Debating the State. What Is the Best Form of Government? (Part I - Ancient Answers)

From Plato's noble puppies to Zeno's community of Sages, and how Aristotle's mixed constitution reflects on the constitution of Cicero's Late Republic.

Dec 13, 2023

In this series, I aim to explore a fundamental question: What is the best form of Government? This debate, often focusing on Monarchy versus Republic, is not just historical but also very relevant today. As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland during the troubles, my view on Republicanism has been shaped by these experiences. Despite this, as a pantheist, humanist, and Stoic, I cannot support the idea that a divine right chooses Monarchs.

Through this series, I'll look into the historical and philosophical debates surrounding Monarchy and Republic. First, I'll delve into the ideas of thinkers like Plato, Zeno, and Aristotle and examine how different forms of Government have functioned throughout history. Later in the series, I examine modern thoughts from Hobbes, Machiavelli, Paine and Hamilton. Finally, I’ll try to bring these thoughts together to come to a conclusion on the best form of state and how we can practically move towards it.

This Public thing, this Good place that does not exist

In the Classical world of Greece and Rome, it was a philosophical exercise to write a utopian proposal outlining an ideal state - how it would look like, how it would be managed, and how it would be organised. Many such books were written, especially in the fourth and fifth centuries BC, the most famous today being Plato’s and one of the most radical being Zeno of Citium - founder of the Stoics.

It's important to realise that where we now, in modern understanding, take Republics and Monarchies to be a dichotomy, this wasn't as clear cut. An ancient republic could be an elective monarchy, and a republic could also be translated as commonwealth: Words like ‘Dictator’ and even ‘Tyrant’ didn’t carry the negative connotations they do now.

Until Philosophers Are Kings

“Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy ... cities will never have rest from their evils,—no, nor the human race, as I believe,—and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.”
Socrates in Plato’s Republic.

Plato's Republic is one of the foundational texts of Western philosophy. In it, Plato argues that the ideal society should be ruled by philosopher-kings uniquely qualified to discern and pursue the common good.

Plato believed that the ideal society should be organised strictly hierarchically, with each individual occupying a position that accords with their innate abilities and inclinations. In Plato's ideal Republic, the ruling class is exempt from material possessions and familial ties, enabling them to focus exclusively on the pursuit of wisdom and justice.

Noble Puppies

I’ll always have a soft spot for Plato’s Republic for giving us a social class called “Noble Puppies”, even if the actual conception is quite grim - of a class manipulated into defending the state without having actual knowledge.

Plato has been criticised as a proto-fascist. His society is authoritarian, stratified, highly hierarchical, misogynistic, and relies on an authoritarian ruling class deliberately lying to the masses “For the greater good”.

Zeno read this and knew there had to be a better way.

The Republic of Zeno “All the world’s a Sage.”

Although Zeno’s Republic has been lost, it is known through a handful of fragments, references and criticisms. Donald Robertson explains that it is perhaps best considered as a riposte to Plato’s Republic - not as a practical handbook for creating an ideal state. Indeed, all these exercises in Utopian thinking may give something to aim for, but are unrealistic.

According to these fragments, the Stoic Republic would ideally look upon all human beings as wise fellow citizens with equal rights or would only have as citizens those who were wise. It emphasises a community founded on philosophical principles of virtue and constitutes a common lifestyle. Women are not owned by a husband, marriage is not abolished, but adultery is not condemned.

Temples are abolished by conflicting sources either because God is equally everywhere in Pantheism so there would be no need for temples, or by some suggestions because there would not be base artisans to build the temples in a community of sages.

There is an absence of law courts - they would not be required because all the people would be wise, and gymnasia - possibly as a rejection of the body as an indifferent. It’s been suggested that getting rid of the gymnasia and courts is a statement against bodily vanity and the litigious nature of Athenian culture Zeno was immersed in while writing.

The Stoic Republic would abolish the distinction between citizens and resident foreigners, and the institution of slavery must have been abolished because while only the Sage is fit to rule, the Sage would also not be Master of anyone. Stoicism holds that the wise are free and the foolish slaves - and this is a city of the wise.

The emphasis of the Stoic Republic is on promoting concord or harmony between its citizens, whose goal is to live in agreement with nature and in accord with wisdom and justice toward one another. The challenge is that we know humans are flawed - and we should not be disturbed or surprised by them being so.

Concord was the key idea of Zeno's Republic."
Schofield, p.117

There is a paradox, potentially a conflict with the later Stoic cosmopol.

It’s debated whether Zeno was outlining a perfect state, a city-state in isolation as Anton-Hermann believes, or a view of the world or was just conditionally and hypothetically thinking about what the world might look like if all the world were ‘sages’.

Sellers suggests that drawing on the cosmopolitan traditions of the Cynics, what Zeno may even be allowing is an interim stage between our separate nation states and a genuine global cosmopolitanism, not where sages are isolated in a city, but where:

“Sages - whether geographically separate or together in one location - would acknowledge each other as fellow citizens. The ideal state is not a place but a state of mind. ”
John Sellars.

Despite these differences and the uncertainties in interpretation, both Plato and Zeno have a common vision of an ideal society founded on reason and virtue. Plato and Zeno both believed that the purpose of society was to promote the common good and to enable individuals to lead a life of moral and intellectual fulfilment.

Plato's ideal Republic emphasised the role of the ruling class of the wise in achieving this goal; Zeno's Republic emphasises the importance of universal participation and equality - and so presumes every citizen must be wise.

Where Plato thought there would be no rest from evils until our rulers were philosophers, Zeno thought there would be no eradication of evils until everyone was a philosopher.

In forming a society of sages, Zeno avoids Plato’s biggest challenge of class warfare and tensions.

Previously, a common interpretation was that Zeno’s Republic pictured an isolated community of philosophers rather than a Cosmopolitan worldview. However, more recent analysis says Zeno’s Republic, from what we can tell, did not preclude multiple poleis, or even a global community, in the format.

“It is true indeed that the so much admired commonwealth of Zeno, first author of the Stoic sect, aims singly at this, that neither in cities nor in towns we should live under laws distinct one from another, but that we should look upon all men in general to be our fellow-countrymen and citizens, observing one manner of living and one kind of order, like a flock feeding together with equal right in one common pasture. This Zeno wrote, fancying to himself, as in a dream, a certain scheme of civil order, and the image of a philosophical commonwealth.”
Plutarch.

Aristotle’s Politics - Rule by the people, the few, or the one.

After Plato came his student of twenty years, Aristotle, it’s broadly considered that while Plato thought more in utopian ideals, Aristotle was more practical and realistic. It could also be considered that while Plato and Zeno set out to define the ideal state, Aristotle was a Taxonomist: observing, defining and classifying.

Aristotle's theories have had a long influence on the West. Aristotle suggested that there are three forms of Government, each with a good and bad form -

“it’s an example of a huge, standing debate in Greco-Roman political discourse, which goes back to Herodotus, and asks, “What kind of political organisation is the best?” And you’ve got three basic sorts of constitution. You’ve got one-man rule, Monarchy, and in its bad form, autocracy. You’ve got aristocratic rule and its bad form, oligarchy. And you’ve got popular rule, democracy, which in its bad form is ochlocracy, the Government of the mob.”
Mary Beard

Rule by One

In the Aristotelian framework, a monarchy was a form of Government in which a single ruler held sway over the polity. Monarch from the Greek monarkhēs "one who rules alone". This isn’t necessarily a ‘king’. King in ancient Greece was a Basilias ( βασιλιάς). The Archons of Athens were a group of chief magistrates. A good monarchy was characterised by the benevolence and wisdom of the ruler, who always acted in the people's interests. By contrast, a bad monarchy was typified by the rule of a tyrant who employed his power to advance his interests at the expense of the common good.

Rule by Some

Aristocracy ( literally ‘rule by the best people), the second form of Government in Aristotle's schema, was characterised by the rule of the best or the most virtuous. In a good aristocracy, the rulers were committed to promoting the common good. At the same time, in a bad oligarchy (ruled by the few), they were motivated by selfish interests, either for themselves or their class, defined by family, religion or other groupings.

Rule by All

A democracy, in Aristotle's view, was a form of Government in which the demos, the people, held the reins of power, either directly with individuals having a direct vote on each issue or through representatives they elected. A good democracy was one in which the people were virtuous and committed to promoting the common good. At the same time, a bad ochlocracy was marred by the corrupt self-interest of its citizens.

A Constitutional Cocktail

For Aristotle, each form of Government had its intrinsic weaknesses and potential for corruption. The form of Government is not inherently good or bad; that could only be measured by whether power was wielded in the interests of the people.

If you have a system with one powerful ruler, they could be a benevolent dictator or a tyrant.

Although in ancient Greece, the word Tyrant from τύραννος (túrannos) 'absolute ruler' meant a ruler who came to power by unusual or unconstitutional means. It did not have the precise negative connotations of tyranny we use here in English.

An autocratic monarch can be benevolent, but there's no guarantee their successor will be. Group rule can benefit the people if the rulers act in their interest, but they can also become a self-serving elite. In theory, democracy should be fair and serve the people, but in practice, people can be swayed by rhetoric and make poor decisions. Even the well-intentioned "wisdom of crowds" can lead to unintended consequences in complex policy areas.

Instead, He argued for adopting a mixed constitution that incorporated elements of Monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Such a mixed constitution, Aristotle posited, would draw upon the strengths of each form of Government while mitigating its weaknesses. Aristotle believed that this balanced system of Government would be more stable and just than any pure form of Government.

SPQR - The Senate and the people of Rome

The late Roman Republic - from the Gracchi to the Augustan principate, is a fascinating time to study. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes, and while we shouldn’t read too much into parallels, the study of the late Republic drives home how human our concerns are and how we’ve yet to come up with perfect solutions.

How should power be divided?
What balances and checks can we put in place?
How can democracies protect themselves against populist demagogues?
What is the Government even for?

The Roman Republic was such a mixed constitution. That’s exemplified by the ‘motto’ SPQR - “Senatus PopulusQue Romanus” - The Senate and the people of Rome.

The Roman Republic had three main branches of Government:

The consuls, who held executive power.
The Senate an advisory body composed of patricians.
The popular assemblies which voted on laws and elected officials.

The Roman Republic's system of Government drew upon elements of Monarchy (the consuls), aristocracy (the Senate), and democracy (the popular assemblies).

The two consuls were elected annually by the people and served as co-rulers, each with the power to veto the other's decisions and be in charge on alternative months. The consuls were also responsible for leading the Roman army in times of war and overseeing the administration of justice.

The Senate comprised wealthy and influential Roman citizens who held significant power in the Republic. They were responsible for advising the consuls and overseeing the administration of the Government. The Senate also had the power to propose legislation, but this legislation was subject to the tribunes' veto.

The tribunes of the plebs were elected officials who represented the common people of Rome. They had the power to veto legislation proposed by the Senate that they deemed harmful to the interests of the plebeians. This power, known as the veto, allowed the tribunes to act as a check on the power of the Senate and ensure that the people's interests were represented in Government.

To paraphrase Mary Beard, the Romans were both more different and more like us than we realise. Some of the issues they debated - like whether citizens should get a grain dole from the state - and the arguments for and against chime almost exactly now with ongoing discussions around universal basic income.

This system was designed to prevent any individual or group from gaining too much power and ensure that the interests of the people were represented in Government. The Republic was also characterised by a strong antipathy against Regal Monarchy, which was seen as a form of tyranny that was antithetical to the ideals of democracy and freedom.

Those ideals of democracy and freedom, it must be pointed out, didn’t extend to women, slaves and those outside Roman citizenship. The system was not fixed and was reformed many times - the power of the Tribunes waxed and waned. The middle-class Equites (the equestrian class or knights) grew in power with influence in both assemblies. Citizenship was extended beyond Rome after the social wars - when regions of Italy went to war with Rome to demand to be Roman!

Concordia Ordinum

Cicero, a prominent Roman statesman and philosopher, championed the virtues of the mixed constitution. Cicero believed that the ideal Republic should embody a balanced government that incorporated the strengths of each of the three forms of Government. Cato the Younger, another prominent Roman statesman and Stoic, emphasised the Senate's importance as a check on the power of the popular assemblies.

Cicero is also an important source for Stoic Cosmopolitanism, though he was not a Stoic himself.

“Cicero’s account of cosmopolitanism… is comprised of two elements. The first of these is the idea that all humans and gods are, by virtue of their shared rationality, fellow citizens of the cosmos conceived as a city … the second supplements this theoretical argument with the more practical thought that a benevolent Empire governed might actually bring about a political state covering the entire world that could embody this humanist ideal”
John Sellars.

Cicero’s political philosophy Cicero's Concordia: the promotion of a political concept in the late Roman Republic

“What emerges are three identifiable meanings of the concept of Concordia. The first is the longstanding conventional Roman republican idea of Concordia as unity, friendship, and agreement. The second is what Cicero called the Concordia ordinum, an innovative idea of Concordia as a harmony or coalition of the two Roman orders of the senate and equites. The third is the idea of Concordia as a consensus omnium bonorum---what Cicero called Concordia civium or Concordia civitatis. This idea represents an important shift in the thinking of the Roman orator, who began to see the survival of the Republic as depending on a consensus that went beyond the coalition of the senate and equites. ( to include plebians and others?)”
Mark A Temelii

Despite the strengths of the mixed constitution, the late Roman Republic was plagued by political instability and corruption. The ongoing power struggle between the aristocracy and the popular leaders culminated in a series of violent civil wars and the eventual collapse of the Republic. Nonetheless, the mixed constitution remained a seminal idea in political theory, and its principles continued to profoundly influence subsequent Western political thought.

The Men who wouldn’t be King

“...he (Julius Caesar) could not rid himself of the odium of having aspired to the title of monarch, although he replied to the commons, when they hailed him as king, "I am Caesar and no king," and at the Lupercalia, when the consul Antony several times attempted to place a crown upon his head as he spoke from the rostra, he put it aside and at last sent it to the Capitol, to be offered to Jupiter Optimus Maximus.”
Suetonius: The Life of Julius Caesar

The Republic fell, civil war ensued, and Augustus the Monarch rose. Augustus was a prince (Princeps, meaning first citizen) but not a king. The post-republican Roman emperors were Monarchs who would never describe themselves as King - they were theoretically selected in the sense of being approved by the Senate, albeit sometimes under the threat of having the support by acclaim of the legions. From the fall of the Republic to the start of the Imperial period, succession was smoothest when they combined the ideas of primogeniture and selective Monarchy by choosing the best successor and then adopting them.

In his decline and fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon said that man was happiest under the rule of the five good emperors …but that their wisdom and virtue were an exception.

Notably, this seems to be an argument in favour of 'monarchy' but against hereditary primogeniture succession: all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad; all were good who succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, with Commodus, its ruin recommenced.

The historian Cassius Dio defends Monarchy: it’s easier to find a single virtuous man than a group of them!

“Monarchy […] has a most unpleasant sound, but it is a most practical form of Government to live under. For it is easier to find a single excellent man than many of them […] for it does not belong to the majority of men to acquire virtue […] Indeed, if ever there has been a prosperous democracy, it has in any case been at its best for only a brief period.”
Cassius Deo

A note on Etymological Insights

Etymologies fascinate me, especially from Greek and Latin to English. Despite sharing a name in Greek Πολιτεία, or Politeia, “The State” ( see also polis - the city, from where we get the word politics), Zeno and Plato's books on the nature of the ideal state diverged significantly. We now call them "Republics" from the Latin 'Res Publica' - ‘This public thing”,

We call these idealised states Utopian, after Thomas More’s satirical perfect state described in “De optimo rei publicae statu deque nova insula Utopia” “On the Best State of a Republic and on the New Island of Utopia”. More had initially called his fictional island “Nusquama”, Latin for "no-place", and underlined that it is a fictional place that does not exist. He changed it to the Greek Utopia. Utopia is derived from "ou-" (οὔ), meaning "not", and topos (τόπος), place. This gives him a homonym pun because, in English, this is pronounced the same as Eutopia (which in Greek Εὐτοπία [Eutopiā] means "The good place”.

Having the etymology of political words can definitely help us have a better understanding of how the world has developed, how it works, and how it breaks. To that end I have put together the brief table below.

References

Stoic Politics and the Republic of Zeno – Donald J. Robertson. https://donaldrobertson.name/2017/11/23/stoic-politics-and-the-republic-of-zeno/https://donaldrobertson.name/2017/11/23/stoic-politics-and-the-republic-of-zeno/
Cicero's Concordia: the promotion of a political concept in the late Roman Republic https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/qz20sv38x
Sellars, John. “STOIC COSMOPOLITANISM AND ZENO’S ‘REPUBLIC.’” History of Political Thought, vol. 28, no. 1, 2007, pp. 1–29. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26222664 Accessed 7 May 2023.
Chroust, Anton-Hermann. “The Ideal Polity of the Early Stoics: Zeno’s ‘Republic.’” The Review of Politics, vol. 27, no. 2, 1965, pp. 173–83. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1405468. Accessed 8 May 2023http://www.jstor.org/stable/1405468. Accessed 8 May 2023.
Zeno of Citium: 12 Wise Quotes by the First Stoic Philosopher - Nirvanic Insights. https://www.nirvanicinsights.com/stoic-quotes-zeno-citium/https://www.nirvanicinsights.com/stoic-quotes-zeno-citium/
A Victim of Its Own Success: Mary Beard Discusses the Collapse of the Roman Republic | Los Angeles Review of Books. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/victim-success-mary-beard-discusses-collapse-roman-republic
Stoic Politics and the Republic of Zeno https://donaldrobertson.name/2017/11/23/stoic-politics-and-the-republic-of-zeno/
The Stoic Idea of the City https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1237845.The_Stoic_Idea_of_the_City
Universal Basic Income vs. the Roman Grain Dole - Lee Camp
https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2022/01/15/universal-basic-income-vs-cura-annonae
Zeno of Citium: 12 Wise Quotes by the First Stoic Philosopher - Nirvanic Insights. https://www.nirvanicinsights.com/stoic-quotes-zeno-citium/
What does SPQR mean? - SPQR Definition - Meaning of SPQR - InternetSlang.com. https://www.internetslang.com/SPQR-meaning-definition.asp
Temelini, M. A. (2002). Cicero's Concordia: The promotion of a political concept in the late Roman Republic.
Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 76-80. https://lexundria.com/suet_jul/76-80/r
Michel Tronchay - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Tronchay
Five Good Emperors - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Good_Emperors
Mackenbach, J. P. A History of Population Health. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004429130
Don Gifford - Socrates, Plato and Noble Puppies https://doingsocialstudies.com/2014/03/26/socrates-plato-and-noble-puppies/
Consul https://www.britannica.com/topic/consul-ancient-Roman-official
Lives of the Stoics: The Art of Living from Zeno to Marcus Aurelius Ryan Holiday & Stephen Hanselman
Mary Beard on the collapse of the Roman Republic https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/victim-success-mary-beard-discusses-collapse-roman-republic/
Cassius Dio on Monarchy, translated by Earnest Cary https://lexundria.com/dio/44.2/cy
Suetonius - Lives of the 12 Ceasers https://droitromain.univ-grenoble-alpes.fr/Anglica/Suetonius1_engl.gr.htm
Plutarch - The Fortune and Virtue of Alexander (describing Zeno’s Commonwealth or Republic) https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0232:chapter=1