Socrates for President: A Look at the Importance of Political Life in Ancient Times

In a day when America considers democracy the elite political system and formally was involved in the Cold War with Russia, who advocated Communism, the question of which system is the "best" is a question that still weighs on the conscious of the most intelligent political thinkers of our time. In theory, every political system is ideal, but in reality it is hard to find and institute the "perfect" system. It is a question that started in a time before the Christian era, with philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. They differed in their opinions on which systems was ideal for the individual but also built on other ideas.

The "best" political system in the minds of Socrates and Plato was the rule of one, or an autocracy in virtuous form is the Philosopher-King ruling a well-ordered city in which each "minds his own business," which in defective form is a tyranny. A Philosopher-King has the knowledge of the Good with which to rule a just city, combining might and right. In the Republic they explain the classes of the city and their roles: the rulers and philosophers, to rule, the guardians, for defense, and the artisans for beauty. Both believed the worst type of political system was democracy, which they considered the rule of a group of unqualified individuals, so political life was not necessary at all for common people but the political leader was vital to the state.

However, among great thinkers there is always dispute. Aristotle and Cicero seem to differ with their accounts of what is the "best" political system. Aristotle in Happiness critique's the Republic saying it is not practicable and the elimination of property and family would not work because it eliminates happiness. To Aristotle, law is determinative and since it is based on reason, keeps us in line. He agrees that a monarch would be acceptable, but a good one is very rare, so instead a "mixed constitution" would be the "best." So, the best political philosophy according to Aristotle is also the rule of a Philosopher-King, but what is most practicable is the "mixed constitution." He claims, opposite of Plato and Socrates, that the middle class is key to keeping society in line. Therefore, the political leader would be of some importance, but the political life of the citizens would be key.

Cicero, also in contrast to the political philosophy of Plato and Socrates found that a commonwealth or a republic where people share in benefits and rule was the best, a composite state, much like the mixed constitution Aristotle advocated. To avoid inequities people must all have a share of power and the senate would be the critical component in this system. This view is obviously converse to that of the thoughts of Plato and Socrates, who thought that this type of rule was the worst form of all. Political life if very important for the commonwealth but the political leader would have little or no importance as compared to the senate.

Throughout history, outside of religion, political philosophy has been the center of most conflicts in the world. Each theory has its positives and negatives, and all work in theory, however when it comes to reality it is hard to decide which philosophy would benefit everyone involved. Philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Cicero set the groundwork for our studies in this field, helping us continually evolve until we can find and settle on the ideal political philosophy that can provide benefits for the rulers and the ruled.