Who Rules the World?
By Elisabeth Thorson /14 September 2020
Thank you Shunom Henry Kato for this monumental question.
Philosophy begins by asking questions, but the greatest value is not always found in the answers, but in the discovery of further important questions. In this case, we may ask, ‘Who should rule the world?’ And if we attempt to define who is rightfully ‘the ruler’ we must also define who is rightfully ‘the ruled’ – assuming such things exist at all. What does the concept of ‘ruling’ actually entail? We also have to define which ‘world’ we are talking about: yours, mine, or everyone’s?
There has long been a tension in Political Science between the altruistic ruler, who rules in the interests of the ruled, and the egoistic ruler, who rules in their own interests. This is perhaps most clearly identified in Plato’s Republic, which argues in favour of the former; and in Machiavelli’s The Prince, which supports the latter. This poses a further monumental question if indeed someone has to rule: What qualifies someone to be the best ruler?
Our world is separated by different nations, with different political systems that each give different foundations for different types of leadership. Crudely speaking, we stand between democracy – the rule of the people – and dictatorship – the rule of one arbitrary person or group. A dictator can rule either in the interests of the people, like Plato’s famous Philosopher Kings and Queens; or to consolidate their own power, like Machiavelli’s Prince. Meanwhile, the looming worry with democratic nations is that they, like a ship without a captain, will inevitably lose their course.
Who are ‘the ruled’ then? Plato’s and Machiavelli’s definitions of ideal rulers depend on two very different views of human nature and what humans are capable of. Are individuals capable of looking after themselves? Are we capable of looking after each other? Or is everyone in it for themselves? Are we all evil, and need to be kept in place by an iron fist? If people are not capable as individuals, then order – any order – is surely better than the chaos that would follow without having a strong (Machiavellian) leader. If that is the case, it can even be argued that such a leader is justified in ruling with an iron fist, as it is in the people’s interests and for their own good.
Whatever your thoughts on human nature, ask any dictator or mob on the street this: What gives you the right to rule over me? Ideally, we would all live by William Ernest Henley’s words: ‘I am the ruler of my fate. I am the captain of my soul.’ But for this to be true, we must each recognise the intrinsic value in ourselves and others as capable individuals with at least potentially unconquerable souls.
Who rules the world then? No one; if individuals are free to rule on their own. Therefore, we need a society where individuals’ freedoms are recognised, not infringed upon. How is that best secured? As answered by Cicero: simply by the rule of law. That is, not by the rule of this or that arbitrary person, but by a law that recognises this intrinsic fact about human nature and implements it accordingly. How that is best accomplished, however, is a whole other story.
Originally published: https://armchairopinions.org/who-rules-the-world/
Image: Cicero Denounces Catiline, fresco by Cesare Maccari (1882-88)