But Who Will Guard the Guardians?

Contrary to what one might have guessed, in posing the famous question, 1 Juvenal was not concerned with affairs of state or politics, but rather trying to convince a friend that marriage is folly, women are not to be trusted, and keeping them locked under guard is not a solution—because the guards could not be trusted either. But, half a millennium or so earlier, Plato did raise a closely related issue in discussing standards of behavior appropriate for the guardians of the city-state, the best of whom were to be chosen as rulers, thus in the context of ideal structure of governance. Socrates, referring to an earlier statement 3 that “drunkenness is most unbefitting guardians,” says: “From intoxication we said that they must abstain. For a guardian is surely the last person in the world to whom it is allowable to get drunk and not know where on earth he is.” To which Glaucon, Socrates’ interlocutor, replies: “Yes, it would be absurd that a guardian should need a guard.” Instead of Juvenal’s later pessimism, indeed cynicism, Plato—through Glaucon—expresses the optimistic view that one should be able to trust the city’s guardians and rulers to behave properly; that they should require oversight is an absurdity. Even a casual perusal of daily newspapers should be sufficient to convince us that there is nothing absurd about the present day “guardians”—leaders and officials of political, economic, and social entities—needing, and indeed getting a great deal of oversight. The question is rather as to the extent oversight is, or even can be, effective.