A critical analysis of the King Philospher Theory
Amongst the many problems that the 21st century brings to us, the lack of justice and equality is one of the most prevalent. With movements like ‘Black Lives Matter’ growing rampant, the promise of democracy is being tested, and safe to say, it doesn't seem to be faring very well. In its stead, variants to the age old testament have begun to emerge, and amongst that lays the idea of a “Philosopher King.” Originally put forth by Plato, A Philosopher King was, as the name suggests, a philosopher who would rule a kingdom. The idea emerges from Plato's quest of justice (documented in The Republic), to create a “polis”- an ideal city. The ideas’ feasibility and applicability has been debated over, since the Roman Empire, however usually reaching the conclusive answer that it would do more harm than good to the motion of bringing about a polis.
Plato proposed the idea of a Philosopher King with the intention of serving the purpose of a democracy, in its alternative form a benevolent dictatorship. Plato interpreted the idea of democracy in its literal form; “The Rule of the Demos” or rule of the mob- who Plato believed were severely unfit and uneducated to make decisions for a city. To prove his point, Plato uses the analogy of a ship captain, being the only person qualified to run a ship. Applying this principle to politics, only the most qualified should run a state, and the only people who are fit to run a state are philosophers, who strive to find the ‘ultimate truth’ and hidden away in that truth, lies knowledge, making them the specialised faction of people, fit to run a state. Plato goes on to say that the most important virtues for a ruler would be the possession of truth and knowledge; both which would allow them to act inherently moral, once again proving his case for Philosopher Kings.
However, is it truly possible during the 21st century? Let’s begin with exploring what a benevolent dictatorship would mean for states. The praise for benevolent dictatorships stems from comparisons of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew or Rwanda's Paul Kagame, who have both turned their respective states around to show citizens a brighter future. However, most countries' political systems have no place for Benevolent dictators due to the state's sheer size or the modern world's need for equal representation for all. Although Plato may believe that democracy gives power to the unfit, the rest of the world operates on the precedent that equitability means more power and representation. Secondly, the idea of a Philosopher King seems to be very contradictory. In his attempt to create a perfectly just and equal city, Plato seems to forget that giving sole power to an aristocracy (so to speak) could turn out to be more repressive than inclusive, just like Uzbekistan. The Republic of Uzbekistan, follows a similar model to what Plato proposes- a democracy with authoritarian control- which has only led the state to suffer from economic dislocation, political crisis and persistent regional agitation.
Although perfect on paper, Plato's ideas of a Philosopher King are innately unfeasible, specifically in the backdrop of the 21st Century, where representation and equality are valued at higher prices than truth and knowledge are. The proposal of a benevolent dictatorship, may once again, seem perfect on paper, but the evidence from various countries proves that it is anything but a fit model to follow. Although the model may seem to strive for equality, it does the exact opposite when implemented, making it an incredibly unfit solution to modern democracies crisis.
Sources:
You can find this piece at: https://thea-ivory.vercel.app/article/a-critical-analysis-of-the-philosopher-king-theory