What Are Plato’s 5 Forms of Government?

Plato’s Republic is one of the foundational texts of Western philosophy and political thought. Written as a lively dialogue between Socrates and, among others, Plato’s brothers, the Republic offers a sweeping examination of “justice” and how it might be achieved—or not achieved—politically.

For most of the book, Plato presents the philosophical arguments for the highest form of government: an aristocracy ruled by wise and virtuous philosophers. Whether or not such an “idealized” state could ever exist in practice is an open question. The Republic wasn’t meant to be a historical examination of existing forms of government, but a philosophical discussion of pros and cons of different hypothetical political “regimes.”

“For Plato, the purpose of government is to advance human excellence and advance human virtue,” says Mark Blitz, a professor of political philosophy at Claremont McKenna College in California. “Ultimately for Plato, the ‘best’ form of government turns out to be the rule of philosophers. But the fundamental questions of the Republic are: What is justice? And what are the limits of justice politically?”

Those limitations are on full display in Book VIII of the Republic, in which Socrates discusses the inferior forms of government ranked in descending order: oligarchy, timocracy, democracy and tyranny.

In Greek, the word “aristocracy” literally means “the rule of the best.” For Plato, an aristocracy wasn’t a society ruled by a wealthy class of elites or nobles—as we might think of it today—but a society led by its greatest citizens. Socrates describes these rulers as “the best philosophers and the bravest warriors” who are dedicated to the common good.

“‘Philosophy’ in Ancient Greece wasn’t the narrow academic discipline that we treat it as now,” says Blitz. “Philosophy meant the full study of human things, including mathematics, the natural sciences and politics.”

The philosopher-rulers of Plato’s ideal state would be selected from childhood for their moral character and physical talents. Promising candidates would be educated and trained in the superiority of reason and the bridling of passions. The best among these philosophers would rule together as wise and benevolent kings.

To avoid temptation and corruption, Plato’s philosopher rulers wouldn’t receive any income or be able to own private property. They would share everything in common with their fellow guardians—even their wives and children would be held in common.

For Plato, a society ruled by philosophers exercising the highest moral, ethical and political judgment would provide the greatest chance for its citizens to experience true justice, happiness and peace.

But Plato must have also known that such a government was “if not literally impossible, at least extraordinarily unlikely,” says Blitz, author of Plato’s Political Philosophy. “What Plato meant by a true philosopher—you can probably count on two hands and two feet the number that have ever lived! You’re talking about Aristotle, Locke, Hegel… In a single generation, you may not have any of these extraordinary figures, let alone a few of them.”

Because Plato recognized that a true philosophical aristocracy—if achievable—would be short-lived, he used Book VIII of the Republic to describe lesser forms of government.

Each of the lesser “regimes,” to Plato, was dominated by a different type of human character (or character flaw). A timocracy is a society ruled by those who love honor above all else. Blitz says that ancient Sparta is a useful (if imperfect) example of a timocracy. It was a society “devoted to war and the honor of the warrior” rather than to full excellence.

In the Republic, when Socrates is asked to describe the character of those who are attracted to a timocracy, he says, “[H]e is a lover of power and a lover of honor; claiming to be a ruler, not because he is eloquent, or on any ground of that sort, but because he is a soldier and has performed feats of arms; he is also a lover of gymnastic exercises and of the chase.”

Plato talks a lot about the “soul” in the Republic. The body, Plato explains, is merely an instrument for the immortal soul, which can be “corrupted by vice and purified by virtue.” The soul of a true philosopher, therefore, is dominated by reason. The soul of the timocrat is dominated by “spiritedness” (thumos in Greek), what Blitz describes as “the seat of anger, pride and love of honor.”

There’s nothing “wrong” with loving honor, says Blitz, “it’s just insufficient. It’s not the full devotion to reason,” which Plato holds as the highest condition of the soul. A timocracy, while inferior to an aristocracy, is at least focused on the common good. That can’t be said for the next regime, the oligarchy.

One of the most dangerous aspects of a timocracy, for Plato, was how quickly it could degrade into an oligarchy. In an oligarchy, the love of honor is replaced with a selfish and insatiable love of money.

In the Republic, Socrates describes an oligarchy as, “A government resting on a valuation of property, in which the rich have power and the poor man is deprived of it…[where] one, seeing another grow rich, seeks to rival him, and thus the great mass of the citizens become lovers of money…and so they grow richer and richer, and the more they think of making a fortune the less they think of virtue…and in proportion as riches and rich men are honored in the state, virtue and the virtuous are dishonored.”

Plato understood the irresistible draw of money and its corrupting influence on rulers. That’s why, in his perfect society, the philosopher-kings would be paid only in food and shelter, and not allowed to own or accumulate property. When wealth and property are prized above all else, power is concentrated in the hands of a privileged few who will stop at nothing to acquire more.

For Plato, economic growth and economic expansion weren’t political concerns like they are in capitalist democracies today.

“In general, Plato would have looked askance at the whole project of economic growth and human accumulation,” says Blitz.

Plato didn’t celebrate “freedom,” “liberty” and “equality” as requirements for a just society. In fact, Plato’s major gripe with democracy was that it resulted in an “excess of liberty.”

For Plato, one of the challenges of the human condition was to choose between “necessary” and “unnecessary” desires. In an aristocracy, that’s not a problem because the philosopher-rulers will use their superior abilities to desire only those things that result in the common good. Even timocrats and oligarchs will channel their energy toward certain “necessary,” if inferior desires: honor and wealth.

The problem with a true democracy—and Plato knew the original Athenian version, warts and all—was that the government operated at the whim of individual desires, which in many cases were “unnecessary” and at odds with the greater good.

“There’s freedom in a democracy, but that freedom is not directed,” says Blitz. “It’s open to any kind of desire, which can lead to a kind of lowering or degrading of society.”

That’s why Plato wasn’t a big fan of “equality,” either. In his mind, not every citizen was cut out for a leadership role. Decisions affecting broader society should be left in the hands of the “best” among them. That wasn’t confined to a certain class or family line, but determined by talent and training.

In the Republic, Plato places democracy below oligarchy, because he sees it as the natural step following a revolution. When the poor grow tired of injustice, they will overthrow the oligarchs and use the tools of democracy to “deprive the rich of their estates and distribute them among the people,” says Socrates.

It is this same populist “mob” mentality, in Plato’s reasoning, that allows for the rise of the tyrant.

How does the tyrant come to power? By masquerading as the “protector” of the people.

“The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness,” says Socrates in the Republic. “This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector.”

Once the tyrant gains the support of the mob, he turns against his enemies and critics, using the courts to execute or banish them. The tyrant constantly stirs up wars to rally his supporters against a foreign enemy and distract them from the fact that their lives aren’t improving. Once the people realize they’ve given the tyrant too much power, it’s too late. Their lives are fully in his control.

The tyrant, in Plato’s political view, is the alter ego of the philosopher. Where the philosopher is only concerned with the common good, the tyrant only cares about himself and his inner circle. Where the philosopher is in control of his “unnecessary” desires, the tyrant shows no restraint whatsoever.

“Plato’s argument in the Republic is that the tyrant is the most unjust and least happy, and that the philosopher is the most just soul and therefore the happiest,” says Blitz.