Res Publica

Great band, sadly short-lived.

Res Publica, the affairs of the people. Back to those abstract words again. Demokratia, rule by the people. I find it quite interesting that the two main political parties in the United States have names that have become associated with right and left wing and yet neither word is too dissimilar in meaning from the other.

Plato started his work 'The Republic' by criticising four different forms of government that he was able to observe. Tyranny, rule by a tyrant, democracy, rule by the majority, timarchy, rule by a bloke called Tim, and Oligarchy, rule by a couple of gals called Olga.

But democracy in Plato's time was not democracy as we know it Jim, because the definition of who the people were does not tie up with ours and the system by which they ruled the city state was organised chaos. Everyone had the right to go to and debate everything. So imagine, instead of having our elected representatives go and discuss and vote on our behalf, we could all go along. Be a bit hectic. And then in Plato's Athens, it wouldn't in fact be anyone, slaves couldn't go, women couldn't go, they were considered property just as slaves were, foreigners living in the city - nope. Was all a bit shallow.

Plato's proposed Republic, was more like the democracy we know now. Everyone meaning everyone had full access to the resources of the State. Plato's educational theory underpins those of most modern democracies, that all should be given full education in all disciplines so that each person would find their own strengths and ultimately be able to serve the State by being the best possible person in whatever function they seemed best to fit. Fab.

While democracy was going on in Greece, well, parts of it, certainly Athens, the Romans were striving for a Republic. The reality was quite similar to Athenian democracy, no women, no slaves, yada yada, but they were an Empire and the struggle for them was to govern that Empire as prefectures rather than suffer the tyranny of an Emperor. There lay the problem, Rome was expansionist and big, Athens was small and the City States were all self-governing.

But something more came out of Athenian democracy. Hedonism. Seems like a dirty word to us, synonymous with laziness and lotus-eating. In fact it was a shift in social behaviour.

The Greek States had all warred among themselves, consider how Troy was destroyed, wiped off the map. Sparta, a timarchy which dedicated itself to raising warriors. All of this is considered agonic behaviour. With stability and economic prosperity came a shift from agonic behaviour to hedonic. The State and its people no longer prized warriors to be the most important people. Of course they still needed to maintain an army, things weren't so stable that there wasn't some bloke with a bunch of elephants just round the corner waiting to invade (ok, yes that was Rome but nonetheless...)but the army was no longer the be all and end all. Poetry, art, music, philosophy were now considered to be worthwhile pursuits, to enrich the society and the lives of the citizens.

Today, we value democracy so highly that we are willing to go to war to protect it. One reason given for the West's support of Israel in the current hostilities is that the State is the only one in the Middle East that is a true and complete democracy.

Is democracy intrinsically better than any other political paradigm and how did it become so widespread? I think these two questions are linked.

My theory involves two deaths and a religion. The first death, that of Socrates, was important because it is similar to but pre-dates that of Christ.
Socrates was found guilty of corrupting the youth of Athens, ie encouraging them to question. Isn't that an odd thing to be charged with in a democracy? Yes, no, maybe. Socrates' ideas were radical even for a State that considered itself quite liberal, if indeed it did. There is a kind of paradox. Hedonism is dependent on stability, and yet in its very nature lie the seeds of its downfall. It is a delicate balance. Philosophers challenge, all creative arts challenge, plays, art, poetry, they are all seditious by their nature.
And Socrates, given the choice by this liberal city, of leaving Athens or drinking the poisoned chalice, chose the latter. One final seditious act, one that validates his life and work, what he believed in. One that points like an arrow back towards the moment when he made that choice. His execution by the State was adminstered by his own hand.

The life of Jesus Christ was in many ways similar in nature. He too embraced poverty in order to travel freely around the ancient lands of his people, to bring a new message to them. They were a people under occupation, but it wasn't the (for the most part) benevolent government of the Romans that he was preaching against. It was, just as for Socrates, the intransigence of the thinking of the governing councils of his own people that he was challenging. He was a man of the people, a very ordinary Jew who surrounded himself with other very ordinary Jews. And who preached love. And a love that would conquer death. A simple message but one that ordinary people could relate to and one that he would also validate with his life. Another arrow pointing back towards a moment of choice.

So how did I get from democracy to Christianity ? Jesus taught us that God's love is like that of a parent and parental love is unconditional. Jesus' mother is very central to the story, she is honoured and her motherhood considered important. When we experience that kind of love, it enables us to also give it. Jesus taught people to deeply value other people, and I mean deeply, not superficially in the way that society values physical strength and fame. When we do value others we cannot but believe we all have the same rights. Christianity has by no means conquered the world without bloodshed, although I believe it could have done. It offers people hope. It offers people salvation. For many people that is what has appealed about Christianity. When you're facing the black death or starvation, to know absolutely that you will survive death and have a better life afterwards is a definite 'yep, count me in,' thumbs up.

But Jesus also preached democracy. He preached that all people are equal, and that is the basis of democracy. He showed us that people can take care of each other, and that their human needs are important. If you think of the distribution of the loaves and fishes, whether you see that as a literal miracle or a miracle because everyone shared what they have, it sent a strong - in my mind political - message. He surrounded himself with the common people and these were the people who were to bring his message to the world. And he taught that you came to salvation through your own will, a personal commitment. This too is the mainspring of true democracy, anyone can help to govern a people, not because you have fought and killed off all the opponents, but because you have the confidence of enough people who will vote for you. Yes, you may convince them through rhetoric, yes you may not fulfill your promises, but then the people have the right to not have you represent them too. It is a relationship of equality.

Democracy is an ideal. I don't think anyone quite has it right yet, but it is a good ideal, it is worth working towards because everyone in a democracy has a say and every individual's rights are valued so far as they are not contrary to the rights of society as a whole, the public good. We should value democracy, and we should strive towards it. We should also protect it, if necessary with our lives, because where there is no freedom, there is no life.