Thank You, Polybius

Plato identified the natural forms of government as aristocracy, timocracy (rule by affluent warlords), oligarchy (rule by wealthy elites), democracy and tyranny. He theorized that societies start with aristocracy (the highest form) and, over time, degenerate through all of the other inferior forms. Plato hypothesized that one way to break this cycle was to have an aristocracy led by philosopher-kings who were wise and selfless. But ultimately, Plato threw in the towel and said that while a constitutional government of written laws might be “second best” it might actually be viable in the real world, whereas the concept of the philosopher-king was not.

Aristotle rejected Plato’s proposal for an aristocracy of philosopher kings, but accepted some of Plato’s other ideas. Aristotle identified three “true” governments, each of which degenerates into a perverted form over time. In his framework, royalty degenerates into tyranny, aristocracy degenerates into oligarchy, and polity (constitutional government) degenerates into democracy. Aristotle considered pure democracy to be an inferior form of government, although he found it to be the least harmful of the degenerate forms and he suggested that a “mixed” form of government incorporating elements of democracy, oligarchy and polity might be best.

It was Polybius who identified a cycle of governmental forms that societies seemed doomed to endlessly repeat abetted by revolutions, rebellions and civil wars: 1). monarchy, 2). kingship, 3). tyranny, 4). aristocracy, 5). oligarchy, 6). Democracy and 7). ochlocracy (mob rule). After that, the cycle starts all over again with the rise of a new monarchy. But Polybius was also the first to explicitly propose a government with one branch resembling monarchy (the executive), a second resembling democracy (the people/legislature) and a third resembling aristocracy (the council of elders). He suggested that such a government might create a system where “no part should become unduly predominant, and be perverted into its kindred vice; and that, each power being checked by the others, no one part should turn the scale or decisively out-balance the others; but that, by being accurately adjusted and in exact equilibrium, the whole might remain long steady like a ship sailing close to the wind.” (Please note that Polybius did give credit to the constitution of Sparta for some basic ideas).

For 2,000 years, nobody really had a chance to try Polybius’ idea in its pure form (Up until 1789, that is). After the single-branch Articles of Confederation failed to create a satisfactory government for the young United States, the framers tried to create a more perfect union using Polybius’ basic idea. That more perfect union has been tested in recent days, just as Plato, Aristotle and Polybius predicted. It has been tested before and will surely be tested again. But the “equilibrium” proposed by old Polybius has served us well for 232 years and is the best bet we have for safety, security, stability and freedom in the future.

I would only quibble with his notion of an “exact” equilibrium. Modern game theory has looked at the idea of equilibrium quite extensively. One view is that complex systems are never exactly in equilibrium, but the struggle between the competing components always pulls them back into balance. Maybe that is what we have recently witnessed on the national scene.

Nobody ever claimed our system is the most efficient form of government. But, considering the alternatives, I’m with Polybius.

Tom McCune is an architect and member of the Belmont City Council.