Ruling for Others, Not the Self: A Classical Framework for Evaluating Political Authority

Political theorists have been debating what makes a good leader versus a bad leader since time immemorial. Even if the theorists disagree on what particular style of government is best, most of the famous classical theorists are in agreement that the purpose of political authority is to serve larger purposes than fulfilling an individual ruler's ambitions. They all agree that a leader needs wisdom, a sound constitution, and a commitment to the common good to be an effective leader. These are two areas of concern that are relevant at all times, whenever political leaders have a significant amount of political authority, regardless of the specific political system within which they govern. Three of the many authors who write about this issue are Plato, Polybius, and Aquinas. While each of the three authors provides their own unique perspective on the issue, their collective works provide an overall picture of the philosophical, constitutional, and moral obligations that anyone has when they wield political authority. Plato believes that a ruler must seek the truth rather than basing their actions on appearance. Polybius explains why stable government requires balance and constitutional government rather than personal power for effective governance, and Aquinas states that political authority is legitimate only if it serves the common good and not the individual private interest of a particular ruler. Each author has a different philosophical background; however, all authors provide a comprehensive view of the intellectual, constitutional, and moral obligation to someone who is entrusted with political authority.

According to Plato's Allegory of the Cave, political leaders face the biggest threat from mistaking appearance for reality. As Socrates tells the story of ordinary political life, he describes how prisoners are chained in a cave; they only see shadows on the wall and have never seen behind them. When one prisoner escapes and slowly sees the light, he comes back to share with those in the cave what is really going on and how much he has learned, but when he does so, the others do not want to listen and will not accept his message, because they are attached to their familiar beliefs. Therefore, Plato argues that political leadership is first an intellectual method; those who lead must seek a deeper knowledge than what is shown to them through the popular vote or readily apparent to them. When it is uncomfortable or unimpressive to do so, they must still search. As Socrates concludes, if a man knows the "Idea of the Good," he will have the right foundation for making wise choices, both publicly and privately.

While Plato mostly focuses on training leaders for their roles as rulers, Polybius emphasizes the political structures that support good government compared to those that hinder it. Polybius doesn’t simply believe that a wise person can maintain order within any political system. He argues that political stability and constitutional structures are key factors in whether a political system will succeed or fail. Reflecting on the rapid growth of the Roman Empire, he states, "The constitution of a state determines the chief cause of the success or failure of all of its activities." He rejects the simplified notion that there are only three forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. In his view, each form eventually degenerates into a flawed version of itself. For example, a monarchy turns into a tyranny, an aristocracy becomes an oligarchy, and a democracy eventually degenerates into mob rule. By seeing the Roman state as having a mixed constitution, Polybius recognizes the advantages of such a system. It allows different types of government to coexist and operate within a single government rather than concentrating power in just one institution.

Although Plato and Polybius have different views on politics, both warn against overconfidence in personal judgment. Plato thinks rulers can fall into delusion, while Polybius believes that even skilled leaders can fall prey to predictable cycles of political corruption. Together, they imply that good leadership needs both intellectual humility and limitations from institutions. A leader who relies solely on personal judgment to ensure good government risks overlooking the constitutional boundaries that maintain political stability over time.

While Aquinas connects the moral aims of government to both Aristotle's notion of human sociability and politics as "essentially social," he also supports the idea that human beings have an intrinsic nature of living and being together or communally, to attain their full potential. In this regard, the existence of political power unites individuals by providing them with the ability to achieve the common good of their communities, rather than pursuing their own interests. Thus, although he regards kingship as that of an individual with power in the form of political authority over several subjects or people, Aquinas defines kingship as more than mere power. A king, according to Aquinas, governs for the good of the multitude and works toward maintaining peace among those he rules. If and when an individual who governs in a position of leadership seeks only to benefit himself, and not work to promote the welfare or common good of the community, he will create a society composed of tyranny by virtue of his actions. Unlike Plato, who argues that a person in a political position should withdraw from the realm of politics to pursue truth through philosophy, Aquinas believes that persons in positions of political authority need not withdraw from politics to determine truth through philosophy, nor does Aquinas hold Polybius's primary concern regarding the balance of political institutions as holding precedence over the moral rule of such institutions in society. Rather, Aquinas evaluates the legitimacy of political institutions based solely on whether they generate justice, unity, and peace. Leadership requires demonstrating humility and self-control, so that those in authority continue to understand that the office of authority is a public trust, depending on them to serve the best interests of the community, rather than using the position of authority for their own self-serving ambition.

The teachings of these three authors consist of complementary rather than contradictory lessons about how to lead. Plato believes that one must always pursue knowledge that is true rather than what appears to be truthful; Polybius explains that every leader requires a constitution to help control and balance the distribution of their power; and Aquinas observes neither wisdom nor a working constitution will have any value unless it uses those elements for good and doesn't serve the selfish desires of the person in power. Each philosopher identifies a specific temptation associated with the exercise of political power: being satisfied with one’s intelligence, developing unstable institutions, and supporting one’s own moral principles.

The timeless aspects of political life are what make Plato, Polybius, and Aquinas' lessons relevant to any leader today, as they are not based on a particular moment of political conflict but on fundamental lessons about how to be an excellent leader. Plato teaches that we should have humility towards the truth; Polybius teaches that we should hold to the lawful order; and Aquinas teaches us that those in political authority derive their legitimacy from the service of others. Although they have disagreements on the best form of government, all three agree that the criteria for measuring the effectiveness of leadership are based on the degree to which a political leader possesses wisdom, maintains a stable form of government, and serves the people instead of themselves. Thus, all three would be beneficial sources for the guidance of Donald Trump and for anyone who is entrusted with political authority.