Plato rules – OK?

About two and a half thousand years ago Plato suggested that a truly civilised society would identify and educate ‘the best people’ and put them in charge of things. These ‘guardians’, he believed, being unusually wise, would bring about good government.

Plato didn’t think much of the idea of democracy (rule by the people), which he saw as the penultimate step in a gradual decline from aristocracy (rule by the best), through timocracy (rule by the honorable) and oligarchy (rule by a few), then democracy and finally tyranny (rule by a tyrant).

This is a concept eagerly embraced by people who see themselves as natural guardians. Politicians, stars of stage, screen and radio, sportspeople, shock jocks, newspaper columnists and the like – all self-appointed guardians of our moral and physical welfare.

One of my favourite guardians wrote recently in his column that Cate Blanchett was ‘the target of a tightly focused hate campaign’ for ‘having the temerity to put her name to an advertisement in favour of a carbon tax’. Furthermore, Dame Elisabeth Murdoch is in for more of the same, he writes, having put her ‘far wealthier’ name to an open letter calling for the carbon tax. Good heavens, ‘I mean if they did that to Blanchett because of her wealth, what on earth will they do to Murdoch’s mother…?’ And if you attack his Mum, you attack Rupert, and that’s surely not on!

This is great propaganda. By claiming that criticism is ad hominem you can avoid discussion of the idea. By making the claim in advance, if criticism arises you can say ‘Told you so!’ It shifts attention away from the idea. If you’re a guardian it’s better to be seen as a martyr than ill-informed.

Julia Gillard is a great guardian. She knows exactly what we need. Never mind that she promised she wouldn’t do it, and that the majority of voters are against it, she knows we need it, so she’ll bravely soldier on, and she won’t apologise for that.

You’re either for her or against her. It’s no use saying, for example, that Australia is a very small player in the creation of carbon emissions, and that it might be a good idea to follow the rest of the world rather than trying to lead it. What do Julia and Kate and Elisabeth want? A carbon tax! When do they want it? Now!

In the interests of gender balance, I need to point out that Greg and Ross and Tim agree. Carbon tax! Now!

Being one of those who had the temerity to criticise Cate, I want to set the record straight. I think Cate Blanchett is a truly great actor – I love her work. I go to movies just to see her. I believe she is entitled to every penny she has earned. By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that I hate her, and I’ll bet the same goes for most Australians, who like to see her as a worthy icon.

I don’t think Cate knows a lot about the issue of climate change. I think she lives a very affluent lifestyle, and has a far greater ‘carbon footprint’ than most. I think she is very rich, and a carbon tax will have no more effect on her way of life than it will have on the environment. I don’t think she is in any position to tell me what to do. From her, it tends to be ‘Do as I say, and not what I do’. I think she’s wrong.

But I do believe that she has the right to express her opinion, and that I have the right to criticise that opinion without any suggestion that I’m indulging in some kind of ‘hate campaign’. Same goes for Dame Elisabeth. I’m an admirer, she does lots of great things for the community, but this isn’t one of them.

I can’t resist pointing out to the journalist in question that if a campaign exists aimed at Cate personally, ‘tightly targeted’ is a tautology, with only one purpose – to add a little emotion to a ridiculous assumption.

To clarify my position: I can criticise without hating – it’s the idea I’m attacking, not the person. Even if the person is rich and famous and I’m not.

I can’t help noticing that most of our guardians, including the journalist in question, profit handsomely from their position. I don’t see too many of them who have retained the common touch, and understand what it is like to enjoy a less luxurious lifestyle. ‘Poverty is the curse of the working class, and who can blame us for choosing to pursue a less Spartan way of life?’

Many societies didn’t go along with Plato. The Celts for example, believed that people who claimed to be guardians should be put to death, but I don’t wish that on anyone.

Australians are famous for disrespecting their ‘leaders’, and that’s part of our culture that I quite like. Our guardians call that the ‘tall poppy syndrome’, inferring that it’s the followers who are at fault, but I see it as a tendency to test the claims of the guardians, and to act with a certain degree of contempt if they fail to come up to scratch.

There is a better way. Aristotle didn’t agree with Plato, and was of the opinion that maybe good could come out of consensus. Maybe that’s not exactly the way he put it, but I think it’s what he meant.

The natural outcome of the guardian mentality is our adversarial way of living, as the guardians argue, not about what is right, but about who is right. The result is usually compromise, which they like to call consensus, but isn’t.

To clarify: If ‘A’ comes up with the perfect solution, ‘B’, being in opposition, sees it as a duty to oppose it. The perfect idea is abandoned altogether, or they compromise. That’s our adversarial system. We always get second best.

Consensus is when all parties agree to support a solution, even if they don’t totally agree with it. It results from committing to a vision of the future, rather than recriminations and posturing. Very disempowering for guardians!

Impossible? Definitely not!

In July 1994 Prime Minister Paul Keating, launching the Great Barrier Reef Strategic Plan, said: “It is [the] need for protection and ecologically sustainable management of the reef that prompted the Great Barrier Reef Strategic Plan. The plan itself is an achievement unique in the world…It represents an ambitious and farsighted effort to develop a long term vision…by formulating appropriate objectives and management strategies for ecologically sustainable development. Creating the plan involved a comprehensive consultative process in which more than 60 peak organisations and representatives from across a wide cross section of the community participated. An independent chairperson was employed to ensure that competing interests were considered and to facilitate the joint decision making process…”

The task of creating this consensual approach was given to Sydney consultant Kayt Raymond. Imagine being able to bring together 60 disparate organisations, each, no doubt, with their own ‘guardians’. They represented local councils, Aboriginal groups, scientists, universities, tourist industries, politicians, fishermen and so on – to produce any level of agreement would seem impossible. But consensus was achieved, and the strategic plan for the reef adopted.

How that was achieved is another story – the point is that it can be done, and we know how to do it. The first stage is getting the guardians to sit down and shut up.

That’s quite unlikely with so many of them clamouring for our attention and arguing about who is right. That’s a system that can’t even get agreement when many of them are saying that it’s the future of the world at stake.

I think it’s up to the guardians – Cate, Dame Elisabeth, our politicians, columnists, assorted gurus and so on, to set a good example, rather than their current approach, which seems to have originated when another guardian said ‘Let them eat cake’. Look what happened to her – that was indeed a ‘tightly focused hate campaign.’

I don’t know about Plato’s idea of the gradual decline of good government. It seems that for quite a while the world began to be ruled by science, and respect for intelligence rated highly. Then, with postmodernism and the advent of mass media, intelligence and knowledge was replaced by fame and fortune. The next stage seems to be the granny state.

Plato has a lot to answer for, but he wasn’t all bad. He also said “He was a wise man who invented beer.” I can go along with that!