As turmoil spreads across many countries throughout the world, I am often reminded of Plato’s analysis of varying forms of government, and the characteristics of the people who shape them.

In “The Republic,” Plato’s masterpiece treatise on politics and ethics, Plato outlined not only what he regarded as the ideal state — which was a republic headed by a philosopher-king — but also the features of four “inferior” types of government — timocracy, oligarchy, democracy, and despotism — which tended to degenerate from one form to another.

Plato conceded that a state led by a wise, just, educated king was an ideal rather than a likelihood, because kings and philosophers were generally inclined to have different temperaments and priorities. And even if a true philosopher-king, guided by reason, could somehow emerge, Plato maintained that a corps of dedicated, unselfish soldiers would be needed to maintain the stability of the nation.

In Plato’s imagined republic, soldiers would have served primarily for honor, rather than personal financial gain. But because the people most likely to rise in military ranks would probably be both brave and ambitious, and because national defense and war always entail great costs and spoils, Plato foresaw that over time, even a well-founded republic would probably devolve into a military-based state – or timocracy – like Sparta.

And further still along the course of disintegration, as the ambitious acquired more property and became avaricious, and their heirs led lives of entitlement, laziness, and squalor, a system of government that entrenched power among the wealthy — an oligarchy — would be the next likely outcome.

Then as the rich became even richer, and more corrupt and dissolute, and the poor became still more hungry and desperate, the seeds of revolution would be sown. The many would eventually overthrow the few, thereby resulting in a democracy.

But by Plato’s conception, a democracy was not an ideal, but rather, a disaster, since he believed that most people were unable to govern their own appetites, and so would hardly be qualified to govern themselves. The end result of a condition where all people were regarded as equal would be a reduction to the lowest common denominator, or mob rule.

The resulting chaos would then be fertile ground for the emergence of a charismatic, powerful leader who could both rally the people and restore order by force — in other words, a despot. And while a democracy was dangerous because all natural appetites and all people would be accorded equal status, a despot was an even greater evil, because, unchecked, he was likely to give his very worst tendencies supreme reign.

Watching the frightening, disintegrating forces that are currently wreaking havoc in many parts of the world, it is easy to appreciate how accurately Plato perceived the flaws of our human nature and the dangers of inferior forms of government. In the Mideast, modern examples of an enlightened monarchy, a timocracy, an oligarchy, a “democracy,” and a despotism might be Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Syria, in that order (or disorder, as the case may be).

And even here in the United States, where we have instituted a constitutionally safeguarded republic that Plato might be equally apt to envy or criticize, we can still profit from the lessons of the greatest of ancient Greek political philosophers. For while technology has advanced by leaps and bounds in more than 2,300 years, it is doubtful that human nature, and the dangers inherent in our collective weaknesses, have really changed much at all.

John McColgan writes from his home in Joseph.