Political Class, Populism, and Plato

The political classes are being held responsible, academically and in actuality, for the rise of populism. Their failure to create the conditions for growth, apparent disdain for popular opinion, and inability to abide by professional standards have undoubtedly increased the public’s appetite for an alternative type of politician.

Do we, however, expect too much of our politicians and do they, in fact, need to better explain what exactly it is that they are supposed to do?

Before the birth of Christ, Plato considered what it was the politician should do, in his Republic. He argued, rather famously, that the politician should be a philosopher. Philosophers, professionally dedicated to pursuit of knowledge, were, in Plato’s eyes, best placed to identify what the ‘common good’ was. Government’s overriding aim, Plato thought, was to achieve this ‘common good’.

Via a comparison between politicians and doctors, Plato concluded that those most capable of diagnosing the ‘common good’ were also best placed to see to its implementation. Thus, the task of the polis was to come together and anoint its scholars ‘philosopher kings’. These kings would be of both greater knowledge and superior morality. Isolated from the vulgarities of wider society, and with no need to appeal to the public post-elevation, their ideas would remain pure.

Evidently, such a politician would face few challenges regarding delivery and thus, this question was one Plato largely eschewed. Niccolo Machiavelli on the other hand, writing almost two millennia later, was obsessed with it. In The Prince he argued that the politician need not be wise or moral to be effective. In many instances in fact, his being the opposite was to his benefit. Based on his interactions with Florentine statesmen, Machiavelli concluded that the politician who got things done was the one who recognised that the ends justified the means, and was thus able to “enter evil” as and when necessary (The Prince, Ch XVIII).

Centuries later, Max Weber agreed. In his essay ‘Politics as a Vocation’ he explained that the consummate politician had participated in the political games since his early twenties. Entering the game at this stage, he was able to immerse himself in its language, familiarise himself with its various machines, and acclimatise to its atypical administrative structure. Those who joined later, no matter how committed, oblivious to these idiosyncrasies, made ineffective administrators. The polis, therefore, had to focus its efforts on attracting those of exceptional talent earlier. Until then, politics would deliver little for the populus.

These competing visions of the politician, best binarised as the idealist and the careerist, are loathed in equal measure by the masses. The former is hated for his failure to compromise, the latter for his willingness to compromise far too often. By compromising too little or too much, the politician consigns himself to a clime far away from the perch on which the happy medium of public opinion sits. As such, those couching their opinions on the perch become dissatisfied and desirous of a figure who will do exactly as they say.

In this void the populist emerges. Promising the earth, he blames the ignorant and arrogant politicians – ‘the elite’ – for obstructing the people’s will. Once they’re removed, he contends, policies much closer to those preferred by those on the perch will be enacted and the country, navigated by his wisdom, will find itself back on course.

One of the panoply of problems with such a thesis is that the job of a politician is not to find a place on the perch. Rather, her purpose is to take the better traits of each of the idealist and the careerist, and use them to govern. If you do not believe me, consider our constitutional settlement in Britain. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, and choose representatives (local MPs) believing that they, being better informed and more familiar with the idioms of the political game, will be best placed to advocate for us in Parliament and deliver for us in government.

We do not, and should not, elect them expecting that they will do exactly as we wish. Until we make the public aware of this, and politicians more willingly confront this themselves, populism will, with the public feeling deprived of a right, regardless of material realities, reign supreme.

Image: Flickr/Alex-David Baldi

Licence.

No image changes made.