Justice and Leadership as Expressed by Plato and Ibn Khaldum Essay

September 25, 2021 by Essay Writer

Introduction

Political theory is the study of antiquity that is. It borrows heavily from history. Historical epoch explains the contemporary political phenomena. A political scholar by the name Karl Mannheim suggests that knowledge cannot exist in a vacuum, it is found in the social milieu of the thinker. The environment informs the knowledge base of individuals in a particular society.

The environment contextualizes and gives meaning to the line of thinking of a particular given theorists. Political theory views history as the context within which all political phenomena should be and must be explained. Without history therefore, there will be no meaning nor understanding of a given socio-political enquiry. Study of history is not all in vain since it provides a foundation for the understanding of society. It offers explanation as to why things are the way they are (Barry 101).

This paper tries to compare the views of two theorists, one from the Muslim world (Ibn Khaldum) and the other from Western world (Plato).The political idea compared is justice and equality, the paper tries to describe the ideas of the two scholars as far as justice is concerned.

Political Idea: Justice

Plato

Many issues received pride in the works of Plato. His famous contribution was on the best rule and conceptualization of justice. According to Plato, justice is virtuous that is, all men must avoid evil and do well always. Whenever man is faced with a choice between doing good and evil, the former must prevail.

His understanding of justice is closely related to what he derived from his friend and teacher, Socrates. Socrates was a man of virtue. He lived at a time when Greece was divided into two, Sparta and Athens. Sparta was under oligarchy while on the other hand Athens was under direct democracy implying that the population was directly involved in formulation and implementation of public policy.

It was the rule of the thirty tyrants (demos) that disillusioned Plato because they falsely accused Socrates of inciting the youths against the ruling class (Aristocrats). According to Plato, Socrates was the most justice of all men, a virtuous person and a man who was more sinned against than sinning (Plato 301).

Plato strongly believed that democracy is unjust system of governance; it is the tyranny of the multitude, rule by unfit, rule by emotions and rule by the populace. It is the worst form of government since it is not virtuous. It is the rule by the least qualified in the society. It is the rule by the bronze, which is not to be embraced by those interested in good leadership.

Ibn Khaldun

Ibn Khaldum had a well-travelled life described by many as a habit of learning; he was able to develop empirical historical approach with rationality free from moral value judgments. His ethnic and city experience gave him a dynamic reasoning of social transformation that was later used in bureaucratic organizations.

He was interested in studying labor especially division of labor and how labor determine pricing in the market. He proposed for a liberal economy because it was self-regulating and that people interacting through trade would coexist peacefully. Liberalism allows participative governance where the people are involved in the management of public affairs (Bogdan 180-181).

He suggested that scholars should make attempts of meeting regularly for them to exchange views since it improves their individual orientation to the world. Human beings obtain their opinions and virtues through study, instructions, lectures and personal contact with teachers (Bogdan 183).

He makes a clear distinction between religion and the state. He argues that Mohammed came to teach the word of God as his messenger but was not interested in the affairs of the world. When the two are combined, there is a possibility that one will not succeed in fulfilling its obligations. Religion offers divine nourishment while the state is in charge of administration. He condemns the religious leaders who are interested in the affairs of the state and refers to them as power mongers.

His major works were on bureaucracy, he regarded it as functional and it was the real meaning of authority as it is the necessary form of organization to humanity (Bogdan 184). Authority can only be gotten through participative politics where everyone is given a chance to vie for positions they want.

He is against autocracy since it destroys group feelings and corrupts the leader who represents the public good. The leader to be chosen by the people should be imbued to service delivery meaning that the leader must be tolerant to advice, fair in allocation of resources accept divergent views and respect scholars and be straightforward in policy formulation.

He notes that in traditional societies, leaders are interested in the affairs of the subjects; there is no class formation where the rich exploit the poor. The modern society has some conditions that guide bureaucratic organizations, which include knowledge and skills, competent judiciary for efficient arbitration and freedom of expression. The state has a cordial relationship with bureaucracy; the state strengthens it for economic development.

Ibn claims that Prophet Mohammed was not against leaders but he was against the negative actions of leaders. Mohammed was against leaders who used state resources to satisfy their own pleasure and desires. The strength of a leader depends on the support he/she receives from the subjects hence people’s wishes and interests must be catered for if a leader is to excel. Leadership therefore requires tranquility and quietness (Bogdan 188-191).

The leader must be in full control of the territory, he does this by appointing the officials believed to be loyal. The leader consults whomever he/she feels is competent to offer advice to him/her. The leader should be highly unpredictable; the subjects should not understand the behavior of a leader (Baal and Ali 445). The leader uses all available means to achieve the victory of the state.

There are times that call for reason, other situations demand force because it reaches a time that the only language understood by man is violence. Certain institutions of the state such as the police and military apply force especially when the security of the state is under threat. The leader may also choose persuasion because with perception even the hardest of all hearts cools.

Comparison

Leadership

The two scholars have similar viewpoints concerning the qualities of a leader. The leader must have undergone basic formal training because education improves an individual worldview. According to Plato (1994), education system assigns roles in any society. The most qualified are gold and are led by reason.

Plato (1994) postulates that “good men will not govern for cash or honors ….the worst penalty for refusal is to be governed by someone worse than themselves….all wise men would prefer the benefit of this service at the hands of others than the labor of affording it to others themselves” (90). Ibn on the other hand claims that scholars should be given a stake in the management of state affairs. The state should respect the views of scholars since they have wider understanding of societal problems affecting people.

Plato and Ibn have the same reasoning when it comes to leadership style; they both argue that the leader can apply either reason or courage. Plato (1994) further argues that rationality allows a leader to distinguish between applying reason and courage. Ibn postulates that a leader needs to be highly unpredictable, those viewing him/her as soft spoken must be subjected to the reality of leadership by not showing mercy to them.

Concept of Justice

The two scholars differ in a number of ways one being conceptualization of justice. Plato argues that only the few who happen to be qualified should rule with the assistance of soldiers.

The leader should not involve the public in the management of affairs because it might lead to tyranny of the multitude. According to Thrasymachus (1994), “Each type of government enacts laws that are in its own interests…….a democracy democratic laws, a tyranny tyrannical ones and so on…..and in enacting these laws they make it quite plain that what is ‘right,” (78).

He therefore recommends aristocracy where a small elite class is trusted with leadership. This kind of rule results to class society where the society is differentiated by wealth that is, the owners of the means of production and the workers. It makes it possible for the rich to exploit the poor by misusing their labor without involving them in decision-making process. Ibn on his side saw that justice would be attained only if everyone is allowed to contest for leadership positions.

He cautions that a leader should be carefully assessed before voting for him/her. The leader at all times must strive to represent the interests of the majority for there to be justice since he/she is part of the feeling of society. Both scholars condemn autocracy because it does not please those concerned with justice. Both do not also want monarchy since it promotes the wishes and desires of minority.

Economy

The two theorists had the same perspectives concerning the market; the government should not try to control economic activities. The market operates according to its own internal logics; consumers coexist with producers by checking each other in the market. This means that producers manufacture those goods that consumers are willing to consume only. Ibn argues that liberalism guarantees happiness and peace.

Plato on the other hand postulated that the philosopher king however much appetitive they might be, must protect citizens. They are taxpayers therefore, they should be allowed to exchange goods and services freely, this guarantees justice since wealth is spread to all members of the society. The state according to both of them is more of a utility that facilitates individual fulfillment of potentials (Baali and Ali).

Political Community

Plato argued that a just society was one that promoted the general well-being of all citizens. The important feature of such society was strong sense of community that its members shared. There was no favor extended to any member of the society, all members were granted equal share in the accrued benefits. The philosopher ruler was the right kind of person to rule, for he was not interested in capturing power.

Plato tried to replicate automatic command and obedience as a model of the ruler-subject relationship, which was rejected by others such as Aristotle. Ibn unlike Plato recommended for equality, the ruler is to mingle freely with the masses since the power that he/she holds comes from the people. For real justice, Ibn saw that the subjects especially the learned had a stake in the economy. The government should be responsive to the needs of people by providing opportunities to them.

Property Ownership

Plato’s society was highly structured, ordered and hierarchical in nature; everyone had specific duties and roles to perform. Roles were allotted to individuals according to their gender, social positions and order of birth. Plato allowed women for the first time in history to participate in politics and own property.

Property was owned individually according to Plato, he was against sharing of women and property. He opened up societal activities to all members of society. His argument was that “Each generation of children will be taken by officers appointed for the purpose who may be men or women or both….for men and women will of course be equally eligible for office” (Plato, 1955, p. 241).

Ibn had the same views but he was against women owning property since it was against Mohammed’s teachings. Only men were allowed to own property and participate in active politics. Roles were assigned to individuals basing on skills and knowledge. The more an individual was educated the better position they could occupy in government.

Education

Plato recommended a state-controlled and compulsory scheme of education. Basic education helped individuals to cope up with society by preparing the soul to search for truth. The kind of education would not discriminate women. All young people of the same age were to receive the same education.

Klosko (19986) argued that “Platonic education is primarily a molding of souls…….the virtue of anything including the soul is a matter of regular and orderly arrangement” (118). Ibn did not restrict educational system to the state; individuals were to choose what were right for them. Women neither were not to receive military education because it was against the culture of society.

Conclusion

It is eminent that Plato and Ibn had the sole purpose of changing societies in which they were members. They arrived at their findings after studying what was going on in the society. They were not concerned with what was to happen in future but were pragmatic by asking what needed to happen presently (Goodin and Pettit 189).

They wrote at a time when religion was intertwined with the state. Religious leaders were both temporal and spiritual leaders. What comes out clear in their works is the idea about justice. They tried to explain the best ways in their societies in which people could liberate themselves. The theorists offer a foundation that could be utilized in explaining the perpetual struggles in human political history. Theories can only be applied after understanding the society with its aspirations.