Monday, September 13, 2010
Expertise or Popularity?
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 essentail 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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do believe that Plato is right in his criticism of Democracy. As shown by the example of the sailors, who believe that their captain knows nothing, people will always think that they can do better than others, and challenge authority. In other forms of government, like dictatorship, the dictator is simply overthrown and the people take charge, for better or for worse. But in democracy, this doesn't happen. We remain civil, and try talking about solutions. Except everyone's seperate and conflicting opinions result in nothing changing, at least not quickly. As we said in class, this impedes progress on issues such as global warming, that needs real action, not just stalling tactics.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if we cynically view politics as nothing more than a popularity contest, then the fickleness of human nature stands out. We often elect those who we like; not those who actually have the needed expertise or experiance.
Lastly, I think the most accurate statement we can make about democracy is similar to what Winston Churchill said. Although democracy is not perfect, its the best we've got. We can find flaws in any system, and we should just stick with the devil we know. (Side Show reference.)
I think Plato creates a compelling argument against democracy, as well as Dr. Ialacci when mentioning global warming and economic situations, but I still feel that democracy is the best form of government.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, it seems as though pushing certain issues aside, such as global warming and economic recovery, would be problematic for the future, and in fact, very well may be. However, what is not mentioned in this scenario is that these types of issues don't have to slide by completely unnoticed. If the head of a government feels that certain problems need to be addressed, then he or she will propose a solution. In a democracy, it is up to the people to agree or disagree on this potential new law or bill. If the people choose to deny the new legislation, then it means that the majority of the community, state, or country is either against the issue or feels that the concern is a worthless matter to address. Therefore, the only reason that these issues are often disregarded is because the people feel that the problem isn't sufficient enough to go about doing something.
Plato would reply by arguing that these issues do need to be addressed and if an educated ruler with expertise were in power, and a democracy were not in place, then they would be solved. I would refute his point by explaining this contradiction:
When Plato discusses the perfect community, he says that all people, men and woman, should be honored the same rights and education and that both genders should have the opportunity to become what they wish. Also, Plato argues against an oligarchy because people with money have a political advantage over anyone living in poverty. Basically, Plato is argue several times that everyone aught to have the same rights. It follows that, in order for everyone to have the same rights, everyone should be able to vote on issues to express their opinions and beliefs. This then weeds out the issues that the ruler should not be concerned with. The point of a ruler is to make the society the best it can be, using his or her own personal knowledge as well as listening the the people to please them.
The second reason why I disagree with Plato is because I feel that the combination of an intelligent ruler and opinions from the subjects are very important. Without including the community, the form of government would be a dictatorship. Although the ruler, in Plato's case, would be well educated and very wise, he has to have beliefs and opinions of his own. Two people can be equally well educated, but have conflicting opinions, so how does one know which is the 'right' one? For example, there could be two students, both grew up in very similar families, went to the same college, and took the same classes. These students then graduated and became politicians. Yes, they were raised and educated in the same way, but one could believe that the rich should pay higher taxes and the other could believe the opposite. Which one is right? That is where the importance of the people comes into play. The ruler can propose what he or she thinks is the correct way, and then everyone else can decide if they agree by taking a vote and having majority rules.
A democracy is very important so that everyone can share their own ideas and be able to express them. Without this aspect of government, a ruler could easily become corrupt and/or the people could hate living in that place. A ruler should be knowledgeable, but also share some of his power. That's why I disagree with Plato's argument.
When it comes to government, every side has a viable argument as to why theirs is better. I believe the same goes with Plato. He provides a good argument towards not having Democracy as a government, but though he poses an insightful argument, there are also a lot of reasons why Democracy should be the main point of Government. In my opinion, it is all directly related to how quickly a solution to a problem is needed. As Plato argues with his ship analogy, If a democracy is in place, you will have a multitude of people all jockeying for power and position, all trying to get their ideas to be the main solution for a problem, which will ultimately take at least double the time to actually decide on a specific action plan, and when it comes out, there will be holes because of compromise. If there is only one person leading, a decision can be made quickly and effectively, and without all the argument.
ReplyDeleteOn the reverse side, there are multiple reasons why Democracy is a good form of government and should be used. Though there are more people arguing, there are also more minds brainstorming ideas that will ultimately give the best solution. If there is only one person deciding, you must go with his/her idea regardless of how good or bad it is. With a democracy, the decision may take longer, but it will be a decision that will ultimately benefit the country, because all the minds in the room agreed that it was the best solution possible. For a problem like Global warming, which needs to be addressed but doesn’t need an immediate response like a war would, a democracy would be a good idea. It would take a lot of ideas, and test them to give the best improvement on the environment. If the government were, say, a dictatorship, then the country would have to go with his plan, even if it actually hurts the environment instead of help it.
Though Plato makes a good argument, I don’t believe that he is completely right in his proposal. There are definite benefits to not having a democracy, but there are also a lot of benefits to having one. It all depends upon the situation and the time frame as to which form of government would work out the best, but no one government can be classified as the supreme form of government.
The question of whether democracy is the best form of government is a very interesting one. Traditionally speaking democracy is a very flawed form of government, but functions substantially more effectively and justly than any other government. This has held true in western countries and to be honest I don't believe America would be able to function under any other government.
ReplyDeleteThere are some very serious flaws with democracy that help ruin its appeal. The first is that a true democracy is not possible except for in small homogeneous communities where everyone shares the same basic ideologies and values. In a big group of people consisting of tens of thousands of people or hundreds of millions of people a true democracy isn't possible and even the closest functioning form of government to it, a republic, is slow and it takes a ridiculous amount of time to get anything done in it. In case of crisis or when there is urgent need for action, a democratic form of government is not optimal as the masses are often uneducated and do not understand what the proper actions are for a specific situation.
Another thing about democracy is that it is not necessarily right for every group of people. People in democratic countries have the tendency of thinking that their form of government is the best and the only one that works and is just. Thus they often make the mistake of trying to spread democracy to people who don’t have it. History has shown that there are many groups in the world who are incapable of functioning properly under a democratic system. Even though these people often live under repressive dictatorial governments and have few rights, without this system chaos often ensues and continues until a new dictator or tyrant is capable of stepping up and taking control of the country thus leading to stability.
It is true that whenever possible people should strive for a democratic form of government, but at the same time the rulers of this democracy need to be capable. Ability is far more important than ability to be elected and it seems that people often forget this. People have a tendency to vote for those who are most like them when in truth they should want those who are the best and understand what needs to be done far better than the average person.
I agree with Ryan's view that democracy brings about the best result, but more slowly. The thing about examples like the healthcare bill is that they may not necessarily be the final solution. If the problem of healthcare is exacerbated in the future, more will be done to relieve it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough democratic leaders may not have expertise in every subject, they have advisors and cabinet members that help them to slowly pass what is needed. There are also various governmental agencies, such as the EPA, that work to solve individual problems that exist in politics.
The problem of getting things done is probably Plato's main point. One of his other points is very interesting as well: that democracy is chaotic. Not in terms of leaders, but in terms of citizens. The idea is that citizens have conflicting viewpoints and will be unable to agree on anything, throwing the whole country into a state of hysteria. While this is true, he ignores the fact that nations are united. An example was brought up in class that even though sometimes people work for their own goals, sometimes these goals coincide with those of the nation as a whole. This example has a more extreme form that is very much ingrained in all nations, democratic or not: nationalism. Nationalism gives people a sense of pride in their nation. Nationalism is why those living in democratic nations think democracy is the best form of government. And nationalism unites those living in one nation and causes them to act in ways which benefit the nation as a whole.
I agree with Plato that democracy is fundamentally flawed. In the ideal democratic state, the populace would elect the person who is the best suited to rule and represents their ideas. This way, the government protects the values of its citizens effectively. However, in practice, this is almost never the case. Most voters chose to support a candidate based on their political party and personal opinions. For example, in the last presidential election, there was significantly more concern about Obama’s ethnic backgrounds and religion and McCain’s age than about their stance on issues. Because of this, more people elect leaders on popularity rather than experience. This inevitably leads to a poorly led government.
ReplyDeleteThe second major problem with democracy is that it is weak, slow, and fails to successfully enact change. Democracy attempts to accommodate everyone regardless of political beliefs. This creates a very diverse society that does not agree on how the country should act. Therefore, when anyone attempts to create change, there will always be an opposing side. Compromising will take up a significant amount of time and the end result will be something that is very similar to the status quo and angers both sides. For example, the healthcare bill took months and the full effect won’t be felt until 2019. Even then, there will still be 22 million Americans uninsured.
Even if democracy has its flaws, it still may be the best system of government. As Winston Churchill said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Personally, I believe that democracy is better than any other system of government that has been attempted in the past, but I don’t believe it is the best one. I’m not sure what type of government I believe would be better, but I don’t think that the best possible system is as flawed as democracy is.
Democracy is flawed, but not for the reasons that Plato cites.
ReplyDeleteHe argues that ruling a country is like steering a ship in that the captain must be an expert in naval affairs, just like a ruler must have a thorough knowledge of all it takes to run a country. The scope of the two, however, is significantly different, making the analogy false. While it may be sufficient for the captain to direct the rest of the crew on a ship, it is impossible for one person in charge of a country to singlehandedly run it. Running a country requires both depth and breadth of knowledge, the extent of which one single person cannot both comprehend and successfully execute in the day-to-day reality of running the country.
I think democracy’s most fundamental flaw is the concept of absolute rule by the majority. The majority could be influenced to act in a way that is devastating to the minority. One prime example arises in the aftermath of the Civil War and before the civil rights movement. Laws subjugating the African Americans were passed, in our very own democracy, because the majority believed that it was superior to the minority, to the detriment of a significant percentage of the American population. This led to a very ugly period in American history.
Another significant flaw in democracy is that the people of the country, who can be, to varying degrees, uneducated. In the words of Winston Churchill, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” In putting power in the hands of the people, it is very often the case that power is in the hands of people who have not had the privilege of an education that gives them the skills to differentiate between propaganda and the truth, making the people fickle and prone to unreasonable changes in opinion. For example, when a leader does not immediately succeed in reviving the economy or ending a war, their popularity decreases; obviously many people forget that such processes and change in general take time.
Even so, democracy is less flawed than any other form of government. Power either rests with everyone, as in a democracy, or with less than everyone, as in a government run by a small party or a single person. The possibility that the majority will be misled and create the conditions for subjugating a minority is much less than the possibility that a single person or a small group of people will be misled by their prejudices. The concept of clashing self-interest, while often making democracy slow, is also why it is successful; people will always fight for their rights when they feel others are infringing on their territory, preserving the balance of power in a democracy and preventing power from falling into the hands of an incapable and prejudiced few. Most people want freedom and the right to equal opportunity, which can only be preserved if power rests with the people and not with a small group who have the power to infringe on the liberty and rights of the rest.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEven in a non-democratic political system, the will of the people will affect political action. Even if he has superior military might, a dictator must recognize that the people uprising is not impossible. As Gandhi has proven, the citizens would not even need to have the means to achieve military victory in order to affect a tyrant's actions. A democracy may give the people more power than a dictatorship, but it is foolish to think the people are powerless everywhere else.
ReplyDeletePlato also has no reason to think any other form of government would be better at choosing a leader. In a dictatorship, a leader is chosen based on military might. In a monarchy, a leader is chosen based on birthright. Neither of those options imply expertise at anything but gaining and keeping power, which is what Plato says happens in a democracy. Even Plato's own ideal community relies on other people picking the best ruler, despite the fact that people aren't aren't perfect.
Furthermore, our governmental system has ways of bypassing this. Though the president himself is selected by the people, the president is able to pick a cabinet of people who are experienced in a certain field. Agencies like the EPA also allow our government to bypass the flaws of democracy.
Though one could point out that the U.S. has failed to do much about problems like global warming, this problem is unique to the U.S. European countries successfully ratified Kyoto even without the support of the U.S. Just because one democratic country is rotten doesn't mean every democratic country is.
Plato is correct on his critique of democracy. This is shown with the example of the sailors in the chapter "Philosopher Kings". On page 209 around line 488e Plato writes "When this is what's happening on board ships, don't you think that the crew of ships in this state would think of any true captain as nothing but a windbag with his head in the clouds, of no use to them at all?" This shows how the sailors think that their captain knows nothing and that they are better than their captain. This is a metaphor for the way that people in the society veiw philosophers. They believe that philosophers are useless, out of touch and in the clouds. Everybody thinks that they can be better than the actual philosopher but the proble is that people know how to gain power, however they do not know how to rule.
ReplyDeleteIn class we were talking about how democracy slows down action being taken on problems such as global warming and the economy. This is a problem because in a democracy everyone has opposing veiws and different oppinions. Although democracy might not be perfect, i can not see any other form of government doing any better so there for I agree with Jana and Dayne when saying that Democracy is the best form of government at the moment.
1. Democracy is bad. There is a lot to support this theory, and I think the global warming example is the best. Its a common problem with democracy, the two opposing sides cancel each other out. If one side wants X, and the other wants Y, and they both have equal power, it stands to reason that neither X nor Y will get done. For this reason America is unlikely to get any legislation passed on global warming. The two sides just cant agree even to compromise. Even if there is a compromise bill, it will most likely be a very watered down version of something useful. Its the same for any controversial issue, unless both Republicans and Democrats believe in it nothing will happen. They say politics is the art of compromise, but democracy is not a type of government that encourages compromise. So in that sense I do think that democracy is not the perfect form a government we believe it to be.
ReplyDelete2. Other governments are better. So, is there anything better than democracy? Not really. Democracy has one very large advantage of other forms of government, a system of checks and balances. In democracy, the President cannot just do what he wants; the other branches of government are there to stop him. This is a problem many other governments would face, whether it’s a dictatorship, aristocracy, timocracy, or oligarchy, because these types of government all have people in charge that believe the same thing. What if what they believe in is something horrible? There is really nothing stopping them from implementing it, even if it will cause damage. Power corrupts, after all. So it does not matter if the leaders of an aristocracy decide to stop emitting any carbon emissions, because they could also decide to kill anyone born on a Monday, and they could just as easily implement that. They may seem like stable governments, but they could become unstable at any moment, whether it’s through legislation or a revolution. So the risk is just too great. Whether you like it or not, you are stuck with democracy.
3. Democracy favors the popular over the qualified. Getting more specifically into Plato's argument, he believes that democracy is bad because it favors the popular over the qualified. Is this valid? Both yes and no. Here is why its not always true. Plato seems to be assuming that everyone who is popular is not qualified, and everyone who is qualified is not popular. This is not always true. There have been many leaders who were both popular and qualified. I think that if one candidate for government is both popular and qualified and the other is only popular, America will elect the one that is qualified and popular. So in that example Plato is false. But this is not to say Plato is never false. Let’s make a hypothetical situation where there is a candidate for political office. Let’s name her Sarah P. (or S. Palin if you prefer). Now Sarah is pretty inept politically, so she is certainly not qualified to be in any political office higher than, let’s say a small town Alaskan mayor. But Sarah soon finds that she has a personality, and that people listen to her when she talks, even though she does not say anything. Pretty soon , millions of people support her, and she is now strongly considering running for President in 2012 against a President whose popularity is beginning to fade. In my opinion, in a democracy, Sarah might win. While this is a hypothetical situation, I think history shows us that America is very wishy-washy, and likes to side with the popular party when the going gets tough, regardless of being qualified. Look what’s happening in politics now, we elected a qualified and popular democratic government with great enthusiasm, and now two years later will now boot most of them out of office for the “popular” Republicans. So I do think that Democracy does favor the popular sometimes, so Plato’s thoughts are not altogether wrong. But like I said before, what other government is better? None. With all its faults, we have had democracy in America for over 200 years, and its worked pretty well so far.
The critique that Plato gives of democracy is very effective in his logic. In theory, the best government is the one that is able to benefit its people while maintaining stability most effectively. So, going off of this logic, it would probably be best for society in the long run if its ruler is as qualified as possible, not taking into account popularity. When dealing with a political system like democracy, while it benefits the people by giving them an equal voice, it also bears the risk of driving itself into the ground. This would be because of the poor decisions of the masses leading to the election of popular, yet ill qualified leaders. In a pure democracy, where everyone who votes has an equal voice, issues such as global warming and economic decline would not be handled in a way that benefits everyone as a whole. This is because, according to Plato's logic, the people would elect those who they like the most into office, disregarding the more qualified candidate. A reason for this may be that, knowledge for the issues like those stated above is not always present in the population at large. Those who lack the proper knowledge regarding these issues would most likely elect a person that they only believe has knowledge of the issue instead of one that they are one hundred percent certain of believing to have the expertise. So when speaking about pure democracy as mentioned by Plato, one can see that it ultimately will be ineffective when dealing with issues outside of the public's being familiar with.
ReplyDelete