Politics, Polybius, Taoism and Human Quality

“No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker." Mikhail Bakunin

Back in the 100s BCE, in the days of the Roman Republic, a Greek historian and political theorist named Polybius wrote down some ideas destined to have a lasting impact. Across time and space, Polybius managed to influence in significant ways the work of Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and John Locke. And even the framers of the U.S. Constitution borrowed heavily from Polybius’ insights. President John Adams, in particular, was a huge admirer of Polybius’ political theories.

At the risk of dumbing it down, let me try to summarize here in a few words some of his ideas.

According to him, every political system he was familiar with had a light side and a dark side. And unfailingly, even a system that started under the best light possible had a tendency to degenerate. The first system Polybius looked at was the monarchy. In the ideal scenario, some brilliant philosopher king would rule society, putting his people’s welfare at the top of his priorities. A big advantage is that decisions would be unencumbered by bureaucracies and factional rivalries. The king’s choices immediately translate into action, and this enables a society to respond quickly to any problem that presents itself. Of course, all of this works beautifully as long as the king is smart, kind and not acting from selfishness. The dark side of monarchy, however, shows up when, instead of a wise philosopher king, a narcissistic dictator rules. Or maybe someone well intentioned, but painfully stupid. In those cases, monarchy turns into tyranny, and people suffer in a totalitarian nightmare.

Next, according to Polybius, was the aristocracy. The Greek meaning of the word ‘aristocracy’ means ‘rule of the best’. Rather than depending on a single individual, some of the best and most talented people in the country cooperate to run the government. By combining their talents together and working in harmony, aristocrats can take care of the people while avoiding anyone’s tyrannical tendencies. But what if the ones calling themselves aristocrats are not truly the wisest in the land? In that case, aristocracy is no more, and what we have is an oligarchy. Rather than a rule by the best, we have a rule by the few. And if the few are incompetent or primarily focused on benefitting themselves, then the people suffer yet again.

Polybius envisioned a third option: democracy, or government by the people. A well-educated and intelligent population takes matter in their own hands, and debates the best course of action to rule themselves. Note, though, that we spoke of a ‘well-educated and intelligent population.’ But if the people seem to have walked out of the film Idiocracy, and are neither well-educated nor intelligent, then democracy devolves into mob rule and, before you know it, we are putting Brawndo on the crops because ‘it’s got electrolytes’.

A fourth option that Polybius didn’t contemplate is anarchism. In an ideal world, individuals join together in voluntary communities and are able to run society without the need of a power structure keeping everyone in check. But, as Bob Dylan warned, ‘to live outside the law you must be honest’. Talented, wise and kind people can live without laws. Laws are for people too stupid to live without them. But all it takes is for a sizable enough percentage of the population to be untalented, unwise and unkind, and anarchy is no longer a utopia, but a chaotic mess where nothing works. Or, even worse, nothing is there to stop unchecked rape and pillage Mad Max style.

Polybius believed there was a way to avoid the dark sides of the main forms of government. He thought you could design a system based on separation of powers which would allow it not to fall prey to the weaknesses of each system. Monarchy, aristocracy and democracy could work in concert with one another in a system of checks and balances. The United States constitution was built on this idea. In Polybius’ days, his model was the Roman Republic, which he considered an ideal system.

I can see why Polybius felt that way. And yet… within a few decades from Polybius’ death, bloody civil wars would tear Rome apart. And before long, the Republic itself would die a miserable death as it was replaced by an autocratic empire. In light of that, I venture that the Republic was not quite as fail-proof as Polybius had imagined.

Polybius was certainly right that some systems are better than others. But the problem is that there’s no way to design a perfect system since, ultimately, all systems are dependent on the human beings running them. A key ingredient separating failure from success is human quality. No system works without it. The worst system placed in the best hands can work well, and the best system in poor hands can be horrible. Taoism warns that talent cannot be institutionalized. Since reality is constantly changing around us, what is most needed are human beings with the skill and sensitivity to read reality and make the necessary modifications in real time. Good, ole Polybius was hoping to find a formula to bypass having to depend on something so transitory as human quality. Unfortunately, no such formula exists.