Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli's Concept of a "Ruler"

Plato's philosopher-king ruled over the warriors and tradesmen of his ideal republic with rationality. Aristotle's polity enlisted the rich to rule over the rest by knowledge and democracy. Machiavelli's prince used deception and illusion for the better economic good of the state. All have their brilliancies and faults, but Aristotle's pros out measure his cons.

Plato's philosopher-king ruled over the warriors and tradesmen/farmers like the rational part of one's soul ruled over the honor-seeking part and appetitive part. The philosopher-king was in charge of making the state a "utopia" in that everyone had his/her place and all worked together for the common good of the state. Faults with Plato's plan are that the social classes are rigid with little class mobility in that you could not advance from one to another in your lifetime. Women are not regarded as much in the plans for yearly orgies between the upper class to produce offspring. They remain in separate tents while the men visit whichever tent they like and no one knows whose child is his. They are all raised together and their fates are decided at an early age. Another problem with Plato's plan is that the plans for each man to have a set amount of land without regard to population increases or neighboring countries' boundaries. Overall, because of his disregard for women and the strict social classes accorded in his plan, Plato does not have the right idea for a leader. His "utopia" is a dystopia that is not feasible in modern times.

Machiavelli's principalities are governed by one prince, who should be an immoral opportunist, a fox and a lion, using deception and illusion for power. His people should never know the "real" him through these acts of illusion and he should do whatever it takes to gain more for the state. When the prince is doing "bad" or "cruel" things, he should be a fox so that the people will not hate him. When he is a lion, he can overcome the enemies and win wars for economic gain for the state. The problem with Machiavelli's prince is that the risks are high for being "found out" and in the case that he is, the state will hate him and not remember the good he did. Instead they will remember him as a liar (a modern day example is Nixon: remembered forever as a crook for trying to get ahead of the competition-not remembered for any good legislative actions), and who will rule then? A hereditary prince, perhaps, but if you look at the example of President Bush, success is not granted. When you take over someone else's work, you are not granted the respect and love and tolerance of your previous ruler. For these reasons, Bush does not have full support for his military actions in the Middle East as his father perhaps did. Overall, the risks of living a life of illusion, deception, good immorality run the prince's risks high of being overthrown and maybe killed-making Machiavelli's leader the wrong choice.

Aristotle was an aristocrat-studying the way of political leadership for many years before deciding that two deviant ("wrong") governments combined might make a ("right") correct one. He thought that democracy combined with oligarchy to form a polity would be the best way to rule. Unlike Plato and Machiavelli, he believed in democracy for some (the upper class or those who owned weaponry) but not for all (women, children, workers). He felt that the political life was a must for those participating in the democracy and that the king put in place of the polity must not have full power but instead should be a minister or guardian of the law. This is similar to what the U.S. has in place today. The masses vote but only the educated Electoral College elects our leaders. And that leader has the legislative branch of government to work with in "ruling" our country. Aristotle's ideas were, in fact, instrumental in the founding of our constitution. Overall, because of the chance for democracy for some and more extent human rights, Aristotle's state is the best out of the three. His leader has less power than Machiavelli and Plato's, which is better for a state, and is easier to be replaced/overthrown in cases of usurped power than the prince or philosopher-king. Less power and more mobility make for the best political leader. If you have too much power and not enough mobility, you are faced with a tyrant, which is the deviant form of the prince and philosopher-king. Either state looks like they could reach that point easily. Aristotle's leader has the least possible route to tyranny so it is the best.