Intellectual Sophistry

Presenting to you, my most contrived and convoluted piece of academic work: Monarchy as the Best Form of Government. haha.

Monarchy as the Best Form of Government

The origin of government is concomitant with the advent of human civilization. Today, the pervasive presence of democracy in modern states and the propaganda preached by its advocates have led to the unquestioning assumption that democracy is the best form of government. Throughout the course of history, philosophers such as Plato and Hobbes have challenged the merits of democracy while highlighting the virtues of monarchy. However, the merits of monarchy are rarely proclaimed today; and the clamor for the abolishment of the few surviving monarchies is constantly reverberating in the public sphere. In Book Three of Herodotus’s Histories, there is a debate over the best form of government by the conspirators after the failure of the Magis to usurp the throne. While the lengthy debate that leads to the triumph of monarchy is inconceivable in the modern world, it suggests that there are strengths in monarchy that make it so attractive to its proponents. This paper will discuss the various merits of democracy and monarchy during Herodotus’s time, and argue that while democracy has its strengths; monarchy can be the best form of government under certain circumstances.

Possibility of Benevolent Dictatorship

The benevolent monarch will bring justice and prosperity to his people. As Darius points out, the monarch’s “judgment will be keeping with his character, his control of the people will be beyond reproach” (3. 208). Upon his succession to the throne, Darius seems to be upholding justice by punishing Orotes for “his many crimes” (3.224). More importantly in an age of lawlessness, Darius is able to bring stability back to Persia by setting up a well-run administrative system with a sound tax collection mechanism. Similarly, Herodotus gives the impression that Cyrus is a good ruler, as the Persians welcome him with enthusiasm because he presents “the prospect of liberty” (1.59). Furthermore, Herodotus expresses admiration that during the reign of Cyrus, even a king cannot “put a person to death for a single offence” (1.63). This suggests that even though Cyrus has absolute powers, he is restrained in his actions and does not abuse his authority. This is consistent with Cyrus’ behavior towards Astyages. Cyrus treats Astyages with “great consideration” (1.61), a surprising move of great magnanimity, given the fact that the latter had tried to murder him when he is merely a baby. Furthermore, the Persians described Cyrus as a “father” (1.212), who always “in the kindness of his heart … is occupied with plans for their well-being” (1.212).

Often, the people do not want democracy and demand monarchy when they admire a wise and just ruler. In Herodotus’s Histories, Deioces is one such ruler who has a reputation for “just dealings” and “perfect integrity” (1.46). He is so popular and effective that everyone seeks his arbitration and when he ceases being the judge, the country descends into anarchy. After Deioces becomes king, he does not become a despot, but rather continues “his strict administration of justice” (1.47) bringing welfare and prosperity to the people. The example of Deioces contradicts Lord Acton’s dictum that “Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.” Another example is that of Samos. The people of Samos “did not want liberty” (3.233) as they turn down the offer of Maeandrius, who wants to “surrender the power” (3.232) he had to the people. Even Maeandrius himself realizes that even if he does not want absolute power, the people do not want democracy, and would not object to any individual interested in seizing absolute power.

A monarch can make better informed and consistent policies than that of a democratic governor. This is because in a monarchy, a monarch can select experts and obtain their advice in private, whereas the nature of democracy makes it susceptible to public pressure. Furthermore, a monarch’s policy is more consistent since he is of one mind. This is in direct contrast to what Otanes proclaims, that “a king is the most inconsistent of men” (3. 207). Cyrus listens to the sound advices of Croesus, halting the plunder of the Persian troops without incurring their hatred (1.42). Similarly, Darius adopts the suggestions of wise counsels which contribute to his success. For instance, Zopyrus’s clever ruse allows Darius to capture Babylon (3.236).

While public scrutiny with its resultant pressure can lead to inconsistent policies, paradoxically, it can be democracy’s strength at the same time. For instance, there are monarchs like Xerxes who are too haughty to listen to their advisors. At various crucial junctures of the military campaign, Xerxes rejected the advices of Artabanus, Artemisa, Demaratus which lead to his own defeat. It is possible to argue that a democratic governor with poor policies will be overruled by an informed public, although it is unlikely as the majority of the population in Herodotus’s time is uneducated. The influences of superstitious forces in Herodotus’s time must also be taken into account. Xerxes is misled by the prophetic dream of being the master of Europe, which compels him to embark on a military campaign which he has doubts after Artabanus’s counsel (7.422).

Athenian Democracy and Mob Rule

Athenian democracy is in reality more like mob rule. Thomas Jefferson once said that “Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”. The mob is often fickle and capricious, “handling affairs without thought” (3.208). In the Histories, there are examples that show the wanton brutality and idiocy of the mob. For instance, the villagers welcomed Pissistratus with “open arms” (1.26) simply because they thought that Pallas Athena is showing him “extraordinary honor” (1.26) and bringing him back to the Acropolis. One of the criteria for the smooth running of democracy is an educated populace. However the Athenians in Herodotus’s time tend to be uneducated and superstitious, causing them to fall into Pissistratus’s ruse. Furthermore in the Histories, Herodotus seems to be favoring monarchy by suggesting that a mob is easier to dupe than a single, wise individual. It is mentioned that Aristagoras “who had failed to impose upon Cleomenes, succeeded with thirty thousand Athenians” (5.351). Apparently, Aristagoras has managed to fool the Athenians into an alliance with him which allows him to satisfy his own agenda.

At least in Herodotus’s Histories, it is specious to assume that wise and informed decisions will come from democracy and the majority. Under certain circumstances, the minority or individual may make more judicious judgments. For instance, Themistocles’s sound advice to stay in Salamis and fight the Persians is rebuffed by the majority of the commanders. The Peloponnesian and the majority of commanders wanted to take flight and almost deprive the Greeks of a great victory over the Persians. Hence, there is no guarantee that multiple actors in a decision making process will necessarily arrive to a better decision than a single actor.

Intellectuals such as Socrates and Plato believe that democracy in Herodotus’s time resembles mob rule. The presence of the mob challenges the claim that democracy offers freedom of speech. The only crime that Lycidas committed was to “express opinion” (9.555), in accepting the Persian proposals, but he is stoned to death by the Athenian mob. Herodotus further describes the ghastly brutality of the mob:

The Athenian women soon sound out what happened, whereupon without a word from the men, they got together, and, each one urging on her neighbout and taking her along with the crowd flocked to Lycidas’ house and stoned his wife and children 9.555

Furthermore, it is difficult to conceive democracy working in places such as Scythia, where human sacrifices are practiced by the society and cannibalism is customary (4. 261). If the society cannot even recognize the sanctity of life, it is difficult to envisage a scenario where the society will value the equal human rights of every single individual in a democracy.

Checks and Balances in Democracy and Monarchy

Proponents of democracy argue that one major weakness of monarchy is that it breeds tyranny and brutality. To a certain extent, Otanes is right in pointing out that the vices of monarchy are “pride” and “envy”, which lead to “savage and unnatural violence”(3.207). There are numerous examples of tyrants in the Histories that commit atrocities. For instance, Cambyses murders his own brother, Smerdis, and commits incest by marrying his sister. Queen Pheretima brutally slaughters the people of Barca. All these examples would suggest that there is a flaw in the character of the despots, if not in the very nature of monarchy itself, as there are no checks and balances of power.

However, one has to ask whether these actions of inhumanity stem from the type of political system or whether it is the culture and general human nature in Herodotus’s time. If savage actions originate from the nature of monarchy, technically, democratic Athens should not be committing brutal crimes. Yet, Athens is responsible for the sack and “burning of Sardis”, which sows the seeds of its woes with Persia. Furthermore, the rule of the mob can parallel the rule of despots, which is neither “pleasant” nor “good” (3.207). Xanthippus, the Athenian commander in Book Nine, rejects the plea and offer of Artayctes. He allows the mob to nail Artayctes to “a plank and hung him up”. Furthermore, the son “was stoned to death before his eyes” (9.603). These incidents do not alleviate the crimes of despots, but rather illustrates that primitive barbarity can exist independently of the type of political system. One has to bear in mind that during Herodotus’s time, universal suffrage is a nonexistent concept. Even the Athenians keep slaves, with philosophers such as Aristotle justifying slavery, claiming that there is nothing wrong with slavery as long as the slaves are inferior to the masters. Subjection of human beings and even brutality are not necessarily morally wrong in antiquity and when criticizing the excesses of monarchy, one should be aware of the pitfall of using our humanistic moral universe.

One of the strengths of democracy is that the public official is supposed to be accountable to the public. As Otanes argues, “Under the government of the people a magistrate is appointed by the lot and is held responsible for his conduct in office” (3.207). Theoretically, this is an advantage of democracy that allows the people to check the tyranny of despots. Yet, to what extent does electing a magistrate by “lot” make democracy a better form of government? It is not inconceivable for a man of mediocre aptitude to become a magistrate, while a better man is left unutilized by the lot system. If society agrees that meritocracy is to be upheld, the charge that monarchy allows incompetent people to come to power is equally applicable to Athenian democracy.

Perhaps only in Herodotus’s Histories, checks and balances exist in the monarchy as well. Divine intervention permeates throughout the narration and preternatural forces seem to provide a loose form of checks and balances. The tyrant Cambyses dies from the wound on his thigh at the “spot where he had previously struck Apis the sacred Egyptian bull” (3.199). Astyages loses his empire due to Harpargus’s conspiracy, the very man to whom he does a gross injustice. As for Queen Pheretima, Herodotus describes her as “having a horrible death, body seething with worms while she was alive” (4.310). As Herodotus points out several times in the work, excesses beyond limits draw the wrath of the gods. Descriptions such as “all excess in revenge draws upon the men the anger of the gods” (4.310), and “It is always the great buildings and tall trees that are struck by lighting” (7.420), suggest that pride comes before a fall, and that the hubris of the despots will eventually lead to their downfall. All the major monarchs from Croesus to Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes suffer defeat once they have overambitious and lofty goals. As such, it is possible to argue that, in the Histories, even when monarchy as a political system produces excesses and despots, divine intervention can obstruct the actions of the despots and restore balance in the social realm.

Democracy and Monarchy in the State of War

During the state of war, a monarchy is the best form of government in the sense that “measures against enemies and traitors will be kept secret more easily” (3. 208). In a pure democracy, where the public have access to classified military information, the state may be compromised by the leakage of crucial military information to the enemy. Furthermore, in a monarchy, it is easier to enforce discipline and launch concerted actions. This is substantiated by the actions of the free Ionians who refuse to follow the commands of Dionysius and would rather be enslaved by the Persians. Yet, this is not an issue in the Persian army, where the soldiers followed orders without question, if only because of fear. During the Salamis battle, every Persian fought as hard as they could. This is highlighted through Herodotus’s words “Every man of them did their best for fear of Xerxes, feeling that the king’s eye was on him” (8.529).

Herodotus himself seems to be in favor of democracy producing better fighters.

He claims that “once the yoke was flung off, they proved the finest fighters in the world” (5.340). Athens is described as going from “strength to strength” (5. 340), winning wars as a result of democracy. Apparently, Herodotus believes that warriors under democracy can fight better because they are no longer “slaves” and are working for their own self interests instead that of their masters. These statements combined with the knowledge that the Greeks eventually triumph over the Persians suggest that democracy produces superior fighters than monarchy during war. Yet, this must be qualified by the fact that the gods favor the Greeks, contributing in significant ways to their military successes.

Although the Athenians win many sea battles, many of the land battles are won by the Spartans. Sparta is technically a monarchy (or an oligarchy); since the position of the king is hereditary and major executive decisions are undertaken by him. In Sparta, the absolute power of the monarch is substituted with that of the law. As Demaratus explains to Xerxes, the Spartans are not free as they fear the “law, which they fear much more than the subjects fear…” him (7.451). Regardless of the odds, the Spartans do not retreat and will “conquer or die” (7.450).As a result, the Spartans are famed for their fighting prowess and valor in war. In the Histories, Sparta has demonstrated that a monarchy can produce equally courageous fighters like those from Athenian democracy. This seems to contradict Herodotus’s assertion that only a democracy will produce superior combatants.

The nature of the military dictates the need for decisive actions with minimal dissent. Othanes argues that one of the strength of democracy is that “all questions are put up for open debate” (3. 207). Yet, this is a handicap during a war. During the battle of Salamis, the open discussion debate leads to bickering among the Greek commanders over how best to deal with the Persian fleet. An impasse is reached with no decisive actions taken to deal with the Persians. If not for the scheme of Thermistocles, which forces the Greeks to fight or perish, it is likely that the free discussion style of the war council will lead to the disintegration of the Greek coalition.

In Herodotus’s time, the arguments seem to favor monarchy as the best form of government under certain circumstances. A benevolent dictatorship can meet the needs of the people by providing welfare and justice. Furthermore, during a state of war, a monarchy has effective measures and war capabilities against its enemies. Even though it is true that the absolute power of the monarchy can breed excesses; in Herodotus’s universe, there is a self-correcting divine universe to check the arbitrary powers of despots. Modern day proponents of democracy should bear in mind that democracy has its limitations and that there are merits in more authoritarian forms of government. The task at hand is to delve into the merits of monarchy in Herodotus’s time and examine their relevance to the modern world. Through this, we will have a better appreciation of the political evolution that leads to the present form of American government, and hopefully caution while imposing democracy in nascent states around the world.

---

[1]