Plato’s Views On Democracy in His Work The Republic
Plato had personal as well as rational reasons to be against Democracy. For example one of the personal reasons being that it was under a democracy that his mentor Socrates was executed unjustly, and the rational reasons, he expressed in his book “The Republic”. In this essay it will be argued that Plato’s view on democracy as a second worst political system is more than relevant or even compelling if the current political situation, in the so called democratic countries, is to be considered. Plato’s Democracy comes into existence when the poor majority rises up and revolt against the rich minority or Oligarchs. If the poor manage to overthrow the Oligarchs and then grant liberty and freedom to the subjects and also give them the power to choose their own leaders, then a Democracy will be born. However Plato explained that the rule of the many is not the solution to shortcomings of Oligarchy from which democracy descends. One of Plato’s critiques of democracy which is still relevant in our current political arena is the Liberal nature of democracy. Plato identifies many problems that are in democracies and the first is that democracy focuses heavily on the concept of freedom that leads the society to pursue their pleasures and material goods. This concept may seem to be great, but it lacks deep understanding of the notion of freedom itself, freedom over one's own desires to say the least. Secondly, the democracies will likely produce unqualified rulers because the people did not vote well and the most qualified of them declined to run for elections. Thirdly, in democratic societies many conflicts can arise based on private and public interests, which can end up disastrously. This can create a problem where different self-interested groups can confront with each other, all trying to concentrate most political power and influence in their own hands. To further identify and discuss all these issues, I will firstly recall and bring into account Plato’s Tripartition of the Soul and his Analogy of the Ship, then I will have a closer look portray his critiques one by one. Tripartition of the Soul In the “Republic”, Plato starts by looking at the human soul, every soul according to him has three fundamental parts namely; bodily desire, spirited emotions and the faculty of reason. He explains that for an individual to be truly healthy in every means of this word, all three parts of the human soul must perform their proper function.
In Plato’s city which is also divided into three parts namely the class of people who are involved in the economy whom he refers to as “lovers of gain”, they represent the bodily desire of the city; the class responsible for the safety of the city which represents the spirited emotions of the city and the smallest class which involves those who seek Understanding and knowledge which represent the faculty of reason in the city. Plato explains that for the city to function properly each part of the city must perform its rightful function, for example in Plato’s ideal city “lovers of gain” are not expected to rule because they would rule badly, this is because ruling is not their rightful function therefore they cannot rule justly. In a democracy with its liberties and freedom, almost anybody can run for public office whether he or she is fit to rule or not as long as the person has enough money and passes the basic requirements which do not include the ability to rule justly. Plato explains that in giving everyone the ability to vote and be voted for, inefficiencies in leadership will emerge. For example instead of a person guided by reason ruling, a person guided by his own selfish ambition or with a lower ability to reason could rule instead if he can convince enough people to vote for him. Plato uses the analogy of a ship to explain this further: Analogy of the Ship There is this part in the Republic where Plato compares the state to a ship. A ship’s main purpose is to accomplish a safe and successful journey, to do this it needs an expert navigator at the steering wheel, a captain who knows the capabilities of the vessel, and other competent crewmen. An ignorant and untrained leader at the steering wheel of a ship would endanger all that which the ship carries, therefore it needs expert governors at the steering wheel, and similarly governors who are well informed about all aspects of the city. Ignorant and incompetent governors can only cause problems for the city. According to Plato democratic self-government does not work because a lot of the individuals running for public offices are not competent enough to rule and if they do get to hold a public office their incompetence causes problems to the governed. There is indeed a Captain on this ship, who is tall and strong but cannot hear or see well and all the sailors are fighting over being captain although they have no knowledge on how to sail a ship. Mob rules over how to sail the ship. Plato argues that in all other professions society demands a certain level skill and knowledge. Why should the profession of governing be the exception to the rule? He describes the politicians in a democracy as people who are all quarrelling with each other about how to navigate the ship, with each one thinking he ought to be at the steering wheel when he is not as qualified as the philosopher King who truly knows how to navigate the city onto its right path.For somebody that cannot pave the way into reason, should not drive their actions into leadership and obtain power over others. The soul of person is a key importance in deciding if they are fit to rule. With these ideas, someone steering somebody else’s soul into the wrong direction can be possible and prove to be dangerous in a democratic society. However, the main problem with this notion is that they are only a few talented people that commit themselves to public service, while politicians are only interested in themselves. Plato used the metaphor of the ship to explain why philosophers have been suggested to be fit to rule. The whole point of the just city is an aim to lead the entire city based on the good of the entire group, not based on the good of the leaders. Though the navigator does not request the power to rule, the navigator is the only that can help the crew out of this difficulties and steer into the right course to reach their destination.
The ship owner represents the general population, which has no knowledge and in this metaphor no knowledge of sailing. The sailors represent politicians who fight against each other to gain the ship owner’s praise. The navigator represents the philosopher who is not in the fight for power against the ship owners or sailors, however he have the knowledge to know what is the right thing to do. The knowledge of the navigators does let the desires overcome, so he can help the people as a whole. Also, the navigator’s intentions are why he is an explainer and the judgement maker about what they can do to steer into the right path. Plato’s allegory of the ship represents the basis of Plato’s contradiction of democracy. Not everyone can possess the knowledge to make the right decision. In a democracy, these decisions are fueled by desires of people and how they are able to express their opinions through voting. These votes made by ordinary people do not work because they have not yet acquired the skill on how to steer the ship. Critique I - consumerism In a modern democratic society, people are mostly consumers which follow their desires wherever they lead them to. Individuals follow pleasure and are unwilling to give up pleasures. Many people have the obsession to buy multiple of things that are not necessary for them. Many might wonder what the problem with that is, being free is an amazing concept of democracy. The people get to obtain everything they want, no matter the cost. However, Plato’s rejection to the idea, that enjoying as many ‘appetitive’ pleasures as possible can bring happiness to men, as already mentioned: consists in having a well-ordered soul governed by reason to be truly happy. Instead, the citizens of a democracy are left with enjoying all their wanted desires without learning anything from them and not obtaining the knowledge they should acquire to live a happy life. The democratic soul represents the unhappy, while the happy soul will have the rational part of their soul rule over the other two parts of the soul. Many children have grown accustomed to buying and searching for what they want. The children today are the leaders of tomorrow, which can affect the regime heavily when they have difficult overcoming their desires. Critique II - opportunism Plato further decries the politicians of democracies because they often play on the feeling of the population instead of ruling or governing based on logic. He criticizes the politicians of democracies because they give the people what they want instead of giving them what is good. He argues that the politicians once they get into power, their main ambition is not to solve the societal needs and problems but to find out a way to remain in power. In other word they do whatever they can to stay in power whether it is the just thing to do or not. And since for the politicians to stay in power public approval is needed, this makes them to make public policies in accordance with public opinions and not in accordance with what is just. For example let us assume the Gun control issue, going on in the United States, relatively public mass shootings, descending out of it and resulting in killings of many innocent people. If rationally observed, America has a gun culture thus not making it realizable to ban all guns, but it could be possible to control the sales of guns by ensuring that people pass a background mental, or whatever it could be check, before being able to buy weapons that can take human lives. But public opinion is against the control of weapons because it is believed to an extent that it will violate their rights to bear arms. Corporations are also very involved in such issues, making sure that there are no policies that will affect their wealth. Reasoning is not always a part of these policies, rather greed, vanity and striving for success stir them and some policies are in the extreme. This happens due to the democratic system and letting individuals pursue only their own interest. Individuals at the top of corporations are involved in politics because they do not want to be controlled, Socrates would say. Therefore it is what the people want but not what is best for them, but because of democracy, they must be listened to.
An example like this shows why Plato criticizes the excessive freedom and liberties of democracy, People wanting the rights to bear arms arbitrarily at the expenses of public safety. If gun control legislation could reduce murder rate and mass shootings, it would have had to be immediately approved, despite some part of the public believing that it violates their rights. And there are lots of politicians pandering to public opinion instead of logical reasoning. This example also shows, that Plato’s thoughts of democracy are still relevant in our current political societies. It asks the question that at what costs do the elected representatives carry out people’s wishes instead of doing what is best for them. This raises another question of how far can a State be paternalistic and where are the red lines between its paternalism and citizen's autonomy, who has the right to decide about public matters, what are the criteria of the Virtue and many more, since going deeper in discussion of these subjects would mean this essay going beyond its own red lines, I will continue with the next point of critique of Democracy. Critique III - free speech Right for the free Speech, which is another bearing column of democracy, can also have its dark side, it can facilitate dangers already mentioned and ones that still need to be discussed., as every citizen is entitled to state their opinion, without concerning his qualifications or character. In other words, it doesn’t matter how oblivious the person can be, they still able to contribute an important part in public matters. Furthermore, the prerogative of free speech gives somebody the power to communicate their opinions and be able to persuade them into their own self-interested favor. This idea is actively coming into play because of the election that are present today. Also, the many in democracies are fueled through the search to obtain their desires even it is necessary for them to do so. This freedom can be used for something else by someone in order to persuade the public into their favor, which can prove dangerous if that person is not qualified to make such a decision. Critique IV - right to vote Democracy is that in which everyone has an equal say and the majority’s opinion wins. There is no real account to knowledge and reason. The people in a democracy are very focused on equality that they fail to understand Reason. The democrat acts in this manner because it is the spoiled child of the oligarch. The democrats are only motivated by pleasure unlike other regimes such as aristocracy that are motivated by honor. This pleasure destroys man and brings chaos and injustice. Plato also argues that in giving everyone the right to vote, the mass population would often vote in accordance to their ignorance. He explains that in a democracy instead of voting in those with the capabilities to run the public offices efficiently, the voters would instead vote in those that are able to confuse them and manipulate them with appearances. Instead of using the ability of reason and logic to choose public office holders, the voters vote based on emotions. This leads to people who know nothing about particular issues or people who have their own selfish ambition to hold public office. This is because instead of using their ability of reasoning to vote they instead vote based on the appearances of the candidates or based on their feelings towards the candidates.
People also often vote along ethnic, religious or physical lines rather than vote based on the technical knowledge, virtues or capabilities of the candidates. Socrates’ ideas on how a democracy turns into a tyranny seem to be a valid argument. In many modern democratic countries the idea, that everybody can qualify by birth and age to become president has led men that are unqualified to lead those countries. To stick to our prior example of the United States of America, President Donald Trump would be a honorable mention. He does not have the true virtue of knowledge. He does not act in moderation and leads the country with emotions. He is ignorant of the political situation and foreign affairs and does what he pleases. He is rich and has the mindset of getting what he wants. Socrates would say he is the son of the democrat. President, Donald Trump, has been accused by liberals that he is transforming a democratic government into a tyranny. He was elected through a process that allows about any citizen without the right virtues and knowledge to have a say. President Donald Trump’s level of ignorance and carelessness breaks the law and allows others to do so as well. Many voted for this man because of the promises or because of being tired and angry over the competing political party and its representatives, in all those cases emotions played the major role. Overall country got into this situation because there is equality among the citizens in the state not taking into account education or the possession of virtues. This shows Plato’s critique that democracy allows for people who want to rule in order to fulfill their own selfish ambition to have an opportunity to realize their ambitions, and again as everyone can voice their opinion and with someone who has mastered the art of public speaking, they can prove to be really persuasive in their speeches. Conclusion After the end of the cold war, liberal democracy emerged as the dominant ideology of governing. This means that Plato’s critique of democracy holds true to even more nations than when he was alive. His critique is a timeless work that shows the notable defects of the democracy, a system of governing that is valued so much today. A democrat’s soul is contrary to the philosopher’s soul. Desires come first and reason last. Such men want to maximize all bodily pleasures but recognize that they are weak so there is a compromise to give up some freedoms to obtain the most desires they can have. Tyranny, which is the worst form of government, shares the same soul as democracy. Democracy’s privilege to give people freedom and the power to make decision can have many consequences. Plato’s critique that democracy allows for stupid and vicious people to get into power still holds true today. Democracy allows for incompetent people to take office.
