Aristocracy has become a dirty word; I would argue rightly so, given its association with the landed gentry, unearned seats in government and regressive social hierarchies, such as pre-revolutionary France and pre-Reform Act Britain. However, in its first usage, it referred to its literal definition; rule by the excellent. In theory, it refers to rule by an individual, or group of individuals, chosen for their excellence. All states are at some point aristocracies; the best of a people are chosen to be military and political leaders in times of crisis.
In The Republic, Plato describes rule by a philosopher-king, chosen for his wisdom and logical thinking. He defends the concept of vesting so much power in one person with his famous Ship of State analogy. The leader of the state is represented by the captain of the ship. Plato describes the current captain as being "a little deaf and having a little infirmity in sight". Consequently, the men on the ship begin to quarrel as to who should steer the ship. Plato argued that as we all agree that the best seafarer (and the best seafarer alone) should sail the ship, we should subsequently agree that the men best suited to run a society (and those men alone) should run the society.
In the modern era, what Plato described would likely be called as a meritocracy. Upon etymological comparison, we find that an aristocracy is an extension of a meritocracy; meritocracy means "deserving to rule" and aristocracy means "rule by the excellent". "I have the right to govern because I am excellent in the matters of governance", the leader of an aristocracy would say. In Plato's theoretical republic, heredity would pose no threat to a philosopher-king, less suitable children would only be trained as to their potential, even if they were born of the leaders.
I largely agree with Plato; I agree that it is illogical to expect the untrained masses to make critical decisions about the future of a state. However, I have identified two potential drawbacks to an aristocracy. While we might be able to select for those we believe to be the most intelligent and rational, we cannot select for those who are benevolent, as it is impossible to truly know a person's intentions. It is very likely that someone who is suited to run a state from an intellectual standpoint, might, knowing what will best benefit his people, choose evil over good, and through malevolence have his people destroyed.
The other of the flaws is that such a system is likely to become hereditary. While Plato argued that only the intelligent, regardless of parental social status, would be trained in governance. This is unlikely to play out in reality because the aristocrat is likely to be consumed by power in his old age, and pass on his title to his son. In such an event, the people would have no legal right to rise up against the philosopher-king's decision, as his decision is supposedly the wisest.
However despite this, I believe that at least some of our government should select the individuals most qualified for governance. We see in this in some form in modern Britain with the House of Lords; a great number of this body were selected for their expertise in various fields such as medicine and business. I believe that the entirety of at least one of the Houses of Parliament should be of individuals that have demonstrated prowess in a particular field. My proposed reform would also involve making the House of Lords more essential to government by allowing the Lords to raise bills regarding taxes, among other things.
We can establish an aristocracy that benefits the people, by adding a technocratic element to our government. Aristocracy no longer has to be a dirty word.
In The Republic, Plato describes rule by a philosopher-king, chosen for his wisdom and logical thinking. He defends the concept of vesting so much power in one person with his famous Ship of State analogy. The leader of the state is represented by the captain of the ship. Plato describes the current captain as being "a little deaf and having a little infirmity in sight". Consequently, the men on the ship begin to quarrel as to who should steer the ship. Plato argued that as we all agree that the best seafarer (and the best seafarer alone) should sail the ship, we should subsequently agree that the men best suited to run a society (and those men alone) should run the society.
In the modern era, what Plato described would likely be called as a meritocracy. Upon etymological comparison, we find that an aristocracy is an extension of a meritocracy; meritocracy means "deserving to rule" and aristocracy means "rule by the excellent". "I have the right to govern because I am excellent in the matters of governance", the leader of an aristocracy would say. In Plato's theoretical republic, heredity would pose no threat to a philosopher-king, less suitable children would only be trained as to their potential, even if they were born of the leaders.
I largely agree with Plato; I agree that it is illogical to expect the untrained masses to make critical decisions about the future of a state. However, I have identified two potential drawbacks to an aristocracy. While we might be able to select for those we believe to be the most intelligent and rational, we cannot select for those who are benevolent, as it is impossible to truly know a person's intentions. It is very likely that someone who is suited to run a state from an intellectual standpoint, might, knowing what will best benefit his people, choose evil over good, and through malevolence have his people destroyed.
The other of the flaws is that such a system is likely to become hereditary. While Plato argued that only the intelligent, regardless of parental social status, would be trained in governance. This is unlikely to play out in reality because the aristocrat is likely to be consumed by power in his old age, and pass on his title to his son. In such an event, the people would have no legal right to rise up against the philosopher-king's decision, as his decision is supposedly the wisest.
However despite this, I believe that at least some of our government should select the individuals most qualified for governance. We see in this in some form in modern Britain with the House of Lords; a great number of this body were selected for their expertise in various fields such as medicine and business. I believe that the entirety of at least one of the Houses of Parliament should be of individuals that have demonstrated prowess in a particular field. My proposed reform would also involve making the House of Lords more essential to government by allowing the Lords to raise bills regarding taxes, among other things.
We can establish an aristocracy that benefits the people, by adding a technocratic element to our government. Aristocracy no longer has to be a dirty word.
Comments
Post a Comment