The Ancient Greeks did not have a dedicated theory
about the idea of sovereignty but they developed the conceptualisation of State
and its implications so we in fact are able to at least have hints about their
thoughts in regards also to sovereignty.
Plato sets up the basis from where the Greek
philosophers and thinkers (even the modern ones) depart. Plato understands that
we are in presence of a State “when we have got hold of enough people to
satisfy our many varied needs, we have assembled quite a large number of
partners and helpers together to live in one place […]”.[1]
He summarised with his conceptualisation all the elements we consider nowadays
essential for the existence of a State: population, territory, government. Note
that law is not mentioned but will be present throughout his work.
It is time now to focus our attention on another
element that is part of a sovereign State and the Ancient Greeks considered
too: the government.
Plato is clear about the relationship between two
elements of the equation: government and law: “[a]t any rate the next and
necessary step in this amalgamation is to choose some representatives to review
the rules of all the families, and to propose openly to the leaders and heads
of the people – the ‘kings’ […]. These representatives will be known as
lawgivers, and by appointing the leaders as officials they will create out the
separate autocracies a sort of aristocracy, or perhaps a kingship”.[2]
That is to say, the representatives of the people that live in a certain
territory and the rules or norms that are used to allow their coexistence. It is clear that Ancient Greek thinkers
considered the government or representatives as a necessity or necessary
condition—i.e. the population’s need to have a direction, a purpose.
In other words, Plato refers firstly to what we may
understand nowadays as population and territory; secondly, their necessities.
Depending on the context the representatives will be elected and the law will
follow. The following quotation illustrates the point:
“There are two stages involved in organizing a
society. First you establish official positions and appoint people to hold
them: you decide how many posts there should be and how they ought to be
filled. Then each office has to be given its particular laws […]”.[3]
Plato goes further by reviewing the qualities
required in the Guardians (as he calls the representatives) or rulers: “[a]nd
so our properly good Guardian will have the following characteristics: a
philosophic disposition, high spirits, speed, and strength”.[4]
He highlights here the idea of a “good representative” as a polar star to be
aimed for. He is not being idealistic in the sense his dialogue is purely
theoretical. He is only giving us a hint. That is the reason why he follows: “[a]nd
it’s absolutely vital to give your best attention to choosing, first of all,
Guardians of the Laws”[5]
since they will be representing people’s will and in dong so they would have to
excel, to stand out from the crowd due to their virtues. Indeed, the rulers had
to be virtuous according to Plato, something that seems to have been forgotten
after so many centuries and many of our current representatives should be
reminded of.
People’s will is crucial. Without using the
concept, Plato implicitly includes the notion of people’s sovereignty: “[s]o we
must choose from among our Guardians those who appear to us on observation to
be most likely to devote their lives to doing what they judge to be in the
interest of the community, and who are never prepared to act against it”.[6]
At least in The
Republic and the Politicus or the
Statesman we can easily see the
sovereign power rests o people’s shoulders. We can discuss if the sovereignty
is an attribute of the population or of the representatives but it is
definitely a human one. The Laws may
suggest a change. However, I consider The
Laws as a metaphor: if population and representatives are unable to coexist
in an orderly manner, they create a “tool” in order to allow “civilised”
relationships.
Plato will always aim for the best in everything.
Being the representatives the pinnacle of a social system it is not strange
that he requires from them the highest quality in terms of virtues (or
excellences in a literal translation). The philosopher has the principal virtue
(wisdom) that can balance the three key elements that are the essence of any
human being: reason, spirit and appetite. So it is to be expected that:
“[t]he society we have described can never grow
into reality or see the light of day, and there will be no end to the troubles
of states, or indeed, […] of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in
this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become
philosophers […]”.[7]
Consequently, “[t]he ‘philosopher-king’ is not a
mere addition or insertion: he is the logical result of the whole method on
which the construction of the State has proceeded”.[8]
Next time The
Laws, The Politicus, and The Republic.
[2]
Plato, The
Laws, translated by T. J. Saunders, Penguin Books, 1976, 125.
[3]
Plato, The
Laws, translated by T. J. Saunders, Penguin Books, 1976, p. 221.
[5]
Plato, The
Laws, translated by T. J. Saunders, Penguin Books, 1976, p. 223.
[8]
Barker, Ernest, Greek
political theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p.
170.
