Philosophy on Tyranny
Socrates on tyrants and Orators.
Socrates had reasons to argue that oratory skills were just flattery and tyrants were largely unintelligent. Perhaps, comparing to the modern day set up, one can say that oratory, as to Socrates understanding, was public relations, or the act of dressing things up to look perfect or better than they actually are. Orators and tyrants did things that suited them best, as opposed to what they wanted to do. That made them powerless people with low regard in the society, despite being able to do anything they felt like, including excommunicating people and giving prison sentences. In the eyes of people who help power, Socrates says, the tyrants were powerless. Maybe he was thinking about power in terms of democracy, the common people ruled, or he might as well have been talking about the freedom to do what one wanted. In either of the cases, the point comes out so clearly that Socrates viewed the tyrants and orators as unintelligent.
In the digression that followed, Socrates explained to Polus that people were concerned with the end rather than the means. In this argument, Socrates uses several examples to drive the point home, like the hustle undergone by sailors in seas, or the efforts of medical doctors to make medicine whose consumption is a good experience, but the effect of healing is desirable. It means that people are concerned in what their efforts will end to, either to be wealthy or famous, and that is the reason why most people took the risks to amass wealth. Relating it to tyrants, they do everything they can to ensure that the subjects are loyal.
Main questions
Socrates argument of tyrants and power.
Socrates argument hinges on the point that tyrants and orators do not do anything they want. Instead, they do things that suit them best, in terms of benefits and advantages. By being unable to do think and do things the way they want, orators and tyrants lose the ultimate power of reason and freedom of choice. Yes, they can punish people and chase them away from the community, or even have them killed, but that does not reflect what they want. People who are liberated in mind, in terms of the ability to question things and make independent decisions, pose a great challenge to tyrants because they offer enlightenment to the masses. While the tyrants and orators appreciate the contribution those people give to the society, they know that to their interests, the enlightened people threaten their leadership; hence, instead of appreciating them by making their status in the society better, they excommunicate them.
While Socrates idea of power makes a lot of sense, especially the point where the tyrants lose the power to do what they want as opposed to what is best to them; one can still raise concerns about the legitimacy of such claim. Think of governments and tyrants in the modern day; they control almost everything in the country, and they appoint allies and people with tyrannical behaviors to their service. They accumulate power around the top leadership such that nobody can do anything without their endorsement. What will be the definition of power in that situation? And, the fact that most of these countries led by tyrants only get rescued by other more powerful countries (think about Libya) doesn't that mean that the tyrants have the power to rule over people? These questions debunk Socrates ideas, in coming to terms with the idea that power is not a personal choice, but rather, the interdependence of freedoms of people with the generosity of tyrants (in giving those freedoms).
Putting the ideas of Socrates on this scale of thinking, about the dependence of power on collective power, maybe it will mean nothing to Socrates. First, power over oneself means control over decisions and guilt or instinct. Take, for example, a tyrannical ruler like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe; he has accumulated all the power (in terms of his ability to make decisions that hurt the people of his country) and resources around him. Millions of people in his country live in poverty while he lives in abundance; but, the poor people might have more power than him because they have control over their lives, while the president has to use oppressive approaches to maintaining his hold on leadership. Perhaps, the president would wish to have his people living well, but that would liberate the people and endanger his position in power. Thence, power, as we see it, like the ability to enforce rules and decisions on the people, or the possession of drones and war machinery that can push other nations to submission, is not a sufficient definition. One way of looking at it is that, even if a tyrant has everything they need, and the power to do anything they wish best for them, they remain dependent on those things that give them power. That makes them less powerful, technically analyzing.
Socrates on distinction between doing what you want and what seems best
For Socrates, there is a big difference between doing what you want and doing what suits you best. Carefully analyzing this statement makes sense in that, doing what you want is motivated by ethics, needs and personal principles. On the other hand, doing what is best suited for you is a reactionary measure to your surroundings. In essence, when one is faced with a challenge, their power to choose act independently gets lost, and they become subjects of the situation they are responding to. Think of the September 11 attacks in the US, and the response that the government carried out, compared to what the government could have done if there was no attack. While this example does not particularly involve tyrant, it shows the difference between a response to a situation, and defining a solution from scratch.
Polus will argue that a tyrant can do anything he wants; sack a prime minister, get him killed or have his way in every situation. Polus understanding of power is the use of might and resources to push for their demands. However, Socrates would deconstruct that perspective with his idea of power as a personal tool that cannot be taken by someone else. He will tell Polus that, a tyrant's ability to do anything he wants does not translate to possession of power. Socrates has a sense of power that concerns the people; the idea if being highly regarded. He will cite the views of the people on a tyrant as the true measure of power, and argue that killing or enforcing unpopular decisions does not amount to power. Actually, to Socrates, that will be a reduction of power as it will lead to more people objecting or viewing the tyrant as more unpopular.
I will agree with Socrates objection or blocking of Polus’s idea that power is commensurate with the public rating, and pushing decisions on people does not equal to having power over them. A real life example of a tyranny gone badly is Tunisia. The tyrannical government had oppressed the people for many years, enforcing decisions and rules that disenfranchised the majority and making the poor people become poorer. The succession of the events the president largely unpopular, and when the uprising started, the ruler left in a hurry without anywhere to hide. That shows that hardening the grip on people (Polus idea of power) leadings to losing the people, or becoming less powerful. So the ability of a tyrant to enforce himself on his subjects does not make him powerful per se, but less powerful.
Reflections on my points
I have sided with Socrates, not because of his place in philosophy, but his candid extrapolation on real power. I could have used the word real power versus power, but I thought that would bring up some confusion. There is a gap between Socrates idea of power with that of Polus, and, in real life situations, both ideas do not capture the whole landscape of power. It means that the true definition of power is somewhere between what Polus says and Socrates ideas. For example, it will help to admit that tyrants have some power, and, in some cases, orators and tyrants are very intelligent. The closest example for tyranny band intelligence is that of Hitler, who oversaw one of the biggest political crises of the 20th century.
On the side of Polus arguments, and views of power as might and strength and the ability to get past any obstacle and get what you want, I think it is far much in the extreme because a real powerful leadership has to balance its needs with the people expectations. Particularly, in developed societies, and citing the increased freedom of speech, it would be very difficult for a government to survive for a long time with tyrannical frameworks. History has shown time and again that there is no tyrannical rule that lasts forever. At some point, the chicken will come home to roost, and the previously powerful people lose it all.
