The current debt crisis which has plunged the European Union into a maelstrom of economical turmoil has hardly passed by anyone unnoticed. Both Greece and Italy, two countries plagued by grave economical deficiencies, have experienced almost unprecedented instability in modern time which has resulted in a change of government. The Prime Minister of Greece, Giorgos Papandreou, was the first to resign in favour of a successor believed to be more able to handle the current economical crisis. He was soon followed by the Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, who was unable to uphold his legitimacy partly because of the controversies surrounding him.
Mr. Papandreou and Mr. Berlusconi were succeeded by the economists Lucas Papademos and Mario Monti respectively. Contrary to their predecessors the new incumbents have been considered to be somewhat uncharismatic and virtually unknown to the greater public. A striking feature both successors have in common is the statement that they have no links to politics. Mr. Papademos claimed that he was no politician and Mr. Monti has been described as an economist who stands above the filibustering of Italian party politics. This stance has been considered crucial for creating an image of seriousness and determination to save the economies of southern Europe. It is hardly a disadvantage to possess an air of efficiency, especially since the mechanisms of economy depends largely on psychology, but it maybe also signals a preference for aptitude instead of popular consent. It is a situation that probably would have pleased Mr. Papademos’ fellow countryman Plato some 2400 years ago.
The Greek philosopher Plato held democracy in scant disregard since he considered it to be a form of government where true leadership could not be properly exerted. Instead of focusing on solving society’s problems Plato feared that democratically elected leaders would only make decisions aimed at securing the support of the people for the upcoming election. Such a habit would ultimately ignore decisions certain to anger the populace but needed to make in order to perform good statesmanship, thus marginalizing competent rulers in favour of those whom only possess prowess in gaining popular consent but nothing else. Plato discussed this theme in his Socratic dialogue The Republic in which he argued that society should be runned by philosophers, a group of experts which would refrain from egotistical intrigues and political populism. With no need to advocate the interests of the common man these experts would therefore, in Plato’s view, be able to make objectively sound decisions.
Plato’s expectation shares important similarities with the modern hope that Mr. Papademos and Mr. Monti will prove to be the experts with the courage to make the unpopular decisions needed in order to save the economy. An article published by the BBC on its web page described Mr. Papademos as “somebody who can steady the ship as it is buffeted by the waves of the financial crisis”. It is a metaphor with a striking resemblance to one of the stories in Plato’s The Republic where a sea captain proves himself worthy but is being scorned by the crew because of his inclination to listen to his own experience rather than to their opinions. Therefore two questions arise about the incumbent prime ministers – will they succeed in restoring stability to the economy and if so, will democracy lose some of its legitimacy in favour of Plato’s technocratic way of government? These are issues well worth to ponder on in a time when people in the European Union feel increasingly alienated by the intricacies of economic and political policy-making.
Daniel Nykvist
