THE TYPOLOGY OF REGIMES IN THE ALLEGED OF PLATO AND MONTESQUIEU: A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION
Both Plato and Montesquieu exhibit many common characteristics which must be further clarified by modern sociological analysis. The idiotypically approach of regimes through their structure as social types, the anti-idealistic comprehension of the existing societies resulting in the causal interpretation of the rise and corruption of each regime, the emergence of human passions and consequently of the ideology as the driving force of the regimes and the collective action and finally, the modesty of both, while attempting the formation of a good and functional regime, consist at least four points on which their way of thinking cross each other. Now, regarding the interpretation of modern regimes through the extension of desires by conflicting subjects, it is obvious that deeper study and familiarization with the works of Plato and Montesquieu are a true necessity. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the discussions of systems of government of the historical reality, the formation of the modern political and social science as they are presented in dialogues. The first finding of the study presents four forms of governments, in the second finding Plato uses archetypal tensed relationship between father and son to explain, on an individual psychology level, the downward shift of human selections from the logical part of soul to the appetitive one. And in the third findings the two thinker’s lies in their attempt to define every regime of Government according to the morals and habits of people living in it. However, it must be noted that both Montesquieu and Plato reject the idea of a democracy with no rules and representatives, where common people will possess the power. This kind of democracy is a despotism in disguise, where its hedonistic equalizing elements will inevitably destroy the unifying grounds of the state and will eventually establish a totalitarian regime with no political freedom.