Liber III, Pars I — Quod reges et principes non sic debent disponere civitatem, ut semper idem in eisdem magistratibus praeponantur. Cap. XIII.

Liber III, Pars I — Quod reges et principes non sic debent disponere civitatem, ut semper idem in eisdem magistratibus praeponantur. Cap. XIII.

Socrates used to say that the same people should not always be the leaders in a city. He was speaking about leadership as it applies to any kind of authority, whether it be a domain, an office, or any position of responsibility. We can demonstrate in three ways that it is not beneficial for a city to always place the same individuals in the same offices. The first way is from the perspective of royal authority or any other authority that has the power to appoint such positions. The second way is from the perspective of the appointees themselves. The third way is from the perspective of the citizens to whom these appointees are assigned. The first way is clear as it is said. Ethi. The role of leadership shows that before men are appointed to any position of authority, their goodness and wickedness should be considered, for a private person cannot justify himself as a public figure can when he holds power; and because not everyone looks at a private person the same way they do a public one, it’s not known what kind of man he is until he is in a position of authority. Therefore, since it is fitting for royal authority to universally distribute positions and to know what kind of leaders and teachers they appoint, if leadership and authority universally reveal a man, it is beneficial for those who assign positions to first test what kind of people they are, whom they have appointed as leaders or teachers, and then, after the experience of their appointment, they should affirm them in their offices or promote them as seems best. The second way to investigate this is taken from the perspective of the leaders themselves. For many evils and injustices would be committed by leaders against the community if they knew they were perpetually such, from whom they would avoid if they considered themselves to be removed from such an office. The third way is taken from the perspective of the citizens, to whom such leaders are appointed. For just as it is not the role of doctors to advise on health, but their role is to aim for health as an end, so it is not the role of those who govern a city to advise on peace and harmony among citizens. For as it is said... Ethic. A ruler's counsel isn't about the end itself, but about the things that lead to the end; for the ruler of a city should aim for peace and harmony among the citizens as the ultimate goal. Therefore, the city should be arranged in such a way that it is maintained in peace and that no seditions arise there. However, sometimes it is necessary to change magistrates and rulers and to distribute them among different people, as the philosopher suggests. This is noted by Polit. It seems that one should aim to establish a calm and peaceful state for the citizens. If others are appointed to positions of authority, those who see themselves as looked down upon will rise up in rebellion and disturb the city. This third reason, which disapproves of the Socratic arrangement, is addressed by the philosopher. This is noted by Poli. As Socrates says, he always makes the same leaders. This is the cause of sedition among those who hold no dignity: for when they see that they possess no dignity, if they happen to be strong and spirited, they stir up sedition.