Chapter Info (Click Here)
Book No. – 3 (Political Science – Western Political Thought)
Book Name – Western Political Thought (OP Gauba)
What’s Inside the Chapter? (After Subscription)
1. Nature of Greek Political Thought
1.1. Significance of the ‘Polis’
1.2. Ethics as the Foundations of Politics
1.3. Greek Theory of Knowledge
1.4. Dominant Themes of Political Inquiry
1.5. Role of Sophists
2. Plato: General Introduction
2.1. Socrates Influence
2.2. Later Life
3. Plato’s Theory of Justice
3.1. Plato’s Methodology
3.2. The Quest for Justice
3.3. Nature of Justice
4. Communism of Property and Wives
4.1. Plato’s Educational System
4.2. Guardians and their Style of Living
4.3. Distinction between Plato’s Communism and Modern Communism
5. A Critical Appraisal
5.1. Dilemma of Dominance
5.2. Was Plato a Totalitarian?
Note: The first chapter of every book is free.
Access this chapter with any subscription below:
- Half Yearly Plan (All Subject)
- Annual Plan (All Subject)
- Political Science (Single Subject)
- CUET PG + Political Science
- UGC NET + Political Science
Plato
Chapter – 3

Nature of Greek Political Thought
Significance of the ‘Polis’
Plato (427-347 B.C.), ancient Greek philosopher, is regarded as the first systematic political thinker in the Western tradition.
His mentor, Socrates (469-399 B.C.), left no writings; knowledge of his political thought comes primarily through Plato’s works.
The origins of Western literature, art, culture, science, philosophy, and political thought trace back to ancient Greek philosophy.
Euclid, founder of geometry, born in Greece (3rd century B.C.), contributed a methodology essential to scientific thinking.
Greek philosophers explored fundamental questions about truth, justice, knowledge, reason, virtue, authority, and rule of law.
Western political thought originated from reflections on the life of the ‘polis’ (ancient Greek city-state); the terms ‘politics’ and ‘political’ derive from ‘polis’.
Ancient Greece consisted of several city-states separated by natural barriers (mountains, forests, seas), making transport and communication difficult.
Each city-state developed its own self-sufficient economy and independent political system, yet they were culturally close through a common language and shared religious traditions.
Greeks believed in a multiplicity of gods; Apollo was among the most prominent and beloved deities.
Until the 8th century B.C., kingship/monarchy was the prevalent government form in city-states.
Around 700 B.C., many city-states came under control of oligarchies, which later faced internal conflicts.
By 500 B.C., many city-states were ruled by tyrants, initially caring but later becoming corrupt and cruel.
Following tyrannies, many city-states established aristocracies with popular support; later, many aristocracies were replaced by democracies.
Greek political thought developed amid these varying forms of governance.
The Greek democracy was not democracy in the modern sense; universal citizenship was lacking.
In Athens, of about 400,000 inhabitants, around 250,000 were slaves or aliens with no political rights.
Of the 150,000 freemen/citizens, women had no political rights; only a small number of active male citizens participated in politics.
Greek democracy was a direct democracy where active citizens attended the general assembly to discuss and decide policies.
The supreme court had over 1,000 members chosen by rotation from citizens.
Political rights were restricted to a privileged few, but among qualified citizens, there was no discrimination based on wealth or social status.
All qualified citizens had equal political rights and equal opportunities to participate in public decision-making.
In this sense, Greeks were familiar with the essence of democracy despite its limited scope.
Ethics as the Foundations of Politics
In the Greek philosophical tradition, politics developed as a sequel to ethics.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics concluded by examining the nature of justice, an ethical problem, as the central problem of politics in his work Republic.
Aristotle used his doctrine of the ‘golden mean’ (from Nicomachean Ethics) to develop his model of the ‘mixed constitution’ as a solution to political instability, the central issue in his Politics.
This fusion of ethics and politics led to the Greek belief that the state exists for the sake of life and continues for the sake of the good life.
The pursuit of good life is fundamentally an ethical issue that culminates in the establishment of the state.
Ethics
Ethics refers to a branch of learning concerned with the principles of good conduct. It inquires into moral beliefs and rules about right and wrong. This term is used as a synonym of moral philosophy as well as a set of principles of good conduct concerning a particular profession, such as ‘medical ethics’ or ‘business ethics’.
The Golden Mean
The golden mean refers to a famous ethical principle enunciated by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), ancient Greek philosopher, in his Ethics. It holds the key to personal as well as social morality and serves as a guide for political action. The doctrine of the golden mean Implies that virtue or excellence lies in finding a middle path between two extremes, which would turn out to be vices in themselves. For example, courage is a virtue that lies between cowardice and rashness; liberality, between stinginess and extravagance; ambition, between sloth and greed; modesty, between humility and pride; and friendship, between quarrelsomeness and flattery. Buddhism also commends ‘middle path’ as the road to virtue.
The Mixed Constitution
The mixed constitution refers to a mixture of aristocracy and democracy, prescribed by Aristotle as a remedy to cure the ills of political instability of his contemporary Greek city-states. He observed that none of the prevailing forms of government (viz. monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, polity and democracy) proved to be stable because concentration of power in the hands of any ruler or ruling group gave rise to discontent among those who were deprived of power, and also corrupted the rulers because ‘power and virtue cannot coexist’. He came to the conclusion that a judicious mixture of aristocracy and democracy would prevent the possibility of corruption of rulers as well as rebellion against the government. Under this arrangement, power would be exercised by the chosen few who were rich, educated and cultured, but their decisions would be subject to approval of the ordinary people. Aristotle argued that though ordinary people were not capable to rule, they would prove to be the best judge of the merits and demerits of a public policy.