Plato criticizes democracy throughout The Republic. In Chapter 8, for example, he compares the state to a ship. He argues that it is better to have a captain knowledgeable about navigation steer the ship rather than untrained crewmembers. The crewmembers may be able to persuade the owners to let them sail the ship, but without the proper expertise, the ship will not reach its destination. In other words, Plato argues that democracy rewards popularity over expertise, but it is expertise that is essential for good government. Is he right? Consider some examples from class. Can democracy deal with such long-term issues as global warming when most people would prefer to ignore them? Can it deal with economic recovery when most citizens don't understand economic theory? Or can you give a point in democracy's favor?
I mostly agree with the sentiment that an experienced person is the best candidate for a leadership position, but without popularity, it may be extremely difficult to implement/enforce legislation. If the citizens do not approve of the leader's work, they are likely to rebel or work against the government in some fashion. In general, I think the most important factor for leadership is experience and knowledge, but it is also important to have a community that respects and supports its leader.
ReplyDeleteI find Plato's critic to be quite accurate. As seen in previous elections, those who are more popular tend to win over those who seem to be a better fit. I find that politics in America today is really just a game. It is a game that only the wealthy and biologically elite can play, which really lowers the standard of the leaders as it does limit the selection pool of candidates. It takes the right person that has both a combination of popularity and expertise to be a great democratic leader, and unfortunately there has not been one in a minute in America. If the nation were to change their elitist ways of selecting nominees for each party, maybe America would be in a better position today. However that is not the case. But I do want to clarify that I am not intentionally attacking America, I just find problems with the government system that calls itself a "democracy" when in reality it is more of a capitalist ran society. It is then impossible for this nation to deal with real issues such as climate change because most of the leaders only care about money, not the people or the environment.
ReplyDeletePlato is definitely right that there are some serious flaws with democracy, but he is right for all the wrong reasons. First, it's worth starting off with why Plato is right - the US serves as a perfect example. Considering that Plato's definition of morality in a community is harmony of its parts, it's easy to conclude that morality does not exist in the US. After all, the US is extremely polarized with political groups that are always out for each other's throats. This was especially emphasized last summer with tensions of COVID and race. Therefore, true harmony cannot always exist in a democracy because it can lead to two very dominant, distinct political groups/ideologies struggling to coexist. On the other hand, Plato's argument falls short when he discredits popularity and states that expertise is more important for good government. In its most basic form, I believe good governance comes down to two things: 1. A society that receives objective benefits 2. A society that is happy/content. Expertise is definitely important for good governance: it satisfies that first condition. Let's take a look at an example. Over these past several months, the US government has tried to use its expertise to encourage wearing masks to prevent the spread of COVID. Does this have objective benefits? Yes - we know that consistently wearing masks can at least contribute in some fashion to lowering the death toll of COVID. However, there still exists a solid portion of society that refuses to wear masks, as COVID is some made-up government scheme. That is to say, the "expert" decision of encouraging mask use leads to objective benefits for society but not to their consummate happiness. This is where popularity comes in; a popular leader who also makes the expert decision will be able to help society while also keeping it happy. Therefore, Plato's answer for an ideal government should not be a complete meritocracy or a complete democracy: it's somewhere in between the two, where an expert leader chosen by all of the people will take a country from its lowest lows to its highest highs. Is this ideal of "good government" completely possible and realistic? Probably not, but at least theoretically, this middle ground government led by expertise and popularity is most conducive to success.
ReplyDeleteWhile aristocracies (as Plato defines them) benefit from rule by those who are most qualified for their position, they are functionally inferior to certain forms of democracy. Plato states that systems such as oligarchy fall to democracy because the laborers find themselves discontent with their lack of freedom and capable of deposing the ruling class (Waterfield 295). This should be similarly true in aristocracy, as the peasantry, having contempt for the inaccessible privilege of their rulers and not having any reference to distinguish between a "good" or "bad" leader, would for similar reasons overthrow their leaders and establish democracy. However, in a democratic system people are equal and perceive themselves as being free (Waterfield 296). This strips them of their justification for overthrow their government, and presumably keeps them content. Plato objects to democracy in that it allows for a consolidation of powers to create a dictatorial person, who proceeds to enslave his countrymen in a bid to expand the power he was granted (Waterfield 307). While this shows one form of democracy to be ineffective, this issue is not inherit to all such governments, as simple separations of powers could be instituted to prevent a single "champion" and a constituency taught to make rational decisions (as is possible in a democracy, if not guaranteed) would conceivably not fall prey to populism. It is also notable that Plato postulates the entire reason such "champions" arise is to "rob the rich" (Waterfield 306). Again, this is not a criticism of all democracies, only of those in which class exists.
ReplyDeletePut in terms of Plato's analogy of a ship, a crew will trust their captain more if they are given information regarding what makes a good captain and then are allowed to choose their own leader, whereas they will be distrustful and inclined towards mutiny if their captain is someone who claims to be best suited for the job and has seized the position without their consent, regardless of whether or not this claim is substantiated.
Even if we were to assume the proper education required to vote logically is inaccessible in some democracies, an educated democracy will be superior to both a non-educated democracy or any other form of government, as the former will lack wise leaders and the latter will inevitably fall to rebellion. Democracy can achieve rule by those with expertise while simultaneously keeping the populace satisfied, making it the only form of government conceivably capable of existing in perpetuity.
Socrates does have a good point on the critique of democracy, but the warranting he uses is not adequate at describing this critique. In a ship, there aren't a lot of people to choose from, so there might only be one person who has the expertise to lead the ship. However, a good leader must also occasionally listen to the desires of it's followers. If every crew member wants to go home, but the captain insists on landing at a far away island, would that make them a good leader? In the contrary, a state would have much more people, so it would be much easier to find someone who both has the expertise to lead, as well as similar interests to the citizens who elected them, instead of just one of the two. Both popularity AND expertise. Democracy in the institute of the state has more options, and thus has the possibility of getting the best of both worlds. It's also hard to look past the empirics, those with absolute power have nearly never been the "philosopher" that Socrates describes, and rather they enter power as corrupt politicians/revolutionaries, or allow the power corrupt them overtime.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the argument against democracy is a solid argument at it's core. I find that good government is one that leads to the highest amount of happiness or the lowest amount of suffering. This is because a society with high amount of suffering would prevent any form of morality and virtue. If we believe that a moral society would have a balance of craftsmen, auxiliaries, and guardians, with each doing their own part, then it is essential that the citizens of the state are happy and content. Otherwise, craftsmen may overthrow the guardians to create their own government, and the balance is no longer existent.
If we compare the difference between the comparatively democratic United States and authoritarian Chinese government, you can see the inadequacy of democracy to solve todays problems. During Covid, the "virtues of freedom" among others led us to have one of the worst Covid responses in the entire world. Many violated quarantine, refused vaccination, among others. On the other hand, Authoritarian (which Socrates describes as the 'worst' government) China had one of the best, where they currently average only a few dozen Covid cases per week. Although they used extremely strict methods and restricted the freedoms of millions, they ultimate had less deaths and less suffering against Covid. The worries of some people who are not experts in the field of economics, politics, public health, and more should probably not be the ones leading policy. In this case, China probably led to less suffering, as it only had 4 thousand Covid deaths in comparison to the US which had nearly 700 thousand (China also has a higher population density and more people). These issues can be seen in those of economic policy and climate change policy as well. Overall, Socrates does have a fair point in his critique of democracy, as a dictator would be able to pass unpopular policy that would maximize the happiness and minimize the suffering of the majority of it's citizens.
I agree with Plato’s argument that democracy is not best for a given nation, and instead only government professionals/experts should be put in positions of power. I think it is important to have educated and experienced people be in charge of the different areas of the government. It is important to have the most educated person in managing a country, with the most relevant experiences actually get the job of president. American citizens do not all have the proper education or background to be able to vote on the most qualified candidate for the job, and the candidates of the job are usually not the most qualified people for it. Like Plato argues, the most qualified person for president and other government jobs is probably not the person who wants the job. People who are willing to run for president are willing to lie and cheat in order to get the job. I understand why people agree with democracy, because it is what the people THINK they want. But, this is not actually what is best for the country, and average citizens are not able to make this important decision. The example of global warming shows that the majority of people do not want to face the important issues in the world. Since these same people are the ones who vote on who becomes president, the most pressing matters will never get addressed due to democracy. Instead, it makes more sense for the most educated person/people regarding the environment to be in charge of that aspect of the government, for the most educated person/people regarding the economy to be in charge of that, etc.
ReplyDelete