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 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?
Plato’s theory of a truth-knowing philosopher-king making perfect decisions on behalf of a society is compelling, but it is divorced from reality. Surely it would be great if a perfect person who knew the truth could make all the best decisions without having to deal with politics or negotiations. This would be a much more efficient and effective government than any that exists today, and we wouldn’t have to worry about the decisions our philosopher-king is making since we’d know that they’re the best ones. “Aren’t people who … have these qualities in full” Plato writes, “the only ones to whom you would entrust your community?” (207). However, in the real world, there is nobody that knows everything, nor is there the “objective truth” that Plato’s theory is built on. Some fields, like mathematics, may have objective truths and objective falsehoods. All rational people would agree that 2+2=4. But the types of decisions a government makes are based on more nuanced ideas. Macroeconomics, criminal justice, and foreign policy don’t feature the same kind of black-and-white answers that an absolute truth requires. Some things can be truer than others – a higher minimum wage is more likely to reduce poverty rates than a system of absolutely free exchange with no government involvement whatsoever – but any claim to truth is still merely an opinion, meaning Plato’s attempt to rid governments of this type of decision-making is therefore futile.
ReplyDeleteSince there is no such thing as absolute truth, the truth that a government must operate by is what the society it represents perceives as true. In other words, since there can be no inherent claim to truth, the best way to approximate or approach truth is to see what most people think is true and what experts tell us is true. Democracy solves this problem by allowing people to create a government that is as correct as possible based on their understanding of truth. Now direct democracy, a form of government in which people decide on policies and actions directly, is not the answer. This is the “popularity contest” that Plato finds fault with, as whichever idea receives the most votes, and thus is supported by the most number of people, is the one implemented. This type of government runs the risk of people making uninformed decisions or minority groups being oppressed. The balance between the two extremes of philosopher-kings – where those that are knowledgeable and qualified make decisions on behalf of a society – and direct democracy – where everyone is involved in decision making and decisions are made based on the majority’s beliefs – is representative democracy. Representative democracy combines the merits of philosopher-kings and direct democracy by creating a system where those that are most qualified run the government, but citizens determine who they think is the most qualified to begin with.
Representative democracy also implements a system of accountability; if someone is given power but misuses it or uses it ineffectively, their power is ultimately removed. Not everyone knows economic theory, so the economic experts that citizens trust most are given the power to make economic decisions. If the citizens are happy with the results, that expert keeps their position and continues fulfilling their role. Therefore, while Plato’s concerns about a “popularity contest” determining the fate of a society are valid, philosopher-kings are not the realistic solution. Rather, we should look to representative democracy to strike a balance between popular opinion and expertise.
Plato reasons that the idea of democracy is fatally flawed by the fact that it is based on popularity not expertise. However, Plato’s arguments can be discredited by the utopian setting he uses when explaining his premises. For example he argues the best form of government is that of a philosopher monarchy. He believes that a competent monarch totally dedicated by the pursuit of knowledge and morality would be far superior to one plucked by popularity from the masses. In this, I would have to agree with Plato but unfortunately this is where he creates his perfect world utterly unlike the one we actually live in. In his pursuit of applying reason to everything he has forgotten that the world itself does not operate solely on reason. Plato fails to account for the chaotic aspect of our lives that makes something like a philosopher king nearly an impossible phenomena. I feel completely comfortable in saying that that there has never been a person capable of both completely understanding a situation and at the same time being able to make unbiased decision based on that understanding. The only thing that could possibly fit the description of a philosopher king would be that of an omnipotent god. Because of this, we can rule out the existence of a true philosopher king and examine what appears to be the next closest thing: pragmatism. Pragmatism is essentially knowing that you can’t know everything and therefore making an educated guess in the right direction. If something or someone doesn’t work you try something new. Doesn't this sound like the goal of democracy?
ReplyDeleteDue to the innate nature of democracies to honor the freedoms and desires in political decision-making, and their prioritization of popularity over knowledge, democracies are not the ideal form of government.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, democracies are founded on the principle of allowing people to exercise their freedoms and desires in government. As people develop ideas of what they think is good and what they deserve, they also develop the desire to exercise these ideas in the political sphere. Plato explains, “The transition… to democracy is a result of people being insatiably greedy for what they’ve come to accept as good” (555b). Democracy prioritizes allowing citizens to impose their political beliefs upon the state above creating an effective government, and allows for unjust actions to be taken insofar as they are “popular.” Say, for example, there is a small ethnic minority in a country that the majority takes advantage of through economic/social exploitation. A democracy would permit this to continue, as the majority could vote continually to sustain it without the ability of the minority to outvote them. While there not all in the majority might support oppression, the fact that there is no fundamental check in the system to prevent this from occurring means that democracy prioritizes freedoms over checking-back abuses. Democracy allows for oppression (and thus, injustice) to occur if it is the more popular opinion; therefore, popularity is an unideal form of government.
Secondly, democracy allows for misinformed ideas to influence political actions, as anyone can play a role in government if they choose: “[Democracy] doesn’t care what kinds of provenance people have had… as long as someone claims to be sympathetic to the general populace, he is honoured” (558b). As evidenced today, leaders chosen for democracies are not necessarily the best, but most popular. People with neither qualifications nor experience can lead world superpowers, which logically leads to terrible decisions and instability. A thought experiment- say that a demagogue gains popularity by taking advantage of ignorant citizens, is elected, and takes misguided actions that leads the state into crisis and harms those who had voted for them. What about this situation is good? Citizens were first manipulated into unknowingly placing their trust in a poor candidate for leader, then were hurt from the impact of the election. Even if the leader were only marginally as bad, this cannot be seen as an ideal form of government. In cases of the individual as well, political decisions are not well made. Some ideas simply do not have a place in the political sphere: racism, sexism, science-denial, etc. Though people have a right to hold these opinions, it is nonsensical to say that a proper government can be founded upon the principle that racism is just as valid as equality. Oftentimes, these opinions in the public sphere have a price; for example, denial of climate change has impeded the ability of countries to help slow the destruction of the planet. Just because a large number of people find something to be true does not mean it ought to be respected as valid when there are facts saying otherwise. This is a fundamental flaw of democracy.
(Last paragraph) Extrapolating from this evidence, a more stable and consistent system led by those with expertise would solve many of the problems of democracy. In Plato’s ideal state led by philosopher-kings or guardians, immoral majority-decisions would be non-issues due to the prioritization of moral knowledge and expertise over popularity. Though there may not be definite decisions on every single topic, someone who genuinely knows what they are doing stands a better chance as leader than does an uneducated citizen. Though a Harvard economist might not possess the absolute truth of economics, they ought to be given more power in economic decision-making than a voting citizen who dropped out of Econ 101. Expertise actively facilitates wise decisions, while democracy can only hope for them to occur. Overall, by refusing to allow the tyranny of the majority to construct an unjust state and trusting that people with a vast knowledge of a subject can generally be trusted to make better-informed decisions than lay-people, we can see that a democracy could easily be out-performed by another system of government.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile one could find Plato’s argument in favor of a philosopher based aristocracy (lit. ‘rule of the best’) demonstrated in chapter VIII to be highly agreeable to the ears, one cannot agree with such a highly simplistic proposal of a government to tackle the issues of a highly complex real world. Plato sums up his argument stating, “[g]iven that philosophers are those who are capable of apprehending that which is permanent and unwavering[, true knowledge], while those who can’t, those who wander erratically in the midst of plurality and variety, are not lovers knowledge, which set of people ought to be rulers of a community?” (Plato, Waterfield 203). There are many fallacies that come with this statement. The biggest question that arises from this is: what constitutes knowledge and what constitutes belief?
ReplyDeletePlato does not take into account how subjectable ‘truths’ can be; this is especially apparent when one looks at metaphysical philosophy, which is always based on conjecture at its core. Some ‘truths’ that governments are deciding on in modern times are: utilitarianism vs. Kantianism, Keynesian economics vs. classical economics, abortion, immigration, and much more. This only raises even more questions such as: who gets to decide who should be the philosopher ruler of Plato’s idealistic society? If this ruler were to be put into power, then what kind of ‘truths’ does he/she pursue? Can this ruler necessarily be an expert in all ‘truths’? Who is to say the people will rise up against this rule who bases policy around a ‘hard truth’?
Plato argues that a democracy values the basest part of the peoples’ tripartite soul, saying “[t]hey sing praises of these [democratic] qualities and gloss over their true nature: they call in subordination 'erudition', disorder 'freedom', extravagance 'magnificence', and uninhibitedness 'courage'. Isn’t this […] how a young person exchanges conditioning by necessary desires for the permissiveness and laxity of unnecessary, futile pleasures?” (Plato, Waterfield 300). By saying this, Plato implies that the general populace are slaves to their desires and are inherently immoral. What he does not take into consideration is the rationalistic and ‘spiritual’ tendencies of the people as well. He also believes that democracy naturally transitions into tyranny over time, saying “[…] we can be pretty certain that it evolves out of democracy” (Plato, Waterfield 302). Plato asserts this, because of the same reason he sees democracy as a desire based system, people are naturally self-centered and led by their desires. Eventually, he fears that one person might become consumed by immorality that they eventually rise to the top through immoral means. While this is a logical assertion, he still forgets the whole of tripartite aspects of people, a rather pessimistic view. In addition, one could argue that his philosopher based aristocracy to be just as conducive to tyrants gaining power. What if a philosopher ruler were to lose interest in his/her passion to ultimate knowledge? What if the son or daughter who is to inherit the throne is not as passionate pursuing the ‘love of knowledge’?
One can admit that both systems featured in Plato Republic aren’t perfect; but in the end, if one had to choose between a pure, Athenian-esque democracy, versus a volatile trust in a supposed expert, it would be more logical to choose a system that reflects the general will of the people, not the valued ‘truths’ of one person (which is tyrannical in itself).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Works Cited:
Plato, and Robin Waterfield. 'Plato Republic'. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.
Plato is right when he states that government requires a leader with experience rather than one with popularity; after all, no matter how popular a leader is, if they do not have experience they will not be able to properly lead a state. Because of this, democracy is not the best option for a government. In a true democracy, people will be dissatisfied with the results of a vote. The world is not simply black and white or yes and no; it is complicated, and the people’s votes will reflect that. As a result, many or even most people will not be satisfied with the results of any given vote. Of course, it is not possible to please everyone at once, but there are better ways to go about this kind of voting. In addition, the people will not be the best voters that they can be. The vast majority of normal people are not experts in fields that must be known in order to run a state. Many people who are not knowledgeable on scientific, economic, and foreign policy issues, for example, will not vote for what is smartest or for what must be done. Instead the voter will vote for what is best for themselves, a fatal flaw in direct democracy. People strive to gain power, even if it means putting others down; that is a fact that is embedded within human nature. Plato himself admits it when he proposes an argument against morality. Through Glaucon, he states that a person’s “desire for superiority will point him… towards a destination which every creature naturally regards as good and aims for, except that people are compelled by convention to deviate from this path and respect equality” (359c). And so the people, in many cases, will vote for what is best for them even if it conflicts with what is rational or what is best for the state as a whole. It would seem, then, that a more indirect form of democracy- representative democracy- would solve these issues by placing important decisions not on the people themselves but on a leader chosen by the people. However, this kind of government raises new problems and fails to address all of the existing ones. People will still be dissatisfied with the results of a vote, whether it is a small minority or more than half of the voters as seen in America’s latest presidential election. Many people will still vote for what is best for them instead of what is best for the state or for the world. And now, regarding the election of the leader, popularity comes into play. If a certain candidate is more popular than another, even if the less popular candidate has better policies and beliefs than the other, the more popular one will most likely win the vote. This opens up the government to using manipulation and other malicious tactics to gain support. On top of it all, the government will work unproductively. As leaders leave office, new ones take their place, but the successor will not necessarily have the same ideals as the first. And so policies will be altered, laws will be changed, and legacies will be erased as the new leaders attempt to form the state in their own way. Using the ship comparison, the ship will not reach its destination; its captains will change and so will its destination to the point where it never reaches any. Democracy is not an ideal form of government, and Plato would agree.
ReplyDeleteThe argument brought up by Socrates does not have sufficient justification to say that a philosopher-king would be better for the functioning of society because it misjudges the role of the people in a democracy. In his example, he says that an educated navigator on a boat would be more equipped to steer than the rest of the uneducated crewmembers. On the surface this argument seems logical because it is obvious that people who do not know what they are doing will not get the job done; however, this argument assumes that the democracy is just a group of people working together at the same time. While it is true that everyone plays a role democracy, it is most often that the community of people selects one person who they all feel is able to lead. Therefore, it is likely the crewmembers would realize that the navigator is more educated and chose that person to lead the journey. In this way, democracy is better because not only it because allows more educated people to lead, but it also keeps a majority of people happy which is essential. If most people are in support of the navigator leading, they will be more willing to follow; but if the navigator forces himself, into power, the people would like to go against him and nothing would get done again. In conclusion, while Socrates is correct in assuming educated people should make decisions, his interpretation of people’s role in the democracy is flawed. Ultimately making his claim that philosopher-king is better than democracy, false.
ReplyDelete