CLASSICAL POLTICAL THOUGHT AS IRRELATIVE IN UNDERSTANDING

CONTEMPORALY POLITICS

Politics is complicated at the same time dynamic. Philosophical ideas that were core to the
comprehension of politics may be less applicable in today’s political systems. In as much as
classical political thought contributed to modern political thought. The theories are largely
peripheral to morden to morden politics understanding. Hence the establishment has been
made by some quarters that Classical Political Thought has no place in the contemporary
society. This essay highlights major political contributions of notable classical philosophical
thinkers and eventually elucidate how their participation to politics is not as pertinent in
respect to comprehension of latest politics.

To begin with, Classical Political Thought was built on a primitive setting, which is unalike
to contemporary setting hence its insignificance. In the times, many populations were
generally ignorant and uneducated. This explains why political principles devised for leaders
were meant to guide and even chose for incapable citizens. Statista (2019), indicates that
literacy and education rates improved only in the Twentieth Century. That is why some
peculiar political propositions were brought forward to fit the situations. Plato’s thinking
especially on the idea of philosopher king shows this. Encyclopaedia Britannica (2019),
defines a philosopher king as a personality which has philosophical knowledge and possess
outstanding qualities who can form the best form of government of philosophical rule.
Furthermore, Mattasa (2013), explains that philosopher kings possess which surpass the
masses as citizens are vague of knowledge. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica (2019),
Plato argued that ordinary citizens do not comprehend utmost truth and the idea of what is
good. On the same, Mattasa clarifies that ordinary people lack true knowledge of reality and
clear standards of perfection Plato’s words show that in the old times were less enlightened
be it in terms of political issues and more importantly government issues. Nonetheless this is
very dissimilar to the modern setting. Nowadays, with the advancement in education, many
people are knowledgeable of their own matters and even issues to do with the government
that even an average man can at least contribute something given there is an opportunity.

In addition, Classical Political Thought develops a sense of inequality which do not coincide
with recent advocating of equality principles. Foremost, Aristotle political thought justified
inequality. He contended that people are naturally not equal that they can be separated into
two groups. Foss (1991), identifies that there is slave and hero according to Aristotle’s
classification. Foss clarifies that Aristotle believed that the Hero is superior (probably a
leader or some elite) naturally and the multitude (citizens or ordinary people) is significantly
inferior in nature. This political insight is badly in conflict with the contemporary
understanding of politics.. Again, Plato was in favour of inequality. According to Premkumar
(2016), his scheme of Ideal Society enhances a sence of inequality among people. Ideal
Society, in reference to 7777777 in all, inequality is a
very critical subject that is understood with great scorn and hence its contempt ion
worldwide. To support this, international political bodies like Universal Decralation of
Human Rights (UDHR,2019) condemns any form of equality. Therefore classical political
Thought is unsuitable in understanding todays politics as it preaches the unfitting inequality.

Furthermore, Classical Political Thought contravenes rule of law. Some old political
contributions defies rule of law a concept that suffices modern political thought. Rule of law
is very significant in making a good society. In support of this, World Justice Project (2019),
recognises that rule of law is a durable system of political commitment which subsequent to
accountability, just laws,open government and accessible and impartial dispute resolution.
These principles are very material to morden political understanding and any political thought
contrary is really unnecessary. However, Machavellian political thinking is advocating rule of
law infringement. According to The-Philosophy (2019), Machiavelli advises for instance that
faults of a leader must be concealed and they should bring under control opponents and their
political life and yet the only goal is the preservation of their power. Observably, this
infractions rule of law that it should never find place in contemporary thinking.

Moreover, Classical Political Thought is undemocratic which is inconsistent with latest

political understanding. To begin with, the already discussed, philosopher king rule is too
intolerant with popular and participatory governing system. The philosopher king scheme
provides that only the rulers are entrusted to do what is right for the whole society. According
to Mattasa (2013), plato specified that as long as a ruler knows what they are doing, they
should never pay attention to criticisms and even if they are not liked. Unrelatedly,
nowadays, as Mattasa observes, most modern states are democratic such that citizens have a
say in running their state. Plato’s proposition makes it hard for a government to be of the
people, by themselves and for themselves, as such Mattasa suggests that Plato is advertising
an undemocratic political system. Supportively, Kraut and Richard (2017) state that Plato
evinced a deep antipathy to rule by many and he was telling people to be engaged in
undemocratic rule. More importantly, Plato’s esteem attitude of the rulers over everybody
else can form an elitist government. Thus Encyclopaedia Britannica has labelled him an
enemy of the society and father of totalitarianism. Secondly, Machiavelli principles of
eliminating any form of opposition as already discussed is clearly a worst villain of
democracy. Besides, Cicero political contributions was anti-democratic. According to
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Cicero denounced democracy in favour of benevolent elitist
government. Ultimately, Socrates as well did not support democracy. To support this,
Adrikari (n.d.), realises that Socrates did not consider democracy as desirable form of
government that he even influenced subsequent philosophers like Plato and Aristotle.
Obviously, political thought based on as discussed is so trivial in understanding modern
politics.

The other consideration, classical political thought lack validity. Specifically,

Another point, Classical Political Thought encourages state brutality and violence resulting
into an unfree society. This can never be tolerated in contemporary politics when the
understanding is to create a more free society. Justification of barbarity of state is advanced
by Machiavellian political theories. Machiavelli defended that it is okay and necessary for a
leader to be cruel in older to create strong leadership. According to BBC (2019), Machiavelli
held that it is safer to be feared than being loved. Implicitly, this mind set compels inhumane
leadership in order to yield fear from citizen. Subsequently, this can create barbarous states
which by any means has to be held in highest contempt.

Besides, classical political thinking violates freedom and human rights. Foremost, as
observed the preceding discussion, the issue of separating people an advancement by Plato is
clearly going against human rights provisions. Moreover, Aristotle’s justification of slavery is
a breach of freedom. According to Farooq (2013), Aristotle found slavery essential and he
pointed out that it si natural and moral at the same time. It is further indicated that to
Aristotle, the slave is a tool with life in it. Plainly, this is disturbing and abominably immoral
and inhumane that with modern political thinking it is completely impertinent and it has to be
condemned. Slavery, in spite of all evils it is associated with, it increases disparities among
people which is so sad to modern thought. Thereby, many recent developments have been
devised to fight against slavery. For instance, Anti-Slavery International (2019), indicates that
the organisation has been formed to deal with any form of slavery including its
contemporary. As observed Classical Political Thought with respect to Aristotle justification
of slavery is inapplicable to today’s politics understanding.
Last but one, Classical Political Thought based much on philosophical grounds and paid little
or no attention to empirical basis. Basically, empiricism implies establishments of conclusive
facts based on observation and reliable data. With the advancement in education, to a greater
extent, empirical concepts find more place in modern world than unfounded opinions.
Empirical ideas are more reliable and assuring hence with the enlightment in the new era
practices have to be based on facts. Baekgaard, et al (n.d), hold that empirical evidence help
politicians to make informed decisions and enlightens them. However, with the exception of
Aristotle’s thinking, in Classical Political Thought this significant element is missing.
Contributions of many classical political thinkers was a base on philosophical reasoning
rather than empirical evidence.

Ultimately, Classical political thought is at a greater extent idealistic. As already discussed,

lack of empirical aspects in political thought of classicalist has contributed to their overall
impracticability. Furthermore, the idea of philosophy rule in itself is initially infeasible not to
mention its ultimate impractical reality in the modern world. Firstly, on the ideal state,
successful method that can be used to ensure perfect selection of philosopher kings to be
individuals is doubtful. Moreover, the stratifying of the society into groups is as well
impractical. Klosko (1981), questions the practicability of a political arrangement in which
the lower class, the businessmen are barred from political activity. This is quite absurd as
there is an obvious interdependence within the society. To sum up, the ideal society cannot be
achieved as Susankrit writes that the idea has been critically looked into in terms of viability
and too utopian in nature. Hendricks (2016) as well argues that many great thinkers have
devoted their time triying to understand the ideal society and apparently, there has been no
enactment. In relation to this, Klosko states that the ideal state contain features that are weird
and obviously could not work. Hence it can be concluded according to Premkumar that the
conception of rule of philosophy is too idealistic and it is simply an idealistic thought.
Therefore, Classical Political Thought shoud never be taken into consideration as it is
inviable hence improper in understanding modern political thought.