Why tyranny arises from Democracy (Plato)

Joe1919

I have quoted an extract on Democracy from Plato's 'Republic' written about 360 BCE which I think is of interest given the events of this week. The whole work (from ‘The Republic’ Book 8) is available at http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html

How so? When a democracy which is thirsting for freedom has evil cupbearers 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.
Yes, he replied, a very common occurrence.
Yes, I said; and loyal citizens are insultingly termed by her slaves who hug their chains and men of naught; she would have subjects who are like rulers, and rulers who are like subjects: these are men after her own heart, whom she praises and honours both in private and public. Now, in such a State, can liberty have any limit?
Certainly not.
By degrees the anarchy finds a way into private houses, and ends by getting among the animals and infecting them.
How do you mean?
I mean that the father grows accustomed to descend to the level of his sons and to fear them, and the son is on a level with his father, he having no respect or reverence for either of his parents; and this is his freedom, and metic is equal with the citizen and the citizen with the metic, and the stranger is quite as good as either.
Yes, he said, that is the way.
And these are not the only evils, I said --there are several lesser ones: In such a state of society the master fears and flatters his scholars, and the scholars despise their masters and tutors; young and old are all alike; and the young man is on a level with the old, and is ready to compete with him in word or deed; and old men condescend to the young and are full of pleasantry and gaiety; they are loth to be thought morose and authoritative, and therefore they adopt the manners of the young.
Quite true, he said.
The last extreme of popular liberty is when the slave bought with money, whether male or female, is just as free as his or her purchaser; nor must I forget to tell of the liberty and equality of the two sexes in relation to each other.
Why not, as Aeschylus says, utter the word which rises to our lips?
That is what I am doing, I replied; and I must add that no one who does not know would believe, how much greater is the liberty which the animals who are under the dominion of man have in a democracy than in any other State: for truly, the she-dogs, as the proverb says, are as good as their she-mistresses, and the horses and asses have a way of marching along with all the rights and dignities of freemen; and they will run at anybody who comes in their way if he does not leave the road clear for them: and all things are just ready to burst with liberty.
When I take a country walk, he said, I often experience what you describe. You and I have dreamed the same thing.
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?

Black Swan

...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.

This above summary quote of Plato seems to be meaningful to this discussion. Does this suggest that anything "excessive" may be harmful, including "liberty" (or drinking too much water, etc.)?

Joe1919

Black Swan wrote: »

This above summary quote of Plato seems to be meaningful to this discussion. Does this suggest that anything "excessive" may be harmful, including "liberty" (or drinking too much water, etc.)?

I think too much Liberty would be considered harmful in that it can lead to the vice of licentiousness. i.e. Too much freedom ( & power) expands our ego and can lead to a sort of tyranny. The ancients (especially Aristotle) believed in the "Doctrine of the Mean'.
If we fast forward to the 20th century, Isaiah Berlin writes about the incommensurability of values, especially Liberty.

When two or more values clash, it does not mean that one or another has been misunderstood; nor can it be said, a priori, that any one value is always more important than another. Liberty can conflict with equality or with public order; mercy with justice; love with impartiality and fairness; social and moral commitment with the disinterested pursuit of truth or beauty (the latter two values, contra Keats, may themselves be incompatible); knowledge with happiness; spontaneity and free-spiritedness with dependability and responsibility. Conflicts of values are ‘an intrinsic, irremovable part of human life’; the idea of total human fulfilment is a chimera. ‘These collisions of values are of the essence of what they are and what we are’; a world in which such conflicts are resolved is not the world we know or understand.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berlin/

realitykeeper

I just listened to a very interesting speech by an elderly Communist of all people and one thing he said rang true. It was that the madness of the crowd is due (in part) to individuals feeling less personally responsible than they would on their own.

Black Swan

Going way back to 1895 Gustave Le Bon in his The Crowd suggested that the popular mind, when in collective, may threaten a democracy.

raah!

I can see how he is saying too much liberty leads to a sort of anarchic society, but not how this leads to tyranny. Maybe he means the "tyranny of the masses", but I don't see where things pass into excess slavery in his argument here. Maybe it makes sense in the wider context or in a different translation.

Perhaps you could say too much liberty leads to a hedonism which can be easily manipulated by people who sell things which appeal to your baser desires? And then those people capable of selling to your animal side can control you and you then have a tyranny. But that's certainly not Plato's argument, at least not what he said in that paragraph.

Black Swan

raah! wrote: »

I can see how he is saying too much liberty leads to a sort of anarchic society, but not how this leads to tyranny. Maybe he means the "tyranny of the masses", but I don't see where things pass into excess slavery in his argument here. Maybe it makes sense in the wider context or in a different translation.

By democracy, Aristotle was concerned that it may lead to mob rule. Aristotle wanted highly educated, qualified, and experienced persons to lead government, not just anyone that may get a majority vote. Gustave Le Bon in The Crowd cautioned about mob rule in like manner. Makes me wonder to what extent mob rule may be evidenced by the tribalism between the 2 parties (Democrats and Republicans) in the United States today, especially as fostered by Donald Trump?

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

Makes me wonder to what extent mob rule may be evidenced by the tribalism between the 2 parties (Democrats and Republicans) in the United States today, especially as fostered by Donald Trump?

Democrat and Republican tribes. John Adams warned about the 2-party American version of democracy: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." Does one-party rule in all 3 branches of American government lead this democracy towards tyranny?

Peregrinus

A key point here is that Adams envisaged "two great parties, each arranged under its leader". What concerned him was parties which become vehicles for personal leadership. And, while America has had a two-party system for a long time, those parties tend not to have had individual leaders, still less to have been vehicles for getting those leaders into power. Because of the distribution of power in the US, not only between the Union and the States, but also between autonomous legislative, executive and judicial branches, US parties haven't traditionall had strong individual leader. FD Roosevelt, for example, was never leader of the Democratic Party; he was the Democratic Party's candidate for President, which is quite a different thing. To achive, he still had to negotiate with, and secure support from, both Democratic and Republican figures. He could expect a favourable hearing from Democrats, but he couldn't assume their support simply because they were Democrats.

I get the sense that this is changing now, though. Trump assumes that support for him is, or ought to be, an automatic consequence of being a Republican and, increasingly, Republicans seem to buy into this. If the same is not (yet) happening in the Democratic party, it's only because that party doesn't have a Great Leader figure remotely analogous to Trump.

Fathom

Peregrinus wrote: »

I get the sense that this is changing now, though. Trump assumes that support for him is, or ought to be, an automatic consequence of being a Republican and, increasingly, Republicans seem to buy into this.

See book Fear: Trump in the White House by Bob Woodward (2018). Republicans marching in lockstep behind Trump. They "fear" to do otherwise because of his base. Or benefit from his signature. Further, there's one-party control of US House, US Senate, Executive, and soon stacking of US Supreme Court. No checks-and-balances during one-party control today. Or at least not as the founders had thought. To what extent does one-party control of a democracy move towards tyranny?

Black Swan

Fathom wrote: »

To what extent does one-party control of a democracy move towards tyranny?

Will tyranny be bureaucratized with time?

Fathom

Black Swan wrote: »

Will tyranny be bureaucratized with time?

Wasteful contemporary label? Or efficient and effective Weberian concept (Economy & Society, 1922)?