2400 years ago, ancient Greek philosopher Plato, unhappy with the way Greece was ruled, wrote a book about his perfect state. In this work, aptly titled 'The Republic', he argues that the ruler should be a philosopher at the same time: "and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands" Despite its age, this idea still appeals to a lot of people. In a world where a lot of misery is simply seen as a failure of politicians, it's easy to yearn for a king like Plato's philosopher: a man who is wise enough to make all the right decisions, and do what is best for a nation and its people. Such a ruler would naturally make the perfect world to come about; how could anyone be against that?
How appealing it seems, the reality is that Plato's ideas, designed to create paradise, simply do not work. Paradise could never be created by the man Plato describes.
But the way in which Plato describes his philosopher king, is almost as if he describes the perfect human. The perfect human, which is, like all things perfect, is almost impossible to find.
The requirements Plato sets are, among others: abstention of any material joys, almost divine enlightenment, lifelong dedication to the public cause, and being incorruptible despite having all the power. While it isn't that rare for someone to have one of those traits, a combination of all is. Even if a man would be able to, it would take a lot of willpower to exchange a happy life for a cumbersome without any light points. History teaches us that these figures aren't exactly as abundant as Plato would like them to be - and even those who, arguably, qualify for these points, are worn down by the task. It is no coincidence that the Brazilian emperor Pedro II, cited by some as the greatest ruler Latin-America has ever had, didn't do anything when his reign threatened to be ended by a coup: he had no desire left to reign after 60 years of this exhausting job, and resigned to a fate of exile.
Another aspect which is ignored by Plato, is the fact that being a ruler is much more than plain decision making: a qualitative leader is someone who instills trust in his people, and is convincingly the authority. Particularly in times of unforeseen catastrophes there is a great need for someone in who people trust, to keep them from panicking and staying obedient to the orders and advices given, which in cause can aid a good ending to such catastrophes. Plato's philosopher-king, however, does not possess these qualities. He is a philosopher above all, trained in the decision making, the inner intellect. That is fine in times of steady peace, when qualitative decisions speak for themselves, but in those uncertain times not only decisions are needed. The man making them needs the charisma and authority to convince the people that they will actually work. It is no coincidence that many of the leaders who we now count among the 'greats' ruled in times of need: Winston Churchill is only a recent example, when the United Kingdom needed a stern head of state to face the Nazi threat. I doubt the English people would have had such a trust someone else. Trust they needed badly, to undergo all the burdens they had to in that taxing war.
Supporters of Plato's ideas also point at the efficiency of a single ruler like his king. In our times decisions and laws often take months or even years to pass the parliament, never arriving with the power and consequences as they were intended to do. They are slowed and thinned down by the countless democratic obstacles: opposition parties, protest groups, the endless negotiations. As a result, the power of lawmakers is severely diminished and they are sometimes unable to comp- etently react to emerging situations. Not due to a lack of intelligence, but the democratic system renders quick and effective decisions impossible. All these problems are solved by bypassing this bureaucratic monster, Plato's supporters argue. Effective decisions will become a possibility again.
What these supporters forget, however, is the important role that this bureaucracy plays: with everyone having, more or less, a say in the decision as it is being taken, this system ensures that it is fair to everyone. Just as everyone gets their fair share in the process, everyone gets their fair share in the resulting law; the need for the support of a majority makes sure that no decision is made, too harsh against anyone's interests. It is true that sometimes, this is an obstacle to effective measures, but at the same time you can count on everyone, maybe grudgingly, approving of it. The Philosopher king has no such guarantee: he makes decisions entirely on his own, and has no voice of the people to answer to. As a result, he can easily make decisions which are ultimately against the will of the people and therefore against the interests of the people. The people, who he is supposed to serve.
To sum it up, it is no surprise that Plato's ideas are 2400 years old; he hadn't yet experienced the powerful (indirect) democracy we know, and has brought us to where we are, today. While one wise man would in theory be the ideal head of state, he didn't have the long history we have now, which shows us time and time again that the dream of a perfect and strong ruler can easily turn into a nightmare of a real tyranny - and not in the ancient Greek sense of that word. Moreover, the qualities Plato look for in a leader are qualities that do not make a state fail-proof. It's right the things like natural charm, which make a huge difference in times when leaders are the most needed. And finally, the supporters of Plato's dictator claim that such a man is able to make more effective decisions. True as that may be, these effective decisions aren't in favor of the people: it is the people, ultimately, who can decide what is. Not a single king, as philosophized as he may be.
It may be clear that Plato's ideas are dated: his 'ideal' state is best left as a relic of times long past; like most ancient Greek things are.
