Ancient Athens, Contemporary Jerusalem

During my college years, Plato’s ‘Republic’ and ‘Politics’ were required reading; and Aristotle's ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ was on our supplemental reading list. ?I remember being gob-smacked that a philosopher who lived around 2,500 years ago – give or take a century – could provide analysis and commentary directly applicable to political debates taking place in my country in my time.? Eventually, I came to realize that I was struggling to overcome what psychologists and historians refer to as the ‘hubris of time.’

It troubled me that Plato described democracy as having the same dynamics as what the BBC’s weather presenters refer to as ‘sunny spells’ – i.e., not a stable, much less permanent, form of government.? Just like ‘sunny spells’ in south-central London where I live, a democracy may prevail for an unknown period of time; but don’t delude yourselves that a democracy in any given city-state or (after The Treaty / Peace of Westphalia in 1648) nation-state was a stable, self-reinforcing political construct.

From Plato’s vantage, it wasn’t a question of whether a democracy would ultimately collapse, but when? and how?? The great philosopher described a democratic state as navigating continuously between two treacherous shoals, Scylla and Charybdis.? In Plato’s understanding, Scylla represents a threat from below. In a democracy, the people (the ‘Demos’) should be educated, well informed, and active.? Without a properly functioning Demos, a democracy cannot be maintained.

Although not understood as such in fifth century (BCE) Athens, Plato was a firm believer in the Second Law of Thermodynamics: entropy.? In any given structure (such as a democracy), entropy (disarray, chaos) will either remain constant or increase – but never decrease.? As Plato would have it, the Demos devolves over time into a mob.? But wait.? Don’t forget that this discussion has so far been limited to the threats posed by Scylla.? Enter Charybdis.

Charybdis introduces an even more threatening, top-down element: the demagogue.? As opposed to ‘normal’ politicians, demagogues do not seek high office in order to uphold and fulfill a social contract between the governing and the governed; a moral commitment to exercise their official authorities for the betterment of the people they serve.? Quite the opposite, demagogues covet high office and positions of authority and influence specifically to pursue what they perceive as their personal best interests. If the polarities of holding high office are thus reversed, the demagogue has little use for ethical guidelines in areas such as conflicts of interest, self-dealing or nepotism.? The world is my cornucopia.

Demagogues, as a rule, have a cynical view of their relationship with those over whom they hold sway.? They are often textbook narcissists and assume, as a rule, that they are far more intelligent and clever than anyone whom they were elected or appointed to serve.? ?(Fortunately, such delusional hyper-confidence is often at the root of a demagogue’s undoing.) ?

All external communication, whether self-generated or in response to outside queries, is strictly propagandistic in nature.? (Is any of this beginning to sound familiar?) According to Plato’s construct for a democracy in decline, Scylla and Charybdis eventually join forces.? The demagogue positions himself as the spokesman – 99.98% of all demagogues are male – for the deceived, the undervalued / underpaid and/or the disenfranchised.? (Recall that this mob was the Demos before entropy set in.)

?A key element of the demagogue’s rhetoric at this stage is to point to an unseen, sinister internal or external force as the source of all the mob’s discontent and misfortunes.? This could be an ethnic or religious minority, a class of people (such as the wealthy exploiters of the poor working classes), or a powerful and dangerous cabal or society (The Illuminati, Masons, Elders of Zion) that may or may not actually exist.

At this point, it is rather easy – inevitable, perhaps – for a declining democracy to collapse and be replaced by one-man rule – et voilà, a fully developed dictatorship.? Armed with Plato’s stunningly prescient and relevant paradigms, let’s have a brief look around us, as we round the bend on the first quarter of the twenty-first century.

China, Russia – Although major geopolitical forces each in their own right, both China and Russia fall outside of Plato’s construct because neither of these nations has ever had a democratic period from which their current dictatorships evolved.? Apples and oranges.

OK, if we’re looking specifically for democracies in peril, let’s begin with a big one:

USA – It would be difficult to dislodge the impression that America is right on course for structural collapse of its democratic institutions, leading to dictatorship.? I distinctly recall reading, at university so many years ago, Plato’s dire paradigm for the decline of a democracy as a result of the Scylla & Charybdis interplay discussed herein above.? I reached the final pages of ‘The Republic’ and ‘Politics’ unshaken in my conviction that Plato’s predictions were no longer relevant – at least insofar as America was concerned.

We would never tolerate weakening of our constitutionally enshrined democratic institutions to the point where a glib, fast-talking figure could emerge from nowhere (insofar as America’s governing class was concerned) to dominate the political debate with deceptively simple blandishments (‘Make America Great Again’) that conceal more than they reveal in terms of this previously unknown figure and his agenda.

At the present time, the only thing standing between Donald (‘Grover Cleveland’) Trump and the White House is an 81-year-old man who is unable to sell himself to the American electorate, notwithstanding decades of service in the US Senate, eight years as vice-president, and now nearly four years as the US president. Trump’s undisguised disdain for America’s democratic institutions, culture and practices has served as more than adequate notice that he intends to finish dismantling the global geopolitical order that was established and led by the United States for now more than seventy-five years – but to be replaced by, what? whatever pops into Trump’s head when a relevant question is put to him? perhaps something he heard on Fox News?

CANADA – I don’t know much about the political landscape of our polite neighbours to the north, but the two most recent news items that I’ve seen from Canada would appear to be cause for alarm:

(1)?? Reacting to increasingly strident opposition to the Canadian government’s pandemic restrictions, led by the country’s truckers, ‘Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decided … to invoke his country’s Emergencies Act for the first time in Canadian history to quell the unrest[.? It] gave the police sweeping new powers to go after the finances of the protesters.’? Specifically, the bank accounts of targeted protest organizers – self-employed truckers for the most part – were frozen.? This certainly appears to be using a sledge hammer to swat a housefly. The protesters’ issues were specific and finite; no violence was reported during any of the protest actions; and they ratcheted up the size and relative levels of disruption to traffic in targeted cities gradually and rationally. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/22/world/americas/canada-protest-finances.html

https://time.com/6148560/trudeau-canada-emergency-law/

?

(2)?? This is by far the more disconcerting report from Canada. That the sitting prime minister of a flagship member of the British Commonwealth, with a world class Anglo-Saxon legal system, could obtain enforcement of a complete ban on the distribution and sales of a book critical of him is really quite disturbing and cause for concern that, perhaps, at least some Canadians are losing their appreciation for fundamental human rights recognised as universal by any number of UN and other international treaties.

https://www.westernstandard.news/news/ottawa-judge-rules-book-critical-of-trudeau-illegal/51330

Quo vadis, Canada?

ISRAEL – The year 2023 (5784 in Israel) is already being remembered as one of the worst ever in Israeli and Jewish history.? Beyond the horrors of 7th October and its aftermath, including the continuing agony of awaiting the fates of over one hundred hostages still being held in Gaza, the Israeli nation has been tearing itself apart over the initiative of PM Netanyahu’s Likud coalition to legislate the subordination of Israel’s supreme court to the Knesset.

It doesn’t take an advanced degree in constitutional theory to understand that this arrangement would violate a fundamental constitutional principle; – i.e., the independence of the judiciary to review and comment on legislation, regulations and other executive and/or legislative branch decisions and actions at the judiciary’s complete and unfettered discretion.

In a parliamentary democracy – such as in the United Kingdom, Germany, Israel and Canada – making the supreme judicial body subordinate to the legislative branch would be especially antidemocratic because, under this system of governance, the head of the ruling party (in parliament) serves simultaneously as the supreme executive authority (head of government).? Such a reorganization would make the prime minister a de facto dictator.

To their credit, the people of Israel were not asleep at the switch.? PM Netanyahu and his coalition partners initially tried to pass off their proposal as a minor, technical correction to the government’s structure and functioning.? Protests were spontaneous, large in numbers and nationwide, putting the lie to this initial positioning of their proposed ‘reforms.’

The tragic events of 7th October and their aftermath drew the nation’s (and the world’s) attention away from this domestic conflict until just a few days ago, already in the New Year (2024), when the Israeli Supreme Court issued its decision that attempts to subjugate it to the Knesset are unconstitutional.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/middleeast/israel-supreme-court-ruling-netanyahu-explained-intl/index.html

This ruling was unprecedented in many aspects.? For the first time in its history, the court’s entire complement of fifteen justices assembled en banc to deliberate and decide this question.? Surprisingly, the seemingly obvious choice of defending the current and proper constitutional order in Israel was a close call; only eight of the fifteen justices voted for the decision taken.? This is less than a full-throated endorsement of the judiciary’s unassailable independence.? Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has entered the fray and returned fire.

The outcome of this epic clash is still unclear; but the principle at stake is unmistakably clear.? An independent judiciary with the right to review legislation of the parliamentary branch and all actions of the executive branch is a sine qua non of a fully functioning sovereign democracy – especially when executive authority is seated in the legislative chambers, thereby giving the chief executive (prime minister) broad constitutional powers and authority over two of the three branches of government.

What would Plato make of all this?? In this case, I think Plato might be guardedly optimistic.? He might note, with hope, that, while Charybdis has done her part – she has an excellent candidate for the role of demagogue waiting in the wings – Scylla has not – at least, not yet – turned the Israeli electorate into a mob.? They still very much fulfill the function of the Demos.? For Scylla and Charybdis to bring down Israeli democracy, it would have been much easier if Scylla had been able to reduce the Israeli public to the level of a mob – to the level of Donald Trump’s core voter base, for example – while Charybdis was still looking around for a proto-demagogue.

I wish the Israeli people the strength to persevere throughout this double existential threat – an external war, and a domestic constitutional crisis – and to prevail.? Plato would be impressed.