“The tyrant leads the masses into such a position that they elect him as a champion of the people to defend against the enemy within or without. The well-known Padme quote from The Revenge of the Sith is relevant here, as she says: “so this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause.”“
A forewarning:
This is more of an investigation into the structure of the Jedi order rather than the individual philosophies. Jedis have been connected to religions, such as Taoism, that I am not going to delve into, because that is not the point of this piece. Rather I will look at how they react with politics in a wider scope.
Also, I have not properly read the Republic, only having a broad understanding of it from Russell and other sources, so others may know better and I might not be totally accurate in places, although I will do my best to be.
Finally, there are Star Wars film and TV (Clone Wars) spoilers in here, so watch out.
Plato’s Republic
Through a conversation between Socrates and his contemporaries, Plato describes his Republic, his Kallipolis, as being made up of three social classes. There are the producers, who make what is required but do not get a say in the politics of the city. It is unclear if they choose their jobs or not, since it is suggested they do what they’re best at, but the tight control of the rulers implies that it might be planned instead. Next are the auxiliaries – the guards, soldiers who defend the city from external enemies, and protect the rulers and make sure the producers obey their decrees. Finally there are the rulers. They are thought of by Plato as “philosopher kings”, children who are chosen from the producing classes for their merit through tests to be educated for fifty years until they are ready to rule, doing so with selfless duty in mind. They are taught wisdom, courage, justice and temperance as core values, and they are also given physical education to ensure good health and a long life. The society is built around the idea that reproduction is controlled by the state; the children are separated from their birth parents and brought up with everyone as their guardians. There is also no concept of private property, with everything owned and run by the elite rulers.
So, these are children who are removed from their parents, barred from ownership and some attachments. Their education emphasises philosophical virtues of wisdom, courage, justice and temperance, and they are instructed to do what is best for the many, in selfless duty all of their lives.
Remind you of anything?
The Clone Wars and the Jedi
It doesn’t escape my notice that Plato and Star Wars both refer to a singular, all-consuming “Republic” in their universes.
There are clear similarities between Plato’s understanding of philosopher kings, and how the films, tv shows and general canon of Star Wars represents the Jedi to us. The Jedi are selfless servants of the state, doing what is best for the people in a restrained manner and delivering justice, all with wisdom often likened to buddhism and stoicism. They are removed from their parents while young, they own no properties and barely any possessions at all. They cannot marry, cannot reproduce, and totally banned from attachment at all, even to the extent seen in the films and tv where master often is instructed to abandon apprentice (seen for example at the end of Clone Wars season 3 when Ahsoka is deserted on a planet and presumed dead, and Anakin is encouraged to not look for her). Although, I will say it should be stated that Anakin (and Ahsoka) are themselves soft exceptions to this only really for the purpose of storytelling, to give us relatable and sympathetic characters to root for.
However, the Jedi are philosophers but not kings. They are positioned more like the auxiliaries than the rulers, who themselves are the democratically-elected senate. In this way, they are bound to protect the republic’s wishes without any direct say in policies, although the lines are blurred. They are shown to be influential with senate members, while also engaging in peace talks alongside senators on the Republic’s behalf with the enemy (which the Senate vote on to ratify).
What Does a Philosopher-King Look Like?
One of the most interesting things within The Clone Wars tv show is how it portrays different Jedi within the order. Jedi are supposed to be the philosopher-kings – they’re raised to be the best servant they can be, to do what is right and just for everyone. But they still do it in different ways.
There is more than one viewpoint on how to live correctly and justly, an idea that is debated about in Plato’s Republic as much as in The Clone Wars. In The Republic, the central question is posed early-on – Is it better to live as a just man or an unjust person? It is a difficult question to answer. One suggestion in the treatise is that a man can earn a fortune unjustly, but use that money on religious donations and thus be absolved by the Gods of injustice. Matassa (2013) suggests that Plato, through Socrates et al., argued in favour of a “benevolent dictator”, where one person would rule absolutely but in the interest of the people. This is obviously unjust in modern standards, but is it better than the alternative of a just and legitimate government that fails its people? And what safeguards are there to keep them benevolent?
Plato/Socrates suggests, though, that it is better to be just, because an unjust man is forever looking over their shoulder fearing retribution for debts owed, and without friends who trust them. But Plato is incorrect that a just man, in isolation, is better off. Just people can still be trapped by unjust institutions, or unjust rules, or unjust people. A just person is only supreme in a society of justice. One loose bond and the chain breaks.
Rather than asking what is better or more comfortable, Star Wars asks us how a just and virtuous society can survive. I think it is clear that Jedi are meant to represent the pinnacle of “human” (all beings really, given that there are aliens in the Star Wars universe) nature – upholding the aforementioned virtues of wisdom, courage, justice and temperance. There are different expressions of this baked into the characters.
Yoda is a bit of a Socratic figure, asking questions about one’s nature more than prescribing to them action. He warns more than he instructs, guides more than he forces. He is the leader, but a lot of the decisions are cast by the council as a whole. On the other hand, Mace Windu is shown as a more zealous figure, especially in the third film as he goes to arrest the evil Chancellor (more on him later), although this is diluted in the Clone Wars show to make him more sympathetic to follow. His justice-by-any-means approach casts him as a bit of a loose cannon to the viewer, even against the corrupted Anakin in that scene. In fact, his death is partially due to the fact that he carried on with his mission, despite the better temperance or wisdom to stop, fuelled by his desire for justice.
Obi-Wan Kenobi is more of the standard jedi, more of a foil for Anakin than anything. He is calm, cautious, steadfast. He doesn’t always make the right decision, but he is caring and trusting. He is one of the most rounded figures in the Jedi, when discussing the four virtues above. His master, Qui-Gon Jinn, offers a more interesting view on justice. Qui-Gon knew that the Republic was rotten and the Jedi were blind to it, and he is often cited as a rebel and maverick. It is hinted at in the films, such as in the first film when he defies the Jedi council order to train Anakin, and in the second when Dooku suggests he’d have joined the Separatists. He raises the question of: is it better to work within a good, but flawed, system; or to do more good outside of it? It is a question on justice that will always be relevant.
As suggested earlier, Anakin and Ahsoka are more difficult to dissect in the same way. They carry the audience with them, so they are bound more by narrative rules than philosophical ones. Especially with Anakin, they represent a lack of temperance, showing a headstrong nature and wearing their emotions on their sleeves. They refuse to understand the restraint that the Jedi desire, and while their emotions make them more active characters, they also lead them to danger. Anakin shows the root of corruption, the appeal of authoritarianism.
Political Decay and the Road to Authoritarianism
Plato describes the life-cycle of politics, moving through timocracy (rule by the landowners) to oligarchy (rule by the select few), to democracy (rule by the masses) and finally tyranny (rule by the tyrant), considering them all flawed. He suggests that democracy ensures evenly distributed power (at least in theory), but there is still a desiring element left over from the time of oligarchy that is undisciplined and unrestrained. The populist nature of democracy leads to the rule of the mob, fuelled by fears of oligarchy, which is prime for the taking by a powerful figure, who becomes the tyrant. The tyrant, he suggests, removes the safeguards on liberty and ensures their power is absolute to remain in control, even provoking war to consolidate his position as leader. The tyrant leads the masses into such a position that they elect him as a champion of the people to defend against the enemy within or without. The well-known Padme quote from The Revenge of the Sith is relevant here, as she says: “so this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause.”
And as suggested, that path to tyranny is reflected in Star Wars. It shows not just the death of democracy, but the death of the philosopher-kings too. These philosopher-kings can only exist in a perfect system, because as shown above, a just man can be guaranteed to thrive only in a just system. Over the history of Star Wars, the Jedi become complacent and self-satisfied, despite the mounting threats. Even before the films, Count Dooku leaves the order to help revive the Sith, and after that? In the tv shows at least two Jedi turn out to be traitors, and they cannot smell out the deception in some of the senators. One of the prime examples is the Jedi Barriss Offee, a former friend of Ahsoka Tano who frames her for treason in order to undermine the Jedi. She does this not to become a Sith, but because she believes the Jedi have become warmongers during the Clone Wars. And that is the poisoned chalice of power that ruling classes have to grapple with. When they are kept in power by something that is bad for the people, they cannot work for the interest of those that they’re meant to protect. As with all elite classes, the Jedi develop vested interests, as would the fabled philosopher-kings. If the elite class is not legitimised by the people, they will not always work in the interest of the people. The Jedi are peacekeepers, but are made generals in the Clone War – they are defined by the conflict, so to suggest they are warmongers suddenly has some bones to it. And even in the films they are completely blindsided by the all-powerful Chancellor and his army of clones, as they wipe the order out. Perhaps it’s just hindsight, but alarm bells should be ringing when a man grants himself emergency powers and grooms the Jedi you suspected of being susceptible to the dark side.
The Jedi are not seen in the same way again, as an order of wise philosophers helping to govern and protect the people. In Yoda, Obi Wan and Luke Skywalker later, they become harbingers of an uncertain future, a weathervane for trouble on the horizon. They warn more than instruct, advice more than govern. Their institutional failings hang over them for years after, a reminder of their complacency and their lost way from the ideal they set themselves. The philosopher-kings fall because they cannot exist. They are the most just people, but without a home, exploited by the unjust and those that discard the values they hold dear. As is noted in The Republic, the Kallipolis cannot ever exist.
One Geo Under A Groove 