Introduction
Democracy is defined as a system of government that allows citizens to elect representatives or exercise power directly through the formation of a governing body. It is considered a rule of the majority, although this principle has been found in different forms across various countries. Democracy has now become highly popular because it helps to improve economic growth, promotes good governance, leads to stability, and helps to reduce conflicts and disunity in society. However, there has been criticism of democracy by many philosophers and thinkers, such as Plato and Hobbes. These thinkers believed democracy to be a system of tyranny in which the mob exercises its rights while promoting chaos and anarchy. This paper aims to identify the criticism of democracy according to the above thinkers. It will identify the lessons learned from the views of these thinkers with respect to democracy. The paper will use several valid references in order to derive valid conclusions.
Plato
Many thinkers rejected democracy because of its inherent weaknesses and the instability it caused. Plato believed that democracy was a failure because ordinary people did not have knowledge about economics, military strategy, foreign affairs, law, and ethics,s which are needed by leaders (Wallach, 2014). He believed that only individuals with the relevant wisdom and knowledge are capable of successfully ruling. Moreover, Plato disagreed with rule by the people because they do noinclineds acquiring such knowledge. It takes time and discipline enough to seriously gain knowledge over many disciplines. In a democracy, it is emotions that take priority over careful analysis in making decisions. This could lead to disastrous wars that could create problems for society (Wallach, 2014).
Democracy in Athens was specifically criticized and rejected by Plato because it creates anarchy, which is considered to be freedom. The anarchic nature of democracy means that citizens use their impulses instead of implementing policies for the benefit of the common good (Wallach, 2014). Moreover, the people running such democracies were inexperienced and incompetent people selected by the masses who did not have any knowledge or inclination towards implementing laws and policies that would be based on careful analysis. A tyrant who rules any state will pursue actions that pollute or corrupt his own soul. In contrast, a democracy has a group of people who will initiate actions that would destroy the fabric of society. The actions of the majority might lead to genocide and warfare, such as their wish to engage in expansionist wars (Ober, 2001). Furthermore, innocent people like Socrates were executed despite their wisdom and knowledge. This was one of the primary reasons that Plato considered democracy to be a flawed system, because the majority, who are incompetent, can hold power over the affairs of society. They would,uld in turn, invite disaster and destruction on society through their actions. Democracy also leads to a situation where it creates a disregard for all laws and norms (Ober, 2001). This is because the people in the name of freedom do not want to be restrained,d as they need the freedom to do whatever they desire according to their whims and desires. This is considered by Plato to be the path towards the election of a tyrant who would create disorder, disunity, and chaos in society (Monoson, 2000). Plato criticized the notion of liberty because democracy contains all sorts of people and different types of constitutions. There is no cohesiveness in a democratic system, em with the result that pervasive liberty is promoted as it allows people to do what they desire.
Democracy prevents people from doing what they are suited for. Social justice, together with a unified and efficient society, is important according to Plato since it would lead to a society that implements values like justice and happiness instead of focusing on pervasive freedom (Monoson, 2000).
Hobbes
Hobbes believed that human nature is intrinsically selfish in nature with the desire for power, wealth, knowledge, and honor (Keohane, 2002). The desire for power is the ultimate goal of humans in the natural state. In other words, he argued that a democracy would give freedom for people to plunder and pillage each other. It would be a state of endless and restless desire for power. Hobbes envisioned the natural state of humanity to be disastrous, as it would be filled with loneliness, brutality, plunder, pillaging, and selfishness (Held, 2006). In contrast, a social contract would exist in society where the powerful would provide security while accepting the allegiance of the masses. This is against the concept of democracy, which seeks to rule according to the decisions of the majority. Democracy, according to Hobbes,s was an inefficient system since the majority of people are concerned about the necessities of life, while the rest lack the sagacity and wisdom to understand the complexities of governance (Held, 2006). Additionally, Hobbes believed that the rule of the majority would create an endless power struggle that would tear the fabric of society. Hobbes believed that democracy would not represent the common interest of constituents. The individuals elected to the assembly would focus on their private interests instead of concentrating on the common interests (Held, 2006). The unification of public and private interests eventually leads to success in any political system.
Hobbes argued that the monarchy recognizes both private and public interests because the monarch's honor, power, and wealth derive from the subjects. The state needs to defend itself from enemies when the public is strong and united (Carnoy, 2014). This cannot occur in a democracy because the divergent interests of those in power would lead to deceit and treachery.
Hobbes rejected democracy because the sovereign assembly is unable to make quick decisions or develop a consensus on key matters of the state. The assembly would receive counsel from people who are versed in the accumulation of wealth instead of knowledge. The advice in the democratic assembly would lead to long discourses that would prevent the development of any realistic or tangible solutions (Carnoy, 2014). Hobbes pointed out that democracy would receive counsel from people who lacked the skills to make accurate assessments about the situation. In the long term, this would disrupt the proper functioning of the state or, in the worst case,e would not lead to any benefits to the state (Carnoy, 2014).
Lessons Learned
One of the primary lessons learned from the criticism of democracy by Plato and Hobbes is that it is a systethatch leads to chaos and anarchy in the form of incompetent and inexperienced leaders being elected into the system (Hammar, 2017). Furthermore, any society that has high levels of illiteracy will be unable to successfully make beneficial decisions with respect to the leaders that need to be appointed. Lack of rationality or even education could be used by politicians for their own purposes, which is a major weakness of democracy. Another major lesson is that democracy might prevent specialized people from running the affairs of society (Schumpeter, 2013). The people who are elected to the assemblies would only focus on their own desires and whims instead of campaigning for the greater good of society.
The risks of democracy are that it would lead to unpopular and unethical actions, such as the majority who favor a war of aggression or adventurous wars because of their own whims and desires (Schumpeter, 2013). Alternatively, the people might support slavery, human rights violations, suppress the rights of minorities, and others in a democracy because it would suit their interests. The lessons from Plato and Hobbes are that democracy might cause instability with the election of multiple governments (Schumpeter, 2013). This would be disastrous as it would prevent the development of a stable system that could work for the benefit of society. Instead, the powerful members of society would only strive to maintain their power and influence.
Conclusion
Plato and Hobbes believed that democracy had inherent flaws and weaknesses in their system of governance because it allowed inexperienced and incompetent people to take power. Furthermore, they argued that the majority lacks the sagacity and wisdom to implement decisions based on sound and careful analysis. In contrast, they argued that an authoritarian structure helps to provide sound decisions based on analysis instead of the whims and desires of the masses. Democracy in Athens was specifically criticized and rejected by Plato because it creates anarchy, which is considered to be freedom. The anarchic nature of democracy means that citizens use their impulses instead of implementing policies for the benefit of the common good. Moreover, the people running such democracies were inexperienced and incompetent people selected by the mmasses whodid not have any knowledge or inclination towards implementing laws and policies that would be based on careful analysis. The lessons learned from these philosophers and thinkers are that democracy has many flaws. It is based on the whims and desires of the people, which would lead to problems,s as the common interests of society would be stifled while the personal interests of the rulers would be implemented in society.
References
Carnoy, M., 2014. The state and political theory. Princeton University Press.
Hammar, T., 2017. Democracy and the nation state. Routledge
Held, D., 2006. Models of democracy. Polity.
Keohane, R.O., 2002. Hobbes’s dilemma and institutional change in world politics: sovereignty in international society. Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World, p.63.
Monoson, S.S., 2000. Plato's democratic entanglements: Athenian politics and the practice of philosophy. Princeton University Press.
Ober, J., 2001. Political dissent in democratic Athens: intellectual critics of popular rule. Princeton University Press.
Schumpeter, J.A., 2013. Capitalism, socialism, sm and democracy. Routledge.
Wallach, J.R., 2014. Platonic Power and Political Realism. Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought, 31(1), pp.28-58.
