Showing posts with label Greece. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greece. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 July 2025

The Borders We Share: Narnia’s Sea, Aegean Edge (Post 17)

 

The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World

The sea stretched wide and wild, its waves crashing against the jagged cliffs of Narnia with a rhythm that echoed the heartbeat of ancient tales, its waters shimmering with the weight of contested tides and the echoes of divided histories. A grand pavilion rose along the shore, its sapphire banners snapping in the salty breeze, its interior illuminated by lanterns that cast a shimmering glow across a map woven from threads of light and water. This was no mere gathering—it was a crucible where the fleets of Narnia clashed with those of a rival realm, their dispute a mirror to the real-world tensions between Greece and Turkey over the Aegean Sea, now shadowed by the divided legacy of Cyprus, an island torn by ethnic strife and international intrigue. Dr. Jorge Emilio Núñez stepped into this hallowed space, his holographic map unfurling like a living tapestry, its pulses weaving a story of multidimensional magic to bind these warring shores—and ours. The air thrummed with the weight of fleets, the cries of displaced peoples, and the wisdom of ages past, a saga where the sea itself held the key to peace or peril.

Inside, the pavilion pulsed with presence. King Peter, crowned with the weight of Narnian legacy, stood tall, his sword gleaming with the resolve of a ruler defending his realm. Queen Susan, her bow strung with the wisdom of diplomacy, offered a steady gaze, her heart heavy with the plight of her people. From the rival realm came Queen Jadis, her icy presence a challenge to Narnian claims, flanked by her advisor, a cunning strategist named Rabadash, whose ambitions mirrored those of a foreign invader. Joining them were spectral figures of history—Aristotle and Plato, their robes flowing with the grace of Greek philosophy, and Mehmed II, the Ottoman conqueror, his gaze fierce with the legacy of conquest. Dr Jorge, guided by the insights of Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (2023) and Sovereignty Conflicts (2020, Chapter 7 on Cyprus), raised his hands, inviting them into a narrative not of conquest but of shared destiny. “This is no battlefield of steel or storm,” he said, “but a dance of dimensions where every wave, every heart, finds its place, reflecting Cyprus’s divided soul.” The assembly leaned in, drawn by the promise of a story that might calm the seas, their breaths held as the dialogue began to unfold.

The pavilion’s sapphire banners fluttered like the wings of sea birds, the lanterns casting a warm glow over a map etched with the contours of Narnia’s coast, the rival realm’s jagged shores, and the faint outline of a divided island reminiscent of Cyprus. The air carried the scent of brine and cedar, a reminder of the fleets that sailed these waters, the islands that sparked their strife, and the displaced communities echoing the Greek and Turkish Cypriots separated by the Attila Line since 1974. The map pulsed with the struggle over tides—Narnia’s claim to the eastern seas clashing with the rival realm’s assertion over western currents, a reflection of Greece and Turkey’s Aegean dispute, now layered with Cyprus’s ethnic division following the Turkish intervention. The scent mingled with the tension of a region teetering on war, where the legacy of Ottoman rule, British occupation, and modern geopolitics shaped the narrative, much like Cyprus’s journey from Greek roots to a partitioned present.

Dr Jorge stepped forward, his voice a storyteller’s spell. “This is our stage, where rulers and realms dance together, mirroring Cyprus’s tale of two peoples, leader agendas, and external powers, as detailed in my 2020 book, Sovereignty Conflicts, Chapter 7. Let us hear their truths and seek a path beyond.” The pavilion’s air thickened with the weight of history—Cyprus’s transformation from a Greek island in ancient times, taken by the Ottomans in the 1570s, occupied by Britain in 1878 and made a Crown Colony in 1925, achieving independence in 1960, only to fracture with Turkey’s 1974 intervention and the creation of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus. The failure of the Annan Plan and the ongoing claims of displaced Greek Cypriots for return, alongside the influx of Turkish settlers, echoed in the room.

Around the map stood a constellation of voices, each a vivid stroke in this unfolding epic. King Peter, his armor etched with the lion’s crest, spoke with the resolve of a monarch guarding his heritage, flanked by a Narnian admiral whose family had fished these waters for generations, their lives tied to the land like Greek Cypriots to their ancestral homes before Ottoman rule. Queen Susan, her bow a symbol of balance, offered a voice of reason, joined by a coastal elder whose village thrived on the sea’s bounty, mirroring the displaced Greek Cypriots’ yearning for return and their unfulfilled rights to restitution confirmed by international courts. Queen Jadis, her scepter gleaming with frost, challenged Narnian dominance, supported by Rabadash, whose strategic mind plotted to expand their realm’s reach, echoing Turkey’s 1974 occupation and the active encouragement of settlers by a foreign power. The historical figures joined—Aristotle, his mind a beacon of logic, Plato, his vision of harmony profound, and Mehmed II, his presence a reminder of Ottoman might and the conquest that reshaped Cyprus.

The air thickened with their arguments, a storm brewing over the waves as these voices prepared to face a vision of unity. Dr Jorge’s hologram flared with light, a beacon in the fray. “From Cosmopolitanism (2023) and Cyprus’s lessons in Sovereignty Conflicts (2020), I bring a vision to split this conflict—not with swords, but with shared dreams across dimensions. Let each ruler and sage speak, and let us weave a solution from their words, drawing on Cyprus’s geostrategic pull, leader agendas, and the roles of the UN, EU, and NATO.” The assembly leaned closer, the sound of the sea outside a constant reminder of the stakes, the echoes of Cyprus’s divided shore resonating in their debate.

Peter’s voice rose, firm yet weary. “Our fleets protect Narnia’s tides—our islands are our lifeline, our heritage, as Cyprus’s Greek roots once were before the Ottoman shift.” Jadis’s laugh was cold. “Your heritage is greed—our shores deserve equal share, enforced by our might, like Turkish Cypriots’ autonomy post-1974.” Susan interjected, “Peace can guide us—let’s find a balance, as Cyprus’s Annan Plan sought to heal its divide.” Rabadash smirked, “Balance favors the strong, as settlers strengthened our claim, mirroring Turkey’s strategy.” Dr Jorge nodded, “Cyprus’s division—Greek and Turkish Cypriots, the Attila Line—teaches us of mutual concessions. Let’s craft a path forward, with wisdom from Aristotle, Plato, and Mehmed.”

The pavilion vibrated with a chorus of voices, each a thread in this tapestry of struggle, rising like the crash of waves against the shore. King Peter’s cry was resolute, his hand resting on his sword. “Narnia’s fleets claim these tides—our islands, from Cair Paravel to the eastern shoals, are ours by right. We defend against incursions that threaten our trade and people, a heritage as old as Cyprus’s Greek roots before the 1570s Ottoman conquest!” The Narnian admiral nodded, his voice rough with experience. “My kin have fished these waters for ages—our livelihood depends on this claim, like Greek Cypriots before British rule and the 1974 displacement.” Queen Susan added, her tone measured, “Yet war drains us—diplomacy can secure our future, as Cyprus’s displaced Greek Cypriots dream of return, their rights affirmed yet unfulfilled.” Queen Jadis’s retort was an icy whip, her scepter pointed at the map. “Your greed knows no bounds—our western currents and islands are ours, seized by your overreach, much like Turkish Cypriots’ exclusion from power after British governance!” Rabadash leaned forward, his eyes calculating. “Strength proves right—our fleets and settlers will enforce our share, as Turkey did in 1974 with settlers encouraged by their government.”

The historical voices joined, their wisdom bridging centuries. Aristotle spoke, his tone deliberate. “Reason must guide—claims must balance utility and justice, as in a polis, avoiding Cyprus’s ethnic strife.” Plato added, his voice ethereal, “Harmony of souls and states, not conquest, builds a true republic, as Cyprus’s division cries for.” Mehmed II’s growl was commanding. “Might shapes destiny—my conquest of Constantinople in 1453 proves strength’s role, as in Cyprus’s Turkish rise and 1974 intervention.” The pavilion held its breath, the clash of these voices a storm over the sea. Dr Jorge raised his hands, his hologram swirling with light. “This echoes the Aegean, where Greece claims its islands’ waters, and Turkey asserts rights over the shelf, but Cyprus’s tale—its ethnic divide, leader agendas, and geostrategic pull from Sovereignty Conflicts (2020)—deepens the lesson. Let us turn this tension into a dance of dimensions.”

Peter responded, “Our defense is just—incursions must stop, as Greek Cypriots defended their heritage against Turkish military action.” Jadis countered, “Your justice is conquest—our claim is equal, as Turkish Cypriots sought autonomy post-1960.” Susan sighed, “Both can thrive if we share, like Cyprus’s failed Annan Plan aimed to unite its communities.” Rabadash sneered, “Sharing weakens us—power, like Turkey’s intervention, decides, bolstered by settlers.” Aristotle interjected, “Balance utility—overreach harms all, as Plato’s harmony suggests for Cyprus’s displaced.” Plato nodded, “A just state shares, not seizes—Cyprus’s partition proves this need.” Mehmed challenged, “Strength built empires—weakness loses them, as Cyprus fell to Ottoman and Turkish hands.” Dr Jorge nodded, “Cyprus’s leaders used these views domestically and globally, pressuring through public opinion—let’s explore a solution.”

The dialogue deepened, each voice weaving into the other with greater intensity. Peter insisted, “Our islands are strategic—losing them risks Narnia’s soul, as Cyprus’s geostrategic location near Syria, Turkey, and Greece fuels its unresolved strife.” Jadis shot back, “Your soul is greed—our shores need protection too, like Turkish Cypriots after 1974, supported by Turkey’s might.” Susan pleaded, “Protection need not mean war—let’s negotiate boundaries, as the UN tried in Cyprus with the Annan Plan, though it failed.” Rabadash challenged, “Negotiation is surrender—our strength, like settlers, will prevail, as Turkish Cypriots gained a federated state.” Aristotle argued, “Reason seeks mutual benefit—Cyprus’s Annan Plan lacked this balance.” Plato urged, “Harmony requires compromise, not force, to heal Cyprus’s wounds.” Mehmed countered, “Compromise yields to the victor—my conquests and Turkey’s 1974 move show this.” Dr Jorge interjected, “Cyprus’s NATO and EU ties didn’t resolve it—its history and resources entwine with people’s perceptions, as Greek leaders sought cohesion and Turkish ones autonomy. Let’s draw from these lessons.”

Dr Jorge swept his hand over the hologram, and the air shimmered as dimensions unfurled, a kaleidoscope of light and shadow. “In *Cosmopolitanism*,” he began, his voice a spell, “I saw a world where every claim, every heart, dances in dimensions—linear order, nonlinear chaos, shaped by lives and lands, as in Cyprus’s Chapter 7 of Sovereignty Conflicts (2020).” The map flared, revealing Narnia’s eastern tides, the rival realm’s western currents, the Aegean’s contested waters, and Cyprus’s divided shores, its geostrategic position a silent witness. “This is our magic,” he said, “a fix to heal with shared dreams, mirroring Greece-Turkey’s Aegean and Cyprus’s ethnic strife, where history, resources, and international actors like the UN shape the narrative.” Peter, Susan, Jadis, Rabadash, Aristotle, Plato, and Mehmed leaned closer, their presence a chorus of contention, ready to engage.

The linear dimensions formed a structured ballet. The vertical dimension painted a hierarchy—Narnian fleets patrolled from above, the rival realm’s ships sailed below, with neutral mediators as judges, echoing Cyprus’s UN buffer zone along the Attila Line. Peter justified, “We guard our islands from Jadis’s incursions—our height ensures safety, like Greek Cypriots’ defense against 1974.” Jadis countered, “Your height is tyranny—our ships deserve equal patrol, as Turkish Cypriots sought governance post-independence.” The horizontal dimension wove equality, with Narnian and rival fishers sharing quotas, mirroring Cyprus’s displaced communities’ resource struggles and Greek Cypriots’ unfulfilled restitution claims. Susan proposed, “Equal access can sustain us, as Cyprus’s return demands justice.” Rabadash argued, “Equality favors Narnia’s dominance, like Turkish settlers’ influx after 1974.” The diagonal dimension flowed—Narnian trade routes crossed the rival realm’s fishing lanes, reflecting Cyprus’s geostrategic oil and gas disputes near Syria and Turkey. Aristotle noted, “Utility balances trade, as Plato’s harmony suggests for Cyprus’s resources.” Plato added, “Diagonal ties need justice to resolve ethnic divides.” Mehmed growled, “Trade follows conquest—Cyprus’s oil debates prove my legacy.” Dr Jorge noted, “Greece and Turkey’s diagonal tensions, plus Cyprus’s location, guide us toward a shared framework.”

The nonlinear dimensions added a wild pulse. The self-referred dimension saw Narnia’s pride echo the rival realm’s defiance—Peter citing heritage, Jadis citing survival, like Greek and Turkish Cypriot narratives of exclusion and removal. The regressive dimension dragged past raids into the present, fueling mistrust, akin to Cyprus’s 1570 Ottoman shift and 1974 intervention. The chaotic dimension flared with unpredictable skirmishes, while the random dimension sparked hope—a chance alliance. Peter insisted, “Our pride defends our people, as Greek Cypriots rallied post-1974.” Jadis retorted, “Your pride invades ours, like Turkish intervention and settler policies!” Susan urged, “Chaos can end with dialogue, as Cyprus’s Annan Plan tried, though it failed.” Rabadash sneered, “Random hope is weak, like Cyprus’s UN efforts.” Aristotle argued, “Reason tames chaos—Cyprus’s division needs logical compromise.” Plato urged, “Harmony bends the random, as a just state would heal Cyprus.” Mehmed countered, “Chaos yields to strength—my rule and Turkey’s 1974 move shaped Cyprus.” Dr Jorge responded, “Cyprus’s interplay of people, leaders, and global actors like NATO shows nonlinear paths—let’s bend these into peace, from physical waves to mental pride, learning from its stalled resolutions.”

The debate intensified further, voices overlapping with passion. Peter argued, “Our islands’ control is non-negotiable—raids threaten us, like Cyprus’s displaced Greek Cypriots facing military removal.” Jadis shot back, “Your control steals our rights—raids are resistance, as Turkish Cypriots resisted Greek dominance post-1960!” Susan countered, “Resistance need not mean war—let’s map shared zones, as Cyprus’s EU talks suggest, despite NATO’s limits.” Rabadash challenged, “Zones weaken us—force, like Turkey’s occupation, wins, with settlers securing our hold.” Aristotle interjected, “Reason seeks mutual zones—Cyprus’s Annan Plan lacked this balance, fueling its divide.” Plato added, “Harmony requires it, as displaced Cypriots deserve return.” Mehmed laughed, “Force shaped Cyprus—zones are dreams against my conquests.” Dr Jorge pressed, “Cyprus’s history—its 1974 rupture, leader prestige, and public pressure—shows sharing can work. Let’s weave a random leap, like joint patrols, into our fix, drawing on its UN buffer zone.”

The pavilion trembled as voices clashed, a storm breaking over the sea. Peter’s sword flashed from its scabbard. “Jadis’s incursions threaten Narnia—our strikes defend our tides, like Cyprus’s Greek defense against 1974!” Susan pleaded, “Strikes escalate—let’s talk, as Cyprus’s displaced Greek Cypriots plead for return!” Jadis’s scepter gleamed. “Your greed justifies our resistance—we will not bow, like Turkish Cypriots’ stand post-exclusion!” Rabadash added, “Our fleets will crush your claim, as settlers bolstered us, mirroring Turkey’s strategy!” The air crackled with defiance. Aristotle spoke, “Reason curbs strikes—balance is key, as Cyprus’s ethnic strife demands.” Plato urged, “Harmony ends resistance, healing Cyprus’s wounds.” Mehmed growled, “Resistance bows to might—Cyprus fell to me and Turkey’s intervention!” Dr Jorge raised his hands, the hologram swirling. “War drains the sea. A council with veto power, guided by dialogue, can mend this, reflecting Cyprus’s UN efforts and its stalled Annan Plan. Will you bend?”

Peter insisted, “Our defense is survival—incursions must end, as Greek Cypriots fought Turkish forces.” Jadis retorted, “Your survival is our loss—resistance is our right, like Turkish Cypriots’ exclusion from power!” Susan interjected, “Both can survive with peace—let’s negotiate, as Cyprus’s Annan Plan aimed, though it failed.” Rabadash sneered, “Negotiation is weakness—power, like Turkey’s 1974 move, prevails with settlers.” Aristotle countered, “Reason trumps power—Cyprus’s division proves negotiation’s need.” Plato nodded, “Harmony heals, as Cyprus’s displaced deserve.” Mehmed challenged, “Harmony lost Cyprus—might wins, as my conquests show.” Dr Jorge nodded, “Cyprus’s leaders leveraged public opinion in Greece and Turkey—let’s seek a higher path, as its NATO and EU ties suggest potential.”

The clash deepened with greater fervor. Peter warned, “Lose our islands, and Narnia falls, like Cyprus’s geostrategic loss to Turkish control.” Jadis countered, “Lose ours, and we fade—fight or yield, as Turkish Cypriots did under Greek pressure!” Susan urged, “Fighting fades us both—share the sea, as Cyprus’s displaced dream of unity.” Rabadash laughed, “Sharing is surrender, like Cyprus’s failed UN plans.” Aristotle pressed, “Reason shares—Cyprus needs this balance.” Plato agreed, “Harmony shares, healing its divide.” Mehmed retorted, “Sharing yields to conquest, as Cyprus’s history proves.” Dr Jorge pressed, “Cyprus’s mutual concessions and international support, despite NATO’s limits, show sharing can work—let’s build on that with a council.”

The hologram pulsed, a living web binding the sea’s heart. Dr Jorge’s voice wove through the tension. “In Sovereignty Conflicts (2020), I saw shared rule as a quantum thread, as Cyprus’s Chapter 7 suggests with its UN mediation attempts. Let’s craft a fix: a Sea Passport to unite fishers across borders, an EEZ zoned with a 50-50 resource split to reflect equality, and a council with neutral oversight—born from our debate, like Cyprus’s buffer zone vision.” The light flared, a path emerging organically, its roots in physical tides, social bonds, and mental pride. Peter relented, “If incursions stop and trade flows, we join, like Greek Cypriots’ return hope.” Susan nodded, “A shared sea sustains us, as Cyprus’s displaced yearn for justice.” Jadis softened, “Equal resources and patrol—yes, if respected, like Turkish Cypriot autonomy.” Rabadash mused, “Power shared is power gained—let’s try, as Cyprus’s settlers adapted to a federated state.”

The dialogue shaped the solution with greater depth. Peter argued, “Our islands need security, like Cyprus’s Greek defense post-1974.” Jadis countered, “Ours need freedom, as Turkish Cypriots sought post-exclusion.” Susan proposed, “A joint patrol can balance both, as Cyprus’s Annan Plan tried, with UN support.” Rabadash challenged, “Patrols risk conflict, like NATO’s Cyprus limits.” Aristotle suggested, “Reason guides patrols—Cyprus’s UN buffer shows it, balancing utility.” Plato added, “Harmony stabilizes, as a just state would.” Mehmed nodded, “If strength is respected, as my conquests demanded.” Dr Jorge suggested, “Cyprus’s EU talks and Greece-Turkey’s 1988 Aegean calm prove a council can mediate, offering incentives like resource shares.” Peter agreed, “If it ensures our tides and honors our heritage.” Jadis nodded, “If our currents are safe and our autonomy respected.” The council—Peter, Susan, Jadis, Rabadash, Aristotle, Plato, Mehmed—set a pilot ablaze in a shared zone, mirroring Cyprus’s UN buffer and Aegean talks. Resources flowed, communities thrived, displaced voices were heard, and a dawn rose over the unified waters.

Beyond the pavilion, this tale touches your world, where Narnia’s sea, the Aegean, and Cyprus shape your fish, your oil, your peace. A clash could empty your markets, spike your costs, drag the region to war’s edge, its ripples felt in every home. But this magic—linear order, nonlinear leaps, a dance of dimensions—turns rivals to partners. Narnia’s claim and the rival realm’s roots mirror Greece-Turkey’s island disputes and Cyprus’s ethnic divide, its 1974 rupture, displaced cries for return, and the geostrategic pull near Syria and Turkey, all crying for unity. Dr Jorge’s council, drawing from Cyprus’s lessons and the wisdom of Aristotle, Plato, and Mehmed, could lift coastal villages and divided communities to a shared future, balancing security, freedom, and justice.

This is your story—your meal, your calm, your stake in a teetering world. Turn away, and ripples bite—prices soar, cannons roar. Step in, shape it with us at https://drjorge.world  or X: https://x.com/DrJorge_World . The sea awaits your hand, a chance to write unity’s end, harvesting peace from unified currents.

  • Núñez, J.E. (2017). Sovereignty Conflicts (Ch. 7).
  • Núñez, J.E. (2023). Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (Ch. 6).

New posts every Tuesday.

Post #16: Lilliput’s Isles, Senkaku Clash, Part II: A multidimensional fix splits the speck.


Bonus Post: The Sands of Unity


  • Post #18: Blefuscu’s Boats, Paracel Puzzle (July 15, 2025)—Blefuscu sails against Laputa’s waters, like Vietnam-China’s Paracels.

State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)

AMAZON

ROUTLEDGE, TAYLOR & FRANCIS

Tuesday 8th July 2025

Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez

X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World

https://drjorge.world

Friday, 6 November 2015

Plato, the Ancient Greeks and the idea of Sovereignty [THIRD PART]

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.



With The Republic “[…] there seems reason to believe it was monarchy which claimed [Plato’s] allegiance. A famous sentence of the Republic tells us, that there will be no rest from their troubles for the cities of Greece or for all mankind, until the days of philosopher kings; and from the Politicus we also learn the necessity of ideal and absolute monarchy. […] Reason, being one and indivisible, rules the spirit and the multitude of desires in the individual mind: reason, incarnate in one sovereign, must rule all other classes in the State. In such a sovereign the theories of the Republic culminate. […]The Platonic theory of monarchy is expounded in the Politicus”.[2]  However interesting, this point is not relevant here. Plato revaluates several forms of governments from different angles. It is true he considers monarchy as the best option in theory but he knows—being a pragmatic—that democracy results more feasible. The key detail for here: the sovereignty of a State remains a “human” attribute.

Let us turn the attention to what Plato says in the Politicus in relation to the Guardians, representatives, statesman or government:

“[…] we started by taking theoretical knowledge and distinguishing an instructional part of if, and we then drew on an analogy to make up the term ‘producer-instructional’ for a further subdivision. Next, within this ‘producer-instructional’ branch we isolated the not unimportant art of maintaining creatures. We found that a category of creature-maintenance was herd-maintenance, and that a category of herd-maintenance in its turn was the herding of creatures with feet. Within the herding of creatures with feet, the crucial segment we distinguished was the art of maintaining those which lack horns. And if you want to encapsulate in a single term the relevant subdivision of this art of maintaining creatures which lack horns, you have to combine at least three components and call it the branch of knowledge which is concerned with ‘the herding of species which cannot interbreed’. As for subdividing this class, since the art of herding human beings is the only section left which deals with two-footed gregarious creatures, then it is exactly what we are after – the art we’ve been calling both kingship and statesmanship”.[3]

Indeed, it seems Plato introduces a simple classification. But after more careful consideration we may see that he presents the elements that integrated—and still do —the theory of a ruler and the State: gregarious two-footed creatures (we would add, with consciousness) that are used to being in groups. He assumes they will have needs and in order to better cover their needs they will need direction; hence, the reciprocal relation represented-representative—i.e. sovereignty and its reflection. For the ones into political sciences and political theory, a very early reference to Nozick and his “aggregations.”

Another key development evident in Plato’s work: having different options in terms of forms of government, it is only one that truly reflects the idea of public sovereignty: “[…] ‘dictatorship’ is the term for the management by constraint of unwilling subjects, whereas ‘statesmanship’ is the term for the management by consent of willing, two-footed, gregarious creatures. So [the one] […] with this particular kind of managerial expertise is a true statesman-king […]”.[4]

As it has previously been mentioned in this post, it is clear Plato’s preference for monarchy but being a practical thinker and having experienced many realities throughout his life he concedes that “[…] in other cities there had been a development which had almost everywhere followed the same order, from monarchy to aristocracy, from aristocracy to tyranny, from tyranny to democracy”.[5]

For that reason it is at least hard to agree with Barker when he concludes that “[t]he statesman has an infinite complexity of circumstances, an infinite variety of characters, to handle; and like a physician, he must be left untrammelled by any book of laws, if he is to handle them as he should. The variability of his matter demands a corresponding flexibility in his power. States which bind their rulers to act according to law lose that flexibility. [...] The ideal of Plato would thus appear to be the absolute monarch of a subject people, unfettered by public opinion and unhampered by law”.[6] From The Republic to the Politicus and the Laws a common thread may be identified: sovereignty as an attribute of the people that are the polis. 

The idea of the representative evolves as his works and mostly his experience do so. Although he is inclined at first for a monarch ruling with absolute power he later on understands the idea of democracy as a better and more practical solution. It is important to highlight once again: sovereignty remains in all his works within the society. That society because of its needs requires representation. The representatives (or Guardians) are a reflection of the people’s will. Having one person representing them or a group does not change the essence of his idea.

Next time Plato’s Statesman.



[1] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 58.

[2] Barker, Ernest, The political thought of Plato and Aristotle, Dover Publications Inc., 1959, pp. 164/165.

[3] Plato, Statesman, translated by R. Waterfield, Cambridge texts in the History of political thought, 1995, pp. 18/19.

[4] Plato, Statesman, translated by R. Waterfield, Cambridge texts in the History of political thought, 1995, p. 32.

[5] Barker, Ernest, Greek political theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 3.

[6] Barker, Ernest, The political thought of Plato and Aristotle, Dover Publications Inc., 1959, p. 167/168.

Friday, 30 October 2015

Plato, the Ancient Greeks and the idea of Sovereignty [SECOND PART]

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.



[1] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 58.

[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.

[4] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 69.

[5] Plato, The Laws, translated by T. J. Saunders, Penguin Books, 1976, p. 223.

[6] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 119.

[7] Plato, The Republic, translated by D. Lee, Penguin Books, 1987, p. 203.
[8] Barker, Ernest, Greek political theory: Plato and his predecessors, Methuen & Co., Ltd., 1951, p. 170.