Plato grouped existing forms of government according to the type of power that dominated them and, as a result of this classification, concluded that there are four bad forms of government:
- timocracy, where the power-hungry and ambitious rule;
- oligarchy, where the wealthiest rule;
- democracy, where the majority of free citizens supposedly rule, but in reality, there is no order at all;
- tyranny, when all free citizens are subject to the whims of a single ruler.
Contrasted with these bad forms of government is the ideal state imagined by Plato, which is aristocratic in its essence. At its head would be either one outstanding personality or several of the best and wisest citizens.
Where we stand at the moment is roughly clear to many. In a democracy, or perhaps a special kind of pseudo-democracy, in which various reforms, improvements, restructuring, and transformation processes take place—supposedly guided “externally or internally” by good intentions—that are maximally bureaucratized and convoluted with signs of censorship, control, and the “correct opinion.” Who gains or is gaining from this? It seems that in a country where almost 40% of the population lives on the verge of poverty, the middle class remains only “so-called.” The truly wealthy constitute a negligible number out of less than 2 million inhabitants; in such a situation, it would be important for survival to expand the number of those who benefit from the implementation of relevant changes and reforms. It is clear that the essence of the reforms, which are overgrown with slogans, mottoes, and posters—like “people first”—is neither properly explained nor understandable to the majority, nor does anyone listen to these “misunderstanders” or delve into their daily problems. The process is simply called “intelligent shrinkage,” and the question resolves itself.
Everything seems correct: the residents democratically elect representatives to parliament and local government structures in a democratic manner. Everything is in order, after all… It is their own fault that there are low wages, pitiful pensions, humiliatingly small child benefits, half-collapsed infrastructure in the countryside and even in the capital, full prisons, and 350,000 who have left to seek happiness. Although, finding happiness “abroad” is also going to be difficult now. In parallel with these widely known facts, the media tirelessly sound off about the negative in everything, while the simple (“needy”) voter, who is active, unfailingly votes in each election for the most aggressive and angry critic of the existing pseudo- (or any other type of) democracy. What happens next? The shouter and critic, upon entering the circle of decision-makers and legislators, automatically “forgets” their “needy” voters, or only remembers them when performing somewhere publicly to burnish their supposed image as a politician. Let us not forget that along with the loud ones, mystical figures are elected—accomplices, self-declared “economists,” “experts,” “young professional bloggers,” and “special opinion leaders,” whose true value is to speak arrogantly, throw themselves around various senseless self-initiated meetings, formal working groups, banquets, and so-called experience exchange trips. This continues and rolls on year after year, from election to election at all levels with a cumulative tendency. Anyone will say that this “system” must be changed once and for all!
The question: how then to implement the ideal state model defined by the ancient thinker Plato? How to find and persuade (or perhaps even force?) the nation’s most outstanding personalities, the best, the wisest, and above all—the most just citizens—to lead the state and society? Undeniably, there are such citizens in our country! Periods of crisis, unrest, and instability reveal most sharply that the lack of wise and just citizens in public administration is chronically acute. There is a shortage of people who would state clearly and plainly what needs to be done and how to act, regardless of any imagined, fictitious problems and/or assumptions created by fear or stupidity. Perhaps this is a problem for small nations? Hardly, because it is worth looking at some small nations in Europe. They are coping successfully and finding both the wise and the just, organizing their states and capitals, defending themselves from external pressure, and managing internal politics. They do not wait for “recommendations” from Brussels, which for some reason some officials and politicians in Latvia turn into “mandatory requirements.” A special species of various “defenders of the only truth,” intimidators, panic-mongers, and simple malice-bearers has developed, who immediately use everything they can even slightly exploit for the disparagement, discrediting, and berating of our land. “Report to Brussels.” “Sound the alarm.”
And it is interesting—supposedly in the name of caring for everything good and achieving wonderful goals! It is a repulsive but always “working” tactic, because it is possible to announce—“Look, Brussels or international organizations are pointing out to Latvia that this is bad here and something else is wrong!” Only, let us consider that the foreign pointers have been supplied with crooked information by local “well-wishers”! It must be admitted that this method proves quite effective, as it acts upon the minds of people exhausted by the information and disinformation surrounding them…
For example, the issues regarding nature and its diversity in Latvia are undeniably important to many of us. For years, there have been citizens in our country who have united in groups with self-appointed leaders—“experts”—who tirelessly search for “a Congo in Latvia” (or a Brazil, Angola, or Mozambique, etc.), in other words, they are trying very hard to justify the existential question of their own existence. Because who will need these people who absorb large sums of money for “highly necessary for Latvia” green projects if it is acknowledged that in Latvia there is no, is not happening, and will never happen, the so-called “destruction of nature,” as, unfortunately, is happening in many places around the world. A “citizen of the world” living on asphalt, sitting at a computer, and residing in Riga would very much like to go to battle here, rather than, for example, protect Mother Earth somewhere in the jungles of South America or collect waste in Bangladesh. Following the slogans of their “leaders,” people appear who openly ignore not only science-based, provable, and verifiable insights but also resist obvious evidence. The justification: “I think so and that’s it! You and your scientists are bought by industries, all data is falsified! I don’t believe it! The truth is mine, nothing else interests me!” Regarding biodiversity in the National Development Plan 2027, it is better to rely on the interpretable, unverifiable Bird Index rather than on the auditable and verifiable National Forest Monitoring, which was never included in this plan, despite the constantly emphasized and repeated arguments of representatives from the forest, agricultural, and peat sectors…
It is bad that even in public media a similar tendency prevails, especially on Latvijas Radio 1, where one can very often hear tendentious programs of questionable quality that are intentionally “loaded” against the forest, peat, agricultural, and other productive sectors (Read—the state’s National Economy!). It is clear that this is organized with the intent to create a specific, predetermined impression on those for whom radio is enough! Recently, I happened to meet a University of Latvia master’s student (a supposedly intelligent person) who claimed that, for example, forest management is comparable to organ trafficking… and that soon we will have nothing to breathe… and that nature is also dying here with us… Such people, unfortunately, amplify the negative assumption advertised by certain individuals that Latvia is, after all, a “Congo” (or some other problem country where nature is destroyed, birds and animals disappear, mollusks and valuable plants go extinct in a grim, human-caused apocalyptic process). In their “bubble,” they are literally “programmed” for negativity and the whipping up of hysteria, and I think they themselves do not even really grasp the essence of the problem.
Seeing how much the state needs funds in situations that are not predictable; how much we are dependent on various external factors, there is a great lack of wise, courageous, and honest citizens who could come and govern the state, truly thinking and working for the future, rather than fearing and getting nervous about the hidden threats to personal comfort from “recommendations produced” abroad. Those who provide recommendations do not care what is actually happening here in Latvia and how the people living in Latvia are coping! The recommenders are not interested in what will happen here next; the main thing is to implement their own decisions, which are so detached from reality that they have become abstract. Formally—in strategies, plans, guidelines, “roadmaps,” and various development programs, of course, yes! Not in reality…
Everything is in our hands! We have both natural resources, which, unfortunately, are not used correctly and rationally, and wise and courageous people who can turn our land into a welfare state. The current cycle has ended. The next one will be soon. What do we expect? Does it not matter? Latvia is our country, after all. It is not too late yet!
Quoting Plato: “…it is already clear that no craft or rule provides any benefit to itself, but, as we have said, provides and ensures it for the subjects, caring for what is useful for the weaker, not for the stronger…”