Plato, Rousseau, and Machiavelli on Politics Essay

1). Plato would agree to Winston Churchill’s famous proclamation because Plato had already witnessed ignorance and irrationality of the demos, or voters, during the Peloponnesian War, who had voted for disastrous campaigns and for the execution of Socrates. According to Plato, democracy cannot work because of the demos. Knowledge and understanding to an ample extent is necessary for a good government, and competent demos are necessary for democracy. Based on his agreements, Plato would argue that demos rarely make rational decisions, that most ordinary people are just not capable of governing themselves by pursuing serious education. Plato believed that a very small number of demos were actually intellectual enough to make decisions that would be rational and reasonable. This is why Plato believed that a democratic republic could never have political and social order, and Athenian democracy is what convinced him about this.
Perciles would definitely not agree with Winston Churchill’s famous proclamation since his own ancestor was the founder of democracy. Perciles would argue that democracy can work and that demos are not necessarily irrational and unreasonable in their decisions. If he was actually responding to Churchill in present time, he would be able to present the example of Athenian democracy that he established. He would be able to argue that by segregating demos, just as he limited the voters in Athens to native, male Athenians, could allow the more intellectual, rational, and reasonable individuals to case votes. Moreover, Pericles could argue that through democracy, demos would be able to limit the powers of the censorial classes. Pericles could not only prove the effectiveness of democracy by the demos, but could also state the benefits of democracy for the ordinary people, in particular, freedom, and obedience only to God and laws.
2). In Plato’s The Republic Socrates argues against the statement that the Athenians makes in Thrasymachus’s Melian dialogue. Basically, Thrasymachus argues that “might makes right.” That is to say, those who hold the power have a say in what is justice and truth. Socrates (Plato) would probably agree with the Melian dialogue as far as justice being what is good for an individual. However, he would not agree that what is good for the mightiest is justice. Socrates (Plato) would argue that the only way the mighty can be truly have power is when they make just choices. If the mighty seek justice in what is good for them, then they could be overthrown by a united majority of the weaker. Just like knowledge, Socrates (Plato) would argue that justice exists for the benefit of others, not for the benefit of the mighty. Thus, if the mighty try to benefit themselves, then it would be injustice.
In response to Thrasymachus’s Melian dialogue, Machiavelli would agree that might makes right. Through The Prince, Machiavelli keeps explicitly and implicitly stating the concept that justice is what is good for the mighty. He would argue that if someone who is mighty, such as a political leader, has the power to do something, even if it is immoral, they have the right to do it, and it would be justified. He would support the Melian dialogue by stating that even unscrupulous acts are justifiable in the quest for any kind of power, for instance political power. Machiavelli would agree that being good is better than being evil, but he would also further state that when it comes to political success, moral considerations become irrelevant, which would mean agreeing that moral issues are indeed at stake. He would conclude that successful politicians are not the moral men; they are amoral, ruthless, and shrewd.
3). In simple words, what Jean-Jacques Rousseau is trying to imply by this statement is that Machiavelli’s The Prince is nothing but a satire. What he means is that although upfront, Machiavelli is giving the prince the recipes on how to be tyrannical but at the same time the people could transform them into weapons of liberation. Not taking Machiavelli was his intentions and his word can transform as how we interpret The Prince. If the book is indeed interpreted as the satire then readers can actually find the purpose of all those deliberately contradictory, immoral, and specious things that Machiavelli wrote. If the book is indeed a satire then Machiavelli wrote the book to ridicule the Medici family, to expose tyranny, and as Rousseau proclaimed, to promote republican government. Even though this is a minority view, interpreting the book as a satire gives it a moral purpose.
Of course, there is also contextual evidence that suggests that Machiavelli intended The Prince to be a satire. In the book Machiavelli has used a typical satiric technique of creating a distinct gap between the immoral activities he proposes and moral language. Even certain examples Machiavelli uses in the book are ironic. For instance, the example of Cesare Borgia, who is set up as a role model for future princes, yet Machiavelli mentions that he ultimately failed as a Duke. The last chapters of The Prince in which Machiavelli reveals the final recipe for success also reveal the satirical nature of the book. Machiavelli states near the end of the book that no matter what rulers do, even if they become tyrannical to succeed, their success will not last very long. This alone renders the advice Machiavelli provided in the rest of the book useless. So as Rousseau stated, Machiavelli might as well be teaching the people rather than princes.