The Peloponnesian War is among the most contentious topics in history. The opponents might claim that there is no justice in conquering weaker people. Therefore, great leaders should act like philosophers and govern with a high level of maturity and virtues. Conversely, the proponents may argue that it is the natural order of things for the strong to show dominance because no one can stop them. This might explain why the Athenian army attacked Melos to coerce them into their alliance. The implications of both sides of the argument are in two folds. First, this might create an opportunity for rulers corrupted by wealth to ascend to power. Second, it may be the beginning of a strong pact for the most vulnerable states. Since the conflict pitted a more dominant state (Athens) against a feebler nation (Melos), the main point of argument is whether the powerful have a right to rule over the weak or not. The powerful do not have a right to rule over the weak because they may lack the necessary leadership qualities and contribute to injustice and social discord.
Powerful people may lack good leaders’ knowledge, virtues, and abilities. Not every influential person has the ideal qualities of being a leader. Good leaders are wise, moderate, and courageous. They are only concerned with issues that stand to benefit the entire society or country. Plato states, “… Neither cities nor states nor individuals will ever attain perfection until the small class of philosophers who we termed useless but not corrupt are… to take care of the state” (265). He further describes philosophers as having “A gift of a good memory and is quick to learn–noble, gracious, the friend of truth, justice, courage, temperance” (249). In this context, Socrates emphasizes that it is not enough to be powerful; instead, leaders need to have certain qualities that make them good decision-makers and great rulers. Having extensive knowledge of military, arithmetic, and geometry, among other disciplines, may constitute effective leadership. Ineptitude and lack of virtues may result in bad governance, which may plunge society into crises. Powerful people should not rule over the weak because they may have poor leadership skills, adversely affecting a nation.
Leadership should aim at satisfying the needs of all people. In most cases, powerful people are driven by personal ambitions, such as wealth, influence, and honor, to get leadership positions and rarely regard other people’s needs. This results in unjust regimes like the aristocracy, oligarchy, and tyrannical. However, Plato emphasizes that “Justice is giving to each man what is proper to him” (28). This implies that just leaders have to place the needs of their subordinates above their own and strive to ensure that the basic necessities of their citizens are met. Nevertheless, this conflicts with the ambitions of the most influential people, who are only concerned about individual wealth and honor. Furthermore, in accumulating influence and riches, the powerful may end up oppressing the weak ones, which is unjust. Therefore, the powerful should not rule over the weak because it leads to injustice.
Unjust leadership may create social discord among people in society. Good leadership aims to ensure the happiness of both the rulers and the ruled. This is achieved by guaranteeing that all the social classes are contended to prevent any social strife. Plato asserts, “…. In this way we might make every class happy and-then as you imagine, the whole state would be happy” (153). Nonetheless, most powerful regimes involving tyrants or aristocrats create a significant imbalance in society, resulting in a few wealthy people and many poor people. In this case, the rich may be afraid of losing their wealth to the poor, while the disadvantaged population may engage in crimes to meet their basic needs. In both cases, the rich and the poor will be unhappy. In addition, the unjust rulers will be worried about being overthrown. Pluto says, “If they cannot expel him or get him condemned to death by a public accusation, they conspire to assassinate him” (357). Thus, the powerful should not rule over the weak because their leadership results in class conflicts and causes unhappiness among the rulers and the subjects.
The powerful having a right to rule over the weak may foster a strong alliance for the most vulnerable states. The Melians were a small island community with an insignificant military force, even by Greek standards. Melians had no chance of survival against external assault unless there was an outside intervention. Although they were neutral during the conflicts, unlike most Aegean territories that were part Athenian alliance, Melos was suspected of having strong ties with Spartans and contributed to their war efforts. For Thucydides, this is the primary motivation for Athenian aggression (Thucydides, 1954). Therefore, this shows that the apparent reason why countries engage in military alliances is to improve their influence and protect themselves against external threats from other nations.
Even though collaborating with powerful individuals or states may translate to increased resources and security for vulnerable populations, bestowing such rights to elite groups may allow corrupt leaders to ascend to power. According to certain customs, justice may not be the same under different political regimes. The power vacuum may enable people in control to implement their own laws of engagement within society (Thucydides, 1954). In this case, Thrasymachus defines justice as “Nothing else than the interest of the stronger” (Plato, 1930, p. 38). The ruling class may even resort to physical violence, where men are killed and women and children are sold into servitude to accomplish their goals. In such scenarios, it is just and natural for the elite class to oppress the weak. In addition, it may be impossible for marginalized subjects to resist such repression by enacting rules to curtail the supremacy of the strong. This is precisely what transpired following the Peloponnesian conflict when a group of corrupt wealthy opportunists seized power for their own interests.
The proponents of this debate might say that the strong rule over the weak is the natural order of things. From this viewpoint, it may be claimed that states with military strength are in a superior position to do what they desire because no one can stop them. This might explain why the Athenian army attacked Melians to coerce them into their alliance, but their city came under siege when they refused to cooperate. Athenians believed that justice relied on the level of power to compel others into submission. In this case, the elite class has the privilege to do what they want, and the underprivileged have to accept it. For example, Athenians provided Melians with no moral justification for the assault. However, they bluntly told them that Athens wanted to conquer Melos for its own interests. In addition, the only benefit Melians had a chance to gain in accepting their demands was self-preservation and a stop to destruction. This shows that pragmatic concerns and egocentrism can motivate a nation into war with its neighbors.
The strong may dominate the weak due to their superiority, but this is not justice. In this case, people in power cannot determine what is right or wrong. Thucydides illustrates that Athens’s reasons for invading Melos were to show the sternness and strength of its naval prowess to discourage other island territories from dissenting. Therefore, individuals or countries socially engage each other based on the sovereignty principle that allows everyone to exercise utmost authority within their territories. Therefore as Melians indicated during the negotiations with Athenians, it is the interest of all nations to respect the sovereignty of other countries. It is unreasonable to threaten other people’s survival and destroy their peaceful social co-existence. Therefore, leaders motivated by the desire for power and wealth should not use this to expose others to cruelty and invoke what is fair and wrong. This is because a time might come when the aggressors themselves would need such rights and protections. People should have the liberty and freedom to choose their own destinies and relations with other communities or states.
The powerful do not have a right to rule over the weak because they may not possess the necessary qualities to govern. Strong rulers are motivated to serve their self-interests and may enact laws to achieve this end. An oppressive regime may be used as a weapon for the strong to dominate the weak and contribute to injustice and social discord. The Peloponnesian War is a memorable example that demonstrates the type of cruelty that the weak can experience at the hands of those who possess significant power. However, is it reasonable for the weak to surrender or comply than fight, especially when they have no chance of winning? This is because states with military strength may be in a superior position to do what they want with little or no resistance from the masses.
References
Plato. (1930). The Republic. (P. Shorey, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 360 B.C.E).
Thucydides. (1954). The history of the Peloponnesian War. (R. Warner, Trans.) Penguin Classics. (Original work published early 4th century BC).