers, for example, a lot of whom had read Polybius in the original Greek. We'll revisit Polybius' admiration for Rome's mixed constitution in a future post.
But, alright, Dear Reader, you are a Modern Person. You put no stock in the opinions of dead Europeans from slave-holding societies.
You were taught that "pure democracy" is the ideal government... so you'd like to abolish the Senate, the Electoral College, the presidency, and so on.
OK... for all you Modern Persons... let's talk about "pure democracies" for a minute. America is not a "pure democracy" but there are many "pure democracies" in America. Indeed, you may well be familiar with one of the more common examples... which often really do degenerate into tyrannies, just like the Greeks reported. Have you never heard of homeowners' associations?
Posts
