Still Applicable? Why or Why Not?
In this essay I will offer an explanation of Plato’s critique of democracy. I
will then assess this critique based on the contemporary model of democracy
experienced by Plato. Furthermore, I will argue that the critique is still
applicable in a modern context by presenting various problems that modern
democratic models pose for the critique and then demonstrating how Plato’s
argument can overcome them.
In order to clearly understand why Plato finds democracy so objectionable
it is necessary to understand how democracy worked in an Ancient Greek
context. One of the main characteristics of this early democracy was its
emphasis on ‘Direct Participation’. This meant that all citizens were to take
part in the political affairs of the state. This was made possible by a relatively
small population of citizens, about 30,000.1 All of these were expected to
partake in the democratic process and vote in assembly, while presidency
over all state bodies was cycled among the citizens to promote fairness and
equality in the government’s agenda. Ancient Athenian democracy, therefore,
was to govern and be governed in turn in a system where majority rule was
paramount, and liberty was equated to direct autonomy over one’s own
affairs.
Plato’s charge against democracy is simply that it violates the proper
order of society by creating an artificial equality. His fundamental criticism of
democracy is that it is based on the assumption that every citizen is equally
1
Held, op. cit pg 12
1
entitled to a say in political affairs, no matter how unsuited he is in terms
of ability, character or training. In his Republic, Plato gives the analogy of a
ship, where the captain, all his training, expertise and life-long experience
notwithstanding, is somehow incapacitated by the crew who now take control
of the ship, with ‘no idea that the true navigator must study the seasons of
the year, the sky, the stars ... if he is to be really fit to control a ship’2 What
is meant by this analogy from ship to state is that no matter how ignorant a
person may be, under a democratic system they still could find themselves
playing a significant role in the regulation of public affairs. A system where
value and merit are disregarded and instead unconditional equality promoted
disgusted Plato. He held that this type of mob rule marginalised the wise
minority who have the necessary acquired abilities to allow them to rule
efficiently. Furthermore, when people do appear from the masses and find
themselves in positions of power, they are still potentially disastrous. In a
democracy, Plato explains, the leaders will always be at the mercy of popular
appraisal, and so will only act to appease the majority, which makes their
political decisions as inefficient and unskilled as anyone else’s.
In an ancient context, it certainly does seem that Plato makes a strong
point. The cycle of the various state body presidencies throughout the entire
electorate, while being egalitarian, does indeed lead to people with hugely
varying levels of competency finding themselves in positions of power.
Furthermore, in this system when the electorate met over forty times a year to
vote, the majority certainly did have a formidable input into the affairs of the
state. The majority of citizens in Plato’s time (early 4th century BC) were poor,
and since at this time the poor were uneducated and largely illiterate, it can
be granted to Plato that he is right in assuming that they will often have had
2
Plato, op. cit. pp 282-83.
2
absolutely no experience or training in the management of state. This could
almost certainly cause problems in times of emergency like sudden war or
famine, as strong leadership and informed decision making are vital factors in
overcoming these difficulties.
It is true that Plato’s critique sheds light on some serious shortcomings of
ancient democracy, and as has been shown above, it is plausible that these
shortcomings could lead to serious problems for the state and its citizens.
Seeing as the alternative is an imposed rule of some sort, however, I will
consider whether Plato goes too far in dismissing democracy as useless. For
example; Even if it is admitted that expert knowledge is necessary for the
government of a state, and that the majority of the citizenry does not have
sufficient grasp of all the social, administrative, legal, and other relevant
details that go into running a government, does it necessarily follow that they
must relinquish their right to appoint the leaders of their government, or to
recall them, if their performance seems unsatisfactory. Voters in a democracy
may not know how to run a government, but they can surely judge the results.
What is essential for a democracy is not that citizens be able to understand
everything themselves, but that they be able to determine any employ the
means to follow their ideals for their state.
Although this argument offers a way in which democracy could still work, it
ultimately succumbs to Plato’s challenge again. If it is plausible to argue that
voters may be too uninformed to decide on the best means to reach a certain
end, then it is also plausible to argue that they may not be informed enough to
choose the right ends. A serious lack of knowledge can manifest itself not only
in the way a state is run, but also in the choice of state goals. Once again what
3
Plato’s critique does here is highlight another problem that a majority
orientated government can run into. To use a modern example; Hitler was
democratically elected into power with the mandate of re-establishing
Germany’s old grandeur. This ended with the most costly war in history and
the attempted genocide of the Jewish people. This example demonstrates
both the latter point – that old imperial grandeur may not be the best end to
seek in a modern world, and the former point, that although democratic, once
a leader is in power it may not be possible to get rid of them before serious
damage is done.
To summarize the assessment of Plato’s critique, presented above, it
was demonstrated that ancient democracy did indeed allow uneducated
people to take part in running the state and unskilled people to lead it. The
problems arising from these possibilities were then made clear. Furthermore,
a counter argument to Plato’s critique was explored but it was found that
even if voters manage to achieve their ends, these ends may be unproductive
or even hazardous for the state. This argument compounded the fact that
an uneducated majority were a risky bastion of governing power, and so the
critique was shown to be thorough and persuasive.
This essay so far has striven to demonstrate that Plato’s critique was
applicable to democracy in an ancient Greek context, contemporary to Plato
himself. Democracy, however, has changed substantially since the 4th century
BC. Nevertheless, I intend to use the rest of this essay to demonstrate that
Plato’s critique has stood the test of time and is still applicable today. I will
do this by highlighting various key differences between ancient and modern
democracy and then offering an argument as to how these changes do not
prevent democracy from succumbing to Plato’s argument, as outlined above.
4
One of the key aspects of modern democracy is the use of elected officials
who run the state on behalf of the electorate. Made necessary mainly by
the restrictions that our burgeoning populations place on the democratic
process, these representatives are generally brought into power in periodic
elections after having campaigned around the country, explaining their
various political ideals and aims. This is in clear contrast to the ancient Greek
system because now professional statesmen exist, who are often educated
in governing and see this career as a full-time occupation. It would seem
that this evolution obsoletes Plato’s critique because these seem to fit the
description of ‘philosopher kings’, as sought after by Plato. They are educated
in the business of rule and commit their entire career to it, as opposed to
partaking in the democratic process in an almost hobby-like way, which is what
many Greek citizens did. There is one critical point, however, that prevents
them from becoming true philosopher kings – in a democracy, the elected are
always accountable to the electorate. This means that to stay in power it is
necessary that a leader stay popular and so must appease the people by acting
in accordance with the desires of the majority. This can be juxtaposed to a
philosopher king who, in theory, would continue ruling through unpopularity
as, by nature, he would know better than the majority and could not be
removed because of this. In this way the advent of ‘elite’ statesmen has not
protected democracy from Plato’s critique as the majority still hold their
supremacy over government direction.
Although Plato’s critique appears to be in a strong position following the
above argument, there is an implicit point made against which the critique
must be assessed. Since we do have professional politicians to deal with the
running of our modern states, the need for ‘direct democracy’ is taken away,
5
meaning that the electorate’s input can be minimised. This is actually what
happens in practice. The more apathetic or uninformed citizens can simply
opt out of the process. In this way a more educated and interested ‘working
electorate’ (those that do vote) comes into being. One of Plato’s key problems
with democracy was that the electorate were not educated or informed
enough to run the state but since now only interested citizens need partake,
surely this means that those who do are in fact informed about the intricacies
of running government.
At first glance this argument seems to hold sway, but there are some
problems with it. The first is that while being forceful, the premises of this
argument are not necessarily true. For instance, the fact that uninformed
voters need not vote doesn’t guarantee that they will not vote. Apathetic
voters will not necessarily step back from the process either, because while
a voter may be totally apathetic and ignorant to the vast majority of his or
her state’s politics, they may harbour one key interest and vote with that, no
matter what other policies their preferred candidate may have. A common
example used in this circumstance is a one of a candidate with the promise to
legalize marijuana as part of his campaign. A voter could be entirely apathetic
to the whole democratic process but feel very strongly that marijuana should
be legal, and so vote for this candidate without knowing or perhaps caring
about any of their other policies, which could potentially be detrimental to the
state. The loss of direct democracy has also taken away the requirement that
a citizen be thoroughly politically informed. This has lead to an electorate that
is less informed on average than an ancient Greek citizenry. This is an obvious
progression. In ancient Greece almost every citizen participated directly in the
political decision making process. Today, however, democratic countries elect
6
a handful of politicians (a hundred or more in most cases) to do this for them.
This means that the vast majority of the citizenry remains entirely uninvolved
and so could not possibly be as informed as members of a direct democracy.
So while the above argument held that the lack of direct participation can lead
to a more informed working electorate, the counter argument showed that
this is not a valid, and demonstrated that a modern democratic citizenry is less
politically informed on average than an ancient one.
In summary, the changes to democracy lead to the creation of new
arguments against Plato’s critique to be formulated. These were shown to
be dismissible, problematic themselves or invalid. To conclude, I will suggest
a reason that Plato’s critique is still applicable in a modern sense; while
democracy has changed substantially since Plato’s time, these changes have
been in the practice or method to democracy, not to democracy itself. Since
democracy is essentially the rule of the people, and Plato’s critique is aimed
at the problems that arise from the majoritarian and egalitarian aspects of
democracy, then this critique’s applicability will not be affected by changes
made to how democracy is practiced. As long as it remains an egalitarian
system where the will of the majority is enacted in rule, then Plato’s critique
will still hold.
7
Bibliography
• Held, David, ‘Models of Democracy’, Polity Press, 2006.
• Plato, ‘The Republic’, Translated by Desmond Lee, Penguin Books, 1987.
• ‘Plato: The Failure of Democracy’, internet article found at http://
faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm
Bibliography: • Held, David, ‘Models of Democracy’, Polity Press, 2006. • Plato, ‘The Republic’, Translated by Desmond Lee, Penguin Books, 1987. • ‘Plato: The Failure of Democracy’, internet article found at http:// faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
“Democracy provides the most just and efficient form of political rule” Asses whether Plato has shown his claim to be false.…
- 894 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
R.D. is any system of government in which leaders are authorized to make decisions by winning a competitive struggle for the popular vote…
- 20135 Words
- 81 Pages
Powerful Essays -
What is a system of government in which members of the polity meet to discuss all policy decisions and then agree to abide by majority rule?…
- 766 Words
- 4 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Plato was an interesting individual, and has always been one of my favorite Philosophers. I personally like most of his political ideals, and find them almost in alignment with my own. In particular I like his reasoning when it comes to the citizens that make up the city-state, along with the leadership. So throughout this essay I plan on drawing from the Republic to talk more about this Philosopher’s ideas.…
- 694 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
the government under majority rule. In order for a government to exist the people must…
- 725 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
as the central governing body but with few powers; the power belonged to the states. It provided for a…
- 2318 Words
- 9 Pages
Better Essays -
the several states” (I2) emphasizes that the people served as a central power. This consistency…
- 632 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
* Generally interpreted to refer to a form of government where a legislature with significant decision-making powers is freely elected. It is also sometimes argued that representatives should reflect the social and gender composition of the electorate.…
- 508 Words
- 3 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Plato’s Republic is to a very large extent totalitarian, or rather on the “surface” appears to be totalitarian in the way he formulates it and lays down it blue prints.…
- 3467 Words
- 14 Pages
Powerful Essays -
While reading the Funeral Oration made by Pericles, son of Xanthippus and a Athenian General, I realized that he made some statements about Athens that did not seem quite right, in fact down right boastful in certain places. So I did some research and found a few other sources that wrote about that same speech to include my history textbook to see if what I was reading/thinking was correct. My objective with this essay is to show three instances of the speech that Pericles exaggerated or flat out lied in.…
- 619 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Meno begins his quest to have Socrates explain virtue by nature by stating that having beautiful things is to have virtue. “So I say that virtue is to desire beautiful things and have the power to acquire them” (77b). To help him to understand that this statement is not complete, Socrates inquires about specific characteristics that might comprise having something beautiful. These characteristics include wealth, a position of honor, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Only in perfect combination to all of these specific characteristics assert “virtue as a whole” (77a)…
- 572 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
A series of checks and balances developed in order to maintain equal political power among the…
- 586 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
In a representative government (a form of government where the powers of the sovereignty are delegated to a body of men, elected from time to time, who exercise them for…
- 599 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others. More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.…
- 10806 Words
- 44 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In Plato's Republic, “Socrates” explains art as nothing more than imitation, as evidenced in the bed example, which begins on page 30 and establishes the perfect or heavenly bed as the original, a carpenter's rendering of a bed is an imitation, and a painting of that bed as an imitation of an imitation. “Socrates” goes on to say that if one has the power of creating an actual bed, there would be no reason for one to imitate the bed in art. Therefore, art, as a form of imitation, is inferior, and later on in the piece, inherently bad (pp 36-37). He extends his range with this argument from simply painting to all forms of art, including poetry (pp 36).…
- 279 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays